Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, time is wasting. We need an Ambassador to China. I am sorry, but I object.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.