Floor Statements

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

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

Madam President, I have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

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.

Madam President, 4 years ago today, as another new Congress was starting its work, America was nearing the end of the longest Federal Government shutdown in history. It was day 33 of a 35-day shutdown, a shutdown that was precipitated by President Donald Trump when he refused to sign any budget that did not include billions of dollars for what he wanted to build and call his ``big, beautiful'' wall on the southern border. That dysfunction and that government shutdown cost our economy billions of dollars, and it shook the confidence of many--in this country and its future--in America's ability to do the basics.

Fast-forward to the start of the last Congress 2 years ago when three of the newest Members of the Senate had just been sworn in, giving America only the second 50-50 Senate split in its history. It was a time of crises and division: the deadliest public health emergency in a

century; the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and then--and then--a violent attack on the Capitol by an insurrectionist mob, one of the darkest days in the history of this building and our Nation. The doubters said a 50-50 Senate coming into being with that circumstance was destined to be gridlocked. We proved them wrong.

Today, we begin the legislative work of a new Congress, the 118th Congress. Will these 2 years--the next 2 years--be remembered for dysfunction or democracy? chaos or consensus? That really is the challenge we face. The choice is not entirely in our hands here in the Senate with a 51-to-49 slim majority.

The new MAGA majority in the House of Representatives has promised endless investigations, confrontations, impeachments, and chaos, but it doesn't have to be that way. The Senate can be a steadying force. We can pass a budget. We can give a helping hand to families and businesses. We can invest in a better future. We can defend democracy against the rise of autocracy. We can pay our Nation's bills if we are willing to work together for the common good.

If you want to see our choices, look at what we faced on January 4, just a few weeks ago. On that day, the House of Representatives was in chaos. A small band of MAGA hard-liners held the House hostage to their extreme demands. In the end, it took 15 rollcall votes, over 4 days, to elect a new Speaker, who will be, after all of his concessions to the extreme wing of his party, on paper, perhaps, the weakest Speaker in recent memory.

However, on that same day, January 4, President Biden and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, were together at a major bridge that connects Covington, KY, with Cincinnati, OH. It is a bridge that has needed repair for years, and now those repairs will happen because of the historic infrastructure bill passed by the last Congress--the largest infrastructure plan since the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s and the creation of the Interstate Highway System.

That bipartisan infrastructure plan will rebuild bridges and roads all across America and our State of Illinois. We have already seen evidence of that. It will expand affordable high-speed broadband services, and it will build the 21st century infrastructure America needs to remain the strongest in the world. It is already creating good jobs in Illinois and around the Nation, and it will continue to do so. That is just one of the achievements of this Congress that had a 50-50 Senate.

We also passed the CHIPS and Science Act to supercharge America's microchip industry and bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. We passed the boldest economic recovery and investment plan since President Franklin Roosevelt, the most sweeping legislation enacted by any government on Earth to confront the climate crisis, and the bipartisan PACT Act to help millions of veterans who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their military service. We kept the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Now, for the first time ever, Medicare can negotiate on prescription drug prices, and Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket expenses for drugs will be capped at $2,000 a year.

In the last Congress, we confirmed 97 outstanding new Article III judges, including the first Black woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. These new judges will bring unprecedented diversity to our Federal courts both in terms of demographics as well as in their backgrounds and professional experience.

In the last Congress, with President Biden's leadership and the support of Congress, the United States rallied the free world to confront Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Yesterday, I was at a meeting in an area known as the Ukrainian Village in the city of Chicago. It was a gathering not only of proud Lithuanians, who were determined to do everything they could to help their friends and relatives back in Ukraine fight off Putin's invasion, but also a lot of others. There were many Polish people there, Lithuanians as well, and many other consulate generals were present to express their support for the common cause.

I am proud that the United States is leading this effort, and we must continue to. When I hear suspicions and rumors and suggestions that maybe the MAGA Republicans in the House have grown weary of this war and impatient for it to end, I have to remind them that freedom is worth fighting for. The Ukrainians are dying for it. We need to stand by them with the NATO alliance and see this through and put an end to Putin's terrible war crimes.

We ensure, as well, that the United States will not be a safe haven for the perpetrators of heinous war crimes in Ukraine. We will continue to stand with the Ukrainians until Putin's illegal war is over and Ukraine is once again free and at peace.

We authorized and strengthened the Violence Against Women Act; passed new laws to strengthen protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.

Over the last 2 years, the Federal Government delivered 700 million COVID shots for free--in 2 years, 700 million vaccinations--and according to the White House, COVID deaths in America are down by 80 percent.

America's economy created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of our Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are headed down, and inflation is finally easing a little bit.

All of that happened with a 50-50 Senate. That is not gridlock. That is government working for the common good.

The priorities for this Congress are pretty obvious. We need to continue our efforts to protect the basic rights of Americans. As well as voting rights, we need to include on that list reproductive health rights for the women of America.

We are determined to end the crisis on our southern border by securing the border, finally fixing our broken immigration system, and passing the DREAM Act--my ambition for almost two decades. Well, it has been longer than that to be honest with you.

Over the last week, I visited with some of the migrants who were bused to Chicago, and I talked to them about their families and what they face. If there is anyone who thinks that they are trying to game the system in America, they ought to talk to them. They are ready to go to work, and we need to make sure that that is done in a proper fashion.

Last year, we passed the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years, but the horrific shooting that killed 11--now the latest number is 11--and wounded 9 more this past weekend at the Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, CA, is another terrible reminder that more work needs to be done for gun safety. The Lunar New Year shooting was the 33rd mass shooting in America so far this month--33 so far this month.

Last year, there were 600 mass shootings. I remember one of them well, and I am sure the Acting President pro tempore does too. The gunman opened fire on the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, IL. He discharged 83 rounds in less than a minute, and he killed 7 people and injured dozens more. There were 19 little children and 2 of their teachers who were murdered in their classroom in Uvalde, TX, just days before. There were 10 people who were killed in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, in a racist attack. The list goes on and on and on.

It is madness. It is sickening. It is a uniquely American problem. Try to explain it away. You can't. There are just too darned many guns in the hands of the wrong people, and they continue to produce them and sell them with abandon and without any sense of responsibility for the results.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

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.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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. 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.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Madam President, stop me if you have heard this one before: Two atoms walk into a bar, they collide into one other at extreme speeds, under extreme heat, and they leave later that evening combined--as one, single element.

The process I have just described is known as nuclear fusion. For the past 60 years, it is a process that has only existed in theory--written on chalkboards and debated in lecture halls. But last week, everything changed, when the brilliant minds at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California made a breakthrough. For the first time in human history, these American researchers achieved what is known as fusion ignition.

They constructed the world's largest laser system--the size of a sports stadium--to recreate conditions that can only be found in the cores of stars and giant planets. And they harnessed that power to combine two particles into one, and as a result, they created more energy than was used to start the process. In other words, these federally funded researchers achieved a scientific feat that could pave the way for unlimited, carbon-free energy. And in the words of our Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, it is a breakthrough that ``[only] happened because we invested in our national labs . . . and we invested in fundamental research.''

Now, let's be clear, this technology is a long way off from powering our homes and businesses, but it is a revolutionary proof of concept. These American researchers have proven that nuclear fusion--and, potentially, a carbon-free future--are possible.

And this remarkable breakthrough is a return to form for America: Throughout our history, our government has funded the revolutionary research considered too risky for investors in the private sector--the kinds of discoveries

that cost too much and take too long for private investors--but can change the world. And time and again, these Federal investments have paid off. Could you imagine the world economy today without the internet or the microchip? Well, both were the products of federally funded research. And both have created well-paying jobs for generations of families in our country. This new breakthrough in nuclear fusion proves that America is at its best when we pioneer the inventions and industries of tomorrow.

And that is exactly why we, in this Senate today, need to invest our Nation's capacity to innovate. We can't face tomorrow's challenges with yesterday's budget. But sadly, that is the reality we are faced with if Congress fails to pass a spending package by the end of this month.

Yes, it is that time of the year again in Washington: the end-of-year sprint to pass a government funding bill--also known as an omnibus. And as we approach the closing days of this Congress, we need to answer a fundamental question: Will we pass a government funding bill that adequately addresses our Nation's greatest challenges? Or we will give up and kick the can to the next Congress?

And this isn't just about funding for fundamental research; we are talking about the fundamental problems Americans face every single day. If we don't pass an omnibus in the next several days, the Federal Government will have to rely on what is known as a continuing resolution; it is essentially copying and pasting last year's budget into next year. Imagine if a high school student did that on a term paper; they would fail the class--and for good reason.

Fortunately, earlier this week, Senator Leahy, Senator Shelby, and Congresswoman DeLauro announced a spending framework that will hopefully lead to an omnibus appropriations package to fully fund the government through the next fiscal year. That omnibus bill will support healthcare for our senior citizens and veterans, infrastructure projects to rebuild and revitalize our communities, and community violence prevention programs to keep our kids and families safe. These are real solutions to the urgent problems American families deal with every single day. In fact, over the past 2 years, this Senate has passed a number of policies to address those same problems--many of them bipartisan.

We passed the biggest infrastructure bill in a generation, to rebuild our roads and bridges and replace lead pipes in cities like Chicago. We passed the CHIPS and Science Act, to bring manufacturing jobs back to our shores and secure our domestic supply of a component that is critical in the 21st century economy. We passed the PACT Act, to keep our promise to America's veterans and help those suffering from toxic exposure during their time on the battlefield. And we also passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, to combat the scourge of gun violence that has now become the No. 1 killer of America's children.

But here is the issue: If we leave Washington without passing a spending package, these policies will be little more than words on paper--because none of these initiatives will receive the funding they need to start helping American families. That is unacceptable; the American people have already shown that they support these policies.

How do we know that? Well, as members of this Senate, we voted on every one of those measures I just mentioned. They all passed. Last month, many of these same Senators touted their support for these measures in their reelection campaigns. And every single one of them was reelected--every single one. That hasn't happened since 1934. That is about as clear a message as you get in politics: The policies we have passed are popular--and even more important, they are necessary.

So how can we now turn around and tell the American people: Sorry, you will just have to wait a little longer. We have decided not to fund those promises we made? How can we tell that to the veteran who needs lifesaving medical care today? Or the mother whose child is at risk of gun violence today? Or Americans who don't have access to safe drinking water today? These Americans have already waited too long, and they shouldn't have to wait a moment longer. We should do our job and fund the government.

Passing an omnibus also will bring millions of dollars in earmark funding that Senator Duckworth and I have worked to secure for community projects in Illinois. These projects will improve our State's transportation systems, clean up our water, strengthen community violence prevention initiatives, expand access to healthcare, create jobs, and much more. But if we leave Washington without passing an omnibus, these projects will not receive the funding they need to move forward.

And worse yet, public safety will suffer. In my town of Springfield, our U.S. Attorney tells me his office needs Federal funding to hire more assistant U.S. Attorneys, who are on the frontlines of combating gun violence and violent crime. And across the country, there is a shortage of more than 750 assistant U.S. Attorneys. If we fail to pass a spending package, those shortages, which are a risk to public safety, will extend into next year. That would be a pitiful closing act for the 117th Congress, which has done a lot of good work for the American people.

So let's come together and finish the job. Let's fully fund the government before we leave for the holidays, so hard-working Americans can finally get the solutions they have been waiting on.

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

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

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