Floor Statements

Mr. President, for 150 years, Calvert City has been a central hub of the Jackson Purchase, serving as a focal point for pioneers, farmers, and railroaders from all over western Kentucky. The town's enduring legacy is a tribute to the enterprising demeanor of those trailblazing Kentuckians who first called the Purchase home. In recognition of Calvert City's sesquicentennial, I am privileged to join this vibrant Kentucky community in celebrating 150 years of Bluegrass heritage.

Calvert City started off as nothing more than a depot alongside the Paducah & Elizabethtown Railroad, but quickly blossomed as settlers spread west into the Jackson Purchase to profit from the region's fertile soil and easy access to the Tennessee, Cumberland, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. By the time the Kentucky Dam was completed nearby in 1944, bringing jobs and hydroelectric power to the region, the town was a flourishing center of commerce. Today, Calvert City is home to numerous advanced chemical manufacturing facilities and continues to play a critical role in western Kentucky's economy.

In recognition of Calvert City's pioneer spirit, the town is celebrating 150 years of history with 150 events throughout the calendar year. These ceremonies are made especially poignant by the passing of Mayor Lynn Boyd Jones this January. He had dreamed about Calvert City's 150th anniversary since the town's centennial 50 years ago and was an early planner of this year's festivities.

As Kentucky emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, the celebration will be a uniquely joyous tribute. All aspects of Calvert City's storied history will be on display, from railroad cars, to an auto show, to events at Oak Hill, the original home of town founder Potilla Calvert.

I want to give special thanks to the Calvert City civic leaders who made this year's sesquicentennial celebration possible. It is through their hard work and dedication that the town continues to prosper, so many years after its founding. On behalf of the Senate, I share our congratulations with every Calvert City family and join them in honoring 150 years of proud Kentucky traditions.

Mr. President, over the weekend, Iran held what its Supreme Leader might call a Presidential election. To the rest the world, including millions of Iranians, what actually happened was quite clear. The regime's favored choice was selected from a limited field of approved candidates in a carefully controlled bit of political theater. There is no doubt this charade works as intended. The Ayatollah got a President-elect with a record of strict adherence to his regime's revolutionary orthodoxy. Meanwhile, former Presidential candidates who emerged as leaders in the popular 2009 Green Movement remain under house arrest. Like his predecessors, Ebrahim Raisi will serve as a figurehead while the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard actually run the show.

But even rigged elections have consequences, and the new most visible figure in Tehran has a proven history as a hardline theocrat. For decades, from his time on a so-called death committee in the 1980s, the President-elect played an intimate role in the trial, conviction, and summary execution of political prisoners and peaceful protesters. There is no question he is an extreme hardliner, even in the Iranian context, and now he is set to be the so-called counterpart to President Biden as this administration reengages eagerly with the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism.

In some circles, a looming turnover in the top ranks of Iranian leadership is being spun as a reason for the White House to rush even faster than it already is toward restoring the Obama administration's failed nuclear deal. One particularly eager assessment in the New York Times called the next 6

weeks ``a unique window for clinching an agreement,'' like some sort of liquidation sale in which President Biden needs to take whatever he can. Meanwhile, rational observers know that the fundamental reality of the U.S.-Iranian relations certainly has not changed.

If the selection of a new hardline figurehead in Tehran sends any signal, it is a reminder that showering the regime with sanctions relief and expecting a change in behavior is a reckless and damaging approach. In fact, President-elect Raisi has already said as much himself. Iran's ballistic missile program is ``not negotiable,'' and meeting with President Biden is not on the table.

Of course, Iranian politicians and diplomats are known to lie and to dissemble, so we should pay closest attention to this regime's actions. What will it actually do?

Here is the truth: Domestic political developments in Tehran don't absolve the Biden administration of its responsibility to confront Iran's nuclear and missile proliferation, its support for terrorism, its abuses of human rights, and its relentless efforts to destabilize the entire region.

If President Biden hopes to earn bipartisan support for an Iran policy that could outlast his time in office, he needs to start explaining how he intends to respond as Iran ramps up threats against the United States and our closest partners in its backyard.

Remember, the thousands of rockets Hamas fired at Israel last month were made possible by Iran. So were the precision-guided munitions in Hezbollah's arsenal and the ballistic missiles and UAVs launched into Saudi Arabia by the Houthis in Yemen. And the dozens of militia attacks on U.S. interests in Iraq? Carried out by Tehran's reliable accolades.

The Biden administration has had months to develop a coherent rationale for its eager engagement with the Iranian regime and months to hash out a better plan than rewarding terrorist sponsors with sanctions relief. An explanation to Congress is long overdue.

Madam President, later this week, President Biden will meet with leaders of the Afghanistan civilian democratic government. It doesn't take an administrative leak to know what will be on the agenda.

President Ghani and Chairman Abdullah Abdullah will arrive in Washington as a grave situation in their country rapidly deteriorates.

The strategic and moral consequences of President Biden's decision to abandon Afghanistan are already coming painfully into focus. Without air cover and with reduced support from the U.S.-led coalition, our Afghan partners are struggling to hold back the Taliban onslaught.

In just the 2 months since the President's announcement, extremist militants have retaken control of at least 30--30--of Afghanistan's administrative districts. Reports from the ground indicate that their heavy-handed, medieval rule is already creating new nightmares, especially for Afghan women and girls. And just last week, more than 20 of the elite, U.S.-trained special forces, who represent the country's best hope of resistance, were literally slaughtered in a Taliban raid. So it is getting harder and harder to believe that ``over-the-horizon'' support will be enough to help our Afghan partners sustain the fight against these terrorist threats. It is already clear it would intensify challenges to our own national security.

This spring, the intelligence community warned that the Taliban was ``likely to make gains on the battlefield.'' As the Director of the CIA put it, ``ability to collect and act on threats will diminish.'' Now senior defense officials are portraying follow-on threats like the resurgence of al-Qaida as not a matter of if but when.

Last week, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs acknowledged that al-Qaida still seeks to directly threaten the United States and that it could have the necessary capabilities to do so in 2 years--or even less in the case of a Taliban victory in Kabul.

They want to know how we plan to support their defensive campaign without the air support that literally saves soldiers' lives. They want to know how we plan to contribute to urgent counterterrorism missions without a robust system for collecting intelligence on the ground. And if President Biden is unwilling to reverse course, they want to know who will help protect their fellow citizens forced to flee by the Taliban's conquest.

The State Department is not prepared to efficiently process visa claims from the many Afghans who have worked closely with our personnel, let alone the massive flows of refugees already on the move. Where are the friends of America to turn? Where will they turn?

It is time for President Biden to acknowledge the consequences of his decision: that a refugee crisis in Afghanistan will mean senseless suffering; that the collapse of the Afghan state will mean a security and economic crisis across the region, a crisis America and its partners will simply be unable to ignore; that the fallout of our retreat will draw attention and resources away from even greater strategic threats from Russia and China; and that every bit of it would have been avoidable, totally avoidable.

Now, Madam President, on another matter, as I have noted before, Senate Democrats entered June with an agenda that was designed to fail. Our Democratic leader planned votes on a host of the left's most radical priorities. None of it was ever intended to clear the Senate's appropriately high bar for advancing legislation. Instead, the failure of their partisan agenda was meant to show somehow-- somehow--that the Senate itself was failing.

For months, our colleagues built anticipation for the failure. They even started previewing the latest argument they have made when it happened. Apparently, the same Senate rule a Democratic minority had used with abandon was now somehow a racist relic to be abandoned by a Democratic majority.

In the end, one particular radical proposal took priority. S. 1 is the same bad bill it has been since the House introduced its version back in 2019 with the same nakedly partisan motives. But ever since Democrats got the election outcome they wanted last fall, we have watched our colleagues actually update the rationale for their latest partisan power grab: States must be stopped from exercising control over their own election laws.

The arguments here have one big thing in common with the ones our colleagues have deployed against the filibuster: debunked claims of racism.

Remember, the last Presidential election saw the highest voter turnout in decades, even amidst a once-in-a-century pandemic, and African-American turnout was twice as high in Mississippi as it was in Massachusetts. But when Georgia passed targeted updates to its election laws based on lessons learned during the pandemic-era elections, Democrats trashed the bill as a ``redux of Jim Crow.'' They misrepresented its contents so wildly that even left-leaning ``fact- checks'' repeatedly debunked these claims. But by then, the train of disinformation had left the station. Pretty soon, any State that dared to deviate from unique, pandemic-era procedures faced summary judgment in the court of liberal outrage. It hasn't seemed to matter that the facts tell a different story.

The bill that led Texas Democrats to exercise the rights of a legislative minority last month requires more counties to adhere to new minimum hours for early voting. The Oklahoma bill that expanded early voting for general elections was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican Governor. In my State of Kentucky, the expansion of both online registration and early voting this spring passed

on a bipartisan basis, and a Democratic Governor signed it.

Democrats have continued to insist that S. 1 is a response to these State laws, but we know it actually predates them. And we are starting to see that our colleagues' latest rationale for S. 1 can be flexible when needed. Prominent Democrats have railed against voter ID requirements for years, but now that voter ID is among the sticking points keeping the Democratic caucus from uniting behind S. 1, some Democrats have started indicating, well, they have had a change of heart. Now, I would commend them for coming around to commonsense positions on that issue that 80 percent of Americans already support. But one supposed compromise, among some Democrats, bears more than a passing resemblance to the partisan power grab their party has touted for years. It even introduces its own disastrous new liabilities, like a proposal to automate redistricting that is certainly constitutionally dubious.

At the end of the day, Madam President, which concocted crisis Democrats choose as justification for their top legislative priority actually doesn't make much difference. They have made abundantly clear that the real driving force behind S. 1 is a desire to rig the rules of American elections permanently--permanently--in the Democrats' favor. That is why the Senate will give this disastrous proposal no quarter.

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

Madam President, next week, as the Democratic leader has indicated, the Senate will finally get the opportunity to vote on the bill that House and Senate Democrats have both made their No. 1 priority for the entire Congress. S. 1 is a bad bill filled with bad ideas, and I have been crystal clear about opposing it from the very beginning.

But for Democrats themselves, coming up with a compelling rationale for this unprecedented political power grab has been a long and winding road. It started back in 2019. Then, our friends on the left were still trying to wrap their heads around a stunning defeat in the 2016 Presidential election, so the Speaker of the House billed H.R. 1 as a major overhaul for what her party concluded was a profoundly broken democracy.

Then, 2020 changed everything. A Democrat actually won the White House. I guess our democracy wasn't broken after all. This time, apparently, Federal authorities just needed urgent protection from State legislatures running their own elections.

So we are talking about fundamentally the very same bill. And one thing is for certain: Major overhaul doesn't even begin--begin--to describe it. The awful guts are all in there.

There is the plan to forcibly rewrite large portions of the 50 States' respective election laws and the plan to create new, publicly funded accounts not for building roads or bridges, expanding rural broadband, or fighting the opioid epidemic, but just piles of Federal dollars going to yard signs, balloons, and TV ads for candidates at least half of Americans disagree with.

There is the plan to trash a decades-old, bipartisan consensus on the right way to call balls and strikes on elections and turn the even split of the Federal Election Commission into a partisan majority and the one to give that majority new and broader tools for chilling the rights of citizens to engage in political speech it doesn't like.

It is such a radical proposal that even prominent voices on the left have urged caution. Lawyers from ACLU, no less, have sounded the alarm on its proposed encroachment on free speech. One liberal expert went further, saying that if Democrats think their bill is ``essential to secure democracy, they are self-deceived or deceitful.'' And voters themselves are hardly convinced. When asked about election policies like voter ID, large--large--majorities consistently come down on the opposite side of Washington Democrats. The bill is so transparently opportunistic, the Democrats' spin has failed to even unite their own party here in the Senate. It is a massive takeover of our election system with a fill-in-the-blank rationale. Nobody is fooled, and next week, the Senate will reject it

Madam President, now on another matter entirely, the House of Representatives will vote today on a bill from Representative Barbara Lee to repeal one of the key authorities behind nearly two decades of U.S. efforts to fight terrorism: the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. House Democrats claim this vote is an urgent act of congressional oversight, and the Democratic leader has indicated the Senate will take it up with similar zeal.

The right way to address ongoing terrorist threats is a debate certainly worth having. I would have welcomed that debate before the Biden administration began its hasty retreat from Afghanistan without a plan to sustain counterterror missions or support our friends. It is one we should have before we vote to repeal these authorities. Reality is more complicated, more dangerous, and less politically convenient than its supporters actually believe.

The fact is, the legal and practical application of the 2002 AUMF extends far beyond the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime, and tossing it aside without answering real questions about our ongoing efforts in the region is reckless.

So let's clear up some facts. The 2002 AUMF has been understood for years--years--to apply to a variety of threats emanating from Iraq. Administrations of both parties have cited it as an important legal foundation of our fight against ISIS. It has been used precisely because the ISIS caliphate that stretched into Syria emanated from Iraq after President Obama's withdrawal in 2011.

The 2002 AUMF is important in Iraq today because it provides authority for U.S. forces there to defend themselves from a variety of real, exigent threats. It is arguably even more important in Syria, where our personnel are present against the wishes of the brutal Assad regime, supporting local Kurdish and Arab forces and conducting strikes against ISIS. And because ISIS and al-Qaida have sometimes diverged, legal analysts have suggested that the 2001 AUMF alone may be insufficient to authorize operations against ISIS.

Do supporters of this repeal fully understand the ways it might limit counterterrorism missions? How about cyber ops? How about support for Kurdish and Arab forces in Syria? How do they propose we respond to growing attacks against our forces and interests in Iraq?

What about the prospects for robust congressional oversight if the President is left to rely on unilateral article II authorities or even less transparent ones? We are learning a lesson in real time about withdrawing from Afghanistan without a plan. We shouldn't make the same mistake here. So I suspect this isn't really about reasserting congressional oversight. After all, when the last administration announced plans to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan in 2019, two dozen Democrats joined my amendment opposing the decision and reasserting our role in foreign policy. But now, many of our colleagues no longer want to talk about what we should be doing to confront these ongoing threats.

A lot can happen in 2 years, I guess. The political winds have certainly changed. But one thing hasn't changed: The grave threats posed by ISIS, al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups are as real as they have ever been, and repealing AUMFs without agreeing on a set of new authorities up front will only lead to more uncertainty about what we are going to do about them.

For years, U.S. forces have been carefully handing more of the primary responsibilities for counterterrorism to brave local partners. Under the last administration, this allowed our military footprint in Iraq and Syria to shrink dramatically. But the only reason that worked is because our partners have been able to trust that the U.S. military is still authorized to back them up. Today, House Democrats intend to rip out one of the key authorities underpinning that trust.

As I understand it, Democrats don't even intend to stop there. They are also planning to take aim at the 2001 authorities that allow us to keep some of the most dangerous terrorists alive from taking more innocent American lives. The administration says it is looking into how best to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that houses the absolute--absolute--worst of the worst, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attack. But thus far, the administration is rather short on details. How does the President plan to do this? Does he intend to break the law and bring terrorists to the United States? Give them expanded legal rights? Further radicalize our prison population? Talk about domestic violent extremism. Or does the President intend to send KSM and his

terrorist cronies to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia before they have faced justice?

Closing Guantanamo Bay will not make Americans safer. It will not bring solace to the victims of terrorism. It will not make America more respected in the world. It won't solve the terrorist threat any more than repealing AUMFs will end their war against us.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Key economic indicators continue to show that our Nation's recovery is still facing significant head winds.

Last week, we learned that inflation has logged its steepest increase since the 2008 financial crisis. There are more unfilled jobs in America than at any point on record, and, when asked, more than 90 percent of the small business owners trying to fill them say they are having trouble finding qualified candidates.

So how did we get here?

When COVID-19 arrived last spring, emergency shutdowns put the brakes on what had become a roaring economy. The pro-growth agenda enacted by Republicans had helped drive unemployment to its lowest level in a half-century. Take-home pay was rising and rising fastest for lower earners, and millions of new workers were coming off the sidelines to join a competitive market for American talent.

The past year presented harsh new challenges, but thanks to the bravery of frontline workers, the genius of scientists, and targeted, bipartisan relief measures passed here in Congress, our Nation was beginning to turn the corner.

The Biden administration actually inherited the conditions for success. It had a bipartisan roadmap of how best to support our economic recovery.

Alas, but instead, the Democrats chose to ram through trillions of dollars in liberal pet projects--a relative pittance for actual pandemic relief and a massive expansion of Federal unemployment benefits that has made staying home the most sensible financial decision for literally millions of American workers.

As one pair of economists put it recently, ``The stimulus bill stimulated unemployment, not employment.'' To be specific, their analysis found it created conditions in at least 19 States where a family of four could claim the equivalent of a six-figure salary by staying out of the workforce.

Let me say that again. One recent study found that in 19 States, a family of four, with two working parents, would have had to earn at an annual rate of more than $100,000 from working for it to make financial sense not to stay home. In 19 States, it made more sense to stay home than to go back to work.

But burying American workers in incentives to stay home hasn't just hurt rehiring; it has also magnified supply shortages. A few months back, the recovery made possible by bipartisan action last year had our economy geared up for a rush of consumer spending, but today, short- staffed producers are having to pass the rising costs on to households just as this rush was set to ramp up.

A tough year forced American families to put off some big purchases, but now they are facing some of the worst sticker shock in a generation. Used car

prices are 30 percent higher than last year, and the cost of some home appliances has spiked nearly as much. Everyday essentials are getting pricier too. Milk is up 7 percent, and gas has jumped by more that 50 percent.

Consumers are feeling the real cost of what the White House Chief of Staff called ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' But it didn't have to be this way. These are exactly the conditions economists have been writing about and warning about for months.

Back in March, the Washington Post ran an ominous line:

For policy experts and even members of Biden's own party,

the improving picture is raising questions about whether the

stimulus bill is mismatched--

Mismatched--

to the needs of the current moment.

Sure enough, not just any member of the President's party but a top economist under both the last two Democratic administrations, Larry Summers, cautioned even earlier that a massive spending plan like the one Democrats were proposing could ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.'' Prescient, to say the least. That is exactly what has happened.

These exact fears have been realized, and experts are still clear about the source of the problem. ``Labor shortages are the last thing that we need'' with inflation on the rise. Until very recently, the White House has been unwilling to connect these dots.

States have been on their own to turn off the perverse incentives driving the shortages. To date, 25 States have done so, announcing suspensions of excessive Federal unemployment supplements. But across the country, Main Street has already been feeling the pinch.

In my State of Kentucky, the consequences of Democrats' misguided spending are growing more serious. Small business owners in particular are nearing a breaking point. One restaurant owner in Clark County wrote to me to say that ``each week it gets harder to create a full schedule. Restaurants are already reducing hours of operation. Next will come closing.''

I have heard the same story from constituents all over the Commonwealth. A sign manufacturer in Woodford County had to ask his staff to work as many as 10 hours of overtime each week just to keep up with demand. An outdoor supplies maker in McCracken County saw shipping costs quadruple in the past year. He can't find a prospective employee who will even show up for an interview. He can't even find a prospective employee who will show up for an interview. After 25 years of production, he is facing the prospect that his company may not be able to stay afloat.

The Commonwealth still has 90,000 fewer workers than we did before the pandemic. In the past year, the Consumer Price Index in Kentucky and surrounding States has increased by a whopping 7 percent. The recovery teed up by smart, targeted, bipartisan policies last year has been buried under an ill-advised, self-inflicted avalanche--avalanche-- of spending. Folks in Kentucky know all too well what happens when Democrats get carried away here in Washington. They know who ends up footing the bill back home.

Higher prices at the gas pump and the grocery store, just as families were hoping to put a year of sacrifices in the rearview mirror--these are the real-world effects of the Biden administration's multitrillion- dollar economic debacle. These are the effects that Republicans and nonpartisan experts have warned about literally for months.

The American people are, nevertheless, resilient. Job creators, innovators, and skilled workers are ready. But as our economy slowly gets back up to speed, it certainly won't be because Democrats stroked an outsized check; it will be in spite of it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 57 years ago on Father's Day, 1964, future U.S. Senator from Kentucky Jim Bunning pitched the perfect game--the seventh in Major League Baseball history--for a 6-0 win by the Philadelphia Phillies over the New York Mets. Jim would have been 90 years old this summer, and in recognition of his legendary career in baseball and politics, the Behringer-Crawford Museum in Covington, Kentucky is celebrating his life with an exhibit running from this Father's Day until August. Today, I recognize Senator Jim Bunning as an outstanding Kentuckian and a lifelong champion on both the pitcher's mound and the Senate floor.

It is fitting that Jim would be honored at the Behringer-Crawford Museum, which has celebrated everything great about northern Kentucky for over 70 years. The exhibit, entitled ``From the Mound to the Hill,'' encapsulates the essence of Jim's life as an all-around Kentucky hero. It is rare that leaders are able to excel in one, let alone two, fields, but Jim earned acclaim with grit, determination, and tenacity.

After his prodigious, 17-year baseball career with the Tigers and the Phillies, which included 224 wins and 2,855 strikeouts, Jim returned home to Campbell County to serve at all levels of local, State, and national government. He dedicated his life to the people of Kentucky, and our gratitude for his public service is apparent in tributes like the one at the Behringer-Crawford Museum.

I served with Jim in the Senate for his entire tenure and was proud to work alongside a man of deep conviction and strongly held principles. As he once said, ``I have been booed by 60,000 fans in Yankee Stadium, standing alone on the mound, so I never cared if I stood alone in Congress, as long as I stood by my beliefs and my values.'' Jim was never afraid to defend his ideals and fight for Kentuckians in the Senate, a trait his constituents wholeheartedly admired. He truly deserves his place in the Hall of Fame, not just for baseball, but for life.

No commemoration of Jim would be complete without also honoring his wife Mary, a truly remarkable woman who led her own admirable life.

The Northern Kentucky Tribune highlighted the Behringer-Crawford Museum's exhibit in a recent article. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 1 week ago today, the personal financial information of several prominent Americans was made public in only the latest leak of sensitive data from the Internal Revenue Service. To put it another way, it appears that an anonymous source committed a felony by releasing the confidential information of American citizens, which a media outlet then published. Now, the way this leak has been covered in the press may not suggest it, but the most alarming part isn't whose information was involved; it is how it was allowed to happen at all--at all.

The American people know that having the personal information they give to the IRS made public isn't just a fear reserved for the highest earners. On multiple occasions in the last decade, individuals and organizations alike have had to watch as their filing details wander far from the IRS's databases. And it goes beyond pay stubs. The IRS holds massive storage of sensitive details, from healthcare expenses, to retirement savings, to charitable contributions. They hold addresses, information about dependents, and associations with organizations that may not be tax-deductible.

Needless to say, there are good arguments for paring back the scope of what information this Agency is allowed to collect in the first place. But here is the bottom line: American taxpayers are required by law to comply with invasive disclosure requirements, and they are doing it with less and less confidence that the Federal Government will honor their trust.

A fundamental piece of our Nation's social contract is fraying, but just how worried you should be about it apparently depends on your personal politics. The precise circumstances of this latest leak have not yet been made clear, but the recent history of IRS negligence and outright political targeting tells conservatives to be especially worried.

As our colleagues remember all too well, years ago, the State of California's database of private donor data for over 1,000 nonprofit organizations was made public illegally. A few years later, confidential IRS donor information from a conservative organization's tax filings was published. To no one's surprise, that information made its way into the hands of liberal groups with opposite views on key issues. Of course, we are talking about the same IRS that made slow- walking requests and filings from conservative organizations a matter of internal policy under the last Democratic administration.

So these situations all have two things in common: first, a blatant political agenda aimed at advancing the cause of the political left, and second, the utter absence of criminal charges against the leakers-- no charges against the leakers.

So let's be clear. As soon as sensitive personal information is leaked, the damage is already done. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and the Federal Government has proven far too often that it is at best, incapable and at worse, unwilling to protect taxpayers' data from misuse by the political left. That is why I have been outspoken in support of efforts to reduce taxpayers' exposure to unnecessary IRS collection in the first place.

But every time a leak goes without serious investigation and criminal prosecution, basic public trust in our tax system suffers, and that fraying trust may eventually be irreparable. That is why I joined Ranking Member Grassley and Ranking Member Crapo to demand that the Department of Justice and the FBI immediately investigate last week's leak and aggressively pursue criminal charges against those who are responsible--actual consequences as a matter of justice and as a practical deterrent. The Federal Government owes taxpayers nothing less.

Unfortunately, thus far, the Biden administration hasn't just neglected to aggressively prosecute overt discrimination; in some cases, it is actually trying to promote it.

Take the massive spending package Democrats rammed through in the name of COVID relief. The spending bill was billed as urgent, but its authors apparently had time to bake in a provision directing relief funds to restaurants on the basis of race and sex

and another directing funds to farmers on the basis of race. So we are talking about blatantly unconstitutional discrimination.

Fortunately, the independent judiciary has stepped in to stop it. Over the last few weeks, multiple Federal courts have struck down these provisions, including an appeals panel led by Judge Amul Thapar from my home State of Kentucky. But these are hardly the only instances in which Washington Democrats have tried to impose their own radical preferences on ordinary Americans

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Kiran Ahuja, President Biden's choice to serve as head of the Office of Personnel Management. This is the position responsible for making hiring, payroll, and training decisions that affect literally millions of Federal employees.

The President's nominee has made statements expressing sympathy for the discredited, ahistorical claims about our Nation's origins that form the backbone of so-called critical race theory. One major organization of Federal employees expressed its concern about the nominee's capacity for ``neutrality, fairness, and impartiality.'' I share those concerns, and I will be voting against this nomination.

Still elsewhere in the Biden administration, efforts to subvert the basic understanding of our founding principles are already well underway. The Department of Education's latest ``proposed priorities'' run roughshod over existing history and civic programs--established with bipartisan support--in order to push critical race theory on public school students and keep pace with ``woke'' sensibilities.

American students deserve a rock-solid civics education grounded in actual facts, not divisive propaganda that tells them they are little more than a product of their racial background. That is the basis of new legislation I was proud to help introduce this week. Schools that choose to trade in fact-based curricula for activist propaganda like the 1619 Project forfeit their right to receive Federal education grant funding for those teachings.

The current administration came to power on the promise to unify a divided nation. It will be judged closely and carefully on how that power is used.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the military junta that seized power from Burma's democratically elected leaders back in February has kept up its campaign of brutal and violent repression. More than 800 people are now dead, and more than 5,000 others have been detained on various charges of resistance.

Just today, the longtime leader of Burma's democracy, my good friend Aung San Suu Kyi, stood for the beginning of a show trial. Other members of the National League for Democracy are awaiting their own appearances before the sham court, and many more protesters, journalists, and activists are filling Burma's prisons right up to the rim.

Several foreigners have been among those detained, including Australian economist Sean Turnell and two American journalists, Nathan Maung and Danny Fenster. The State Department has reported that both U.S. citizens were denied consular access. Mr. Maung reportedly even endured torture during his detention.

The people of Burma are well acquainted with the brutality of the Tatmadaw's military rule, but the wider international community is receiving a sobering reminder of the challenges facing the country's pro-democracy movement and of the junta's willingness to flout even the most basic international norms and treaty obligations.

I appreciate the continued attention the Biden administration is giving to the crisis. Over the weekend, I was particularly encouraged by the G-7 leaders' joint condemnation of the junta and by the reiteration of a shared commitment to shutting off the flow of any assistance funds that might help the military further their repression.

Of course, for friends of democracy, including the United States, there is more to be done to translate words into action. It is time to expand the sanctions aimed at the military to include the infamous cronies who continue to make common cause with the Tatmadaw.

It is time for Burma's neighbors and key trading partners to join these sanctions efforts and commit to providing increased humanitarian access and assistance, particularly, I would say, from Thailand.

It is time for greater international scrutiny of the markets for jade and rare earth metals that give the military and other bad actors targets for exploitation.

It is time for international bodies like the U.N. Security Council to put Burma on the agenda and force the Tatmadaw's supporters to defend the brutal regime out in the light of day.

So our work isn't over, but there is reason for optimism. Burma's ethnic minorities, diverse and often divided, have united behind the representative National Unity Government in peaceful opposition to the military rule, and the NUG continues to broaden and deepen this coalition.

Earlier this month, the National Unity Government announced its policy on the status of the Rohingya Muslims in the western state of Rakhine, pledging accountability for those responsible for years-- years--of violent persecution and committing to greater inclusion for all of Burma's ethnic minorities.

So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Unity Government's important statement on this matter be printed in the Record at this point

This statement represents months of work to build a cohesive, inclusive, and representative government and the best path toward national reconciliation and justice for victims of the Tatmadaw's violence. So the NUG's efforts deserve the full support of the world's oldest democracy. The pro-democracy movement must know that the United States continues to stand with them and that we are ready to support the hard work of national reconciliation that still lies ahead.