vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 55, the nays are 42, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the anne m. nardacci nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 44, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination

which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jerry w. blackwell of minnesota to be united states district judge for the district of minnesota. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i'd like to ask for an opportunity to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from virginia, senator warner. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: madam president, i am trying to make senate history as the first senator to give a speech with a visual aid that is a picture of a t-shirt. so we'll see if the senate historian will back me up on this. this is a t-shirt that is 21 years old, and it's a warner warner-kaine-mceachin t-shirt. i have moved recently from my house of 30 years into a condo and there's whole boxes of stuff that still months later i'm trying to unpack. over the weekend i got into one of these boxes with a little free time at the end of thanksgiving weekend, and the goal was to go through it and

throw away as much as i could. i was going through these t-shirts, and i came across this one. this is a t-shirt from a 2001 campaign in virginia where three long-term friends, shared a ticket running for virginia governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. when i came across the t-shirt the first thing i noticed was i'm a little bigger than i was 21 years ago and it doesn't really fit, so i put it in the goodwill pile. as i got through the box and i was about to make that decision, thought i should pick this one out of the goodwill pile and save it, and i did, washed it and put it in the drawer. obviously mark and i are on the floor today because our dear friend donald mceachin, 61 years old, we got the surprising news last night -- and i heard about it first from

mark -- that donald passed away in his sleep at home in l richmond and found by his wife who is also a dear friend. mark and i wanted to come to the floor and talk a little bit about donald. i'll talk for a bit and ask mark to offer his reflexes. i met -- his reflections. we are three people who have known each other basically for 40 years. i moved to richmond where i only knew one person in virginia, my soon to be wife, i had taken a job at a law firm and i was given the last office down the hall. a few months after i joined the firm in september of 1984, a very personable guy came in and said who's in my office, and it was donald mceachin. donald worked at the firm as a summer associate the summer before, was now at the university of virginia law school and came to find me occupying the place where he had

worked the previous summer. his challenge to me began a wonderful friendship. donald soon graduated from the university of virginia, came to richmond, the city of his birth and upbringing, to practice law at a different firm. we had cases together. soon after he came, he became engaged to an attorney who is now the commonwealth's attorney, the chief prosecutor in richmond, colette wall -- mceachin. they had a big wedding party that my wife and i were proud to be invited to and we began this wonderful friendship, these two couples. donald was one of the most successful trial attorneys in richmond, started a firm after he practiced at a larger firm. donald and l.g. started a law firm and he won history making verdicts in virginia. but he was always passionate about public service.

he had gone to the university and had been president of the student body there. then when he went back he always had in his mind that he wanted to do something in the public service realm. about the time i was running for city council in richmond, donald ran and successfully became a member of the virginia general assembly in the house of delegates and he served there with distinction especially in leadership roles on the courts of justice committee where he played a key role in the formation of the virginia judiciary in virginia criminal and civil procedure. until he, a legislator, mark warner, a prominent philanthropist in virginia, entrepreneur, and tim kaine, at that time the mayor of the city of richmond, landed on a ticket together in 2001. we ran statewide in an amazing case at that time in virginia, getting elected as a democrat in virginia was like being harry hudini and trying to work your way out of an impossible escape

situation. it was very, very difficult. mark really set tremendous history by winning the first big statewide race in a number of years as a democrat, and i had to win my own race. i wasn't on the ticket with mark, but his strong performance helped me win the lieutenant governor's race. donald mceachin did not win his race. he was not elected to attorney general. no shame in that. we all know this, we're in a line of work where wins are common and losses are common. mark doesn't like to be reminded that he lost a race for the u.s. senate in 1996 although i often heard him say with maaing ni anymorety that -- say maaing unanimously that the right warner won. the wonderful -- he went back to practicing law, representing people often who had no one else to represent them and a few years later

successfully ran and became a member of the virginia senate and started chapter two in his political life. he was a fantastic member of the senate because he had experience in the house of delegates. he achieved leadership quickly and looked up as one of the lions of the virginia senate. here's something about donald that's pretty amazing and i will quickly hand it over to mark. he had already been successful in politics and had been tremendously successful as a lawyer for people who needed representation. he built a wonderful marriage with colette and a caring an understanding father to three beautiful children. but donald decided he needed something more in his life, even with all of that. when he was in his 40's, he decided to go to virginia union, which is an historically black college in virginia, that was founded in the aftermath of the civil war to educate newly freed

slaves and he decided to go back to college in his 40's and get a divinity degree. he wanted to ground his public service in something more than campaigns and polls. he wanted to really ground it deeply in values. that's the kind of person that donald mceachin was. 2016 wasn't a great year for me being on a national ticket and losing, but there was one great thing that happened in 2016. donald mceachin, decided to leave the state senate and run for congress in a fourth district that had been newly reconfigured following a voting rights lawsuit in virginia. mark and i were so happy when he got into that race and we helped hard to help him succeed and in 2016, we got the band back together and with that, i want to yield to my colleague from virginia, senator warner. mr. warner: thank you, senator

kaine. i want to reemphasize that donald and i had been friends for years. we met at law school. we didn't meet in the library, but this was a friendship that lasted for years. donald an tim go back to the mid-1908's. i first met donald mceachin in 1989, which i won't bore the floor with, i became campaign manager for doug wilder, with an historic run for governor, first african american governor in our country's history and elected in his own right. i met this young man, donald mceachin. you couldn't help, because this donald was in a law firm at that point, mceachin and gee, it

had the billboards and commercial and we started a friendship similar to what tim talked about with donald. and my daughter's birthday, 33-year-old daughter, and she remembers during the decade of the 1990's and through the early 2000's when we were campaigning together, tim's family, our -- my family and donald and colette's family, whether they liked it or not, all these kids were thrown together because we were all engaginged in politics. and we remembered donald as a -- and tim mentioned this in his comments right after the election -- or right after his passing two nights ago, that he was a gentle giant. donald was a big guy, 6 got 5, and -- 6-foot five and looked

like a football player. he was an extraordinary caring, listening, compassionate human being. i will take a moment and talk about the fact that my campaign in 2001, and we didn't always agree on things. he wasn't totally keen on some of the things that i was doing to solicit hunters and other things, but we spent time campaigning in rural virginia, in the part of appalachian, the shenandoah valley, and donald had grown up in mostly your ban areas -- urban areas around richmond, taking a guy with his presence, but also, frankly, somebody who was a -- had been a leader from richmond, african american, but he had an amazing ability to relate to

people. he would have been a great, great attorney general. but i want to echo what tim said, and that was he didn't take the defeat and said, i'm going to take my marbles and go away, he said, no, i still have public service in him. and went back and as senator kaine indicated, playing an incredibly important role in the virginia state senate. the democrats were trying to reclaim the majority and he was the leader. and he came to the congress and tim and i were together for a moment of silence on the floor of the house last night at about 7:30 and the number of members, democrats and republicans alike, said, oh, my gosh, this is such a loss. donald was such an incredible figure. there were so many issues, i will menges two and talk about the last couple of years about donald and turn it back over to

tim. but donald had always been an environmentalist, but he was one of the first people candidly that i -- that came on a regular basis linking environmentalism and social justice and pointing out not just for the last 30 or 40 years but for the last six or seven years in the country, whenever you had a project or run-off or whenever you had bad water or bad air, those circumstances were way disproportionately took place in poor communities. he was passionate about the need for us to clean up our planet, but also to recognize that the disadvantages that have come with pollution and abuse often fell too much on poor communities. he also shall -- he also, it was a -- in virginia, as many of my colleagues will know, we had a

troubled history with race, and unfortunately, when you tell virginia's history, the good, the bad and the ugly, virginia had some of the really ugly. and all three of us were adopted virginian, but virginia's history in terms of resistance to immigration, and if you look at any state in the country where there was a disproportionate number of statues and memorials to confederate figures, virginia far and away topped the list. a lot of talk, and probably many people who are listening, recall some of the controversy around some of the confederate war statutes in the city of richmond. what donald took on was the question of fort lee in the heart of his district.

terribly important training facility and make sure that as fort lee went through the renaming process, he had it renamed for the highest ranking african american service pesh he knew -- person he knew of who served at fort lee. who needs that fight? donald mceachin took on that fight and did in the right way. social justice, environmentalist. who needs that. you talk about pushing the rock up the hill time and again, making that connection, that was the kind of person donald mceachin was. in 2013, 2014, donald got hit with cancer, and donald, this big, big man, we literally saw him at least physically shrink before our eyes. and 60, 70, 80 pounds he lost. he was in for surgery after

surgery. and so many times i would see him and i -- partially his character, partially i think it was his faith and i remember talking to him about going back to virginia union and getting that divinity degree. he never complained. when you asked him how are you doing, he would say, i'm getting better, i'm getting stronger. there were a few times in the last couple of years, he wouldn't say it, but you could see the pain in his face. he would almost shuffle until he got behind the podium and that spirit and that voice and that call for justice would come back. we all knew he had been sick, but i remember, i know tim was with him on election night and we had a number of communications afterwards. he was already planning his -- his agenda, not only for the next congress, but how we can get more engaginged with the

general a -- engaginged with the -- engaginged with the virginia assembly. the other night we got the call and the first person i called was tim. i think about the band when we were together in 2001. hopefully we took the progress of virginia a little bit more forward. and donald continued that progress in the state senate and in the house of representatives. virginia lost a great leader. our country lost a leader in the house. i speak for tim, i think i can, tim and i lost a great friend and we are here today to honor his service, to recommit ourselves to that kind of service, to continue to acknowledge colette and their three children, and we will be there for them as they go through this grief process. but we wanted to take a moment of the senate's time and share

with you some of our memories about our friend donald mceachin. with that, mr. president, i'll turn it back. mr. kaine: i thank senator warner for his gracious comments. i'm getting emotional recounting these stories. i remember as you said when donald would never complain. he changed seemingly overnight his physical appearance, his hair turned gray and he seemed to stoop or shuffle. and i remember walking through the halls of the house and senate and i wondered who is that old guy in front of me. we did so much by zoom, i didn't see him physically, when i caught up with him, i realized it was donald. as mark said, if you asked domed, how are you -- donald,

how are you doing, he would say, i'm on the mend. i'm getting better. donald was not only deciding to keep things private. he didn't think about himself. somebody told me a great definition of humility is not to think less of yourself, it's to think of yourself less, and donald was a person who really exemplified that. when we were on the house floor last night, the virginia delegation gathered to do a moment of silence for donald and the deans of each side of our delegation, congressman scott, and congressman whitman, there was a white rose display sitting on donald's chair, which is the tradition when someone dies -- while in office. and i spoke to g.k., and he told

me when they would be on the house floor donald would be doubled over because he was in so much pain, but he would never complain. we have lost a great friend and i have said about donald, he will have a successor, but he won't have a replacement. it's just an honor to come an share with all of you the recollections about our friend, a great virginia public servant, a history maker. and i'll just say, we got the band back together in 2016,ern i look for the day when we'll get the band back together again. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from a alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i rise today to introduce a bill that i want to try to pass right here on the senate floor that i believe every single senator should vote for, and if you're an american and you're watching this, if you're a marine and you're matching this, you're going to be outraged. you're going to be outraged. i am outraged. but we can fix this problem. you see it on tv every damn day and here's what it is. u.s. marines and their families are being preyed upon by unscrupulous trial lawyers. yes, amazing. that's happening right now. i have a bill that's called the protect camp lejeune victims ensnared by trial lawyers scam act or the vets act for short. here's the background, mr. president. again, i really hope no one is going to come down and object to

this because, boy, you'd have a lot of explaining to do to the american people and the united states marines. but what's happened, every american has seen it, right? you can't turn on tv anymore, cnn, fox news, you name it, there is a trial lawyer ad a minute. here's some of them. camp lejeune marines. camp lejeune marine families, have you been wronged? there was a provision in the pact act that we all passed here that said marines exposed to water contamination a at marine corps base camp lejeune needed to get compensated. we all supported that. i supported that. okay. but then something happened. the trial lawyers of america kicked in and they're grabbing all the money and the sick marines and their families aren't getting any. now, look at these ads. we had a hearing on this in the

veterans affairs committee two weeks ago. i asked a question about this. the v.a. is getting phone calls. i'm going to talk a little bit about the vfw and the american legion who supported my bill and want it passed right now. i asked the v.a. representative how much of this is happening. they estimated already a billion dollars in ads. look at them. every american has seen them. a billion dollars. you think the trial lawyers are spending a billion out of the kindness of their heart, out of wanting to help the united states marines? no. i don't think so. billion dollars already spent. now, look, i don't blame the marines who dial these 1-800 numbers that they see on the screen. imagine if you're listening. hey, i'm a marine. i'm sick. i'm going to call these guys. but i do blame the trial lawyers and i blame a lot of my colleagues here who are using sick marines to get rich.

that's what my bill is going to change. like i said, it's called the veterans act, the vets act. let me impact this a little bit, like i said, mr. president. when the pact act passed, it had this legislation to compensate veterans who are sickened by toxins from water at camp lejeune. very innovative and to be clear again, we need to take care of these marines and their families and others at camp lejeune. the problem, however, is when the pact act was passed, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle unfortunately after agreeing to amendments decided it was time to block all amendments. so we had no ability to amend the act. we would have made it much better, but one area where we really wanted to amend of the

act was that this scam by trial lawyers was predictable. not only was it predictable, the biden administration justice department predicted it. they warned us without a cap on contingency fees that predatory law firms would grab the lion's share of the judgments going to sick marines and their family members. again, the lawyers get billions. the marines who are sick get crumbs. the biden administration said hey, you guys got to be aware. so what do we do? senator inhofe brought an amendment saying let's put a cap. biden administration said 10% cap. on contingency fees. sounds fair. the rumors we're hearing already is unscrupulous trial lawyers are charging 50% and 60%

contingency fees for sick marines. biden administration said cap add 10%. we put in annual amendment that would cap it at 10%. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked it. i wonder what's going on there? we know they -- trial lawyers. the president of the united states' justice department asked us to address this before it would become a problem. but my colleagues chose trial lawyers over sick marines, okay. as a result some marines have already lost money because of scams. some of these law firms are promising big paydays. of course they're asking for money upfront, much of which they'll likely use. others are being used without getting any money. a recent media story highlighted a marine veteran in kentucky whose face was used in an ad claiming he received a $35,000

settlement. in fact, he told a reporter he got 35 cents. how's that for justice? i hope john stewart is listening, by the way. maybe he can help us on this one. the v.a., local governments, organizations, veterans groups are frantically trying to warn veterans about these scams that i just showed you. but there isn't much they can do when they see this barrage of a billion dollars of advertising. right now it's probably up to -- heck, i asked this three weeks ago. it's probably up to $1.5 billion. so they don't know. here's what the american legion said at a recent american legion meeting. where as predatory law firms charging exorbitant fees have engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns hurting veterans, the

american legion urges congress to provide necessary oversight for the implementation of the camp lejeune justice act to ensure veterans receive fair consideration. sounds pretty good. american legion. we all love them. i'm a member, by the way. by the way, i'm a u.s. marine, too, which makes me really mad about this. so they're all supporting my bill. it's a simple bill, mr. president. the vfw has come out in support of my bill as well. what does my bill do? well, number one, it goes back to the biden administration's justice department recommendations. so i'm doing right now on the senate floor what the biden administration justice department told us to do. 10% cap on contingency fees. 2% cap for filing the necessary

paperwork. all right. sounds pretty fair. it's actually not that fair because by the way, they're not doing a lot of work. the government doesn't have a defense in these lawsuits. this isn't like some giant litigation. marines, if you are listening, you can do this without a trial lawyer's help. you don't need it. don't be fooled. but they're being fooled. okay. we know that. everybody knows that. it was predicted it would happen. so all we're going to do is go back to the biden administration recommendation, 10% cap on contingency fees, 2% for filing paperwork. and it does one other thing, mr. president. and by the way, shame on the v.a. on this. they've been good. they're worried but shame on the v.a. on this. again, you wonder who is running this administration. probably a lot of trial lawyers. the v.a. issued a reg that said the payments to the sick marines

that are being awarded would enable the v.a. to pay the lawyers first and then the marines who are sick second. that's the v.a.'s own reg. could you imagine that? can you imagine that? most of the time when you hire a lawyer with a contingency fee, the client gets the money and then you pay your lawyer. right now the v.a. wrote a reg saying let's pay the lawyers first and the sick marines will get paid second. that's in a reg. so my bill is very simple. 10% cap on consing sick marines fees. -- contingency fees. that's fair. it's what the biden justice department recommended. 2%. it gets rid of this outrageous reg from the v.a. to pay the trial lawyers before you pay the u.s. marines who are sick.

simple bill but it will have a huge impact on the sick marines who deserve compensation. and it will let them and their families many of whom are old. remember, these are marines who served in the 1980's at camp lejeune. it will let them and their families not have to deal with these unscrupulous trial lawyers who are taking their money. this sickens me, mr. president. i have not seen an issue that is so wrong, that is so wrong. we saw it coming. the biden administration to its credit saw it coming. we tried to fix it. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked it.

so i'm just trying to fix it. the vfw wants us to fix it. the american legion wants us to fix it. i guarantee if you're an american watching this right now, you want to fix it. the united states marines who sacrificed their lives for our nation wants to fix it. so it's a simple issue. i would be shocked if one of my democratic colleagues came down here and blocked my bill, but if you do, it's going to answer the question. whose side are you on? trial lawyers getting rich or the side of u.s. marines right now who are getting crumbs? so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further

consideration of s. 5130 and the senate to proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to consider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me first salute my colleague from alaska for his service to our nation in the united states marine corps and to salute all the veterans for serving our nation and tell them that as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, the bill which the senator from alaska introduced 13 days ago is within the jurisdiction of this committee and i'm more than happy to sit down with him and to discuss righting wrongs, changing language, responding to this in the right way.

but i have to say that the senator from alaska did not tell us the whole story. the whole story is a little different, significantly. back in days gone by, i was a trial lawyer. yes, i just admitted that on the floor of the united states senate, for a living. it goes back many years, 1982 was the last time i ever practiced law. but i handled personal injury cases before federal courts and state courts in illinois. i still have memories of that experience and enough of a memory to suggest that there are parts of the story that the senator from alaska did not include, which are really relevant to this conversation. and it's important -- it's an important, timely conversation. it's worth reflecting on the fact that we're dealing with camp lejeune, a marine corps base in north carolina. it is legendary. as so many historic -- has so many historic achievements for the men and now women who are

being trained to serve in the marine corps, who have gone through camp lejeune and with that tripping set out to defend america and many gave their lives in that process. it's understandable that camp lejeune has this unique place in american history, but it also has a unique place in american environmental history. you see, mr. president, there was a determination in 1980 that the water that marine corps recruits and officers and their family was drinking at camp lejeune was, quote, highly contaminated, highly contaminated. the year was 1980. when did the government acknowledge this contamination publicly? 17 years later. 17 years with all of these marines, the officers and the recruits and their families exposed to highly contaminated water sources.

you want to get angry? i get angry over that. contamination discovered but not disclosed for 17 years. well, then you say well, thank goodness they had discovered it and admitted it. that must have taken care of the problem. it didn't even get close to addressing the problem. because there are all sorts of legal defenses that were raised to families that were pleading for help. many of them felt that birth defects in their families, neurological issues, cancers and even deaths were attributable to this highly contaminated water. and yet they couldn't recover. they couldn't recover. it took this congress and this president, joe biden, to decide to change that. and so in august of this year, the veterans committee reported to the floor the pact act and colluded in that pact -- included in the pact act for

many of the families for those who may have died to finally be compensated. the camp camp lejeune correctede situation and helped those who suffered health effects of contaminated water and because a suit against the federal government to seek economic and noneconomic damages. now, there's an earlier approach you can use before you take this to federal court, taking it to the navy jag tort claims unit to see if they accept your claim for your family, to see if they accept the claims. the navy can accept the claim or deny the case, if the navy does not respond, the victim has to file the lawsuit in federal court. there's an opportunity for the navy to pay to say it's a

legitimate claim, let's pay it. but if they fail to act within six months or refuse to claim, your resource is to go to the federal district court. let me tell you what that entails. a lawsuit. a lawsuit where you have to prove damages. now, that takes some doing in a federal court. if this were a compensation fund, you can understand where they would say, you're going to automatically recover, the question is how much. you have to prove the damages are related to the contamination of the water at camp lejeune and when you've proven that there is a proximate cause, a relationship, then you have to prove up your damages. at what point do you want to do that alone in a courtroom? perhaps you do. i wouldn't want to do it without some advice from some group. if it was accepted that liability was already accepted, if it were accepted what damages might be, then a legal fee

should reflect that. i don't argue with that at all. i'm happy to work with the senator in that regard. what do you do with the cases where you have to prove it. yes, i was in camp lejeune, i was working there, my family was there between 1953 and 1987, or any other period of time, you have to establish that in a court. what does it take to establish that in a court. it isn't just a simple declaration in a courtroom, dispositions, interrog tries, discovery process. it's all part of a federal court case. do you need a lawyer for that? i would recommend to anyone, don't do it alone. you could summable, fail to make something that is important for the record and not recover a penny when it is all said and done. the question is, how much should the lawyers be paid? well, once again harkining back to decades ago when i did this for a living, they have a

contingency fee. the contingency fee is, if you recover, i get paid, if you don't, i don't get paid. and how much should he have paid? the usual fee is one-third, if you're in a case of workmen's compensation where you didn't have to prove liability, it might be 20%. the senator from alaska is suggesting 2%. you're not going to get a competent attorney to represent any marines at 2%. the 10%, which he referred to and quotes the department of justice as a source was for a case where there was no adversariesal event in court. it's a case where you don't automatically have to prove that it happened to you. just prove up your damages. that's a different case all together. here's what i would like to say. i sympathize with your complaint

that television screens are being inundated with advertising from trial attorneys. i don't know who they are. i couldn't name one of them personally, but i know that they see this as an opportunity. why? because they have two years from our passage of this act to file a lawsuit. so they need to get this done, move forward. i know those who when injured in the process would also like to move forward. i say to the senator from alaska, let's sit down together, the bill that you introduced almost two weeks ago is a starting point of a conversation, which should take place. it's an important one. but at the end of the day, these marines and others who were victims of this water contamination waited for years for the opportunity for compensation. because the united states congress passed the pact act and because president joe biden signed it into law, they have

their day in court if necessary. that is a remarkable achievement when you consider how far back this goes. it's remarkable. we want to make sure that those marines who were denied justice all those years leading up to the passage of that legislation have an opportunity to recover, or their day in court, if that's what it takes. but we also don't want to handcuff them with attorneys representing them who would accept 2% as a fee or 10% as a fee, you just don't understand, senator, that if i'm going to prepare the case to take it into a federal court, good work is involved in a good case. do some of these lawyers overcharger? you bet they do, and you and i can talk about that in the contingency fee so marines and their families know what they're getting into and decide for themselves based on knowledge. in terms of whether the marine should be paid first or the lawyer, there's no question, the marine should be paid.

no question about it. we can clarify that as well. what i'm saying to you is i offer to work with you on this to make sure we do not deny a day in court or deny adequate representation to the marines seeking to cover. i join you in an outrage of that kind of phenomenon. in the meantime let's do something to give these marines justice. i am going to object at this moment, but i'm not going to quit on this issue if you want to continue. i want to work with you. so i do object. i do object -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sullivan: i want to let my other colleagues speak, but as the chairman mentioned, i have a lot of respect for the chairman. you can tell he's a good trial lawl. but you said -- lawyer. but you said i don't understand. i do understand. i understand a lot of what's going on here.

unfortunately i understand the power of the trial bar that blocked a lot of this. that's what happened. we know it. my colleague mentioned 2%. remember, this is the biden administration's recommendation. it's not like they're enemies of the trial lawyers. 2% to file a fee. you can file a fee in your sleep. that's pretty generous, and 10% when -- i'm not sure the chairman has read his own bill, but the camp lejeune justice act restricts the federal government from making traditional defenses in court, making the job of lawyers much easier and much less burdensome, which is another reason why you need 10%. 10% is generous. it is a compromise. here is my question for the chairman, again, who i have a lot of -- i have a lot of respect for. it doesn't kick in for two years, but every single day one of these marines' families is getting scammed. we all know it. we see it. why the heck did the trial

lawyers spend a million dollars in ads? out of philanthropy? no, so they can get wealthier. here is my request and i hope the chairman will take it on. you're the chairman of the judiciary committee, we still have time before the end of the year, bring this to the committee, do it in markups, you do it every week, no offense to nominees, u.s. marines who are sick are a lot more important to address nowfl. if i can get -- now. if i can get the chairman and me to get this and mark it up, if you see this before the end of congress and get it over to the house to get justice for marines, not for trial lawyers, i would welcome that commitment from the chairman, before the end of the year. is that something that you would agree to, mr. chairman? mr. durbin: i will agree to work with you on this. mr. sullivan: by the end of year. mr. durbin: i don't know if we can do it in three weeks.

i hope that we can. i'm willing to sit down with you and work on it. anyone trying to exploit these marines, their family or others who are victims of this contaminated water that has been going on for decades, i have no use for them. i do believe in some cases they need good, legal representation. and when you cap the fees where you've capped them, good lawyers, frankly, are not going to accept the cases. that means a marine may not get his day in court or a case presented that is really critical for him and his family. let's try to find the happy medium. let's try to stop the abusing that is going on, if we can, the advertising. i've seen it. you can't miss it. it's everywhere. the point is let's do it in a conscientious way, thoughtful way and do it as quickly as we can. you introduced this bill almost two weeks ago. it is a significant change in the law. to think we can finish it in two weeks, i'm not sure, but i will

try. i will give it my good-faith effort to try to get to a place where we can agree. mr. sullivan: if you want to get it done by the end of the year, we welcome your phone calls. we hope to get that done. i know some of my other colleagues, senator tuberville also feels passionate about this. mr. tuberville: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: i want to thank my colleague, senator sullivan, for calling up this important legislation. i had the pleasure of working with him on the veterans' affairs committee. the brave men and women who served in the armed forces know they might be asked to pay the ultimate sacrifice, but no person, no matter how selfish, joins the military to give up their health or their family's health because of toxic

chemicals in their drinking water. nobody does. unfortunately that is reality faced by many marines who spent time at camp lejeune. and we have seen unprincipled trial lawyers jump at the chance to take advantage of this situation. the bill we're discussing closes a loophole in the pact act that should not have existed in the first place. i have 500,000 veterans in the state of alabama. i got on the veterans committee to help those people. we worked for almost a year on this pact act. it wasn't near complete, but at the state of the union last year, president biden gets up and says, we're going to get this thing done and get it done quick. nothing happens quick in this build, i'll tell you right now. if it does happen quick, it doesn't work. we were probably three-quarters of the way done with it and last year we were told we're going to take it from the majority leader in this senate and we're going to take it and run it through.

it wasn't ready to go because we had things like this that were going to be a problem. i voted against it. i caught heck from my veterans back in alabama and still catch it. until today i'm still explaining why i did this and i told them. it wasn't ready to come out. a $500 billion bill wasn't ready to come out and help the veterans of this country. it was going to have problems. and i told themed. i hope i'm wrong. i hope it all works, but here we are, just a few months later, and we've got our first problem. this won't be the last. this will not be the last. one example of this section 804 camp lejeune act, while well attended, and meant to be right and right or wrong, this section doesn't include a critical guardrail to protect those it meant to protect. currently bad actors are able to profit from this misfortune of veterans. again, hopefully we can get this

right. i mean, because if this -- and it's not small. this is a defect of the bill that was rushed through for some unknown reason, but we're going to have other problems. but we need to fix this problem first. we're sick of these commercials an all of these lawyers making all of this money. as a member of the senate veterans' affairs committee, i'm committed to protecting those who protected us, and this includes fixing the pact act, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i'm disappointed that my colleagues fail their commitment to protecting our veterans in this bill and hopefully we can get it right. i yield the floor to my colleague. mr. sullivan: thank you, senator tuberville. i just hope that my colleagues will do what is right for our veterans and get this done by the end of this year. if you're a veteran or a member of the american legion or marine

corps, call the senate, call the chairman of the judiciary committee. i'll willing to work tonight to get this done. but we cannot delay. we cannot do rope-a-dope tactics here in the senate to give the trial lawyers the money when it should go to the united states marines and their families. i also want to call on my colleague, senator blackburn. mrs. blackburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes prior to the scheduled vote and senator cardin be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes prior to the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. earlier this month, ticketmaster

truly met its match after hundreds of thousands of taylor swift fans walked away empty handed from a disastrous presale. they blamed a combination of demand -- and i quote them -- a staggering number of baht attacks, end -- bot attacks, end quote -- for the slow manufacture moving queues that left fans furious and with a lot of questions. they still want to know how all of those tickets that were in their carts just disappeared. now, this isn't the first time we've seen ticketmaster struggle to manage bot attacks. other popular tours have given their web developers a workout, but this time the company failed on such an unprecedented scale that people who don't follow popular music know exactly what

happened. anytime a major company causes this level of disappointment in their customers, we see consumer protection advocates launch new demands for antitrust investigations, and i'm sure most of my colleagues know that has happened here in the senate. some of my judiciary committee colleagues have already promised a hearing to explore potential antitrust violations of ticketmaster, but here's the problem -- spending more time and resources examining competition in the online ticket marketplace isn't going to solve the problem that caused this mess. to do that, we need to back up and understand how bots actually work. all ticket sellers use technological safeguards to impose limits on the number of tickets each buyer can purchase.

your average ticket buyer doesn't have the skills to sidestep those limits, but modern-day scalpers do. all they need to do is write a software program or a bot to get around those safeguards. because of the way these bots work, one scalper can purchase hundreds or thousands of tickets just seconds after they go on sale. when this happens, real consumers end up at the back of the line because, no matter how fast you click, you're not going to beat a bot. fortunately, we already have a way to solve this problem that will benefit both the artist and their fans. in 2016 when i was still serving in the house, i led congressional efforts to pass the better online ticket sales act, also known as the bots act.

senator schumer led that effort here in the senate. this bill made it unlawful for scalpers to circumvent the controls used by ticket issuers to limit sales. it also created a backstop if the scalpers do manage to get their hands on too many tickets. the bots act made it illegal for scalpers to resell those tickets on the secondary market. the bots act tasked the federal trade commission with enforcement authority, but the ftc has not followed through. in january 2021, the ftc took its first and only enforcement action under the bots act against three new york-based brokers for conduct that began in 2017.

that's one enforcement act in six years. now one of the two things can be true here -- either the existing enforcement mechanisms are faulty or the ftc's approach to using them is faulty. this is the investigation that we should focus on. i want to thank my colleague, senator blumenthal, for helping me tick it off. this week we sent a letter to the ftc asking a few very simple questions about how they're using thereabouts authority -- theirbots authority. do they have any pending enforcement actions? second, why has the ftc only taken a single enforcement action to date? third, are there any obstacles preventing the ftc from exercising its authority? and, finally, are there other

solutions congress needs to consider in conjunction with the bots act? the commissioners have a choice -- they can either tell us how we can expect them to use their baht -- their bots authority in the future or they can tell us what they need to get the job done. the trickle-down effects of their failure to enforce the law have put music fans in a biden. but it is important to remember that the entertainment industry is not the only industry that will suffer if the ftc does not do its job. especially since the beginning of the pandemic, we've seen entire industries move their operations online. this has presented scalpers and bot programmers with a golden opportunity to branch out and start forcing consumers into secondary markets for sport tickets, movie tickets, sneakers, video game consoles,

popular toys and other items that come with limited availability. in 12021 -- in 2021, tickets for the opening of the newest "spiderman movie" went for about five times the regular price of the movie ticket. now you may not care about concerts or movies, but consider how this could eventually trickle down affect the things that you really do care about. anywhere you find that combination of scarcity and popularity, you're going to find bots blocking access to the market. and for the average person, there's nothing that that individual is going to be able to do about it. we, however, can do something about this. but, as i said, an antitrust investigation isn't going to get the job done. if my colleagues want to fulfill

their promise to fix the problems that left so many music fans disappointed earlier in month, they need to -- this month, need to join me and senator blumenthal in, woulding with the ftc -- in working with the ftc to enforce the law against these ticket scalpers. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. one of the greatest challenges we have is climate change. we are seeing the cost of inaction -- the floodings that are occurring very frequently here in the united states and around the world, the forest fires that we've experienced here in the united states, droughts, extreme weather events occurring more frequently, including in my own state where we had two 100-year floods within 20 months in ellicott city, maryland; climate migrants, people who can no longer live in their communities

because of the rising sea levels. it's an urgent issue for us to address. so i want to share with my colleagues the recent codel i led to the cop27 discussions i led in egypt. i was joined by senator markey. we were there for approximately two and a half days. cop27 is the united nationed climate change conference. it is my fourth conference i have led senators a attend. my first was in 2015, cop21 in paris in which the obama administration was able to bring together the global community to a commitment that we needed to limit the rising heat -- risings

temperatures. we also needed that commitment among all nations and we got that in paris. it was a major accomplishment, thanks to u.s. leadership. i returned to a cop23 meeting in 2017 in bond. that's when president trump had withdrawn the united states from the climate discussions and from paris. we were there there to make it clear that the united states was still committed to our participation in doing what is responsible to reverse the trend of rising climate heat. i then attended the cop meeting in 2021 -- cop26 -- in glasgow. i was pleased to report that america was back. thisavenatti president trump had withdrawn -- this was after president trump had withdrawn. president biden reengaged the

united states in the global climate discussions. we were very strong in our language but the international community wanted to know if the united states would back those words are actions. so, mr. president, i was very pleased that in 2022 at the cop27 meetings in sharm el, we could say -- in sharm el sheikh we could say that the united states was back, we have taken action. i must tell you, the international community was very impressed by what we've been able to do in this congress, what the biden administration has been able to do on the climate agenda. in fact, president bush, one complaint i got is that -- in fact, mr. president, one complaint i got is that we may have done too much and they're not sure they can compete with us in regards to the renewable energy industries. that's a nice situation to be in as a leader of the world. we talked about the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which was our first major

investment into electric vehicle infrastructure, for green infrastructure. but the passage of the inflation reduction act was a game changer. it was the largest investment in climate change by a nation ever -- $369 billion we were able to get done. it provided many incentives in many different buckets and areas in order to deal with our commitment to reduce emissions. it provided incentives for electric vehicles. it provided incentives for battery supply chain here in the united states. it provided incentives for offshore wind, a major renewable energy source. and the list goes on and on and on. it included a major commitment on environmental justice because we know vulnerable communities are more vulnerable. those that are the traditionally underserved communities are more

vulnerable to the effects of climate change. we need to make sure that we help these communities deal with these challenges. the bottom line that the what we can report at the top27 conference is that the -- the cop27 contemporaries is that the united states is on on on target. we've taken action to achieve the goals that president biden announced of a 50% to 52% emission reduction. that was good news for the international community and provided, i think, the type of energy in egypt that allowed us to make progress. we were there for two and a half days. we had over 30 meetings. i must tell you, we were a popular group. many countries wanted to meet with us. weight had a lot of bi-- we had a lot of bilateral meetings. we do that because we recognize that every country must meet its

goals if we're going to be able to achieve the emissions reductions that are necessary. so we made ourselves available to listen to the concerns of other countries. some are traditional allies, some are developing countries. we all understooded that we all need to find a way to meet our emissions reductions goals if we're going to be able to avert the most severe consequences of climate change. so we met with the many officials. we met with the u.n. officials responsible to conduct the conference. we got a good briefing as to the politics of trying to get 190-plus nations together on the same thing on these issues, not on easy task. we met with global business leaders. we met with the indigenous community leaders because the indigenous communities,, particularly in the developing countries, are the ones who are most vulnerable. they're living under very difficult circumstances and when we asked them not to deforest

the land on which they're living on, which they do for farming practices, or we asked them to make certain sacrifices, they're saying, well, why should we be making these sacrifices when the developed nations didn't do that way back when? so we need to be concerned about the welfare of all these communities. we met with civil society leaders because you cannot have success in a strategy to deal with climate unless we had the buy-in from all of the stakeholders. and, yes, we met with our leaders, u.s. leaders. i want to give a special shout out to our former colleagues john kerry who has been one of our principle leaders on behalf of the united states and has traveled the world in order to increase countries' commitments to emissions reductions. the theme for the two days that we were there, the theme every day at the cop meetings, one was decor bonnization -- decar

bannization day. the other was agriculture day. it was a message we're concerned about. we talked about in meetings we had with the power sector as to how we needed to use the incentives we have in america and the globally -- and globally to have clean energy credits and to bring down the emissions that are being created through the fossil fuels and creating en energy. we talked about how we in america can use the credits that are in the inflation reduction act to show the international community how we can all help in reducing emissions. we also had a chance on the -- on adaptation and agriculture day to listen to president biden. president biden attended the cop 27 meeting and gave, i think, a very important address to all of the conferees about america's leadership. it was adaptation day and the

president announced additional funds that america committed to the adaptation fund to make it clear that the united states is going to be part of these efforts. i must tell you we met with the pakistani delegation. we expressed our condolences over the loss of thousands of citizens of pakistan through the consistent and continuous flooding that has taken place in that country. a large portion of pakistan is really not habitable today because of sea level increases and the effect fs climate change -- and the effects of climate change change. adaptation is very important. they don't have the resources for adaptation. madam president, i was just at the naval academy this past week where we dedicated -- we had a groundbreaking for raising the seawall. we have to raise the seawall minority leader to protect the naval academy. it's something we have to do to adapt to realities that we have more frequent high tide flooding in annapolis.

we have the resources to do take. pakistan does not have the resources to protect their population. the united states international community must work on adaptation. but it's not a substitute for mitigation. our principal way to deal with climate is to make sure we reach our emission goals and reduce our greenhouse gas emisses so that the worst effects can be avoided. mitigation and adaptation are critically important. we need to do both. now, i will tell you the most controversial discussions that took place at cop 27 dealt with the international climate financing issues. you may have heard about the loss and damage discussions that took place there. and it is controversial. it's not controversial what we're trying to achieve. and i pointed out and my colleagues, senator white house and -- senator whitehouse and senator markey pointed out, the united states has been very actively engaged with the

developing word to help develop their green infrastructure. we do that through usaid and the work that they do around the world. we do it in the millennium challenge grants and the work they do around the world. we do that in our anticipation with international banking institutions to provide credit to the developing countries so that they can develop green infrastructure, particularly in the energy sector. and we do that through many bills that we pass here. i'll just give you one example. i'm proud of the neo tropical migratory bird act that was partially responsible, making sure we had funded that. well, that provides grants for habitats for migratory birds, that money is almost all spent in other countries. i was just recently in south america and they were thanking us for the work that they have done in regards to this program and protecting habitat for migratory birds. so the united states does a lot

in regards to international financing. and we share our technology. it's u.s. technology that's being used by these countries in order to develop their infrastructure. our objective is clear. we want the developing world to have green infrastructure that gives them reliable energy, gives them reliable transportation. we want them to do that without deforestation, without taking away their forests. we want them to do that without using their fossil reserves. and for that we have to be active participants in the international financing to help them. we are that. we are a reliable global partner. and we made that point over and over again. i'll just give you one more example of how we're helping. senator menendez has introduced what's known as amazon 21, a bill i hope we can pass in this congress. it provides help to preserve forestation around the world. name for amazon of course which

is the greatest treasure we have in our hemisphere on forest lands that are very much subject to being lost. i joined senator menendez in ecuador recently and we talked to the leadership there about what they're doing to protect the amazon. they need help so that the indigenous population does not have to cut down the forest in order to farm. we need to be helpful in that. amazon 21 would be the u.s. response to help to maintain the forests. why do we want to maintain the forests? 20% of carbon emissions is occurring through deforestation. it's a huge source to meet our goals that we need to meet. now, cop 27 was held in egypt. and we could not go to egypt without mentioning the human rights concerns that we have in that country. thousands of journalists, protesters, and activists are in

jail dar without trial solely because they're trying to report the news or disagree with their government or be environmentalists. that's wrong. and we raised those issues. we met with the families of some of the victims that are in jail today, and we met with the foreign minister of egypt in order to raise these issues. we will continue to raise these issues and urge the egypt -- egyptians to release who are being held for just expressing their views or being journalists. that's wrong and they need to be released. and then lastly, madam president, let me just complement the u.s. leadership -- compliment the u.s. leadership at cop 27. i already mentioned secretary john kerry. he has done tremendously, traveled the world and got countries to move further than any of us thought was possible. i want to congratulate our former colleague for the work that he's done on the climate

issues. i want to also acknowledge the assistant secretary monica madina who worked tirelessly during the cop 27 in order to get results. we're certainly not satisfied by everything that happened at cop 27. let me make take clear. there were disappointments. we would have liked to have seen an increase in the emission targets, much more than have been made. we have to do better. only made modest progress on mitigation. but important progress was made on forest protection. so we did make progress and we brought the international community together in order to recognize that this is a global problem. and i am so proud that the united states leadership is back on the international scene leading the international community to do what we need to to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avert the most severe consequences of climate change. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed for the consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, robert phillip storch of the district of columbia to be inspector general. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes for debate equally divided. without objection. the question is on the nomination. is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 92. the nays are 3. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, very nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise to offer a unanimous consent request for the approval of two important nominees to ambassadorial positions that have passed through the foreign relations committee. and the first that i want to offer deals with seeking to

advance the nomination of with him h. dunkin as ambassador to el salvador. "appreciate my two colleagues, republicans, are on the floor. he's a 30-year veteran of the foreign service. he has experience serving throughout the western hemisphere region, el salvador, monterey, mexico, mexico city, madrid, bow ga take -- bogata. he has served domestically in the office of american affairs, central american affairs. has had a tour in baghdad and the state department operations center. i say this not to bore everybody with the long recitation. mr. dunkin has had a pretty amazing career. it's hard to imagine a career more fit, a nominee more better to serve in an enormous and

unique challenge that the united states faces in el salvador. the u.s. faces a very tough question in el salvador right now. and that is the current president of el is a va door -- el salvador. he's very popular. he's exploited weak local institutions to begin to undermine civilian society and build up a security state. he's imprisoned around 50,000 of his own citizens since just march of this year and curtailed civil rights of the remained erp. members of his party have openly meddled directly in u.s. legislative elections. experts increasingly doubt the country's ability to pay nearly $800 million in euro bond payments that it owes coming up in february. a default could spur a fresh round of migration northward from el salvador to mexico and

the united states. my friends across the aisle frequently and i think appropriately cite migration as a top foreign policy challenge and they've got a point. the size and scope of this crisis compounded by elbaradei salvador and the president's actions and the humanitarian impact on the entire region and our country is worsening by the day. i agree the issue needs much, much more attention. and el salvador is right on the line of this crisis. i lived near the border in 1980 and 1981. it's a challenge then and now. no country can confront the myriad of challenges facing the country right now, transnational organized crime so we've got to work together to strengthen the rule of law in el salvador. it's essential if we're going to discourage irregular migration. without the rule of law, el salvador will never have the growth it needs or prevent human

abuses and attacks on civil liberties, reduce gender-based violence or defeat the threat from criminal gangs, all drivers of irregular migration. addressing these drivers and other serious u.s. policy concerns requires engagement at the highest level by experienced and credible -- such as mr. duncan. we urgently need a senate-confirmed ambassador to engage president bukele and el salvadorian civil society including courageous human rights activist oses these issues. as mr. duncan noted in his testimony in front of the senate foreign relations committee, the littleship between the u.s. and el salvador has been exceptionally close for many years despite many issues. through a morivic -- horrific civil war and today's challenges such as fighting transnational organized crime. the u.s. has worked cooperatively with el salvador in everything we can and

disagreed firmly and constructively when we needed to. and it's worth noting that over these years, many salvadorans have become citizens right here in the dmv through processes such as tps status, two and a half million salvadorans live in the united states. they contribute through their creativity and work ethic and through billions of dollars in remittances every year. i've been speaking a bit. one word you haven't heard me mention at all is cuba. i have a feeling based on an earlier iteration of this that my colleague will cite concerns about the administration's challenges with cuba as a reason for this hold. and i just ask the question what does this have to do with el salvador. there's always differences of opinions within the senate on every administration's policies, especially cuba. i get that. even at times strong opposition. and i've raised opposition about

issues with respect to cuba with this administration and others. and we all are free to offer bills and amendments dealing with the many challenges in cuba. but mr. duncan was nominated for this role in an entirely different country, el salvador in february 2022. his senate foreign relations committee hearing was in august. he's been pending consideration by the full senate since then as the human rights situation in el salvador has been working. let's -- worsening. let's get our ambassador out on to the field and put him to work. and so with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination, calendar number 1106, with him h. duncan, a career member of the senior foreign service class of minister counselor to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of el salvador, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately

notified -- immediately informed of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, reserving the right to object. first i want to thank my colleague from virginia for coming down to the floor to bring up the issue of u.s. foreign policy toward the western hemisphere. i agree with my colleague that u.s. foreign policy toward latin america is of the utmost importance and that the ambassadors we send to latin america must advocate for the right policies. sadly, as both vice president and president joe biden has had a policy of appeasement toward latin america dictators. he has qifen control of the southern border to cartels and showed there is no consequences to cross the u.s. border illegally. he removed farc from the foreign terrorist organization. he didn't -- the united states recognizes him as a legitimate interim president of venezuela.

sanctions on the illegitimate regimes in cuba and venezuela while getting nothing in return to stop the oppression of the innocent people in these countries. his appeasement toward latin america dictators has done nothing to help the cuban and venezuelan people. he think his actions have made things more dangerous for people living in these countries. while he didn't stand up to castro and ma dawr ree -- maduro, we're left with a hemisphere that's left peaceful and puts our national security at greater risk. these are murderous, illegit pat dictators. appeasement is the worst -- worst move imaginable. in his -- any active observer of latin america knows, the country -- policy towards cuba effects policy toward everyone else in the region. as we see, left-wing socialist candidates rise in the region like petro in columbia, it only

gives further reasoning as to why the u.s. must project our values of stability, democracy and anticomniche. joe biden has the power to join the cuban people and call for the communist party to change. where is he? besides from a couple of statements he made last year, president biden has not taken one action to support the cuban people and their fight for freedom. he's done nothing to provide them with internet connections. he talked about it. didn't do it. done nothing to support democracy on the island. talks about it. hasn't done it. he and his administration have bowed to the demands of cuba's murderous regime and not stand for human rights. he couldn't be bothered to speak about the one-year anniversary of the july 11 historic and peaceful demonstrations in cuba. it's time for president biden to stand up. he's got to call for the immediate release of the hundreds, hundreds of pro democracy activists, including children as young as 14 years old that the regime is unjustly detaining and subjected to psyche -- psychological torture.

he has diminished our influence in the region and people have seen their calls for freedom abandoned. it's essential to the national security of the united states as well as our efforts to support freedom, democracy and human rights take president biden reverses these foolish actions and not allow totalitarian dictatorships in our helps fear to go uncheck. we can never bow to dictators, never. it's time for biden to lead and oppose these genocidal dictators and support human rights. until he does, i'm not going to allow these nominations to go forward. i don't disagree with anything. my colleague from virginia said as far as we have got -- there's different ways you can do foreign policy in latin america but not to be willing to just make a statement that these poor people in cuba ought to be released is unbelievable to me. so therefore, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. kaine: mr. president, let me respond and i have -- i will soften my request toward my colleague after i briefly respond.

my response is this. i don't see the logic. cuba is not el salvador. i listened to my colleague's comments and i heard him talk about cuba and i talk -- and talk about venezuela. i didn't hear him say one word about el salvador or one word about william h. duncan. these are not the same countries. it's not like they all look alike. they're different countries. now, we don't want them to be alike. that's true. we don't want them to be alike. and the danger we have and i will have a request for my senator from florida in a second, the danger we have is if we send el salvador a sign of disrespect by not sending them an ambassador, the dangerous tendency of the current president bukele becoming more authoritarian could move el salvador into a position where they're more and more like cuba. i don't think any of us want

that to happen. and so i would render a softer version of my request to my colleague from florida and instead of asking unanimous consent that we just have a uc vote on this, i would soften it and ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, the senate consider this nomination, calendar 1106, with him h. duncan, career member of the senior foreign service and that the not vote on the nomination offering to all the opportunity to vote no if that's their choice without intervening action or debate. if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with the president notified immediately of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: as soon as president biden puts out a statement that all the peaceful protesters in cuba should be immediately released, i will not object. but until he does, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard.

mr. kaine: mr. president, i have a second uc request, understanding that request, i agree with you on the request and we will work to see if we can accomplish something that would be satisfactory. now, -- now i rise to seek consent to advance the nomination of a friend for executive director of the american development bank. i did this a few weeks ago. the important need of america to have an idb that is investing in the region to counter chinese investments that are occurring every day has become even more apparent to me because since the last time i took the floor to promote mr. martinez, i had visited the dominican republic, costa rico and panama and seen the tremendous competition that we're up against. the idb is the largest source of international financing, development financing for latin america and the caribbean. it's of national interests for the united states to build up the economic prosperity of the countries of the western helms

fear. as latin america and the caribbean continue to face challenges from covid-19 where the region had the highest global per capita infection and death rate, 8% of the world's population is in latin america. 30% of world's covid deaths were in latin america. it's also experiencing the largest economic cbs of any region -- contraction of any region in the world. is plays a key role in improving economic outcomes for the region. we've seen agai -- we've seen again and again that when they have economic problems, it drives organized crime, drug abuse, drug trafficking and irregular migration that can start as a country's problems, but very quickly they expand beyond the borders of the country to affect other nations, including the u.s. when we don't step up, we see china, russia, and iran and other nations step up. over the last decade china's investments in latin america have ballooned. they are moving aggressively and rapidly in this space in 2020,

just for a prepandemic example, china's direct investments in latin america were roughly $17 billion. the china development bank and export import bank of china, both of which are state owned are among the region's leading lenders. between 2005 and 2020sh these two baimpingsd loan around $120 billion-dollar to latin america. the cost to american interest is very clear. in exchange for these funds, china gets favorable access to oil resources, they support energy and infrastructure projects, they force tough decisions on the removal of recognition of taiwan, dominican republic and yick rag was -- nicaragua flipped their positions after incentives from china. haiti is feeling increased pressure to do so as well. how do we push back?

the idb allows us to push back. the idb pumped $328 billion into the region of i would no et that china is now a vote be member of the idb. our absence has a directed impact on china's ability to exert influence, even within the idb structure itself. now, again, my colleagues across the aisle, they want a more muscular approach on china. they're right. they accuse the biden administration of not doing enough, being soft. but you look at the extraordinary effort they're putting in to block qualified nominees across the region, without any justification that meets my standards, it's clear that, wait a minute, are these blocks of nominations in the western hemisphere helping the u.s. stand up to china? they're making it harder to do that. if we can't even take the step of approving ambassadors and putting key people in place that will use u.s. resources to exert

or more pro-democratic influence, what is the outcome? china has an active and growing presence here in the neighborhood. failing to confirm leopoldo and other nominees based off accusations and unrelated policy concern is malpractice in terms of foreign policy. mr. martinez is the right man for the idb. he brings decades of experience in public and private sectors, as well as academia. he has extensive experience with fortune 500, private equity and nongovernmental organizations. he's the ceo of the center for democracy and development of the americas, as well as commissioner for small business of the commonwealth of virginia, and on the board of visitors at the university of mary washington. he is a constituent, and i will admit to the personal bias that he is also a friend. a person of high integrity that i've known for years and can vouch for. i want to take now a minute just to respond to some comments that

were made by my friend, and he is a friend, from texas, about mr. martinez's background when we last discussed this nomination. in september. mr. martinez was then labeled, accused actually, somehow of being a chavez ista or mad upo regime -- maduro regime sympathizer. i want to tell you about leo's personal history of, because that personal history is a significant and painful one, and it suggests that him being branded as a chavezista could not be further from the truth. yes, leo martinez is a former venezuela politician. he was elected to his role in the venezuelan parliamentarian in opposition to hugo chavez. his consistent, strong, and public opposition to chavez resulted in his persecution by that regime. for this reason he had to flee

to the united states in 2005, to escape persecution by a regime and a very real threat of imprisonment. the regime confiscated all of his family's assets. the idea that someone who had the courage to risk his life to oppose chavez, who quite literally fled from the regime's attacks, who's had his family wealth seized by the chavez regime, who is in the united states and eligible for this nomination because of his opposition to the regime, to claim that that person is somehow a chavezista is just outrageous. don't take my word for it. when the accusations were made in september, they were thoroughly debunked by fact-checker. univision went line by line through the accusations and found them to be dwroasly in--

grossly incorrect. the very day that president biden nominated leo for this role, the maduro regime put a communications official on venezuelan national tv and accused him of being a traitor. that's what the maduro regime says about this nominee that president biden has put forward to carry forward u.s. interests, including our u.s. interests in calling for accountability in venezuela. does that sound like a chavezista to anyone, a person who would be branded a traitor by the maduro regime because of being too pro-american? i understand their differences of opinion in the senate on some of the biden administration's policies on latin america, and i admit that this is a challenging region with a number of chal -- challenges that are immune from easy answers. but strong opposition is one thing, and we're all free to offer bills and amendments to go in a different direction, and to

ask the senate to vote, but i would ask my colleagues, what does keeping the u.s.' executive director position at idb vake apt accomplish for us -- vacant accomplish for us? as we try to make smart investments in latin america to get at the root problem of migration, is hobbling the most important operation charged with financing our goal really helpful? with that said, i ask unanimous consent that the senate foreign relations committee be discharged and the senate proceed to the following nomination, p.n. 1028, leopoldo martinez nusethe to be united states executive director for the international development bank for the term of three years, that the senate vote on the nomination, with no intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be in order on the nomination, any related statements be printed in the record, and and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. in september, democrats asked i ask unanimous consent to the confirmation of mr. martinez ducethe. i objected. at the time, i explained that president biden has been pursuing a policy in latin america that has given momentum to the hard left pro-chavez pro-castro anti-american movements across the hemisphere. indeed, i have explained at considerable length my deep opposition to the misguided foreign policy of president biden and his administration. this president and this administration has consistently shown weakness and appeasement to the enemies of america, whether communist china or russia or iran or venezuela. while at the same time demonstrating deep animosity to

friends and allies of america. it's a foreign policy that i believe is precisely backwards, if the objective were defending u.s. national security interests. president trump previously described his foreign policy as an america-first foreign policy. one of the best descriptions that can be given of president biden and the democrats' foreign policy is an america-last foreign policy. every region on earth has gotten worse, more hostile to america, and more dangerous in the two years that joe biden has been president. and yet, no region has been hurt more than latin america. president biden came into office and immediately froze out pro-american governments in latin america.

for example, he went out of his way to undermine and alienate the government of colombian president ivan duque. he denied duque a phone call for the first five months of the administration, providing morale and momentum to duque's domestic enemies. and so, the predictable result occurred. the colombian far left gained more and more momentum, and a few months ago leftist gustavo petro took control of colombia, a former terrorist with a long record of deep anti-american animosity. since then, things have only gotten worse. in the aftermath of recent elections, lula did he silva is set to take -- de silva is set to take control of brazil, the

largest country in latin america. of course, biden administration quickly picked up the phone to congratulate him. it took biden a full week to call and congratulate benjamin nettannia hugh -- netanyahu in israel. for the biden administration, they were thrilled to see an anti-american leftist like lula in power and deeply dismayed to see a pro-american friend and ally like netanyahu in power. just last week, the biden administration announced it was providing sanctions relief to the maduro regime in venezuela. mr. president, mark my words -- i believe this administration is moving step by step, systematically, towards formally

recognizing the maduro regime. that would be a catastrophic mistake. i think the biden administration would do it expeditiously, they'd do it today if they could. but they know the political costs are high, so instead they're advancing incrementally, inch by inch. right now, they're starting to unwind sanctions on venezuelan oil while continuing to stifle drilling here at home. forcing american energy producers to seek oil from dictators and enemies of america, rather than produce high-paying jobs here in the united states, and i might note that oil produced in the united states is produced much more cleanly, emits less carbon, emits less pollutants than does the foreign oil. and yet, the biden foreign policy is such is that they relish putting billions in the

coffers of dictators. back in september i said that the senate badly needed to debate the trajectory and the likely consequences of joe biden and kamala harris' disastrous latin america policy, and that the nomination of mr. martinez for executive director of the idb was particularly problematic in this context. mr. martinez has a long career of being a hard left partisan. in venezuela, he served as a socialist congressman during the tenure of hugo chavez. his nomination is both an example of and, if confirmed he would fuel, the biden administration's ongoing effort to drag latin america to the far left, to empower anti-american marxists throughout the region.

i just listened to the words of my friend and colleague, the senator from virginia, claiming that in actuality mr. martinez was not the kind of venezuelan socialist who supported chavez, he was a different kind of venezuelan socialist. he doesn't dispute he's a venezuelan socialist former congressman, but he says no, he wasn't exactly of the same flavor of chavez. i'm not particularly interested in advising and dicing the varieties of socialists in latin america operating in chavez's venezuela. i'm opposed to former socialist congressmen of foreign nations representing the united states of america in any context, let alone an international bank's. i will say my colleague from

virginia spoke movingly about the importance of the idb. i agree. we should have an american representative on that bank, and that underscores the need for president biden to withdraw this nomination and nominate someone with experience who would advocate for america and not for the far left in latin america. i'll note also that mr. martinez failed to advance favorably out of the senate foreign relations committee because every single republican in the committee voted against him. it was not just his record as a former socialist congressman. one of the significant concerns was his deeply manifested hostility to religious and the people of faith. that hostility was demonstrated in answers and written testimony provided by mr. martinez nucete in response to questions that i

asked him. these answers demonstrated a bizarre and disturbing hostility , an antipathy for conservatives, of people of faith and especially for conservative people of faith. i asked mr. martinez nucete about his views and to what extent faith should be disentangled from development. development often employs and is deeply involved with faith-based nonprofits throughout the developing world. here was his answer -- quote, there should be no entanglement between government and religion. that is a bedrock constitutional principle for us in america. i don't think any particular culture or religion is superior to others in terms of achieving socioeconomic development. that answer was non-responsive

and deeply confused. so i asked more precisely for him to describe the role that faith plays in economic development as a constraint and as a contributing factor. here was his answer. quote, for education and respecr human rights, promoting social and market economies is the key to development, not faith. for anyone involved in the efforts of the iadb and other international banks engaged in development, that is a bizarre answer because faith-based nonprofits have played transformational roles in development. it demonstrates, sadly, the kind of antipathy to people of faith that is being abouting more and more common on the american left -- that is being abouting more and more common on the american left and apparently was the view of at least one former socialist

congressman from venezuela. i don't believe this nominee is an appropriate nominee to represent the united states of america on this international bank. and, therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cardin: mr. president, i would reich -- mr. kaine: mr. president, i would like to response briefly. then i will soften my request a to my colleague. mr. martinez was chased out of venezuela because of his opposition to the regime that my texas colleague opposes. mr. martinez in venezuelan politics, i didn't concede that he was a socialist. you said that i did. i did not. he was a member of three parties -- the democratic party, the justice first party, and the democratic action party. those were the parties that he served in. and for one period of time, because of disagreements with the parties, he was an

independent member. so that's why the fact-checkers that went through this in september rebutted the allegation that mr. martinez was somehow a hard man of the left. he is an opposition leader, and the proof that so he's had to do -- and the proof of that is he's had to to do something that's very difficult. leave his own native country, leave family behind, be branded a traitor by the very regime that both of us would want to counter, and lose family assets and wealth of the regime. i mean, do we want him to sacrifice more than that as evidence that he is in opposition to the maduro regime? left his country, lost his wealth, been branded a traitor. is is that not enough to demonstrate his bonafides as an opponent of the maduro and chavez regime? and with respect to the other

claims made by my colleague, he doesn't like the answers that mr. martinez gave about faith. he broadens that to suggest that people on the left are answer faith. i think resent that. i was a missionary in honduras for a year in latin america with jesuits in 1980 and 1981 and i know an awful lot of people on my side of the aisle -- some who talk about it a lot and some who may not talk about it, including you, mr. president -- who faith is a central motivated factor in our lives. so if you don't like an answer that mr. martinez gave, that's a good reason, i guess, to vote against him. unfortunate that right. but don't use it is a -- use it as an opportunity to say about everybody over on this side. aisle that we have an hostility to people of faith. many of us have sacrificed a lot and acted to do so because of our faith. let me soften my request, since

my colleague, i understand he would like to vote against leo martens and doesn't like a u.c. motion that would lump everybody together to advance them. i would ask that at that time a time to be determined by the majority leader, the senate consider the nomination, p.n.1028, leopoldo martinez, for a term of three years, and that the senate have a vote on that nomination, a debate and vote on that nomination, members able to vote no, but with no intervening action -- the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further order be in order with respect to the nomination, that related statements be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president? officer the senator from texas. -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: first of all, nowhere in the senator from virginia's eloquent remarks did

he dispute in any way, shape, or form the chronology i laid out about the absolute disaster the biden foreign policy has been in latin america. nowhere did the senator from virginia dispute that as a result of joe biden undermining our friends and allies, far-left , marxist leaders have risen to power, hurting the region and hurting america. that has been a consistent, deliberate pattern to undermine our friends and allies and to elevate vocal enemies of america. my friend from virginia also said he did not concede that mr. martinez nucete was a socialist congressman. i believe what he said is he didn't dispute it, but actually in saying he didn't concede it, my friend from virginia perhaps inadvertently did concede it.

because he described on the senate floor how mr. martinez nucete was a member of the democratic action party in venezuela. democratic action is a party that is formally and officially part of socialist international. it is a socialist party. and that is one of the factors that i believe renders mr. martinez nucete inappropriate for this nomination. let meet finally talk about faith. i do not remotely question or doubt the senator from virginia's faith. and the good faith with which he advocates his positions. he and i serve together on the foreign relations committee. i will say an unusual thing about my friend from virginia -- he virtually alone among democrat senators will sit and patiently listen to my remarks

in public and often in closed, classified settings. i am certainly not immune from the senatorial disease of being sometimes long-winded and enjoying the sound of my own voice. although i will note, i'm not the only member of this body afflicted with that particular disease. senator kaine regularly will sit and listen to my arguments despite the fact that the topics on which we are debating he disagrees passionately with me. i try to reciprocate the favor and listen to his arguments, despite the fact that i disagree with many of the things that he says. and i know that the senator from virginia cares deeply about his faith. i also lament the rise of explicit hostility to faith among the left in today's democrat party.

i recall when one democrat senator questioning a nominee in the prior administration suggested at a hearing that his christian faith made him unsuitable to serve in the post to which he had been appointed. i recall when another senior democrat in a confirmation hearing for justice amy coney barrett said, infamously, the dogma lives loudly in her, by which that senator meant justice, -- justice coney barrett's catholic faith. the religious freedom restoration act passed this body overwhelmingly with democrat and republican support, was signed into law by a democrat president. sadly, that democratic party no

longer exists. today's democrat party routinely votes in ways directly hostile to people of faith. and i need not look to prior confirmation hearings. i can look to votes on the floor of this chamber yesterday -- yesterday -- in advancing their gay marriage legislation. democrats stood united against religious liberty. my colleague, senator mike lee from utah, introduced an amendment that with a protect religious liberty, that would prevent the biden irs from targeting for persecution churches and charities and universities and k-12 schools that believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. every democrat in this chamber

had the opportunity to vote in favor of religious liberty. and yet the democrats in this chamber overwhelmingly voted against protecting religious liberty. that is a sad development for this body. i wish we were back in the days where the protection of religious liberty was a bipartisan commitment. i hope one day we can return to that time. regardless of where today's american democrats are, mr. martinez nucete in his written answers demonstrated an unusual antipathy to faith, even among nominees in the biden administration. and for all of these reasons, whose antipathy to faith, and his history as a socialist congressman in venezuela, i believe this number is inappropriate to -- i believe this nominee is inappropriate to

represent the united states on the international banks. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is is heard. mr. kaine: i would like to respond, but i'm not going to, just to remind my colleague from texas that the bill we passed yesterday had ample protections to protect religious liberty. my colleague from rhode island has been very patient in waiting to take the floor, so i will yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i rise today for the 19th time to discuss the dark money scheme to capture and control our supreme court.

these scheme speeches have covered a lot of ground, and if they've shown one thing, it's that the capture of the supreme court didn't happen overnight. it took years of planning and hundreds of millions in dark money dollars to turn our highest court into a delivery system for far-right special interests. slowly but surely, these special interests engulfed our supreme court. they set up dark money front groups to help confirm handhicked justices. -- shandpicked justices. they swarmed the court with a. me key curiae to signal to the justices which way they wanted them to rule and they built dark money doctrine factories to pump out fringe legal theories for the justices to deploy. as they have.

well, it turns out these weren't the only avenues the right-wing special interests used to influence the supreme court. two weeks ago, "the new york times," building on earlier reporting by "rolling stone" and "politico," reported that during a private dinner with justice alito and his wife in 23014, two far-right activists, received advance notice about the results of an important reproductive rights case. the hobby lobby case. this was not an ordinary social occasion. here's what we know. over more than two decades, a man named robert schenck invested more than $40 million in a private far manufacture right campaign to lobby the supreme court. according to schenk himself, the goal of this campaign was to embolden the justices to write

unapologetically conservative opinions to actually influence the text of opinions. in pursuit of that goal, these activists set up base camp at a building they set up across the street from the supreme court. from there, they slithered into every nook and cranny they could find, getting to know court employees who could give them special access. to get close to the operatives, schenck's operatives gave big bank to the justices historical society, one that provides high dollar donors with access to the justices at private functions. after meeting the justices at these events, the operatives then set to work emboldening them. they prayed with the justices in their private chambers. they arranged for the justices to meet other far-right

activists. most importantly, schenck himself says he encouraged his wealthiest donors to invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes, or to private clubs. according to schenck, he arranged over the years for about 20 couples to fly to washington to visit with and entertain justices thomas, alito, and scalia, the three justices who, in his words, proved amenable, proved amenable to these efforts. i've spoken before in these scheme speeches about justices failure to disclose what they call personal hospitality, and we have found no disclosure of these dinners, visits, and vacations. one couple from ohio, the wrights, stood out among the

operatives in this plan. this couple not only financed numerous and i -- dinners with e justices at what they call d.c. hot spots, they secured special seats at the court reserved for guests of justices thomas, alito and scalia. they wind and dined privately all three of these justices and their spouses. it was at one of these dinners with justice alito that the couple learned about the decision in the pending 2014 case. the similarities between that alleged leak and the leak of the dobbs opinion earlier this year aren't lost on anyone. both cases involve women's reproductive rights and both leaked opinions were written by justice alito. but put the leak entirely aside

and just look at a plan over 20 years for far-right activists to secretly wine and dine three justices as part of an orchestrated multimillion-dollar influence campaign. that ain't nothin' and the only reason we learned about it is because the former leader of the operation decided to fed up. as put last week the real issue is that the justices allowed this to happen, encouraged it, and rewarded it. the day after the alito dobbs opinion leaked, chief justice roberts directed the marshal of the court to investigate, calling the leak a singular and egregious breach of trust that is an affront to the court and the community of public servants who work here, end quote.

is a 20-year, $30 million private lobbying operation involving a base of operations, expensive dinners, trips to private retreats, cozying up to court employees and potentially another opinion alito leak not worthy of the same response? well, justice alito denies leaking the results of the 2014 case and says he never detected any effort to obtain confidential information or to influence anything he did. so let's shift from the problems with this cozy multidecade, multimillion-dollar influence scheme to the problem with the court's inquiry into it. the first problem is no inquiry. the statements from the court that we have seen have been by the supreme court's legal

counsel addressed to chairman hank johnson in the house and myself in the senate. before the leaked stories, chairman johnson and i had sent a letter to the court asking it to address this wining and dining influence operation, whether any ethics rules were broken. after the leak story broke, we asked the court to answer similar questions about that story related to the same operation. the court's legal counsel sent two letters in response, once that we received right before the leaked story broke and one that came in just a couple of days ago. the first letter omitted to mention a pretty salient fact. the fact that the, as we now know, that mr. schenck had already sent the chief justice a letter informing the court of the influence operation and the leak. they were already on notice.

well, in a nutshell, the court's first letter back to us said we have ethics rules. great, nice to have ethics rules, but it did not indicate that any inquiry had been made to determine if those ethics rules were violated. and the second letter gave no sign of inquiry either. seeming to repeat justice alito's denials from press stories. there is a reason in ethics investigations in all three branches of government that questions are asked. the reason is that proper questions and answers help get to the truth and that false statements in that investigation can be punished. a court lawyer fishing quotes out of newspaper stories just isn't the same thing. it is not an inquiry.

not to mention that that response completely ignored the overlay of the $30 million operation, and that operation's use of the supreme court's historical society to arrange private meetings with the justices. it ignored the contemporaneous evidence that schenck in fact knew the outcome of the case in advance and had acted at that time on that knowledge. the letter was a masterwork in cherry-picking, not a proper inquiry. the obvious second problem is that with no inquiry, there is obviously no independent inquiry. independence is the hallmark of proper inquiry, whether by a prosecutor or an inspector

general or a congressional ethics committee, an independent inquiry would likely not overlook the many possible ethics problems raised by a $30 million private judicial lobbying campaign involving big donors courting republican justices. one line from this last letter is worth focusing on, toward the end the court lawyer says justice and mrs. alito did not receive any reportable gifts from the wrights. how does the ■court's lawyerknow that? did he ask justice alito? do they have a record of that conversation? did he talk to the wrights? we don't know the answer to any of these questions because there is no process in place at the court for conducting these kinds of investigations. no process, no independence,

no inquiry. let's assume that the substance of the court's first letter is true. yes, the court has an ethics code. but even if the court has an ethics code, an ethics code without any provision for a complaint to be delivered, without any provision for inquiry, without any process for enforcement, without any independence, and without any ultimate determination ever being arrived at and reported, that's not an ethics code. that's a wall decoration. congress understood this point more than 40 years ago when it passed a law mandating a process for federal courts to receive and investigate misconduct complaints against federal judges. that law just doesn't apply to the supreme court. so where are we? the court does not even have a clear place for people to submit ethics complaints. in this case it took repeated

letters from the chairman of the congress' two courts committees plus a flurry of stories in the press to get the court to respond at all. there is no procedure for how or when or whether the court conducts ethics investigations, and there is no formal process to report any findings of the nonexistent inquiries. the two essential classes that we recall from law school are civil procedure and criminal procedure. procedure matters. a supreme court justice once said procedure is the bone structure of a democratic society. procedure is the bone structure of justice. but forgive me, the supreme

court is the boneless chicken ranch of judicial ethics. you may remember the eric lawson far sidecar toon of the boneless chicken rank. that's what we're up again, a perfect illustration of this problem occurred when judge brett kavanaugh became justice brett kavanaugh. at the time kavanaugh was elevated to the supreme court, he was the subject of 83 complaints for allegedly perjuring himself and for conduct unbecoming of a federal judge during his confirmation hearings. a panel had been assigned, an inquiry was underway, independent inquiry to find facts to investigate those complaints. and that panel had acknowledged

that the allegations were, and i quote, serious. but the investigations about kavanaugh vanished when he was elevated to the supreme court. they weren't concluded. they weren't resolved. they just ended because with his appointment, kavanaugh escaped to the accountability free zone surrounding the supreme court. the $30 million wining and dining campaign is just the tip of the iceberg. there are many unanswered and evidently uninvestigated concerns. we've heard nothing from the court about whether justice thomas violated federal law by refusing to recuse himself from multiple cases implicating his wife's attempts to overturn the 2020 election. we heard nothing from the court about why the trump appointed justices shouldn't recuse

themselves from cases where dark money organizations that spent millions getting them confirmed show up, or why those dark money groups shouldn't disclose who's behind them when they show up. we've heard nothing from the court about why justice scalia took dozens of vacations seemingly paid for by people with interest before the court without disclosing those trips to the public under the court's disclosure rules. and we've heard nothing from the court about why it's appropriate for justice alito to make political statements about world leaders as he did in rome earlier this year or show up at federalist society pep rallies. i know i've been very persistent about this, but i am not alone in this regard, and i would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks be added these four recent articles. first, the supreme court has lost its ethical compass.

can it find one fast? by the respected ruth marcus, editorial page, "washington post" editor. second, confidence in the supreme court is cratering. it needs to adopt a code of ethics. by the editorial board of the "globe." the real problem -- third, the real problem with the second alleged leak at the court, the article by darlia litwwick. finally linda greenhouse's article in the atlantic magazine, what in the world happened to the supreme court. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whi -- mr. whitehouse: it's time for the supreme court to adopt a real code of ethics, with procedures for enforcing that code that are fair and transparent. justices should disclose the same gifts and travel that other federal officials are required

to disclose, like in the executive branch and in the legislative branch and in the lower courts. and the court should shine a real light on the real interests behind the phony amici curiae flotillas that show up there, like we require lobbyist disclosure. the justices ought to explain their recusal decisions to the public, with a process to help enforce our federal recusal laws. and the guiding principle in all of this should be a rule so old it is in latin, nimo judex en sua casa. no one should be a judge in their own cause. is it too late to trust the court that dark money built to take these steps on its own? is our supreme court too permeated with special interest influence to restore itself? if so, that means it's up to

congress. we can accomplish a lot by passing the bill congressman hank johnson and i drafted, the supreme court ethics, recusal, and transparency act. and in the meantime, we'll continue to pursue oversight, including oversight of these latest, troubling allegations. the people of the country deserve real answers from justices we trust to wield the power of the highest court in the country. we won't give up until we have those answers. so across the street over there, they had better get used to it. to be continued. i yield the floor.

mr. hickenlooper: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. hickenlooper: mr. president, i hoped to come to the floor to celebrate the pass and of the respect for marriage act, a bipartisan vote to give same-sex couples equal protection under the law.

i hoped we could pro athletic how far we've come. but instead, a little over a week ago, we were reminded by how much remains to be done, how far we've slid back. on saturday, november 19, a shooter walked into club q, an lgbtq haven in colorado springs and killed five innocent people, five people in a space where everyone is empowered to be who they are, to live as themselves, and to do so without fear. unfortunately, that was taken away. it's hard not to see this shooting in the context of a rise in hate speech towards the lgbt community, around a rise -- and a rise in using the community as a leb target to sce cheap political points. the entire lgbtq community has been demonized, slandered, and

defamed by politicians and public figures. 344 laws have been introduced across the country attacking the community. we've seen a resurgence of old tropes and falsehoods, and a fixation on drag shows and drag queens with baseless claims of their danger to children. according to the human rights campaign, during the last election alone $50 million worth of anti-lgbtq ads were run. at best, spreading misinformation. at worst, fueling the flames of hate. on november 19, the colorado springs lgbt community paid for that hate. they paid with their lives. the shooter walked in during a drag show, no less, and started

shooting indiscriminantly. several patrons, richard fierro and thomas james among them, ran toward the shooter and wrestled him to the ground, saving countless lives. helping richard and thomas was a drag queen who attacked the shooter with her heels. a drag queen, a supposed danger to children everywhere, courageously fighting for her life and the lives of everyone in that bar. we should be past this. we should all be past this. a clear majority of americans supports same-sex marriage, including a majority of young republicans. at its core, our country is about individual freedom, freedom to be the person you want to be, to live the life you

choose to live, however you choose to do it, so long as it doesn't infringe on others. no one in club q was doing anything, not a single thing, that harmed or infringed in any way with the rights of anyone else. there are many conversations that we need to have, about guns, about red flag laws, and about pro ticketing the lgbtq community. we also need to talk about the extremism terrorizing our country. a few loudmouths have set their sights on some of the most vulnerable among us, and decided to make them out to be the root of all their problems. so, who can be surprised that someone out there decided to walk into a drag show with a gun and just start shooting? it doesn't have to be this way. the respect for marriage act was

unthinkable not so long ago, as were openly gay senators, cabinet secretaries, or judges. stonewall wasn't just in our lifetimes. it is a living memory. but we learn. we learn, we keep moving forward, because it's hard to demonize someone when it's your sibling or your child or your best friend. we all know someone who could have been a victim, part of that shooting targeting this community. club q is a reminder that it's on us to maintain our hard-fought progress. we can't slide back. the passage of the respect for marriage act is a measure of hope and a reminder that which direction we go from here is still very much a choice.

the stakes are too high for anyone to sit on the sidelines. i yield back.

>> good afternoon everyone is an

honor to stand before you today, as the incoming house democratic leader, for the 119th congress convened on january 3rd, and be joined by my two good friends coming amazing colleagues and partners in the incoming house democratic health report from an incoming co-conspirator month regular first begin by just expressing my heartfelt thoughts and prayers for the family who tragically pathway the house democratic caucus is a family my representative was incredibly important part of the family ane will be deeply deeply missed. i also want to convey my thanks to the speaker nancy pelosi, an

extraordinary speaker for the ages. sue has delivered it so much for so many, over such a significant period of time and of caucuses veteran or countries better in the world is better because of speaker nancy pelosi's incredible leadership pretty and i hope someone think our current house majority, enter current house majority with jim clyburn and their incredible friendship some of the mentorship, and the support and proneness, and history since the very beginning of our arrival in congress and broad shoulders and building upon the incredible that they have done, and excited about the opportunities to advance of all for everyday americans as we

move forward into our future. i was born i brooklyn hospital and i was raised in crown heights. my two parents, public employees, caseworker and a social worker and middle-class working class, they were met in the midst of the clock cocaine epidemic in the 80s into the early 90s and playful for them and thankful for their love that is important prayers throughout the years and throughout my journey into adulthood my journey is a public servant. growing up and that crown heights neighborhood, first member of congress, i was ever aware of was the unknowable shirley chisholm. i eventually was be under to be

able to be elected to represent many as a brooklyn that she formally represented. and so is with particular reference, partner that is communicated to me earlier today, this actually shirley cousins birthday, 98 years ago. as the shoulders like shirley and so many others. consent that at 11:30 a.m., the senate vote on executive calendars 1148 and 1149. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations -- calendars 1205 through 12032 and all the nominations on the secretary's desk opinion confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no

intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate res. 853 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 853 recognizing november 2022 as national homeless children and youth awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. l 54 submitted earlier today.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 854 honoring the individuals fighting and the individuals who have fallen responding to wild land fires during the ongoing 2022 wildfires season. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 528, s. 4337. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 528, s. 4337, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 118 which was received today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 118 authorizing the use of the rotunda of the capitol for a ceremony to present congressional gold medals to the united states capitol police and others who protected the capitol on january 6, 2021. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 4017, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4017, a bill to designate a united states courthouse located at 111 south

high land avenue in jackson, tennessee, as the james d. todd courthouse and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 506 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 5060, a bill to redesignate the federal building locatessed at 212 third avenue in minneapolis, mp, as the paul d. wellstone federal building and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2220 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2220, an act to amend title 40 united states code to modify the treatment of certain bargain price options to purchase at less than fair market value and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent 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: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 1466 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1466, a bill to authorize the director of the united states geological survey to establish a regional program, and so forth and for

other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. s mr. schumer: i understand there is a joints resolution at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the resolution for the first time. the clerk: h.j. res. 100 to provide for a resolution with respect to the unresolved disputes between certain railroads and so forth. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading, and i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the joint resolution will be read for the second time on the next ledges lative day. -- on the next ledges lative day. mr. schumer: i move to adjourn

until 7:36:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the senate stands adjourned until 7:36 p.m. adjourn: communication to the senate.

the clerk: washington, d.c., november 30, 2022. to the senate, under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3 of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark kelly, a senator from the state of arizona, to perform duties of the charity. signed patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. en. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings approved to date, time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day. the senate in morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i understand there's a joint resolution at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the second time. the clerk: h.j. res. 100 to provide for a resolution with respect to the unresolved disputes between certain railroads and so forth.

mr. schumer: in order to place the joint resolution on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the joint resolution will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, december 1, and following the prayer and pledged, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings approved to date, the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day, around morning business be closed. that upon that, the senate resume consideration of the blackwell nomination. further, if any nominations are confirmed during thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for information of the senate, there will be two roll call votes at 11:30 a.m. with additional votes expected. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask

that it stand adjourned until the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until the senate today worked on judicial nominations, off the floor negotiations continue on funding the federal government passed december 16. when the senate returns watch live coverage, here on cspan2. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> homework can be hard but squatting and a diner for internetwork is even harder. that's all we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so hallmark can juste homework. clocks conne to compete. >> cox, along with these other television providers givinoug front row seats to democracy.

♪ c-span's washington journal every day we are taking your calls live, on the air with the news of the day and will discuss the policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, texas democratic congress cooked congressman discusses a government funding deadline and increasing the debt ceiling. the lame duck session and produce for the 118th congress. in wisconsin republican congressman will also talk about fiscal deadlines and the potential rail strike. then marie, visiting fellow at the atlantic council of europe center on the seat of u.s./france relations as a white house prepares to host a state denier for french president. watch "washington journal" live at seven eastern thursday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets.

>> thursday commodity futures trading commission chair talk testifies in the recent collapse of the crypto currency companies in the next steps in the regulation of digital securities. watch live coverage of the senate agriculture committee starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now our free mobile video out or online c-span.org. join us this thursday live on c-span for the first official white house state dinner of the biden administration as president biden and first lady jill biden welcome the president to france and his wife to washington celebrating the relationship between the united states in one of its closest allies. grammy award-winning artist will perform watch the white house state dinner alive