Floor Statements

Mr. President, Judge Holly Thomas is a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She went through the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is a bipartisan committee of 11 to 11. She was before the committee, available for questions and available for written questions soon afterward.

If the Senator from Alaska or any other Senator has a grievance with the White House's procedure on how to handle his nominees, so be it, but is she going to be punished because that decision was made at the White House level? She went through the committee, as we asked her to, and made herself available. She has an extraordinary record as a jurist, and to dismiss her because of a disagreement with the White House on the procedure on his nominees, I don't think it is fair. I think she deserves to be judged on her merits, and on her merits, she should be sitting on the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will consider the nomination of Judge Holly Thomas for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Thomas is a highly qualified nominee. Her extensive experience as an appellate litigator and a California State court judge will serve her well on the Ninth Circuit.

And, if confirmed, she would be the first Black woman from California to serve on that court.

A San Diego native, Judge Thomas was drawn to a career in law at a young age. Her mother--a bookkeeper--used to take her to the San Diego courthouse to watch the proceedings. That experience inspired her to pursue a law degree at Yale Law School--which she did after receiving her undergraduate degree from Stanford University with Honors and Distinction.

After law school, Judge Thomas began her legal career as a clerk for Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw on the Ninth Circuit.

She then began an expansive appellate litigation career, initially working at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where she focused on education and issues related to criminal justice.

In 2010, Judge Thomas joined the Justice Department, where she worked as a Senior Attorney in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division. In this role, she argued appeals on behalf of the United States before multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals--including the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits.

After 5 years at the Justice Department, Judge Thomas went on to work for the Office of the New York Solicitor General, where she served as special counsel. In this role, Judge Thomas argued multiple cases before the Second Circuit and in the State courts of New York.

In 2016, Judge Thomas became the deputy director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, where she helped enforce State and Federal civil rights laws.

Since 2018, she has served on the Los Angeles County Superior Court-- with the exception of this past summer. In May, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court chose Judge Thomas to serve as judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeals. And she returned to the LA County Superior Court earlier this year.

During her time on the bench, Judge Thomas has handled hundreds of cases that have gone to verdict or judgment, and she has presided over thousands of hearings. As judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeals, she sat on numerous appellate court panels and authored seven opinions, all of which were unanimous.

In short, Judge Thomas has demonstrated that she is a fair, impartial, and evenhanded jurist.

She has extensive experience as a both a trial and appellate court judge. And before her appointment to the bench, she represented a wide range of litigants.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Thomas as ``Qualified'' to sit on the Ninth Circuit.

And she has the strong support of her home State senators--Senators Feinstein and Padilla.

Additionally, as only the second Black woman to ever serve on the Ninth Circuit, Judge Thomas will help

bring much needed diversity to our Federal judiciary.

Given her varied professional background, years of appellate experience, and her accomplishments on the bench, Judge Thomas will be an excellent addition to the Ninth Circuit. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me in closing say: I think we should be respectful and try to work with one another and cooperate. That also includes the over 100 nominees sitting on this calendar who have been obstructed by two or three Republican Members for weeks, if not months. If there is going to be fairness, let's make sure that the road travels in both directions.

I yield back all remaining time.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is a curious thing about tipping points in the quest for progress. Very often, the events that cleave history into ``before'' and ``after'' can seem insignificant when they happen. That might have been true 29 years ago, when the National Institutes of Health named a 42-year-old professor from the University of Michigan to direct one of NIH's newest cutting-edge institutes.

The professor's name was Francis Collins. The New York Times' account of his arrival ran 117 words.

His mission at NIH was to lead what we called then the Human Genome Project, an international quest to discover the genetic blueprint for human life. It was the scientific equivalent of the search for the Holy Grail. There were just as many skeptics as believers in that undertaking.

But less than 6 years later, in June 2000, the first mapping of the human genome was complete. Overnight, that obscure professor from Michigan, Francis Collins, became one of the most famous scientists in the world.

The decoding of the human genome was the achievement of a historic public-private partnership between the NIH's genome lab, headed by Dr. Collins and a private firm--a rival turned partner--founded by the genetic pioneer, Craig Venter. It involved hundreds of scientists from six nations. It remains one of the greatest advances in scientific knowledge in all of recorded history.

In a White House ceremony announcing the first sequencing of the human genome, Dr. Collins said he was humbled and awed by the discovery. In his words: ``We have caught the first glimpses of our instruction book, previously known only to God.''

Cracking the genetic code of human life has revolutionized science and medicine. It continues to yield profound medical discoveries all the time.

That historic discovery could have been the capstone of any career in science, but for Francis Collins, there was an amazing second act to follow.

In 2009, President Obama chose Francis Collins to lead the entire National Institutes of Health, the largest

biomedical research agency in the world. In that capacity, Dr. Collins routinely works 100-hour weeks, oversees 18,000 Federal employees spread across 27 Institutes and Centers in 75 buildings--mainly in Bethesda, MD, but also in Baltimore, North Carolina, Arizona, and Montana.

Those numbers only quantify the NIH infrastructure. Their actual work is even more impressive. In fiscal year 2020, the NIH awarded more than 50,000 grants to more than 300,000 researchers working in universities and laboratories outside the NIH--in Illinois, in Minnesota, in Colorado, and virtually every State in the Nation.

At the end of this month, after 12 years, Francis Collins is stepping down as NIH Director. Thankfully, he is not stepping away from science. In a signature Collins move, the doctor is going back to his research roots, back to head a laboratory at the NIH's Human Genome Institute, where he hopes to find treatments and cures for cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and other devastating illnesses.

He has led NIH for 12 years under three Presidents, Democrat and Republican, making him the longest tenured head of the Agency since Presidents began selecting NIH heads 50 years ago.

What distinguishes Francis Collins' tenure as NIH Director, however, is not its length but his extraordinary ambition and record of achievement. My friend former Senator Barbara Mikulski, who chaired once the Senate Appropriations Committee, famously said that the initials NIH should stand for the ``National Institutes of Hope.''

As NIH Director, Francis Collins has worked tirelessly to live up to that ideal.

As the Washington Post wrote, ``He brought together scientists across disciplines and championed the hunt for biomedical advances in troves of data. He gave meaning to the promise of big science.''

He embraced ambitious projects such as the BRAIN Initiative, a collaborative effort to map the most complex organism on Earth, the human brain. It engaged engineers who had never worked on life sciences before, and it just might help unlock the mysteries of ALS, Alzheimer's, and other diseases of the brain.

He launched the Cancer Moonshot with then-Vice President Joe Biden and played an integral role in helping to make now-President Joe Biden's dream of an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health a reality.

He created the ``All of Us'' Research Program, an effort to collect data about the genomic basis of disease from 1 million volunteers to advance our knowledge on how to cure it.

He has been equally passionate about supporting the work of young scientists, including women and scientists of color. The absence of women researchers used to jokingly be referred to on research panels as ``manels.'' In 2017, Francis Collins said that he would no longer speak at any conference in which women researchers were not featured.

He made it a priority to minority scientists and to make sure NIH- funded research addressed the health needs and historic concerns of communities of color.

Nearly 7 years ago, I asked Dr. Collins: ``What does NIH need from Congress to continue to achieve breakthroughs you envision?''

At that point, the NIH had seen flat funding for several years. Inflation had eroded the number of research ideas they could support, and many young researchers were really questioning whether they had any future at the Institution.

Dr. Collins said simply: ``If you can provide steady, predictable increases to our budget of 5 percent real growth each year, we can light up the scoreboard.''

I thought that sounded like a worthy goal so I enlisted my Senate friends Roy Blunt of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as partners. Senator Lindsey Graham and I came together and formed the bipartisan Senate NIH Caucus.

With the determined leadership of Francis Collins and support of Senators from both sides of the aisle--listen to this--we have been able to increase funding for NIH by more than 40 percent over the last 6 years.

Some people say: Why should the taxpayers be paying for this research? Why not leave it to the free market; they make the money out of it.

The answer is: The NIH funds the kinds of basic science that costs too much and takes too long for private companies driven by need for quarterly profits.

One timely example: Years ago, a Hungarian-born American biochemist named Katalin Kariko had a hunch that messenger RNA--mRNA--could be used to instruct cells to make their own medicines or vaccines. The NIH funded this early research of this immigrant superstar when nobody else would. Last year, that research became the backbone of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

One year ago yesterday, the first vaccine was administered, and more than 450 million shots have followed in America since then. The majority were mRNA vaccines.

According to a new study released by the Commonwealth Fund, the American vaccination program prevented 1.1 million COVID deaths and prevented 10.3 million COVID hospitalizations last year. Vaccines save lives, and NIH taxpayer-funded research made these vaccines possible.

There are millions of people who have never heard of Francis Collins, but they are alive and healthy today because of the Human Genome Project and his ambitious agenda at NIH as well as the talented scientists he nurtured.

He is an American treasure, one of the most important scientists of our time. As Dr. Collins prepares to end his historic tenure as NIH Director and return to his lab, I want to thank him for his tireless work, his good humor, his good advice, and great friendship.

I also want to thank his family, especially his wife Diane Baker, a genetic counselor herself, who volunteers at the NIH Children's Inn, where families stay while their sick kids are participating in clinical trials.

And thanks to the thousands and thousands of dedicated researchers who have worked with Dr. Collins to realize his noble ambitions.

Dr. Francis Collins, America is a better place thanks to your singular contribution to spare suffering and to cure the illnesses we face. I wish you many more happy years of discovery.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the monstrous chain of tornadoes and violent storms that rampaged across Illinois and five other States last Friday is a terrible reminder in America that we are all one people.

The killer storms didn't stop at State lines. They didn't discriminate based on skin color, creed, political party, or age. Among the more than 90 victims that we know of at this moment, the eldest was 86 years old; the youngest, sadly, was a tiny baby of just 5 months old.

Even as people in my State of Illinois grieve for victims in our State, we also mourn for and with all those who died and are suffering in nearby States: Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, and especially our neighbor to the south, Kentucky.

Senator McConnell has spoken, and we have all seen reports, of the staggering destruction in Mayfield, KY, and other communities.

I want to say a few words about the destruction that was wreaked on my own State and also about the tremendous outpouring of compassion and community.

The National Weather Service tells us more than 30 tornadoes tore through 6 States last Friday night. The most destructive may go down as the longest continuous tornado in the history of the United States. That tornado appears to have remained on the ground for 4 hours, traveling 290 miles across

four States, pulverizing everything in its path.

From Kentucky, there were reports of objects being lifted 30,000 feet in the air by the force of the tornado. Treasured family photos were found 100 miles away. Sadly, at least 80 people have lost their lives in Kentucky.

In Illinois, we have also suffered staggering losses. Four tornadoes tore across our State between 7:30 and 10 last Friday. The greatest devastation was in Edwardsville, IL, Madison County, where a powerful tornado with winds up to 155 miles an hour peeled the roof off a massive Amazon distribution facility about 9 o'clock. I know the facility. I have been there.

Massive concrete walls 11 inches thick and 40 feet high caved in, trapping employees who were working to fill Christmas and holiday orders. Fire and rescue crews from at least 20 communities rushed to the scene. More than 45 workers managed to escape from that mountain of rubble, but 6 workers died when the warehouse collapsed. The oldest was 62; the youngest was 26. Thirty more workers were hurt. One is still hospitalized with critical injuries.

I know I speak for millions of Americans when I say that our hearts go out to all those who perished in Friday's tornadoes and to those they left behind.

I thank President Biden for responding quickly. Yesterday, our Governor, JB Pritzker, requested an emergency declaration, and of course we joined him. The President issued the emergency order just a few hours after that request. This assistance will help our State immediately, but there is more to do. Our thanks to the Red Cross and so many volunteers, local residents in communities across Illinois, for pitching in to help the victims. Supplementing that fine work are volunteers who have come to help in any way they can.

It was ironic that last week I had a coffee for a man named Jose Andres. Jose Andres is well known by many across the country for his extraordinary efforts to feed hungry people. Last Tuesday, he spoke to us, a few members of our caucus, about his nonprofit organization, the World Central Kitchen. They have come to the rescue of people in need in Puerto Rico and Haiti and all across the United States and around the world.

Today, World Central Kitchen is on the ground in Mayfield, KY, where the tornadoes struck last Friday, providing hot food to the victims. It is a time when America, a divided nation, actually sees our Nation coming together.

The tornadoes didn't distinguish between red States and blue States, between Trump supporters and Biden supporters, and it is my great hope that the Senate will also put aside its politics for a few moments and stand together to help the victims.

Mr. President, on a related matter, while we cannot say that last week's killer tornadoes were directly related to climate change, there is no doubt among scientists that climate change is making the world's weather patterns more volatile and destructive.

How many times in the past year have Members of this Senate come to the floor to respond to a once-in-a-century heat wave or a once-in-a- century storm that has hit their home State? I will just say, for tornadoes, you can't be a kid growing up in the Midwest, as I was, and not know about tornadoes--how many times in the middle of the summer we were rousted from our bed as the sirens went off, and Mom would take us down to the basement, a safe place, until the storm would blow over. That was a summer phenomena.

I just have to remind you that we just went through a December tornado in that same area--unheard of in years gone by.

Over the summer, the Pacific Northwest burned in the worst heat wave on record; there were droughts in Western States; a polar vortex knocked a Texas power grid offline. Each of these deadly and disastrous weather events are related to the next, and it is fair warning to all of us that what is happening to the climate in the United States is happening around the world.

Just yesterday, scientists warned that a glacier the size of Florida is at risk of splitting apart in the next few years, causing catastrophic rise in sea levels that could threaten the millions of people living in coastal areas.

When we talk about Build Back Better, the reconciliation bill, and that part of the bill that is focused on environmental resilience, being ready to protect ourselves and to bounce back, if necessary, when extreme weather hits, it is the topic in this morning's newspaper, and it will be in tomorrow's as well.

We ought to be coming together and finally putting aside our political differences and realize that climate change is the threat to us now and an even greater threat to our children and grandchildren.

Last week, I received a letter from one of the small business owners in our area, Dr. Dane Glueck. A few years ago, he started a company called StraightUp Solar, developing solar energy systems for homes and businesses in my State of Illinois and Missouri.

He wrote and he said: ``Solar is a job-creator, and the long-term tax incentives in the Build Back Better Act for solar, storage, and domestic manufacturing will put us on a path to decarbonize the electric grid, reach the President's 2035 clean energy target, and create hundreds of thousands of quality career opportunities in every community.''

Today, Dr. Glueck employs almost 100 people throughout the Midwest, but with investments in the Build Back Better Act, the reconciliation bill, he is going to expand operation and hire more workers. Let's give him the incentive that he needs.

I heard the Senator from Kentucky, the Republican leader, coming to the floor, and, once again, he is critical of this whole effort. I wish he would stop and reflect on the fact that our incentives to move in the right direction on the environment really are an important part of the conversation we should have after the devastation last Friday in his State and mine and across the Midwest.

It is time to transform our environmental crisis into an economic catalyst.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. and that all time during recess count equally against both sides on the joint resolution.

For the information of Senators, we expect a rollcall vote on the passage of S.J. Res. 33 to occur at approximately 4 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on three highly qualified judicial nominees: Judge Lucy Koh, nominated to the Ninth Circuit; Jennifer Sung, also nominated to the Ninth Circuit; and Samantha Elliott, nominated to the District of New Hampshire.

These nominees will bring much-needed professional and demographic diversity to the bench. They have the qualifications and character needed to serve effectively in the Judiciary. And all three have records that demonstrate an evenhanded and unbiased approach to the law.

Judge Lucy Koh has served as a district court judge for the Northern District of California for more than a decade. When President Obama nominated her to that role in 2010, she was confirmed in the Senate with broad, bipartisan support, a 90-0 margin. That unanimous support reflected Judge Koh's abilities and experience and also a deep sense of trust that that she would be ready to take on the demands of the Federal district court from day 1.

Well, Judge Koh has certainly risen to the occasion. As a district court judge, she has issued thousands of written opinions. And she has presided over 271 trials. Notably, Judge Koh has grappled with many complex--and often novel--questions of law, particularly those related to technology. These are the kinds of questions that regularly make their way to the circuit courts. So we know that Judge Koh is already wellversed in the types of cases she will encounter on the Ninth Circuit.

What is more, during her time on the bench, Judge Koh has exemplified the hallmarks of what makes an outstanding judge, She engages in thoughtful, well-reasoned analysis; follows precedent, irrespective of whether she agrees with it; and always--always--applies the law to the facts in an evenhanded, impartial way.

Judge Koh was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association to serve on the circuit court. And upon confirmation, she will be the first Korean-American woman to ever serve on a circuit court.

Judge Koh received a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee, and I hope she receives bipartisan support here on the floor.

The Senate will also be voting on Jennifer Sung's nomination to the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Sung is a distinguished jurist who will bring a vital, and underrepresented, perspective to the Federal bench.

After graduating from Yale Law School and clerking on the Ninth Circuit, Ms. Sung spent over a decade representing American workers in labor disputes. These workers were often minorities from low-income backgrounds. In 2017, Ms. Sung's expertise in labor law attracted the attention of Oregon Governor Kate Brown, who appointed her to serve on the Oregon Employment Relations Board.

The ERB, as it is called, is a quasi-judicial agency charged with resolving labor disputes. As a member of the three-person panel, Ms. Sung reviews evidentiary records, independently evaluates the law, and works in a collaborative manner to reach a consensus on opinions. In other words, she has already handled many of the responsibilities that come with being a Circuit Court Judge. So Ms. Sung will be right at home on the Ninth Circuit.

In addition to the professional diversity Ms. Sung will bring to the bench as an expert in labor law, she will also bring important demographic diversity. If confirmed, she would make history as the first Asian-American woman to hold an Oregon seat on the Ninth Circuit.

Ms. Sung has presided over hundreds of legal matters--only three of which have been overturned. She has demonstrated a commitment to impartiality, a thoughtful approach to decision-making, and a keen ability to separate her personal views from the law and the facts at hand. That is also reflected by the fact that the American Bar Association rated Ms. Sung as ``well qualified.''

Finally, the Senate will soon take up Samantha Elliott's nomination to the District of New Hampshire. Ms. Elliott has spent her entire legal career in New Hampshire. With her deep knowledge of the State's legal system and her evenhanded approach to the law, she will make an outstanding Federal judge.

Ms. Elliott is an accomplished litigator who has spent much of her career representing New Hampshire municipalities and their employees. She has also dedicated herself to increasing access to justice. As a co founder of 603 Legal Aid, Ms. Elliott has worked tirelessly to provide legal services to members of low-income communities. And she has dedicated countless hours to her pro bono legal work.

With her considerable experience in both State and Federal courts, it is little surprise that Ms. Elliott was unanimously rated as ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. She also received a bipartisan vote of 15-7 in the Judiciary Committee.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting these three highly qualified nominees. With their breadth of credentials, experience, and commitment to the rule of law, each of them will make outstanding additions to the Federal bench.

Mr. President, after Watergate, Congress passed the Inspector General Act, creating independent watchdogs who would ensure integrity, transparency, and accountability for executive branch Agencies and officials.

Since then, inspectors general have played a vital role in exposing misconduct by administrations of both political parties. Over the years, IGs have proven indispensable--so much so that Congress has repeatedly expanded their ranks--originally 12 after the 1978 Inspector General Act, to now 74 separate, independent inspectors general in the Federal Government.

In 1988, Congress created several new inspectors general, including an inspector general for the Department of Justice. The IG oversees Justice Department components ranging from the FBI to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

But there is a problem. There is a loophole. There is one clear omission when it comes to the authority of the inspector general. Listen. The Justice Department inspector general cannot investigate professional misconduct by Justice Department lawyers. Let me repeat that. The Justice Department inspector general cannot investigate misconduct by Justice Department lawyers.

This means the Department's independent inspector general cannot investigate allegations of misconduct by lawyers in the Department's National Security Division, Criminal Division, 93 offices of U.S. attorneys, or even the Attorney General himself.

Well, what does this result in?

All too often, Justice Department officials from the administrations of both political parties have escaped independent scrutiny by the inspector general.

The IG was unable to investigate, for example, discovery violations during the prosecution of our former colleague Ted Stevens. The inspector general was unable to investigate the unethical non- prosecution agreement with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. And absent approval by the Attorney General or his deputy, the inspector general cannot investigate professional misconduct by high-ranking Department of Justice political appointees.

This lawyer loophole, of all places, is unique to the Justice Department. The Department of Justice--I want this clear for the record--is the only, only, Agency in the Federal Government whose inspector general cannot investigate professional misconduct by Agency lawyers. I hope that is clear.

Inspectors general investigate the activity and conduct of lawyers in every other Federal Agency other than the Department of Justice. Instead, DOJ lawyers get special treatment. They aren't subject to the inspector general like every other Federal agency. Instead, they are under the supervision of the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, known as OPR.

Now, I don't dispute the skill or dedication of OPR. The problem is not their qualifications; it is their independence.

Listen to this. Unlike the inspector general, OPR reports to the Attorney General, who can control and even terminate investigations. This doesn't happen in any other Federal Agency. This creates an unfair double standard where every other DOJ employee is subject to inspector general scrutiny.

So if you are an FBI agent, the inspector general is going to be watching your conduct to make sure it is proper. Drug enforcement agents in the Department of Justice, subject to the inspector general; U.S. marshals, subject to the inspector general; Federal prison guards, inspector general. They can all be investigated by the independent inspector general, except for the lawyers. And it enables the appearance, if not the reality, of politicization in cases where the alleged misconduct involves high-ranking Department attorneys.

For years, literally decades across administrations, other Senators before us and Senator Lee and myself now have worked to close the lawyer loophole with our Inspector General Access Act. He advocated for this bill when Bill Barr was the Attorney General of President Trump. I am advocating for this bill when Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of President Biden.

You would be hard pressed to find a bill with broader-based bipartisan support. Our original cosponsors include--and he is here today on the floor--my colleague Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Rubio, Klobuchar, Cruz, Coons, Blackburn, Blumenthal, and Hirono, to name a few.

Last year, we considered this bill in the Judiciary Committee and we reported it out of the committee after a debate, and the vote was 21 to 1 to bring this bill to the floor. Unfortunately, it didn't pass last year. It passed the House. It passed again this year in the House.

This broad support reflects a basic principle: No Attorney General from either political party should be insulated from independent scrutiny by the inspector general; and no Attorney General should have veto power over the inspector general's authority to investigate Department of Justice attorneys, whether that Attorney General is a Democrat or a Republican.

Mr. President, I would like at this point to yield to my colleague Senator Lee.

I thank the Senator from Utah for his cosponsorship of this bipartisan measure.

I want to yield at this point to the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I can't think of a single Member on either side of the aisle who has been as outspoken as Senator Grassley of Iowa on the role and the importance of inspectors general.

I yield the floor to Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his spirited support of this effort. I am glad he used that classic example. Of all the hearings--and we have had many good ones and many important ones--in the Senate Judiciary Committee this year. The one we all remember is when the gymnasts came, the Olympic gymnasts came. These wonderful, young women came before us and summoned the courage to tell us about the abuse that took place by a man who purported to be a doctor, Larry Nassar.

Sitting next to them during the entire presentation was the head of the FBI, taking the medicine he should have taken, because the inspector general gave us a graphic report of how the agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation let those young women down. When they summoned the courage to come forward and tell the world what had happened to them, it was virtually ignored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Thank goodness the inspector general was there to be critical, to produce the evidence, and to make it clear to the American people that this conduct was disgusting and deplorable and unacceptable.

The inspector general was critical for the administration of justice. Why is it any different if, instead of an attorney who works for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we are talking about an attorney who works in a U.S. Attorney's Office somewhere in the United States or in the Department of Justice itself? It shouldn't make a difference.

As Senator Grassley and Senator Lee have made clear, all we are asking for is the same level of accountability for attorneys in the Department of Justice that applies to every other Federal Agency. Why are we treating these attorneys any differently?

Senator Grassley makes the point--we are succumbing to bureaucratic deference at a time when we ought to have our eyes wide open, and wide open, we would see that this bill, which was extensively debated and discussed last year and reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Graham by a vote of 21 to 1, wasn't called on the calendar. We are bringing it back this year in the same manner. The bill has not changed. We are bringing it back this year, and I believe now is the time for us to do what is right for the cause of justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 426 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table.

I am disappointed by the objection by the Senator from Arkansas.

This has overwhelmingly bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate, and we had an opportunity to make history today and we missed that opportunity for the moment.

The suggestion that inspectors general are not up to the job of inspecting attorneys, I am afraid if you look at the fact that every other Federal Agency's lawyers are subject to review and scrutiny by the inspector general of their departments, it certainly says that particular observation is not accurate.

The argument that the Attorney General, because he is approved by the President directly and by Congress, should be the person to make this decision overlooks the obvious. Each inspector general goes through the approval process, the nomination process, and advise and consent of the Senate. So they are subject to the same level of scrutiny.

I might also add that what we are suggesting has been an evolution that I think really calls for this change that we have asked for in this measure. In the course of that evolution, in the year 2002, the inspector general's responsibilities were extended within the Department of Justice to apply to both the FBI and DEA agents who are involved, obviously, in significant law enforcement operations within the Department. The inspector general has handled that responsibility without jeopardizing any prosecutions. So I think that argument is certainly a weak argument when you look at the facts since 2002.

We will return with this. I am glad to have bipartisan support of Senators Lee and Grassley, who will have more to say on the subject.

I believe if we are going to apply this standard of IG responsibility for lawyers' activity across Federal Government, there is no reason to make an exception for the Department of Justice.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the confirmation of the Smith nomination scheduled for 5:15 p.m. instead occur at 6:45 p.m.; that upon disposition of the Smith nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and that all time in relation to S.J. Res. 29 be expired.

Therefore, for the information of Senators, there will be two rollcall votes beginning at 6:45 p.m.