A resolution honoring the Heritage Foundation on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am, in a moment, going to ask unanimous consent that we proceed to confirm a nominee.

Stephanie Sullivan has been nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to the African Union. She was nominated June 15, 2022, for a position now vacant since January of this year.

Let me briefly say why this is important.

The African Union is the entity most likely to successfully negotiate peace in Sudan, a country now roiled by domestic violence, by a war between one faction of its military and another, and thousands of Americans are at risk.

I think it is crucially important to fill all of our vacant ambassadorial positions, but this one is particularly critical because of the role the AU can and should play in resolving this conflict. But we lack an ambassador in this vital continent-wide organization.

I will go on at some greater length about the qualifications and the background of this talented career Foreign Service officer who has been an ambassador twice before in Africa. But I will also say that statements that she has made in her role as an ambassador reflect the policy of the administration at the time, not her personal preferences or values. She is a talented representative of the United States, as a diplomat, whose actions and statements reflect the administrations she has served.

With that, I ask unanimous consent, as if in executive session, that the Senate consider Calendar No. 68, Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, to be Representative of the United States to the African Union, and that the Senate vote on the nomination without any intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, would the Senator yield?

Go ahead.

At, apparently, another time, I look forward to having the opportunity to hearing some substantiation of the wild charges just made by my colleague from Ohio.

I did as much research as I could before appearing in what I had understood, mistakenly, to be the foundation of his objection. Now I look forward to figuring out how this nominee to serve again as an ambassador is an advocate of far-left gender therapies of some kind.

Let me make two simple points, if I can, in response to the comments I just heard on the floor. As someone who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds our development efforts around the world, and particularly in Africa, and as someone who was just in five different countries across the continent, to characterize China's engagement with Africa as one that promotes development in a positive way that is respectful and uplifting, and our engagement as simply ``hectoring,'' badly misses decades of the United States' being the No. 1 supporter of public health across the continent.

We are just now celebrating the 20th anniversary of President Bush's signature initiative, PEPFAR, which has saved 25 million lives. The Chinese do not invest in public health anything like the scale and scope the United States does. The Chinese, it is true, don't ask questions about the suppression of minorities, about the mistreatment of journalists, about the closing of political space, about domestic repression, and the United States does. So, if that is to be characterized as hectoring, then I would be glad to stand up for hectoring.

We do challenge autocrats across the continent of Africa, and we do stand up for democracy. We also invest significantly in human development at a time when China invests principally in airports and soccer stadiums and highways.

So I would be happy to have a debate at any time that my colleague from Ohio chooses to stay long enough to have the discussion about the foundations of our engagement in the developing world.

I also, frankly, take exception to his characterization of a talented, long-serving member of the Foreign Service who represented us as a confirmed ambassador in both Ghana and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Let me make the core point that I intended to make earlier, but in order to accommodate my colleague's need to be interviewed on television, I cut my comments short.

In Sudan today, a newly emerged war is raging between two militaries. Thousands of people are at risk. In particular, Americans are at risk. It is the African Union--a continent-wide organization headquartered in Addis, in Ethiopia's capital--that could and should be the entity that leads to peace in Sudan. To not have a confirmed ambassador is to weaken our ability to engage with the AU and to engage with the leaders of these two military factions in Sudan.

For too much of the 2 years of the Biden administration, we have struggled to get confirmations here on the floor of the Senate of talented nominees. We have worked closely together to make sure that we have overcome some of the holds and some of the blocks to nominees in the past. I am disappointed and frustrated by the spurious argument by my colleague as to why he is standing in the way of this particularly capable, seasoned, and experienced member of our Foreign Service.

I had imagined, based on previous statements made by my colleague, that he might be objecting to something she said on the occasion of George Floyd's murder, and I came to the floor today with significant, detailed content from the previous administration, making it clear that she wasn't acting simply on her own, that she wasn't acting on some leftist agenda, but that she was acting in response to the direction from both the Africa Bureau and the Deputy Secretary of State.

I had thought he might also be referencing a posting that was made on the occasion of a pride event, of an LGBTQ pride event--something that happens in Embassies all over the world and that reflects a shared commitment by the American people to human rights that is understandably part of diversity and inclusion.

My hunch is that I will have to wait for another time for my colleague to prioritize debate on the floor of the Senate over making his way to a cable television hit, but I respect my colleague. He is someone who has written

a very compelling book, who has been elected by the people of Ohio, and whom I expect to have the opportunity to get to know. We have only served together now for several months, and today was literally the first time we had exchanged words.

So I hope there will be more reason and more substance to his opposition to this nominee than what I heard on the floor tonight, and I look forward to engaging with him in that discussion and that debate.

With that, I conclude my remarks on this particular topic, and once handed the closing remarks, will speak briefly and then close the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to talk about a few things here and why I am objecting to this nomination and why I would not vote for it if and when it comes before the full Senate.

First is a question of competence. This is an ambassador--Ambassador Sullivan--who went to Ghana and said on local television that she was proud of the fact that she had failed her Foreign Service exam twice.

It is hard to imagine a Chinese leader going to a country where they were trying to develop diplomatic relationships and bragging about failing any type of Foreign Service exam.

I don't know where this idea that we should celebrate failing the Foreign Service exam amongst our diplomatic corps comes from, but it doesn't make us look good, and it doesn't help Ambassador Sullivan in her duties.

Now, a second problem, the last time we sent Ambassador Sullivan to a senior job in Africa, her successor spent the following couple of months apologizing for and cleaning up for the job that she had done. In particular, she did so much to push a very, very divisive set of ideas in an American political context on a foreign country that had nothing to do with our national interests.

In particular, she seems particularly fond of the most leftwing versions of transgender ideology. Now, let me just address this particular issue.

I have my views on the transgender ideology question. In particular, I really worry that we are going too far, too fast not in support of the evidence, prescribing treatments and surgeries and hormonal therapies that could damage children for years. I think we need to be patient with this, and we need to follow the science.

This is why, by the way, most of our European allies--Sweden, for example, a country hailed as a great example of good healthcare, 10 years ago, by many Democrats in this Chamber, is going in the opposite direction of where we are going on the transgender ideology question.

Now, that said, I can accept that many people disagree with me. But

that disagreement in an American political context has no place for the diplomatic corps of our country. We should not be taking something that a majority of Americans disagree on and try to force it down the throat of another country. And the fact that we engage in this cultural imperialism is one of the biggest threats to American national security in the world today.

Now, let's talk about this cultural imperialism, the fact that it is unsupported and the fact that it is not good for our country.

We haven't had a real debate in this body. We have not had a sufficient conversation about whether we want to support certain ideological preferences in our diplomatic corps.

Why, for example, do we have a liberal White woman going to Africa and telling them that they are not civilized enough when it comes to issues of transgender ideology?

Why do we have a diplomatic corps that is taking a hotly contested issue in an American political context and demanding that African nations follow the lead of the far left instead of doing what they think that they should do?

Now, there are going to be people who say that there are all manner of atrocities that happen in Africa when it comes to sexual issues, when it comes to gender minorities, and so forth, and, of course, we think that is terrible, and we don't want that to happen. But she has gone so much further than that in placing a very particular set of ideas at the forefront of our diplomacy.

Let me just leave this body with one final thought. Look at the demographics of the people who have fought and died in American wars over the last generation. Many Democrats, of course, have done so, and we honor their service and we honor the sacrifice of themselves and their families. But a disproportionate share, especially of the enlisted troops, who are at the forefront of American power--the threat of military action and, sometimes, the reality of military action is what gives the State Department so much power in the first place--the knowledge that, if you don't follow America's lead, you can sometimes have military and security consequences because of it.

Do we think that the thousands of Americans who have died in America's wars in the last 20 or so years died so that the trans flag would fly over the nation of Ghana or any other African nation?

And why is it the policy of this government, again, to take a controversial topic in the context of an American political debate and force it down the throats of somebody else?

This is damaging our national security. Larry Summers, an Obama administration economist, a guy well respected on the left side of the aisle, said, talking to some of his friends who work in development in Africa, that when the Chinese come, they bring--let me get the exact quote here because I don't want to mess it up:

What we get from China is an airport. What we get from the

United States is a lecture.

That is Larry Summers quoting somebody who does economic development in troubled regions of the world. Why----

Can I finish the point, Senator Coons?

Here is what I would say here. The final point that I will make is, we have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralizing and lecturing countries that don't want anything to do with this.

The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people, and I think that we should pursue a foreign policy, a diplomacy, of respect and a foreign policy that is not rooted in moralizing; it is rooted in the national interests of this country. Because Ambassador Sullivan is at the lead of moralizing instead of pursuing America's national interests, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed

to the consideration of S. Res. 164, which is at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, for half a century, the Heritage Foundation has worked to build a United States where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. Their unwavering commitment to our Nation's core principles has been a guiding light for generations, and we owe them our deepest gratitude.

In 1972, the Heritage Foundation was conceived by Dr. Edwin J. Feulner and Paul Weyrich to deliver timely and persuasive research to Congress with facts, with data, and sound arguments on behalf of principles that promote freedom, opportunity, and prosperity for all Americans.

On February 16, 1973, the Heritage Foundation opened its doors for the first time and quickly grew to become one of the most influential and most broadly supported think tanks in the United States.

Over the past 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has played a critical role in many great legislative successes of our great country. They published the ``Mandate for Leadership'' in 1981, which served as a ``policy bible'' for President Ronald Reagan in his administration.

In 1982, the Heritage Foundation published the first comprehensive study outlining a missile defense system to defend the United States from nuclear missile attacks. Six months later, President Reagan made his historic speech calling for a strategic defense initiative to protect the United States.

Research by the Heritage Foundation formed the basis for welfare reform in the 1990s, resulting in more than 5 million people in the United States leaving welfare, finding work, and, ultimately, reducing African-American child poverty to historic lows.

The Heritage Foundation understands that the people of the United States are best served by a government that understands, honors, and respects self-governance. They have been a voice of reason and an advocate for our shared American values, reminding us of the power of individual liberty and the importance of limited government. Their dedication to promoting a society based on these ideals has helped shape the course of our Nation, and we are all better off for it.

As we look back on the past 50 years, we should remember the incredible impact of the Heritage Foundation on our Nation. Their legacy is one of service, and we are grateful for their unfailing commitment to our country.

I urge my colleagues to support my resolution recognizing the important contributions at the Heritage Foundation to American life over the past 50 years and acknowledging their central role in shaping our Nation's policies and values.

As we move forward, the challenges facing our country continue to grow. We need the Heritage Foundation now more than ever. Their expertise, research, and dedication to our shared values are crucial. They will continue to be a force for good in the years to come, and I am proud to stand with them to support a better, brighter, and more prosperous future for all Americans.

Mr. President, moments ago, when I asked to pass this resolution honoring the Heritage Foundation by unanimous consent, moments before I made that motion, I was informed of this policy, a policy that I have never seen. After more than 12 years in the Senate, I haven't seen this policy.

It is a policy within the Judiciary Committee--not a rule but a policy--but a policy that is seldom employed. I have never seen it invoked. There are a couple of requirements in it. One is that a commemorative resolution, in order to be approved for clearance for passage by unanimous consent on the floor with the approval of the committee, would need to be bipartisan.

I want to be clear that while this was not bipartisan, I invited Democrats to join in this. I genuinely think they should be willing to join it in the same sense that I would be willing to join them in something honoring Brookings or some other think tank. This group has done good work, and there is nothing in the resolution that commits them to substantively embracing every policy recommendation in the Heritage Foundation's past.

So that one should be easily satisfiable. I hope to get to that point at some point. It is unfortunate that we can't get this passed today, but I would love to be able to do that.

The other one is that no measure may commemorate any entity that is political. Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3), and it is a charitable nonprofit entity. It is not political, and it also can't commemorate a living person. This is there to commemorate an institution, a foundation--not an individual.

So even though I wasn't aware of this policy until today, I think there is no strong reason why this should stop us from doing this. In any event, I hope we can get this passed, if not today, then on some other day soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to give tribute to a great American, a great Texan, a great friend, and a 24-year veteran of this institution who has dedicated his career to serving the needs of his fellow citizens. His name is Jason Fuller, and he has served as my regional director in the southeastern part of Texas, including my home city of Houston, for the last 5 years. He is now retiring and moving on to the private sector.

Jason is a native Texan. Born in Corpus Christi, he graduated from the University of Houston, where he served as student body president. He is a proud Houston Cougar.

Jason started working in the Senate in late 1994, after working on my predecessor Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's 1994 campaign for a full term in the Senate. At the time, Jason said he was only going to come to DC for 2 years, work for Senator Hutchison, and move on. He ended up working in the Senate for 19 years. During that time, he served as Senator Hutchison's personal aide, until 1997, when he moved back home to Texas and worked for her regional office in Houston. He eventually became regional director and served in that role until Senator Hutchison left office in 2013.

In 2018, Jason heard the call to once again serve his fellow Texans, so he came on board as my regional director of southeastern Texas. His region stretches from the Texas-Louisiana border down south towards Victoria and all the way to the upper Texas gulf coast.

Jason hates to be on the sidelines, and he is always eager to help others in a crisis. When Hurricane Katrina happened and everything was chaos, Jason had 12 people, 6 dogs, and 3 cats squeezed into his downtown residence. He helped out in the shelters in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. When the Santa Fe shooting horrifically happened in May of 2018, Jason was there to lend a helping hand to the victims and their families, as well as to law enforcement. Many of those people became his personal friends.

When Jason is not helping his fellow Texans, he likes to travel to some of the most exotic and hard-to-get-to places on the planet. When Jason is getting ready for a trip, he spins the globe and sees where his finger lands. He has been to Iraq, China, Russia--anywhere that is going to give my State director and national security advisor heartburn.

He has often helped people in stressful situations, navigating the leviathan of Big Government on behalf of fellow Texans in their time of need. He has taken the time to connect with them personally and to listen as a friend listens.

In the coming days, Jason will start his new job in the private sector. We will miss him greatly, but we wish him well. The Senate, the people of Texas, and the thousands of people and families he has helped over the course of 24 years of service will miss him too.

Thank you, Jason, for your hard work, your determination, your passion, and your patriotism. God bless you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come here this evening because I have got a problem, and the problem is the IRS. It has a bad track record. They often fail to be good stewards of taxpayer money and to protect highly sensitive information as well. They don't do a good job at that.

Despite this, Congress and President Biden recently gave the IRS $80 billion in new funding--$80 billion--most of which we had to borrow, probably.

Last week, the IRS released a 150-page document outlining how it will spend $80 billion in new funding. The report is very vague about how that will be done. ``Enforcement activities''--I would love more specifics.

The IRS has a history of being weaponized against conservative organizations and for hassling hard-working taxpayers and small business owners with audits. I don't know that the wealthy are going to be held to account. They have got their lawyers, and they fight this stuff off routinely. I am worried that it is going to hit middle America. With this huge funding boost, these problems, I think, will only grow.

It is unacceptable to treat American taxpayers this way. The IRS does not need more power. It needs to be reformed to ensure that it serves the best interests of all Americans.

I have got a solution: Simplify, don't amplify, the IRS. And let's just put ``act'' right after that.

Last Congress, I introduced a bill with several IRS reforms to hold the Agency accountable and protect taxpayers. The Simplify, Don't Amplify the IRS Act would stop the Biden administration from continuing to grow the power of the IRS.

This bill would stop attempts to target Americans and small businesses by snooping in their bank accounts, credit union accounts, Venmo, PayPal, and Cash App.

The bill would also repeal the Democrat ban on cutting State taxes, hold IRS employees accountable when they release private taxpayer information, and ensure that the IRS spends its time helping taxpayers rather than on unofficial union activity.

We can debate how much money the IRS needs to do its job, but we also need commonsense policies like the Simplify, Don't Amplify the IRS Act. This bill would immediately add value to the American taxpayer and help restore faith to a dysfunctional government Agency that affects every American.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1101 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.