Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, one of President Biden's favorite things to talk about is giving families ``a little bit of breathing room.'' It is a phrase he uses frequently, just as he also frequently talks about growing the economy ``from the middle out and the bottom up, not from the top down.''

He used both phrases in a speech just last week. And, frankly, it is somewhat staggering to me that he continues to talk like this, because the Biden economy is the story of taking away Americans' breathing room. It is a story of declining purchasing power for lower and middle- income families, of wages that don't keep pace with increased costs, of stretched budgets and difficult spending decisions. President Biden has presided over a historic inflation crisis that has left American families struggling just to keep up. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in February 2023, a cost-effective nutritious meal plan for a family of four cost $979.40 per month.

Two years earlier, that same family would have had to spend $674.80. That is a 45-percent increase--a 45-percent increase. The Biden economy is costing that family of four an additional $304 a month for groceries, or $3,655 per year more. And, again, that is just on groceries.

I don't need to tell anyone that prices have risen across the board, 15.4 percent on average since President Biden took office, and American families are feeling the pinch. A recent CNBC survey found that 70 percent of Americans are feeling financially stressed--70 percent--and that the majority of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. And it is no surprise, given that inflation has outpaced wage growth for 24 straight months--meaning that under the Biden administration, Americans have received a de facto pay cut.

Americans are cutting back on spending, dipping into savings, or charging expenses to their credit card to help make ends meet. Bloomberg reports on a growing trend of relying on ``buy now, pay later'' apps for everyday purchases, noting that and I quote:

U.S. consumers are increasingly using such installment

loans to pay for everyday items like groceries, highlighting

the financial pain wrought by the worst inflation outbreak in

four decades.

Credit card debt hit a record high in the final quarter of 2022, and nearly half of Americans are carrying balances now from month to month. More than two-thirds of Americans are saving less than they did a year ago. And the list goes on. Put simply, if President Biden wanted to create more breathing room for Americans, he has failed. In fact, President Biden has taken away Americans' breathing room, and there is little relief in sight.

Now, I don't need to tell anyone that one of the main reasons we are in the midst of this inflation crisis is because of Democrats and the President's decision to pass the so-called American Rescue Plan Act, which was a massive and partisan $1.9 trillion spending spree that flooded our economy with unnecessary government money.

Democrats were warned that their bill would cause inflation, and they proceeded anyway. And the economy overheated as a result. Even worse, despite steadily climbing inflation in the wake of their bill, Democrats seemed determined not to recognize their mistake. Instead of acknowledging their oversized spending bill helped set off inflation, Democrats kept pursuing more spending and more damaging economic policies.

There is the $5 trillion big government vision they called Build Back Better but should probably have been named more aptly ``Build Back Broke'' or ``Bankrupt,'' the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which has done nothing to address inflation but has imposed a series of new taxes that are driving up Americans' energy costs.

The President's reckless student loan giveaway, which could end up costing American taxpayers close to a trillion dollars. And there is more. And the bad ideas just keep coming.

The President recently released his budget proposal, which would increase spending every year until the Federal budget reaches an eye- watering $10 trillion in the year 2033--$10 trillion. For comparison, let me just point out that the entire Federal budget for 2019--and that is the last budget before the pandemic--was $4.4 trillion--$4.4 trillion.

President Biden wants to more than double that: $4.4 trillion to $10 trillion. And then there is the latest idea from the White House, which is punishing Americans with good credit scores if they purchase a house. That is right. Think about this one: The Biden administration has announced a new policy which is set to go into effect on May 1st that would impose higher mortgage fees on Americans with higher credit scores, and the highest fees on Americans who make a substantial downpayment.

Now if you save and are able to make a 20 percent downpayment on a home, you are going to pay more under the Biden administration plan.

These higher fees would then go to subsidize mortgages for Americans with lower credit scores. In other words, think about it this way: The Biden administration is targeting hard-working Americans who save, diligently pay their bills, and build good credit, in order to subsidize mortgages for higher risk borrowers.

It is the microcosm of Biden's big government policies. Punish hard work, punish financial discipline, punish success, and redistribute the wealth. Squeeze middle-class Americans. Force hard-working taxpayers to fund Democrats' socialist visions.

We literally are socializing mortgage payments. That is what it amounts to. Nothing more, nothing less. Because, let's be very clear, President Biden likes to talk about forcing better-off Americans to pay for his policies, and he likes to claim that he isn't going to raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 a year. But this new mortgage policy is going to hit thousands and thousands of middle-class Americans making ordinary salaries whose only crime is that they worked hard, saved money, and have been responsible with their debt.

The President can talk all he likes about making wealthy Americans pay

their fair share, the truth is that it is lower and middle-income Americans who are suffering as a result of the President's economic policies.

This summer another big economic issue will come into play: The debt limit. Sometime in the next few months, the United States will reach the limit of its borrowing capacity, and Congress will have to pass-- and the President will have to sign--legislation to raise the debt ceiling to enable the United States to pay our debts. Needless to say, that will require negotiations between the President and Congress, something the President has so far refused to engage in.

Why? Because the President doesn't want an increase in the debt limit to be paired with any measures that might cut spending or actually do something to reduce the debt.

I suppose that is not a surprising position from someone who wants to grow government, increase the size of the Federal budget to a staggering $10 trillion, but it is a deeply problematic position--both because it ignores the increasing danger represented by our ever- increasing national debt and because it is an unrealistic position.

In a divided government, a refusal to negotiate cannot be an option. And if the President doesn't want to go down in history as the President who forced the United States to default on its debt, he needs to start engaging in negotiations.

House Republicans are putting forward a serious bill to restrain excess spending while protecting the full faith and credit of the United States. The President needs to join the Speaker at the negotiating table. Responsible spending reforms might not undo the economic damage the President has done, but they could put us on a more sustainable and less-damaging path for the future. And they could spare Americans some of the economic pain that would result from more of President Biden's reckless government spending.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. President, this morning the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is considering the nomination of Julie Su to be Secretary of Labor.

Before joining the U.S. Department of Labor as Deputy Secretary under President Biden, Ms. Su previously served as labor secretary for the State of California, and in that post, she was perhaps most notable for presiding over massive unemployment fraud during the COVID crisis. Unemployment fraud was a significant problem during the pandemic, but even with widespread fraud, California stood out for the scope of its problem.

During the first 6 months of the pandemic, California had an improper payment rate of 36.6 percent. Let that sink in for a moment--an improper payment rate of 36.6 percent. Ultimately, the State paid out around $30 billion in fraudulent claims between the start of the pandemic and last spring.

Now, certainly, States faced an influx of unemployment claims during the pandemic that put additional pressure on unemployment agencies. But California's fraud situation was not simply a result of an increased workload during the pandemic. It was also in part the result of Ms. Su's decision to remove safeguards intended to help prevent fraudulent claims.

During the early days of the pandemic, Ms. Su directed the California Employment Development Department to--in the words of the California State auditor--``pay certain claimants UI benefits without making key eligibility determinations and to temporarily stop collecting biweekly eligibility certifications.'' These directives unquestionably helped smooth the path for widespread unemployment fraud as well as a significant number of improper payments.

It is difficult to know what President Biden was thinking when he decided to nominate someone who presided over massive unemployment fraud to be the next Labor Secretary. If that is what happened when Ms. Su was the labor secretary for a single State, it is difficult to see her as a qualified nominee to head the Labor Department for an entire country.

But my concerns with Ms. Su don't end there. In addition to questions about her ability to effectively administer a Cabinet Department, I have serious concerns that Ms. Su would use her national platform to continue promoting policies that are hostile to workers.

During her time in California government, Ms. Su was a proponent of Assembly Bill 5, which is a piece of legislation that reclassified many workers who had been considered independent contractors as employees through a set of criteria known as the ABC test.

That test proved to be so unpopular and unworkable that ultimately dozens of occupations were exempted from the measure--so many that the list of exemptions ended up being longer than the text of the original bill. Even California voters recognized how problematic it was, which is why they approved Proposition 22, which specifically designated app- based rideshare and delivery drivers as independent contractors.

Now, people tend to think of Uber or Lyft as the prime example of gig work, but, in actual fact, gig workers and independent contractors make up a sizable percentage of the labor force and are part of a wide range of professions, from hairdressing to truckdriving to insurance adjustment. And a lot of gig workers and independent contractors are big fans of the freedom and independence that independent contracting provides and are not looking to be reclassified as employees.

A 2017 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that a whopping 79 percent of independent contractors preferred their work arrangement to a traditional work arrangement. Less than 10 percent expressed a preference for a traditional job.

The truth is that laws like California's arise not from a groundswell of gig worker dissatisfaction but from liberals' commitment to Big Labor, which would like to see the majority of workers forced to pay dues.

Laws like California's Assembly Bill 5 are supported by unions because they would put more workers in a position where they might end up joining unions, even if gig workers and independent contractors themselves don't

want to find themselves in that position.

And Ms. Su's anti-gig-economy, anti-independent-contractor positions aren't limited to her time in California. During her time with the Department of Labor, Ms. Su has continued to attack independent contracting and gig work.

She presided over the Biden administration's proposed new worker classification rule last fall, which would force independent contractors and gig workers, who typically receive 1099 income, to reclassify as W-2 employees.

Gig workers who receive 1099 taxable income have the ability to deduct expenses, like mileage in the case of an Uber or Lyft driver, equipment rental costs, and home offices.

Forcing gig workers to reclassify as W-2 workers would mean that they could no longer avail themselves of some of these deductions, putting this significant sector of our economy at a financial disadvantage and reducing worker flexibility.

This new rule would, however, offer opportunities for labor unions to collect new members, which is, presumably, Ms. Su's and the Biden administration's goal.

President Biden, of course, is a big fan of Big Labor and has done everything he can to advance Big Labor's priorities. Ms. Su said as much last year to a group of labor activists. ``The Department of Labor stands with you,'' she said. ``The Biden-Harris administration stands with you. . . . And you have a president who has vowed to be the most pro-worker, pro-union president in history.''

The President's and Democrats' ultimate goal here is passage of the PRO Act, which Ms. Su supports. This legislation, a major priority of Big Labor's, would implement a national version of California's Assembly Bill 5, only without the California bill's exemptions, as well as a number of other provisions designed to appease union bosses.

And if the PRO Act passed, its anti-independent-contractor provisions could wreak havoc on whole industries, like trucking, which would not only be bad for affected workers but for our entire economy.

The last thing that we need during a time of supply chain problems, for example, is an unnecessary reduction in the number of truckers carrying food and goods around our country.

I have introduced legislation in the past to help gig workers, and I was proud to join Senator Tim Scott this week in introducing his Employee Rights Act, legislation that would protect both union and nonunion workers and preserve the freedom of independent contractors to maintain their preferred work arrangements.

And I will continue to support measures to ensure that Americans have the freedom to choose the work arrangement that works for them, instead of being forced into arrangements preferred by the Democratic Party and by Big Labor.

Before I close, I also want to mention the hostility Ms. Su has demonstrated to franchises and the franchising model, which has provided economic mobility for so many in this Nation. She is a supporter of another disastrous California idea, the FAST Recovery Act, which is legislation passed by the California State Legislature and signed by the Governor that would give government appointees authority to micromanage franchise restaurants throughout California, including setting wages and working hours, among other decisions.

That law is so unpopular in her own home State that a million Californians signed a petition to add it as a ballot initiative in 2024 so that they can vote on whether the law should actually be implemented.

And the opposition is not surprising, when you consider that the measure would raise costs for restaurants and, according to the International Franchise Association, could increase prices at affected restaurants by as much as 20 percent.

Julie Su is a poor choice for Secretary of Labor, and I hope that some of my Democratic colleagues will join Republicans in acknowledging the serious concerns about both her policy positions and her ability to effectively administer the Labor Department and will urge the President to withdraw her nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion lately, here in Congress, about the national security concerns posed by TikTok, whose parent company is Chinese-owned ByteDance.

Chinese law requires social media technology companies to provide information, including individually identifiable personal information, to the Chinese Government, when asked.

This obviously has implications for Americans' personal security and privacy and raises troubling questions about how the Chinese Communist Party could use TikTok for its own ends, whether that is using personal data to develop sources for espionage or manipulating content to advance the Communist Party's agenda. The Director of the CIA, the FBI Director, and the Director of National Intelligence have all outlined national security concerns with TikTok, and Members of Congress are currently discussing various ways of addressing these concerns.

In March, Senator Mark Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I introduced bipartisan legislation called the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act--or the RESTRICT Act, the acronym--to address the national security concerns posed not just by TikTok but by other technologies from foreign adversary countries.

I am pleased that our bill, which is cosponsored by a full quarter of the U.S. Senate, has received a lot of attention in the media, attention that I hope will ensure our legislation receives a full hearing in the Commerce Committee and a vote on the Senate floor, but along with the attention our bill has received has come a lot of misrepresentation about the bill's content. And I want to take just a moment today to set the record straight on some misconceptions about the RESTRICT Act.

First of all, many critics of the bill seem to be unaware of the fact that the bill is closely modeled after a 2019 Executive order by President Trump as well as a subsequent rule by the Trump Commerce Department. So I wanted to underscore that the RESTRICT Act seeks to codify a policy that was put in place by President Trump. Unlike some of the other TikTok bills out there, our bill is not exclusively focused on TikTok and would instead create a framework for reviewing not only TikTok but any technology from a foreign adversary nation that poses an undue national security risk.

This has led to some claims that our bill is too broad or gives the Federal Government too much power, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Our bill is, in fact, narrowly tailored, and it is designed not to expand the Federal Government's power but to update authorities the Federal Government already has to account for the digital age.

Both Democrat and Republican administrations have taken Executive action to counter the threat posed by technology from foreign adversary countries, but they have been limited by the fact that current law was written before the age of the internet and is not always easily applied to digital threats.

Our legislation, which, again, codifies an Executive order issued by President Trump as well as a subsequent rule by the Trump Commerce Department, would fill in the gaps in current law and ensure that it is possible to address not just traditional risks from foreign-owned companies but the specific

threats posed by foreign-owned digital technology.

I imagine some claims that our bill is too broad have arisen because our bill is not limited to TikTok, but there is a reason for that. First, there is reason to believe that legislation targeted solely at TikTok would be overturned by the courts because of the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder. Second, our bill would apply a way to address more than just TikTok because this is not the first time technology from a hostile nation has posed a serious national security concern, and it probably won't be the last.

Before there was TikTok, we had to engage in a protracted effort to remove technology from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from our telecommunications networks--after U.S. security officials raised concerns that much of Huawei and ZTE's equipment was built with backdoors, giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global communications networks.

And before Huawei and ZTE, there was Russia's Kaspersky, which threatened the security of government-owned digital devices, and that is just looking backward in time.

Looking forward, we are also confronting risky platforms like WeChat, a Chinese app that has 19 million users in the United States. By many accounts, WeChat is even worse than TikTok in terms of the Chinese Communist Party being able to steal data, censor information, and propagandize Americans.

No other bipartisan bill introduced in Congress does anything to address the risks posed by this platform or other dangerous apps or technologies. Only the RESTRICT Act contains the necessary authorities for the Federal Government to do something about not only TikTok but other technologies that present a potential national security risk.

Instead of trying to play catchup and find a way to individually address each threat after it emerges, as has happened in the past, we need a process in place to provide for an orderly and transparent review of technologies from foreign adversary countries, and that is what our bill would provide.

Under our bill, the Department of Commerce, in both Republican and Democrat administrations, would review any information and communications technology product from a foreign adversary company that is deemed to present a potential security threat, with an emphasis on products used in critical telecommunications infrastructure or with serious national security implications.

And the Secretary of Commerce would be required to develop a range of measures to mitigate the danger posed by these products, up to and including a ban on the product in question.

Importantly, our bill would ensure transparency by requiring the Commerce Secretary to coordinate with the Director of National Intelligence to provide declassified information on why any measure against technology products from foreign adversary countries were taken.

I have mentioned that our bill is narrowly tailored. That is true about the process created by the bill, which is designed not to expand government but to fill a hole in current law. But it is true about the countries whose technology is targeted for review by this bill.

The RESTRICT Act would provide for the review of technology from just six foreign adversary countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. The Secretary of Commerce would be allowed to add countries to this list if it became necessary, but Congress would have the authority to reject any addition.

And contrary to claims that the act would exclude judicial review, the RESTRICT Act specifically provides that any challenges to the act be considered at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Other charges that have been leveled against the RESTRICT Act are about the impact the bill would supposedly have on individual Americans. Opponents of the bill have suggested that the RESTRICT Act would somehow infringe on Americans' First Amendment rights or target individual Americans. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

The RESTRICT Act would do nothing--nothing--to restrict the content Americans can post online. Now, let me just repeat that because this is very important: The RESTRICT Act would do nothing to restrict the content Americans can post online.

If the RESTRICT Act becomes law, Americans will be free to post exactly the same online content that they are posting right now. Nothing in the bill would in any way censor what Americans can put on the internet. And the bill would not allow the Federal Government to surveil Americans' online content or give the government authority to access any American's personal communications device.

Nor would the bill target individual Americans in any way. No individual user would be prosecuted for using something like a private VPN network to get around a potential ban on an entity like TikTok. This legislation would simply allow for the possibility of banning certain technologies from foreign adversary countries that pose a threat to national security.

And the only entities that would possibly be subject to prosecution under this legislation would be companies that deliberately violated a prohibition on technologies that had been determined to be dangerous enough to trigger a ban.

The digital age has provided us with enormous benefits, but inevitably it has also come with its own unique risks and threats--not least the risk of a hostile foreign government exploiting communications technology for nefarious purposes.

And those threats increase substantially when we are talking about technology produced by companies in hostile nations and affiliated with hostile governments.

We need a process to address those threats, a narrowly targeted way to mitigate the dangers of digital technologies from foreign adversary countries while protecting the rights and liberties of American citizens.

That is exactly what the RESTRICT Act would provide. I am proud of the legislation that we have developed, and I look forward to working with colleagues of both parties to further improve this legislation and advance it here in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize the distinguished career, public service, and leadership of Thomas J. Heller.

Tom has served as president and CEO of Missouri River Energy Services for 30 years, joining the company in 1992 as its fourth CEO since the organization's founding in 1965. After leading the organization for three decades, Tom announced his retirement, effective June 30, 2023.

Under his leadership, Missouri River Energy Services navigated a changing energy landscape to provide reliable and resilient electricity to 61 member communities across South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota. Tom's hard work has certainly not gone unnoticed. In 2014, he was the recipient of the American Public Power Association's Alan H. Richardson Statesmanship Award, and, in 2020, he received the Mark Crisson Leadership and Managerial Excellence Award. Tom's colleagues speak highly of both his work and his character, and his departure will certainly leave big shoes to fill.

Before joining Missouri River Energy Services, Tom worked for the Moorhead Public Service Department for 16 years, including 7 years as general manager. Nationally, Tom serves on the executive committee of the Transmission Access Policy Study Group, the Missouri Basin Power Project Management Committee of Laramie River Station, and the American Public Power Association's CEO Climate Change and Generation Policy Task Force.

Following his retirement, Tom plans to spend more time with his grandkids Graham and Matilda. I am grateful for his commitment to public service, his hard work on behalf of Missouri River Energy Services and its member communities, and, more importantly, I am proud to call him a friend.

I commend Tom for his many great contributions throughout his long career and wish him all the best in his well-earned retirement.

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

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

Mr. President, today is Tax Day, and I think it is probably fair to say it is not most Americans' most favorite day. No one enjoys writing a check to the IRS or contemplating just how much of his or her yearly earnings goes to the Federal Government, especially when the Federal Government doesn't always make the best use of taxpayer dollars.

If you have a question for the IRS, things can get even more grim. The IRS does not exactly have a reputation for excellent customer service. During fiscal year 2021, the Agency answered just 11 percent of the 282 million calls it received--11 percent. That means that 250 million taxpayer calls went unanswered--250 million. And 2022 was barely better. During fiscal year 2022, 87 percent of taxpayer calls-- 87 percent--went unanswered. Any business with a customer service record like that would soon be out of business.

That is not even the worst of it. On top of its customer service problems, the IRS has a troubling record of mishandling taxpayer data. Everyone remembers the infamous targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny under the Obama IRS. Then there was the 2021 leak or hack of confidential taxpayer information that ended up in the hands of the left-leaning organization ProPublica and was used to advance a partisan agenda. Last September, the IRS reported that it had inadvertently posted confidential taxpayer data for around 120,000 individuals on its website. Then, after fixing its mistake, the IRS inadvertently made much of that same information public again just 2 months later.

It is no surprise that interacting with the IRS doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Given the IRS's record, you would think everyone could agree the Agency is ripe for reform. Democrats, however, apparently thought the Agency was simply ripe for more funding, a lot more funding--funding targeted not toward reforming taxpayer services but overwhelmingly toward increasing tax enforcement.

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act Democrats passed last August contained a staggering $80 billion for the IRS. Just 4 percent of that funding--4 percent out of $80 billion--was earmarked for improving taxpayer services. More than half, roughly $46 billion, was earmarked for increased audits and other tax collection efforts.

But that is not all. President Biden is now proposing to boost the IRS's budget by 15 percent next year--over and above the massive funding boost the IRS already received from the Inflation Reduction Act. And it doesn't even end there. The President's budget would also provide a separate and additional $29 billion to the IRS for enforcement--again, in addition to the $46 billion for enforcement the IRS received last August.

I don't need to tell anyone that President Biden's campaign to flood the IRS with unprecedented funding is motivated not by a desire to improve the Agency's performance but by a need to find money to help offset some of the cost of Democrats' Green New Deal schemes and other big-government spending.

There is reason to be concerned about where the President will be getting all this money he expects to collect. The IRS has pledged not to use its increased funding to raise audit rates on small businesses and households making under $400,000 a year ``relative to historic levels.'' But not only is it not clear what the Agency means by ``historic levels,'' there is also nothing to prevent the Biden IRS from going back on that commitment--if, for example, the President finds he can't pay for his Green New Deal schemes just by increasing audits of higher earning taxpayers.

Suddenly and dramatically increasing the size of any government Agency is a cause for concern. Are there plans in place to make sure the money is used wisely, efficiently? Can the Agency in question handle such a swift expansion? These are serious questions no matter what Agency we are talking about, but these questions are particularly relevant when the Agency in question--in this case, the IRS--is already doing a poor job of handling its basic responsibilities.

Any funding infusion like the $80 billion the IRS received in August should

be paired with commensurate oversight measures, including a requirement for a comprehensive strategy and effective execution from the IRS and appropriate safeguards and accountability for taxpayers. But that, interestingly enough, is something Democrats failed to include in their legislation, and they have shown little interest in IRS oversight since.

That cannot continue.

We need to put safeguards in place to ensure that the tens of billions of dollars Democrats have funneled to the IRS are being used responsibly and efficiently and that the IRS is not mismanaging its tax collection powers.

The National Taxpayer Advocate has noted that the money from the so- called Inflation Reduction Act has been ``disproportionately allocated for enforcement activities and should be reallocated to achieve a better balance with taxpayer service needs and IT modernization.''

``We need to put taxpayers first,'' the advocate said, and she is right. But, unfortunately, Democrats' priority is not taxpayers; it is tax collection.

Earlier this year, I introduced legislation along with Senator Chuck Grassley, cosponsored by all Senate Finance Committee Republicans, to improve oversight and hold the IRS accountable for its spending decisions. Our legislation, the IRS Funding Accountability Act, would require the IRS to provide Congress with an annual plan for how the Agency intends to use its new funding--a plan that could be rejected by Congress with a joint resolution of disapproval.

The IRS would also be required to provide Congress with quarterly updates on implementation of the spending plans, and there would be real consequences for failing to submit plans and reports on time, including the rescission of funds until the IRS complies with reporting requirements.

The IRS did recently release an underwhelming report on how it intends to spend its funding windfall, but the report, which was submitted more than 45 days late, was exceptionally vague and short on important details. Our legislation would require the IRS to put forward detailed plans on time and ensure that Congress has the ability to prevent misuse of funds or violations of taxpayer receipts. And I would hope that my Democrat colleagues would recognize the need for this kind of commonsense legislation.

Any massive funding infusion to a Federal Agency needs to be accompanied by meaningful oversight to protect taxpayer dollars and doubly so when it comes to an Agency like the IRS with a track record for poor customer service and mishandling Americans' priority information. As we move forward, I will continue to do everything I can to push for accountability at the IRS to make sure that taxpayers' rights are respected and that Americans' tax dollars are being used responsibly.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in January of this year, a former Democratic

Senator penned an op-ed urging Democrats to do away with the Senate tradition of blue slips. This was followed within weeks by an editorial from the New York Times and an op-ed in the Washington Post making similar arguments.

While the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has indicated his desire to maintain the blue slip process, talk of abandoning blue slips remains concerning, especially given Democrats' attempt last year to do away with the legislative filibuster, a mainstay of Senate procedure and a guarantor of minority party representation.

Blue slips--so-called because they are literally blue slips of paper requesting perspective on judicial nominees from their home State Senators--are a longtime Senate tradition. They serve the important function of ensuring that Senators are consulted about judicial appointments from their State, and that is particularly relevant when it comes to nominees to serve as Federal district court judges.

The Founders set up the Senate in such a way as to provide a voice for States in the national legislature, and Senators continue to provide a voice for a whole State in a way that a Representative in the House of Representatives does not simply because he or she only represents a single district.

State representation is of particular relevance when it comes to the most numerous type of judicial nominee, and that is Federal district court judges. Unlike circuit court judges or Supreme Court Justices, Federal district court judges are responsible for a limited physical jurisdiction that is entirely contained within a single State, and they are regularly required to interpret State law as well as Federal law. Now, given that fact, Senators, as the representatives of their States, should have a particular say in who will receive a lifetime appointment to interpret their State's laws.

The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint judges by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the blue slip process in the Senate encourages Presidents to seek that advice--not to just send a nominee over to the Senate for consideration and vote but to actually discuss a nominee with the relevant home State Senators before sending that name over.

Blue slips also serve as a check on more extreme or problematic nominees, first, by encouraging the President not to nominate excessively controversial candidates, and second, by providing a way for home State Senators to block a nomination for their State if the President does nominate someone problematic.

Senators of both parties regularly return blue slips for judicial nominees; in other words, they sign off on the nomination of judicial nominees who would not be their first choice but whom they recognize as suitable to sit on the bench. When the nominee in question has problems beyond just not being a home State Senator's preference, blue slips have provided a way for Senators of both parties to stop the nomination.

In the pieces that have come out in support of abolishing the blue slip process, I have noticed two strands of thought in particular: one, that things have gotten so partisan that we should just do away with things that are meant to foster bipartisanship, and two, that doing away with blue slips is worth it for the political goal to be achieved, and that is getting more Democratic judicial nominees confirmed.

When it comes to the first, the idea that things have gotten so partisan that we should just give up and embrace it, I would say that I think the last solution--the last solution--to increased partisanship is to abolish measures that promote collaboration and comity.

Now, we have seen a lot of virulent partisanship around here lately, but the truth is that bipartisanship still exists even though it may not always receive the same kind of sensational coverage that major disputes between the parties receive. And anything that promotes bipartisanship, that encourages Members of both parties to work together, to listen to each other's concerns, and to compromise when possible, is a good thing.

But while I may not agree that the solution to increased partisanship is to just give in to it, I am really troubled by the second idea put forward by those who want to abolish blue slips: that it is worth abandoning a significant Senate tradition--a tradition that promotes compromise, checks unfettered majority power, and serves as a critical check on the President--for the sake of temporary political gain.

This, of course, is hardly the first time we have seen this attitude during the Biden administration. We have also seen it displayed with Democrats' attempt to abolish the legislative filibuster, the Senate rule that today almost unquestionably does more than anything else to preserve the Founders' vision of the Senate as a place of stability and deliberation and a check on the power of faction.

I will be frank. The legislative filibuster can be frustrating in the extreme. When Republicans were in control of the Senate, we took multiple votes on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a piece of legislation that would enshrine what should be the most commonsense thing imaginable, and that is that a living, breathing child born after a botched abortion should be granted protection. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have passed without the legislative filibuster.

So there is no question that the filibuster can stop good legislation from getting passed just as a blue slip could prevent a good judge from being confirmed, but that is not a reason to do away with either of these Senate procedures, and above all, it is not a reason to do away with the legislative filibuster.

Yeah, the filibuster can be frustrating, and it can certainly be used to stop good bills, like the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, but it is a powerful protection against bad legislation. Without the legislative filibuster, there is very little, if anything, to prevent terrible legislation from getting passed by an extremely narrow or even merely technical Senate majority.

The legislative filibuster offers a host of other benefits. It encourages compromise, it discourages extremism, and it provides a voice for Americans represented by whatever party is in the minority, who also deserve representation. The Founders knew that tyranny didn't just come in the form of individual despots and dictators. They knew that majorities could be tyrants as well and trample on the rights of Americans in the minority, and the legislative filibuster helps guard against that.

So I believe very firmly in the Senate rules and traditions that preserve the Founders' vision of the Senate as a place of consensus and deliberation and that help prevent tyrannical majorities from trampling on rights and representation for members of the minority.

While the legislative filibuster or the blue slip process may prevent a good piece of legislation from getting passed or a good nominee from getting confirmed, the alternative--the alternative--which is a system without meaningful representation for the minority party and the Americans it represents, without a meaningful check on extreme nominees or legislation that threatens our constitutional rights is, in fact, much, much worse.

So before Democrats think about abolishing key Senate protections against extremism or the tyranny of the majority, I hope they will consider what things might look like when they are once again in the minority and they want to stop a nominee or piece of legislation that they view as dangerous or extreme, and I hope they will decide in favor of checks and balances in Senate institutions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Missouri