[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2499-S2501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3237

  Mr. President, I am here for, actually, a serious subject. At the end 
of my comments, I am going to ask unanimous consent.
  I want to talk about a bill that my office sponsored--actually, 
something I thought of several months ago. It is S. 3237, the Patriot 
Bill of Rights.
  My office was very much involved in the PACT Act drafting. By that, I 
mean that we were primarily responsible for leading the language that 
led to the Camp Lejeune toxic act. There was also a TEAM Act in there, 
but I am here to talk Camp Lejeune toxics.
  In full disclosure, when that bill went to the floor, I voted against 
it, which was a very difficult decision for me to make. I was one of 
only about nine people who voted against it. It wasn't because I was 
opposed to the bill; it was because I was opposed to whether or not it 
was ready to come out of the oven; that there were things that we 
needed to work on. That has actually proven to be true.
  We have got a lot of work to do, because I think we went just a 
little bit too soon. I know we did on the Camp Lejeune toxic act. There 
is probably not a person in the United States who has ever watched the 
TV or listened to radio who has not seen the advertisements right now 
for: If you worked or lived in and around Camp Lejeune for more than 30 
days, call this hotline.
  That hotline, in many cases, is not even a lawyer. It is an 
aggregator. It is somebody who is advertising, trying to convince a 
veteran to call this hotline so that they can help you get the benefits 
you deserve.
  The fact of the matter is, the Senate voted to make sure that 
veterans got the benefit that they deserved if they were exposed to a 
toxic substance down in Camp Lejeune. It is in my State, down in the 
eastern part of the State.

[[Page S2500]]

  What they don't tell you is that if you were a veteran and served in 
and around Camp Lejeune, there are a variety of ways that you could get 
compensation without ever talking to a lawyer. Now we have ads where we 
have, literally, a cottage industry of people harvesting potential 
veterans, getting them to sign retainers, charging them double-digit 
fees in many cases, at the expense of all that money, all the money 
that a veteran is entitled to, going to the veteran.
  So I was a bit frustrated with the way the ads were going in this 
cottage industry and the millions of dollars that are not actually 
going to the veteran. But it was a hearing about a year ago about 
veteran suicide that made me think that maybe we have a wonderful 
opportunity to fix something.
  This morning, I looked up the number of days that I have been here. I 
was sworn in on January 6, 2015. And I learned a startling number 
today. The number is 67,240. That is the number of veterans who have 
taken their life through suicide since the day I was sworn in here. 
That was in 2015--67,240. To give you a concept of what that is, that 
would fill Bank of America Stadium, where the Panthers play. That would 
actually--we would have 7,000 people waiting in line to get into 
Soldier Field. That is how many veterans have committed suicide since I 
entered office--about an average of 20 a day.
  Now, why does that matter? Because we are constantly trying to find 
ways to connect veterans to the VA. And there is another sad statistic 
with those 67,240 veterans who have taken their life over the last 
little more than 9 years. Two-thirds of them are not connected to the 
VA. That means they have never applied for any sort of service through 
the VA. Two-thirds of those 67,240 people who have taken their life are 
not connected to the VA.
  So I came up with an idea. I said: Why don't we actually kill two 
birds with one stone. Let's not cap fees or whatever on attorney's 
fees. Some of these cases are complex; they are very expensive. So we 
won't cap fees, but why don't we at least make sure that before a 
veteran signs a retainer agreement with an attorney, they understand 
what their rights are.
  My office processes thousands of veterans' cases every year. We love 
processing veterans' cases. So I thought maybe we just have a bill of 
rights so that before that lawyer can actually get you to sign a 
retainer agreement, you have to know what your rights are.
  Did you know that you can call your Senator, your State Congressman, 
that you have a variety of no-cost options to see if your case is one 
where you don't even need an attorney? You can call the VA. You can 
call the Department of the Navy. Let's get them all these contacts and 
say: Before you sign this retainer agreement, maybe you need to call 
them.
  Now, part of it was to make sure that the simple cases people were 
not paying money for. A lot of the people who are calling these 
attorneys think that is the only way they can get this benefit.
  So the idea was a simple document--that, incidentally, is endorsed by 
the VFW--that lets them know what their rights are. And maybe--just 
maybe--these thousands of people who are calling attorneys today will 
call the VA and get connected; and if they are connected, maybe they 
are one who is otherwise going to be in crisis and commit suicide. So 
it achieves two objectives at the same time. It, hopefully, prevents 
them, the veteran, from paying money that they don't need to, to get a 
benefit that we all believe that they deserve; and, as importantly, it 
potentially connects somebody who is at risk of committing suicide to 
the VA, to a crisis line, to possibly give them a lifesaving 
intervention.
  I can't imagine what is wrong with it. Guess what. It can't be cost 
because it doesn't cost us anything. The CBO said it is negligible. It 
holds the legal profession accountable if they are charging exorbitant 
fees for simple cases. And it maybe provides a lifesaving connection 
point from the servicemember to the VA.
  So that is my motivation for coming down to the floor. People who are 
watching this may not know: Unanimous consent means that any Member can 
come to the floor and say--and I will in a moment--``I request consent 
to move this out of this Chamber'' and then hopefully have the House 
pick it up.
  I am doing this today, and I probably will start doing it every week 
for the remainder of time between now and August when this enrollment 
period is still going on because every week another 140 servicemembers 
are going to die, and I have to believe, if some of them were connected 
to the VA, they may not. But I promised the VFW and I promised veterans 
groups when we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago that I was going to 
bring this to the floor.
  We have addressed the concerns in the bill. And I believe, if we get 
it to the House, we can get it passed into law. So that is some 
background on why I make the following request.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 3237 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any objections?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say 
at the outset that Senator Tillis, though we may disagree on this 
particular issue, is a respected colleague, a friend, and a member of 
the committee which I chair. I value him on the committee. I thank him 
for his friendship. Though we may disagree today, I hope we find room 
to agree tomorrow.
  Mr. President, this bipartisan bill, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, 
was signed into law in August of 2022, almost 2 years ago. It was part 
of what was known as the PACT Act. This was an important bill to 
provide a day in court, finally, for U.S. marines and others who were 
poisoned by contaminated water in Camp Lejeune, NC.
  For over three decades, from 1953 to 1987, marines, their families, 
and others working and living in Camp Lejeune were exposed to a toxic 
mix of industrial solvents and other chemicals in their drinking water. 
As a result, as many as 1 million people are at an increased risk of 
cancer, Parkinson's, and other debilitating diseases.
  Had these individuals suffered the same harm in another place, they 
would have been able to go to court and seek compensation for their 
injuries, but unfortunately hurdles in the law locked servicemembers 
and their families out of the judicial system. For decades, they 
suffered without any ability to have their day in court, despite their 
injuries.
  That changed with the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which was led by 
Senator Tillis--and I thank him for that--as well as Senator 
Blumenthal, Senator Burr, and Senator Peters. It finally allowed 
marines the opportunity, after literally decades of waiting, to seek 
justice by filing a lawsuit in Federal court if an administrative 
claims process did not reach a satisfactory resolution.
  Now, there have been some problems with the implementation of this 
bill. I will be the first to admit that. We need to work--and I am 
happy to work with Senator Tillis--on a bipartisan basis to address 
these problems just as we did with the Camp Lejeune Justice Act.
  The bill was proposed by the Senators from North Carolina. The one he 
proposes aims to help veterans, but unfortunately it has several 
serious shortcomings. First, it would require attorneys to provide Camp 
Lejeune victims a written acknowledgement that they are required to 
sign. This acknowledgement would state that the victim--plaintiff--
understands that they may seek guidance free of charge from veterans 
service organizations, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, their 
congressional representatives, and the Department of the Navy.
  But this acknowledgement won't be accurate in all the cases. For 
example, not all the Camp Lejeune claimants are veterans. Many are 
civilians who worked at the camp. For these individuals, it is 
inaccurate to say, as this bill does, that they get free guidance from 
veterans service organizations or the Veterans' Administration.
  Second, the bill would require attorneys to submit a second written 
acknowledgement with the Secretary of the Navy stating that the client 
understands that legal representation by an

[[Page S2501]]

attorney is not required to file an action pursuing a Camp Lejeune 
claim. This is technically correct.
  Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, legal 
representation may be needed to have any chance at successfully 
pursuing your claim. Just look at the experience to date. Remember, 
this bill was passed 2 years ago almost. To date, almost no Camp 
Lejeune claims have been paid by the Navy. As of the end of February, 
1,530 Camp Lejeune claims have been filed in the Eastern District of 
North Carolina, and 170,502 administrative claims are on file with the 
Navy. Of all those thousands of claims, only 48 cases have been 
determined to meet the government's criteria for settlement based on 
submitted documentation. Even there, the process for uploading what are 
known as the ``substantiation documents'' has been extremely difficult 
for families to understand.
  And for cases that will ultimately be litigated, the process can be 
lengthy, complicated, and expensive. Toxic exposure cases are not easy 
to prepare or prove, particularly when they relate to conduct that 
happened decades ago. Victims will need to go through ``discovery.'' 
For many of them, it will be the first time they have heard the word in 
that context. And they may need to retain expert witnesses to 
demonstrate causation.
  While all of this can technically be done without an attorney, it is 
practically impossible to do so and have your claim succeed. So 
steering victims away from legal representation may eliminate any 
chance of recovery.
  Finally, this bill contains a provision stating that a law firm that 
receives ``veteran data'' from an advertising agency must reduce their 
legal fee in an amount equal to the cost incurred to receive that data. 
It is unclear to me, in reading this bill, what the term ``veteran 
data'' even means. Additionally, this requirement would discourage 
attorneys from reaching out to potential plaintiffs who may have worked 
at Camp Lejeune years in the past and may not even know they are 
eligible for compensation.

  After fighting so hard to make sure those poisoned by the water at 
Camp Lejeune can finally have their day in court, we should not now 
close the courtroom door all over again.
  Let me be clear. If there are unscrupulous lawyers or nonlawyers who 
are deceiving veterans or running scam solicitations, I want to join in 
a bipartisan effort to crack down on them.
  There is a bill, the GUARD VA Benefits Act, which has 42 bipartisan 
cosponsors, that is properly scoped to do just that. Current law 
prohibits individuals or businesses from assisting a veteran in 
preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a VA claim unless they are 
accredited by the Veterans' Administration. They are also prohibited 
from charging fees for this assistance before the VA makes a decision 
on the claim.
  However, the VA and other Agencies are limited in their ability to 
enforce the law because criminal penalties were eliminated from the 
statute about 20 years ago. The GUARD VA Benefits Act would reinstate 
those criminal penalties.
  This bill is a top priority for veterans organizations that have been 
working for years to combat predatory practices of unaccredited 
entities who charge unauthorized fees while purporting to help veterans 
with their disability claims. These are the types of reforms that will 
actually help veterans from Camp Lejeune and others as they seek 
compensation benefits.
  I will be happy to work with the Senator from North Carolina to make 
sure that veterans are protected from unscrupulous actors while 
ensuring that we don't inhibit quality advocates from helping veterans 
finally get their day in court, but I cannot support the bill in its 
current form, and I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, just briefly, again, I appreciate Senator 
Durbin as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have had many 
opportunities to work together.
  First off, I would just like to point out--and I will because I do 
intend to do unanimous consent for this--there is a burning platform 
issue here between now and August. These ads are going on and on. 
Veterans are making a phone call. I am looking at ways to get to these 
veterans, and I am told that this will make a connection. So that is 
something separate from some of the substance that Chairman Durbin 
talked about.
  We have processed about 12,000 cases since I have been here, since 
2015. We referred a number to veterans service organizations. Veterans 
service organizations are approved by the VA and do have attorneys. 
They can triage cases. And one thing that they do very well is say: 
This is an easy case; we can help you with this one. This is not an 
easy case; you need to seek legal representation.
  As a matter of fact, we do that as standard operating procedure in my 
office. I am not saying that many of these cases may need them, but I 
know a lot of them don't, and I suspect many of them don't. And every 
dime that you pay an attorney is a dime that is not going to the 
veteran.
  So what I am trying to do here is just to make sure they understand 
that they have these resources available. It is amazing to me how 
surprised people are that I have 25 people in the State dedicated to 
casework, full-time people dedicated to veterans work, a great 
relationship with VSOs. All of those are free, highly skilled options 
for veterans that these ads on TV are not making clear to veterans.
  We have to do right by veterans. Like I said, I am disappointed with 
the objection today, but we will have plenty of time to talk about this 
every week that we are in session between now and August.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.