-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I value him on the committee. I thank him for his friendship. Though we may disagree today, I hope we find room to agree tomorrow.

Mr. President, this bipartisan bill, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, was signed into law in August of 2022, almost 2 years ago. It was part of what was known as the PACT Act. This was an important bill to provide a day in court, finally, for U.S. marines and others who were poisoned by contaminated water in Camp Lejeune, NC.

For over three decades, from 1953 to 1987, marines, their families, and others working and living in Camp Lejeune were exposed to a toxic mix of industrial solvents and other chemicals in their drinking water. As a result, as many as 1 million people are at an increased risk of cancer, Parkinson's, and other debilitating diseases.

Had these individuals suffered the same harm in another place, they would have been able to go to court and seek compensation for their injuries, but unfortunately hurdles in the law locked servicemembers and their families out of the judicial system. For decades, they suffered without any ability to have their day in court, despite their injuries.

That changed with the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which was led by Senator Tillis--and I thank him for that--as well as Senator Blumenthal, Senator Burr, and Senator Peters. It finally allowed marines the opportunity, after literally decades of waiting, to seek justice by filing a lawsuit in Federal court if an administrative claims process did not reach a satisfactory resolution.

Now, there have been some problems with the implementation of this bill. I will be the first to admit that. We need to work--and I am happy to work with Senator Tillis--on a bipartisan basis to address these problems just as we did with the Camp Lejeune Justice Act.

The bill was proposed by the Senators from North Carolina. The one he proposes aims to help veterans, but unfortunately it has several serious shortcomings. First, it would require attorneys to provide Camp Lejeune victims a written acknowledgement that they are required to sign. This acknowledgement would state that the victim--plaintiff-- understands that they may seek guidance free of charge from veterans service organizations, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, their congressional representatives, and the Department of the Navy.

But this acknowledgement won't be accurate in all the cases. For example, not all the Camp Lejeune claimants are veterans. Many are civilians who worked at the camp. For these individuals, it is inaccurate to say, as this bill does, that they get free guidance from veterans service organizations or the Veterans' Administration.

Second, the bill would require attorneys to submit a second written acknowledgement with the Secretary of the Navy stating that the client understands that legal representation by an attorney is not required to file an action pursuing a Camp Lejeune claim. This is technically correct.

Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, legal representation may be needed to have any chance at successfully pursuing your claim. Just look at the experience to date. Remember, this bill was passed 2 years ago almost. To date, almost no Camp Lejeune claims have been paid by the Navy. As of the end of February, 1,530 Camp Lejeune claims have been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and 170,502 administrative claims are on file with the Navy. Of all those thousands of claims, only 48 cases have been determined to meet the government's criteria for settlement based on submitted documentation. Even there, the process for uploading what are known as the ``substantiation documents'' has been extremely difficult for families to understand.

And for cases that will ultimately be litigated, the process can be lengthy, complicated, and expensive. Toxic exposure cases are not easy to prepare or prove, particularly when they relate to conduct that happened decades ago. Victims will need to go through ``discovery.'' For many of them, it will be the first time they have heard the word in that context. And they may need to retain expert witnesses to demonstrate causation.

While all of this can technically be done without an attorney, it is practically impossible to do so and have your claim succeed. So steering victims away from legal representation may eliminate any chance of recovery.

Finally, this bill contains a provision stating that a law firm that receives ``veteran data'' from an advertising agency must reduce their legal fee in an amount equal to the cost incurred to receive that data. It is unclear to me, in reading this bill, what the term ``veteran data'' even means. Additionally, this requirement would discourage attorneys from reaching out to potential plaintiffs who may have worked at Camp Lejeune years in the past and may not even know they are eligible for compensation.

After fighting so hard to make sure those poisoned by the water at Camp Lejeune can finally have their day in court, we should not now close the courtroom door all over again.

Let me be clear. If there are unscrupulous lawyers or nonlawyers who are deceiving veterans or running scam solicitations, I want to join in a bipartisan effort to crack down on them.

There is a bill, the GUARD VA Benefits Act, which has 42 bipartisan cosponsors, that is properly scoped to do just that. Current law prohibits individuals or businesses from assisting a veteran in preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a VA claim unless they are accredited by the Veterans' Administration. They are also prohibited from charging fees for this assistance before the VA makes a decision on the claim.

However, the VA and other Agencies are limited in their ability to enforce the law because criminal penalties were eliminated from the statute about 20 years ago. The GUARD VA Benefits Act would reinstate those criminal penalties.

This bill is a top priority for veterans organizations that have been working for years to combat predatory practices of unaccredited entities who charge unauthorized fees while purporting to help veterans with their disability claims. These are the types of reforms that will actually help veterans from Camp Lejeune and others as they seek compensation benefits.

I will be happy to work with the Senator from North Carolina to make sure that veterans are protected from unscrupulous actors while ensuring that we don't inhibit quality advocates from helping veterans finally get their day in court, but I cannot support the bill in its current form, and I would object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source