Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, today the Senate will take another step toward building a Federal judiciary that reflects the experiences of all Americans by voting on the nomination of Judge Lydia Griggsby to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Once confirmed, she will be the first Black woman--and first woman of color--to serve in this position.

Since 2014, Judge Griggsby has served as an outstanding and even- handed judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In fact, many of us in this Chamber are familiar with her intellect and sound judgment. Prior to being nominated to the Court of Federal Claims, Judge Griggsby served as chief counsel for privacy and information policy on the Senate Judiciary Committee under then-Chairman Leahy. Before that, Judge Griggs by spent 10 years at the Department of Justice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Judge Griggsby's long and distinguished career has earned her a unanimous rating of ``Well Qualified'' from the American Bar Association.

She also received broad, bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, with five Republicans joining all Democrats to advance her nomination. And she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senator Cardin and Senator Van Hollen. In 2014, the Senate confirmed Judge Griggs by by voice vote. I hope she will once again receive broad bipartisan support today.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of her nomination.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, last Friday, the New York Times reported that during the Trump administration, the Justice Department issued subpoenas involving Members of Congress, their staff, and family members, even a minor family member. It is highly unusual for the Justice Department to investigate Members of Congress. The reason it is unusual is clear: Our Founders created three separate branches of the Federal Government with a separation of powers so that each branch could serve as a check and balance on the other and no branch would have too much power.

When the Justice Department investigates a Member of Congress, typically, it is for corruption charges. That is understandable, but that is not what happened here. This was an investigation into a leak of information. And the use of subpoenas to investigate Members of Congress is extremely strange territory.

These concerns are heightened when the President has publicly attacked those same Members of Congress. That is what former President Trump did when he repeatedly and without any evidence accused Representative Adam Schiff about leaking information about Russian election interference.

These reports and the reports that journalists and even Trump's own White House Counsel were included in the Justice Department's so-called leak investigation raise serious questions about the Justice Department and its former leaders.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the Department of Justice on behalf of the American people, so yesterday our committee sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking for more information. But yesterday Senator McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, came to the floor and warned us off. He warned the Judiciary Committee against exercising our statutory oversight responsibility because it could become ``a partisan circus.'' This came on the heels of Senator McConnell's personal veto of a bipartisan Commission to investigate the deadly January 6 mob attack on the U.S. Capitol. But now the minority leader is warning us against even looking into the targeting of Trump's perceived political enemies by the Justice Department. The minority leader claimed that the Senate does not need to look into this matter because--get this--the Department of Justice inspector general has already announced he would investigate. That is a pretty decent argument if you have no memory whatsoever.

For over 13 months during the last Congress, under a Republican majority, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted an extensive oversight investigation into the FBI's opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation even though the Department of Justice inspector general had already investigated it. The Department of Justice inspector general had already completed a 19-month investigation of so- called Crossfire Hurricane involving over 100 witnesses and reviewing over a million documents.

That wasn't good enough for the Republican majority. They persisted in conducting a committee investigation nevertheless even though the inspector general's investigation concluded that Crossfire Hurricane had a proper basis

and that anti-Trump bias did not affect the FBI's work on Crossfire Hurricane. Those are the very issues the Republican majority reexamined in their own investigation. In that instance, the Department of Justice inspector general satisfied all the criteria of an inspection, an investigation, and yet the Republicans rejected it and proceeded forward.

In this case, the Republican leader in the Senate is arguing that the work of the inspector general should be enough--quite a difference.

Throughout the course of that investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee held extensive hearings, but it wasn't enough.

The Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee was so focused on investigating a conspiracy theory about Obama that they didn't hold a single hearing on the Trump administration's Department of Justice in 4 years. If they had, maybe they would have discovered this latest revelation rather than the New York Times.

Senator McConnell did not warn the Judiciary Committee that the DOJ inspector general's investigation was sufficient or that its investigation into Crossfire Hurricane would become a partisan circus. He saw it completely differently in those days.

Importantly, it seems the minority leader does not speak for his entire caucus. Yesterday the minority whip said: ``Obviously this warrants further review and investigation,'' and he ``assume[s] the committee will work through that.'' I hope that other Republican Members of the Chamber join the minority whip to call for further investigation. Congress's place in our constitutional order is too important to simply look the other way.

Madam President, it was 9 years ago today, after a year or more of writing letters to my friend and colleague President Obama, that he finally agreed to an Executive order known as DACA. DACA took the heart of the DREAM Act, which I introduced 20 years ago, and made an Executive order. He said to those who were brought to this country as children, infants, who really had nothing to do with the family decision on coming to America: We are going to give you a chance, since you grew up undocumented, to be a part of this Nation. So every 2 years, you can apply for renewable status, be protected from deportation, and be allowed to legally work. We will do a criminal investigation, national security investigation, and if we believe that you are no threat to this country, we will give you 2 years to prove yourself.

More than 800,000 young people stepped forward and made a life in America and did extraordinary things for this country. They proved that, given a chance to be part of America's future, they would make it a better nation. Two of them testified today. One of them is a doctor from the city of Chicago. I am so proud of him, Dr. Bernal Mejia. He was born in Mexico and grew up in Memphis, TN. He struggled, scrapped, clawed his way into an amazing undergraduate institution, graduated summa cum laude, and hoped that one day he would have a chance to go to medical school.

Before DACA, that was a dream that was way too distant. Then came DACA. He looked around to see if any medical schools in the United States would let someone who was protected by DACA apply for medical school. It turned out there was one. I am proud to say it was Loyola University in Chicago, the Stritch School of Medicine. They didn't create a new category of students; they just said: We will let you compete. If you are good enough, we will admit you as a student.

Over 30 DACA students became medical students at Loyola. Dr. Mejia was one. He is now about to finish, in a few weeks, the third year of his residency in emergency medicine. He has spent the last year and a half, as you can imagine, in emergency rooms saving the lives of so many people, particularly victims of COVID-19.

How many times has each of us thanked the healthcare heroes, and how many times have we thought that one of them might have been an undocumented doctor whose future and fate are still so uncertain in America? That is the case today because the DREAM Act has not become the law of the land.

So we had a hearing and discussed his situation and the bill that was sent to us by the House. I believe there is some bipartisan sentiment in favor of that, and I am trying to work to develop that into legislation that will finally give to Dr. Mejia and so many others across this country the future in America which they have all prayed for. They have worked hard to earn it. They deserve it.

I am glad, at this hearing today, the doctor came and told this story. It is an inspiration to me and all who believe in this country that we should have justice when it comes to immigration.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I just heard the Republican Senate leader warn us not to initiate partisan investigations. It has only been a few weeks since he personally vetoed a bipartisan investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6 of this year.

For those of us who lived through that incident, we find it hard to understand why a 9/11-style Commission, divided equally between both political parties, is in any way a partisan investigation and why the Republican leader, who has served for so long in the Senate, would not feel awkward, in a way, walking through the halls of this Capitol and seeing the men and women of the Capitol Police force who have sent us a letter begging for a Commission to get to the bottom of what happened on that day when 140 men and women in uniform were attacked by this insurrectionist mob inspired by President Trump.

So when it comes to investigations, we have offered the most sanitized version of an investigation that one could ever ask for.

So why are we renewing this request when it comes to the information which is now before us? Well, on Friday, the DOJ inspector general announced he would investigate DOJ's use of subpoenas to obtain communication data from Members of Congress and the media, including whether the Department of Justice complied with applicable internal policies and whether its decisions were motivated by improper considerations

What happened was, the previous President, Donald Trump, apparently had some channel into the Department of Justice where he could call for investigations and information and data to be collected about Members of Congress. He highlighted two Democratic Members of Congress who were, coincidentally, members of an investigative committee of the House Intelligence Committee. And then it turns out, in the last 2 days, he called for an investigation of his own White House Counsel.

So it is very hard to follow who was in charge in the White House. The Attorneys General at the time denied having any connection whatsoever to these investigations, and certainly the White House Counsel wouldn't have called for an investigation of himself. So who was running the show? It is a legitimate question because it gets to not only the issue of leaks, which is important, of course, but it gets to the more fundamental question of separation of powers in this government.

If Members of Congress are subject to investigation by a President for something other than corruption, then certainly this can be translated into political pressure on those individuals.

So I find it hard to follow the logic of the Republican Senate leader, who denies an investigation of the January 6

mob violence on the Capitol--a bipartisan investigation--and then turns around and says that the President could investigate Members of Congress without accountability either. You wonder if there is going to be the proper constitutional authority witnessed and exhibited in this circumstance.

Madam President, on a separate issue, the Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to invoke cloture on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the DC Circuit. Today, the Senate will confirm her to that post.

Judge Jackson is the first of many circuit court nominees whom we will confirm during this Congress. Given her credentials and record on the bench, she is a nominee who deserves the support of Senators on both sides of the aisle. I would like to take just a minute to highlight why she is such an outstanding choice for the DC Circuit.

The importance of the DC Circuit cannot be overstated. This is what another Illinoisan, President Barack Obama, said about the court: ``The D.C. Circuit is known as the second highest court in the country, and there's good reason for that. The judges on the D.C. Circuit routinely have the final say on a broad range of issues involving everything from national security to environmental policy; from questions of campaign finance to workers' rights. In other words, the court's decisions impact almost every aspect of our lives.''

Thankfully, in Judge Jackson, we have a nominee who will be ready from day one to serve justice as a member of the DC Circuit.

Judge Jackson was born here in Washington, DC, and raised in Miami, FL. Her parents, public school teachers at the time of her birth, gave her a lifelong appreciation of learning and the law. They also instilled in her a dignity and grace that was on full display, as the Presiding Officer knows, when the judge appeared before the Judiciary Committee in April.

A champion high school debater, Jackson later attended Harvard and Harvard Law School before embarking on what can only be described as a star-studded legal career.

She clerked on the Federal District Court, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and for Justice Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court--a strong resume in and of itself. She has also worked at several prominent law firms, handling both trial and appellate work.

But her true calling has always been public service. In the early 2000s, Judge Jackson worked as special counsel on the U.S. Sentencing Commission and later served as a Federal public defender in Washington, DC. This experience inspired President Obama to nominate her to serve as Commissioner and Vice Chair of the Sentencing Commission. In the Senate, her nomination received unanimous support.

A few years later, Judge Jackson came before the Senate again when President Obama chose her to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia--once again, she was confirmed with unanimous support.

Looking at the arc of Judge Jackson's career, I am struck by how much time she spent focusing on the issue of criminal sentencing--an issue deeply important to me and, I believe, many other colleagues.

From the Sentencing Commission to the Office of Federal Public Defender, to the district court, Judge Jackson has grappled with legal, intellectual, and moral challenges that come with sentencing policy and decisions. Once confirmed, she will bring that vital experience to the DC Circuit.

I also want to speak more broadly about her record on the bench. She represents the best of the judiciary. Humble, hard-working, she has written nearly 600 opinions, and each of them is guided by the same principles: fairness, impartiality, evenhandedness, and an unyielding fidelity to the law. It is no surprise, then, that she received the grade of unanimously ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association, and it is no surprise that she has the support of legal experts and advocates from different ideological and professional stripes, including Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee to the DC Circuit; the Alliance for Justice; the National Council of Jewish Women; the AFL-CIO; the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; and dozens--literally dozens--of former prosecutors and other Justice Department officials appointed by Presidents of both political parties.

Let me close with a passage from a letter Judge Griffith wrote in support of Judge Jackson. I read this letter during her hearing, and it really stuck with me. Judge Griffith wrote: ``Although she and I have sometimes differed on the best outcome of a case, I have always respected her careful approach and agreeable manner, two indispensable traits for success in a collegial body.''

Madam President, we will all benefit from that careful approach and agreeable manner on the DC Circuit.

I will vote for Judge Jackson's nomination to the DC Circuit and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.