Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday, Chicago reported its first case of the new coronavirus variant, Omicron. Our State's health officials predicted this day would come; it did. They are actively preparing for additional cases.

The World Health Organization has identified it as a variant of concern. It has the potential for increased transmissibility and could possibly--I underline ``possibly''--evade some protections from existing vaccines.

But as we begin to learn about this variant, some hopeful signs have emerged. On Sunday, Dr. Fauci described early data on the severity of Omicron as ``encouraging.'' Additionally, today, we received preliminary findings that patients are better protected against Omicron with a third Pfizer dose.

And while it is still too soon to draw any definitive conclusions-- too soon--what is clear is that the historic investments we have made-- the Senate and President Biden--these investments in public health are paying off.

Thanks to the American Rescue Plan--which we passed earlier this year on, sadly, a partisan rollcall without a single Republican vote-- America is more prepared. That rescue package not only funded production and distribution of lifesaving vaccines; it paved the way for public health officials to detect and track new variants like Omicron. It provided more than a billion dollars toward expanding and accelerating genomic sequencing, the process that allows us to analyze how the coronavirus is evolving and spreading in realtime, so we can respond.

Thanks to this investment today, America is sequencing roughly 80,000 virus samples a week. Before President Biden took office, we were sequencing fewer than 3,000; now, 80,000 a week. That has made a world of difference when it comes to tracking the spread of a variant.

In less than 2 weeks since the variant was discovered in South Africa, it has been identified in at least 19 States in addition to Illinois.

As we await more data on the risk Omicron poses to the public, here are three things we know. First--and it bears repeating--the best protection is to get vaccinated. Ninety-five percent of Americans are eligible, and 70 percent have already gotten at least one shot. Within days, we will hit the impressive milestone of 200 million Americans getting fully vaccinated. We need to continue to promote this incredible safety tool, and that means booster shots as well.

Second, America must continue to support the global vaccine campaign. As I have said before, COVID doesn't know borders. As long as it is circulating across the globe, the risk of virus mutation growing stronger and roaring back into the United States continues to be real.

Fortunately, the Biden administration has already taken important steps to address global vaccine inequality and get more shots to low- income countries. Just this week, USAID announced a $400 million investment in a new global vaccine access program to deliver vaccines to remote parts of the world.

I just got off the phone with Dr. Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital, a prolific author, and a man who is very insightful. He has agreed to step forward and to work with Administrator Samantha Power at USAID. He is the right person for this job at this very moment. So I encourage my colleagues to let him move off the calendar and into the job as quickly as possible. We need his expertise at USAID.

The third point I would like to make is that we need to build on the American Rescue Plan's investment in public health. Effective public health systems are like smoke detectors: They can alert us to deadly dangers long before they threaten.

At the start of this pandemic, America's public health system had been ignored and underfunded for years. That is the reason why we proposed nearly $10 billion in the Build Back Better plan, which we are currently working on, to improve laboratory capacity, disease detection, the workforce, and public health preparedness. This funding will fortify our public health system at a time when it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. President, on a related matter, just before Thanksgiving, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act. It is one of the most pro-family pieces of legislation in modern history.

For nearly 50 years, the wealthy in America have gotten richer while the middle class has been squeezed. Build Back Better is about restoring fairness.

Four years ago, when the Republicans had their chance to use the reconciliation process, they really identified their highest priority: tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They continue to hold to the philosophy that if you give tax breaks to wealthy people, eventually people who are in the middle-income categories--working families--will start to see some benefits coming their way. I couldn't disagree more.

I believe investing in working families in America has always been the best investment. These are families with kids who are destined for college and even better jobs if we invest in those families and give them a fighting chance. The wealthy are going to do just fine by themselves, and they are doing pretty well, I might add.

We have got to make sure that this Build Back Better Act, which President Biden supports, really focuses on working families. And that is why the

bill that passed the House has the largest tax cut for middle-class and working families ever in America's history.

That bears repeating.

Four years ago, the Republicans gave a tax break to the wealthiest people in America. The bill that we are considering will give the largest tax cut for middle class and working families in our Nation's history. It helps families with big-ticket items that keep people up at night: affordable childcare; universal pre-kindergarten; expanded, affordable healthcare coverage; help with affordable housing. It makes serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Let's be very clear about it. I can remember a time when the whole issue of climate change and global warming was a truly bipartisan concern. The bills that used to come to the floor were cosponsored by the likes of John McCain and Joe Lieberman, a Republican and a Democrat, both very seriously concerned about what was happening to the world's environment.

That is no longer the case. It is a struggle for us to get Republicans to even acknowledge that there is a challenge, let alone accept the challenge of the solutions that lie ahead.

We need to make serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change. And critically important to our future economic prosperity, we need Build Back Better to make investments in higher education and affordability, which is the next topic I would like to address.

I urge my colleagues to resist any attempt to remove this provision during floor consideration. Do not open the spigot of Federal dollars to this predatory industry. They have syphoned off enough money and ruined enough lives of students as it is. We shouldn't perpetuate this terrible fraud.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I can be recognized.

Let me say to my colleague from Florida, I like your resolution, and I really think it speaks to the sentiment shared by the vast majority--maybe even all of the U.S. Senators.

I am not certain how to pronounce this young lady's name--Peng Shuai.

Peng Shuai. Well, I will accept you as my Mandarin coach and refer to her as Peng Shuai.

It is outrageous. She reports sexual abuse by a high-ranking official and then she disappears and they feed us occasional videotapes.

Well, I want to join you in commending the Women's Tennis Association, and I also want to add that I

think the President was correct in not only saying that we were going to withhold any diplomats being sent over to China during the next round of the Olympic Games, but I understand the administration is reaching out to other countries to join us.

Whether it is the Uighers or whether it is Ms. Peng Shuai, outrageous human rights abuses should not be ignored. And as I glance at your resolution here, it looks like you hit the nail on the head.

So why am I reserving the right to object?

Here is something that I think would be helpful in the cause of human rights. What if the United States of America actually had an Ambassador in China?

Think about that possibility. We would have someone representing our country on the scene in Beijing working for the United States, speaking up for human rights.

Well, what is holding us back? Why won't Biden nominate somebody for this job?

Well, it turns out he did, a man named Nicholas Burns.

Well, we all know him. He has a long record of diplomacy in Foreign Service--service in Russia and other places. He is a key man in the State Department and one that we can rely on. And he should be in Beijing fighting for the causes that you and I agree on today.

What can possibly be holding him up? We need him there.

Well, it turns out he is being held up by that side of the aisle objecting to his being called.

Well, we have a chance to resolve that today. We can pass not only your resolution, but we can appoint Mr. Burns as the Ambassador to China and get it done and he could be on a plane in the morning.

How about that? That would be an amazing thing to accomplish. You take that home to Florida, and I will take that home to Illinois. It is a good day's work.

And so, to reach that end, I ask that the pending request be modified as follows: Notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Calendar No. 525, R. Nicholas Burns, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to People's Republic of China; that the nomination be confirmed, 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 the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and then, as if in legislative session, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of your resolution, S. Res. 474, submitted earlier today; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.

What an amazing bipartisan achievement that we can put together in just a few minutes here.

Mr. President, time is wasting. We need an Ambassador to China.

I am sorry, but I object.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

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

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue of vital importance involving the U.S. attorneys.

Each of the 93 U.S. attorneys serves as the chief Federal law enforcement officer within his or her jurisdiction. U.S. attorneys prosecute the full spectrum of criminal cases brought on behalf of the United States, from hate crimes to human trafficking, to gang violence, to cyber crime, to narcotics, to financial fraud, to terrorism. The list is long, and the violations of the law that are alleged are serious.

The position of the U.S. attorney is nearly as old as the Nation itself. In fact, the position has existed since the First Congress. President George Washington signed into law the law that created these attorneys in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Given the critical role that these U.S. attorneys play in bringing justice to those who violate Federal criminal laws, it is hard to imagine that any Member of this body would obstruct efforts to confirm these law enforcement officials. Doing so could threaten public safety and puts at risk millions of Americans' security.

It is also a stark departure from what has happened before. The last time the Senate required a rollcall vote on a U.S. attorney nominee was 1975. Forty-six years have passed without the request for a rollcall vote on a U.S. attorney. For decades, the Senate has confirmed U.S. attorneys by a voice vote or unanimous consent after they have been considered in the Judiciary Committee.

Listen to this: During the Trump administration, 85 of President Trump's U.S. attorney nominees moved through the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. Of those 85, the Senate confirmed every single Trump nominee by unanimous consent without even requesting a record vote. I might add just for the record, I believe one nominee was held for 1 week so that a question could be answered about his background. That is the only thing that I can recall where they even slowed down the process during the Trump administration. Certainly, it was within our power as Democrats to stop and require a vote, but we didn't. Yet now there is a Republican objection to holding a voice vote on five U.S. attorney nominees: Greg Harris for the Central District of Illinois, Clare Connors for Hawaii, Zachary Cunha for Rhode Island, Nikolas Kerest for Vermont, and Philip Sellinger for New Jersey.

Several of these nominees have been held up for weeks--weeks--by this objection. Why, you ask, is there an objection to these five nominees? There must be something wrong with their records. Well, let's take a look.

Greg Harris is a personal friend of mine. I practiced law with him in Springfield, IL. He spent nearly three decades as assistant U.S. attorney in the Central District of Illinois. That includes my hometown. He has tried over 50 cases to verdict and held a number of leadership positions in the U.S. Attorney's Office. He serves on the Central Illinois Human Trafficking Task Force and the Bankruptcy Fraud Working Group.

His nomination is historic. He will be the first African-American U.S. attorney in the Central District of Illinois, which, of course, is located in Mr. Lincoln's hometown of Springfield--the first.

Clare Connors is currently the attorney general of Hawaii. Ms. Connors previously served as criminal prosecutor in the Justice Department's Tax Division, special assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, and for nearly 7 years an assistant U.S. attorney in Hawaii.

Zachary Cunha, currently an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Rhode Island in the same office he will lead upon confirmation--he has worked there for 8 years, following time as an assistant U.S. attorney in both the Eastern District of New York and the District of Massachusetts.

Nikolas Kerest, also an assistant U.S. attorney, served in the District of Vermont since 2010, following time in private legal practice in Maine and Massachusetts and a clerkship on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Philip Sellinger has had a long and distinguished legal career in New Jersey. He began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge Anne Thompson of the District of New Jersey before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark. For the past two decades, Mr. Sellinger has been a litigator in a prominent law firm and even served as the firm's cochair of global litigation.

Listen to these biographies. All five of these nominees are eminently qualified to hold the office of U.S. attorney, to prosecute crimes and bring civil actions on behalf of the government, and to help safeguard our communities across America.

There is one thing that all of these U.S. attorney nominees have in common, though. They are all from States with two Democratic Senators. That seems to be the only thing that they might have in common. The objections to these nominees are not that they aren't qualified or that the job is not important; the objection seems to be that they are from States with two Democratic Senators.

So when it comes to critical issues we expect, in the Department of Justice, to be taken care of by U.S. attorneys--issues involving terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics, public corruption, gun violence, the safety of our communities--is the fact that they happen to hail from States with two Democratic Senators enough to disqualify them or to leave these positions vacant?

It is time to end the Republican delay and get these well-qualified prosecutors confirmed and on the job.

We never once during the Trump administration's 4 years held up a U.S. attorney when it came to a voice vote, a unanimous voice vote, to give them the opportunity to serve this country. It is unthinkable that we are going to do this to these fine men and women today. So, today, I will ask unanimous consent for a vote on these nominees.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 534, 535, 536, 581, and 582; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I have been trying to understand the Republican objection to these well-qualified U.S. attorney nominees, and the Senator from Arkansas has made it clear. It has nothing to do with them; it is about me.

He, obviously, doesn't approve of what happened one day in the committee. And the price to be paid is not by me but by the U.S. attorneys, well-qualified, who have important jobs to fill.

One member of the Republican caucus is upset with the fact that back in March--this happened in March--the Judiciary Committee moved to vote on the nomination of Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General when Republican members of the committee had not finished speaking on her nomination.

He correctly remembers that he was speaking at approximately 10 minutes to 12 p.m., when I interrupted him, took a rollcall vote, and went back to him if he wished to speak again.

I will be the first to acknowledge that I moved forward with the vote on Ms. Gupta's nomination over the objections of committee Republicans. But put simply, the Republicans forced my hand that day.

The Senator from Arkansas talks about courtesy in this body. I will tell him I think that it should be a hallmark of what we all do at all times. I am fortunate, truly blessed, in my mind, to have, as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a real friend in Chuck Grassley, the Republican Senator of Iowa.

I asked him that day what was going on. I had informed the committee in writing that we would proceed with a vote on Ms. Gupta that day. I then allowed committee Republicans to speak for 94 minutes on Ms. Gupta's nomination, even though much of what was said was repetitive-- some false and some really unwarranted.

I was, in fact, prepared to allow committee Republicans to speak for as long as they wished. I turned to Senator Grassley and said: ``What's the plan here?'' And he said: ``Well, Senator Tillis may return and speak, and we just have these members speaking.''

I had received assurances that the Republicans would not use an obscure Senate rule, the 2-hour rule, to cut off the markup before we voted on Ms. Gupta's nomination. But at 11:55 a.m., I was surprised, as was Senator Grassley, to be informed that despite their earlier assurances, a Republican Senator had, in fact, invoked the 2-hour rule in an effort to prevent Ms. Gupta's nomination from being considered that day and to close down the markup in the committee.

My hand was forced by this action. It was a surprise move, a tactical move, surely within the rules for them to make, but I did exactly what previous Republican chairs of the Judiciary Committee did in similar situations. I ended the debate and called for the vote on the nomination.

If you are listening to this and wondering what these arcane committee procedures have to do with U.S. attorney nominations, you are not alone. The Senator is pleading that we should stand by the traditions of the Senate. And by the traditions of the Senate, these U.S. attorney nominees would go through by unanimous consent. That is a tradition of the Senate as well.

The simple answer is, what happened with the markup debate more than 8 months ago has nothing to do with these five fine individuals or with any other U.S. attorney nominee who may come before the Senate.

If the Senator from Arkansas wants me to publicly express my regret for this occurrence, I express that regret. But I want to make it clear, I relied on my friend Senator Grassley. We were both surprised to know that someone had invoked the 2-hour rule. Caught by surprise, I did what other Republican chairs of the committee have done.

I don't believe we should play politics with critical law enforcement nominations. They are putting our communities at risk and politicizing law enforcement in a way that threatens public safety.

If we are going to truly stand up for law and order, let these men and women go to work across America representing the Department of Justice.

Responding through the Chair, as long as there is openness and honesty about what is happening in the procedure, I will assure you that I will do everything I can to extend that courtesy forward.

That particular day, you may or may not be aware of the fact that while you were speaking, we learned--Senator Grassley and I both learned that someone had raised the 2-hour rule, and it came as a surprise to both of us.

When we are open and honest about what we are trying to achieve in a committee, there is no reason why we can't abide by basic courtesy in the tradition of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 534, No. 535, No. 536, No. 581, and No. 582; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, a famous chef once said that ``a plate of food was a plate of hope.'' At Yoshi's Cafe in Chicago, the meals were that--and so much more. Every meal--every bite--at Yoshi's was a celebration and a discovery of new tastes and new combinations of tastes.

When Yoshi's Cafe opened 39 years ago, it was on the vanguard of ``fusion cuisine,'' cooking that combines the best of different cultures. In Yoshi's case, it was an exquisite mix of classical French and Japanese cooking traditions. Over the years, Yoshi's also incorporated bits of cuisines, such as hint of Mexican cooking, into their dishes. But the true signature ingredients of any meal at Yoshi's Cafe were pride and love.

Every meal was a chance for founder Yoshi Katsumura to share his impeccable culinary skill and imagination. And every customer was treated like a friend. If you went often enough, as my wife Loretta and I have, you became part of the family. That combination of personal warmth and impeccable food has made Yoshi's Cafe one of Chicago's truly great neighborhood restaurants.

This weekend, Yoshi's Cafe will serve its last meal--and Loretta and I plan to be there. We wouldn't miss the chance to eat one last time at one of our favorite restaurants.

Chicagoans feared this day might come sooner. When founder Yoshi Katsumura died in 2015, we wondered if that might be the end of Yoshi's Cafe as well. But Yoshi asked his wife Nobuko to try to preserve his legacy and the business they had built together. And she did.

With the help of her son, chef Ken Katsumura, Nobuko kept Yoshi's Cafe open, even through a lethal pandemic that devastated the restaurant industry. Her daughter, Mari, has made a name for herself as a top-ranked pastry chef in Chicago.

After some soul-searching, however, Nobuko has decided that it's time for a new chapter--time to spend a little more time with her grandchildren and enjoying life.

Like countless other Chicagoans, Loretta and I feel a touch of sadness about the closing of Yoshi's Cafe. But we also feel tremendously grateful for the memorable meals we have enjoyed there and for the gift of Yoshi and Nobuko's friendship over the years.

I once showed up at the restaurant on a Monday evening, forgetting that it was closed. I stood for a moment on the sidewalk of North Halsted Street, stranded and hungry, trying to decide where to eat. Just as I was about to leave, I heard someone call my name.

It was Yoshi, who lived above the restaurant, calling down to me and offering to fix me a meal on his day off. That was the moment I came to see the goodness of this man. And Nobuko is just as kind and giving.

Yoshi's Cafe brought together the foods of Tokyo, Paris, Lyon, and Chicago. Yoshi was born in Japan. At the age of 20, he apprenticed under another legendary chef, Hiroyuki Sakai in Tokyo, where he first learned the intricacies of fine French cooking.

In 1973, he moved to Chicago, where he studied under one of Chicago' first

celebrity chefs, Jean Banchet, at Le Francais. Further study in Paris and Lyon added to his skills. He returned to Chicago as chef and partner in the city's premier French fusion restaurant, Jimmy's Place.

In 1982, he and Nobuko opened their own place. For nearly 40 years, Yoshi's has earned the love and loyalty of generation of Chicagoans. It has been featured on the Food Network and listed among ``America's Top Tables'' by the Conde Nast Gourmet magazine.

I want to thank Nobuko Katsumura and her gracious and loyal staff for the great gift Yoshi's has been to Chicago.

Loretta and I will miss our friends at Yoshi's and the incredible meals we enjoyed there. We will treasure our memories of this Chicago icon and the great family that created it for years to come.

Madam President, I learned this morning about the passing of Senator Robert Dole. What an extraordinary person he was.

It was not my good fortune to serve with him in the U.S. Senate, but as a Member of the House of Representatives, I knew his work.

(Ms. DUCKWORTH assumed the Chair.)

I can remember when we enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tom Harkin was our leader on the Democratic side. He had a member of his family who suffered a disability, and Tom was always sensitive to that. But Bob Dole's leadership on the other side, from the Republican side, made a remarkable difference because we knew that Bob Dole was not speaking about disability as some other person's experience but, frankly, his own.

I don't know what measure of courage Bob Dole showed before he served the United States in World War II, but we all knew that experience led him to a battleground injury, which he carried the rest of his life. It was amazing to me that he kept his public life so active despite the limitations that he faced. His loss of use of one arm put him in a position where he was compromised in many ways every single day. Yet he soldiered on, literally, to serve his Nation, not only in the Armed Forces but also in the U.S. Senate to pass legislation, major legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is remarkable that he lived as long as he did and faced the injuries that he did.

I would say, Madam President, you know better than most what we are speaking of with Senator Dole's contribution to his country and the battle he continued to wager the rest of his life.

I respect him so much and hope the Senate will just pause for a moment to not only reflect on him, Elizabeth Dole, and his family but also on the fact that his bipartisanship made the difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. He was willing to sit down with the party on the other side of the aisle, compromise, and be determined to get things done. Shouldn't we do the same in his honor? I think we should.