Floor Statements

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.

Now, Madam President, on one final matter, late last week, the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip gave in to the urge to pick at the scab of politically motivated investigations that have become their party's favorite weapon against the previous administration. They indicated that they were prepared to compel two former Attorneys General to testify before the Judiciary Committee on efforts to trace leaks of sensitive national security information.

In case anyone had forgotten, our colleagues are among the same Democrats who spent years demanding repeated investigations of a Republican President while turning a blind eye to the clear abuses of power that infected the investigation of his campaign. So any outrage from Democrats that alleged criminal leaks within their own ranks rightly drew the attention of Federal investigators rings completely hollow.

It is particularly disappointing that our colleagues have taken to attacking former Attorney General Bill Barr over investigative decisions that predated--predated--his time at the Department of Justice. Let me say that again. It is particularly disappointing that our colleagues have taken to attacking former Attorney General Bill Barr over investigative decisions that occurred when he wasn't there yet. Attorney General Barr served our Nation with honor and with integrity. These latest attempts to tarnish his name bear the telltale signs of a witch hunt in the making.

Here are the facts: The Department of Justice is empowered to investigate criminal conduct by Members of Congress and their staff. Necessarily, this sort of investigation is subject to strict procedural protections, and the Department's inspector general is fully equipped to determine whether these procedures were followed in this case. So I am confident that the existing inquiry will uncover the truth. There is no need for a partisan circus here in the Congress.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning, the Labor Department announced that it had observed the largest uptick in prices since the depths of the great recession back in 2008, and core inflation has reached a nearly three-decade high.

The latest data reinforced what too many Americans have already been experiencing firsthand: The Biden administration's partisan spending bill has blunted our Nation's economic recovery with higher prices at the gas pump and the grocery store, a tougher time for small businesses trying to staff up, and unemployment policies that incentivize too many Americans to simply stay on the sidelines.

Republicans and outside economists warned that the worst of these conditions actually could have been avoided, but Democrats chose to go it alone. As recently as a few days ago, it appeared that President Biden was open to a new, more consultative approach to major legislation. He and the leading Republican on a committee of jurisdiction were engaged in what appeared to be good-faith, bipartisan negotiations on infrastructure spending, but then the President decided to walk away.

Now, at the White House's direction, Democrats in Congress are making preparations to muscle through a bloated spending bill on a unilateral, partisan basis, and it is becoming clear that the sort of united, bipartisan action Ranking Member Capito has made possible within the EPW Committee is getting harder and harder to replicate.

The bipartisanship that has defined infrastructure policy for years is becoming the exception to Democrats' new partisan rule. It might have something to do with the fact that our Democratic friends have taken to using ``infrastructure'' as a code for a growing wish list of unrelated liberal spending.

The Biden administration's first infrastructure plan made that much clear from its rollout back in March. Remember, this was a multitrillion-dollar bill that proposed to spend more on electric vehicles than on actual roads and bridges. It contained so many leftwing pet projects that the authors of the Green New Deal boasted about just how much of their manifesto's DNA had actually rubbed off.

Well, the administration's approach clearly influenced a number of Democrats right here in the Senate. Last month, on the same day that Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito were guiding a surface transportation bill to a unanimous vote, the Finance Committee was busy marking up a partisan plan to pick winners and losers in the market for reliable domestic energy.

Just this week, we watched their go-it-alone approach replicated by Democrats over in the House. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee had a perfect opportunity to reach consensus on surface transportation. Our

colleagues on the EPW Committee had left a clear roadmap on exactly how to cut a consensus deal, but instead, the House chairman forced his committee to mark up $547 billion littered--littered--with Green New Deal policies.

Compared to the last multiyear highway bill, it nearly doubles the share of resources for mass urban transit projects, while upping the road-and-bridge funding Middle America relies on by not nearly as much. In contrast to smart permit-streaming steps taken by our colleagues' Senate bill, it largely neglects to help the communities and builders who spent years wading through Federal redtape before they can even break ground.

The recent history of investment in roads, bridges, waterways, airports, and broadband tells us that smart, targeted solutions are capable of earning overwhelming support. But until Democrats get serious, the road ahead for consensus action on our Nation's infrastructure will only get steeper

Mr. President, now on another matter, unfortunately the administration's radical left turn touches much more than just infrastructure policy. In fact, it includes an unprecedented new threat to the basic dignity of human life.

On the campaign trail last year, President Biden announced that he would abandon a mainstream position he had held literally for decades: that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. It was an alarming reversal. But under immense pressure from the far left, President Biden kept his radical campaign promise, shrugged off a commonsense precedent upheld by administrations of both parties for more than 40 years, and proposed a budget that entirely erases the protections of the Hyde amendment.

When asked about it at a hearing yesterday, the Secretary of Health and Human Services confirmed that the President's change of heart was not a mistake, saying: ``The budget is a reflection of what the President has said.'' This new fringe stance on taxpayer-funded abortions aligns much more closely with the Secretary's own views, as our colleagues may recall from his confirmation process.

Now, it is no secret that the Democratic Party has been hurtling to the left on abortion in recent years. Here in the Senate, our colleagues have repeatedly blocked efforts to limit elective abortion after the 20th week. Their opposition keeps the United States in a rather inglorious company alongside China, North Korea, and just four other countries that fail to offer this basic protection to the unborn.

So President Biden's decision to abandon the Hyde amendment aligns him with an increasingly radical consensus among elected Democrats, but it puts him way out of step with the clear majority of Americans who oppose taxpayer-funded abortion.

The administration's budget request continues to make headlines for all the wrong reasons, but its plan to sell out on longstanding protections for the most vulnerable Americans might just be the lowest of the low.

Mr. President, now on one final matter, the latest data from Customs and Border Protection show that the current fiscal year has seen the highest number of migrant apprehensions since 2006. Let me say that again. We are 8 months into fiscal year 2021, but the CBP has already apprehended more migrants at our southern border than in any full year since 2006.

It is hard to overstate the humanitarian and security crisis that has unfolded this year. Monthly arrivals of unaccompanied minors reached their highest levels on record. Higher border traffic concealed an alarming rise of flows of deadly drugs like fentanyl. CBP recently announced its apprehensions even included individuals who are on the terrorist watch list.

The origins of this crisis are certainly not a mystery. The Democrats who have spent the last few months in the White House focusing on what to call it instead of how to fix it are the same Democrats who spent last year sending potential migrants dangerous mixed signals from the campaign trail: ``You want to flee. . . . you should come.'' That was future President Biden. ``No . . . they should not be deported.'' That was then-Senator Kamala Harris.

Sure enough, CBP officials are reporting that many migrants they encounter believe that ``there has been a change in immigration laws . . . a gap in enforcement on the U.S. border'' under the new administration.

But if you ask now-Vice President Harris, the administration's point person on the border, there is apparently blame to be found everywhere but her own party's rhetoric on immigration, and there is value in going just about anywhere but the border itself.

This week, the Vice President's investigation of the root causes of migration brought her to Guatemala and Mexico. The administration's delegation was apparently keen to talk about factors like corruption and climate change, but the President of Guatemala had a different agenda. As he put it, ``We asked the United States Government to send more of a clear message.'' Sound familiar?

Of course, one place Vice President Harris did not stop on her trip was the U.S.-Mexico border, and, bizarrely, when she even plans to do that remains completely unclear. When asked about it in an interview this week, the Vice President responded with a laugh: ``I don't understand the point that you're making.''

For months, the Biden administration has assured the American people that when it comes to our southern border, Vice President Harris has it covered, and they are betting on it. The White House budget request proposes no increase in funding for DHS, whose agents are working overtime to contend with the crisis on the ground. Well, there are a lot of folks on both sides of the border who are still waiting for the point person to actually take charge.

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

Mr. President, I was disappointed to learn yesterday that President Biden had walked away from negotiations on infrastructure spending with Senator Capito.

For several weeks, the ranking member of the EPW Committee has been engaged in good faith on finding common ground with the administration. She has led several of our colleagues in literally exhaustive efforts to put a bipartisan deal within reach.

Senate Republicans proposed historic investments in the kinds of things most Americans would call actual infrastructure. They met and exceeded the President's own threshold demands, and then they were left at the table.

Our colleagues weren't wrong to bet on bipartisanship. For one thing, it is what the American people actually deserve. For another, as I have noted before, infrastructure investments have historically featured overwhelming bipartisan consensus. But an agreement requires that actually each side is willing to give up some of what it wants. And as we learned yesterday, President Biden is unwilling to let go of some of the most radical promises he made to the leftwing of his party.

From the day the White House rolled out its first ``infrastructure'' plan in

March, it has been clear that the left's definition of the word is evolving faster than even some Democrats can actually keep up with. Medicaid expansion is now infrastructure, paid leave is now infrastructure, and job-killing tax increases to hold the assortment all together.

At every step of the way, Republicans have focused on targeted investments in roads, bridges, airports, waterways, and broadband infrastructure the American people actually need.

But yesterday, President Biden showed that his patience for the smart, bipartisan approach was wearing thin. He directed Democratic leaders in Congress to get ready to ram through more expansive, unrelated spending unilaterally.

Meanwhile, Senator Capito and our colleagues on the EPW Committee continue to demonstrate that bipartisan infrastructure investment is actually still within reach.

In April, the Senate passed their water infrastructure bill by a count of 89 to 2. And just a couple weeks ago, the committee reported out a historic investment to surface transportation, and they did it unanimously. It is disappointing that President Biden has been unwilling to follow the Senate's productive example.

And now some of our colleagues have signaled that they intend to use this month to depart from that example, themselves. The Democratic leader has laid out a partisan agenda he seems to hope will illustrate that the Senate is somehow broken.

Remember, the Senate is 50-50--50-50. The American people did not hand the Democrats a mandate in the Senate. This series of radical proposals has no chance of becoming law, but every intention of justifying reckless changes to the way the body actually operates-- plans to jam hospitals, schools, and small businesses with new high- stakes tests of ``wokeness,'' to dramatically curtail Americans' right to keep and bear arms, and, of course, to tip the scales of our electoral system permanently in their favor.

Yesterday, the radical parade began with an attempt to use the cause of paycheck fairness as cover for placing unprecedented new legal burdens on American employers. Wage discrimination on the basis of sex has been illegal for 60 years. Wage discrimination on the basis of sex has been illegal for 60 years. What Democrats proposed yesterday was to kick down carefully constructed protections to leave even the smallest American business at risk of unlimited liability in workplace cases-- listen to this--even where malice plays no part. Their bill would force workers to opt out of, rather than into, class-action suits--in other words, a gift-wrapped bonanza for the trial bar. Unsurprisingly, that gambit not only failed to pass; it failed to even unite a majority of the Senate.

So if our colleagues intended to actually earn support for consensus steps on paycheck fairness, they might have considered subjecting their proposal to scrutiny through the normal legislative process--perhaps a markup or even a committee hearing.

Well, apparently when your agenda is designed to fail, regular order is just a waste of time.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will wrap up consideration of a broad bipartisan effort to update our approach to competition with China. This bill has accelerated an important conversation on a topic we all know deserves our full attention. From critical supply chains to intellectual property, to counterespionage, it touches on key issues that will help determine our strategic footing for decades.

That is why an overwhelming majority of us, myself included, voted to proceed to the measure here on the floor, not because the bill was already perfect. In fact, as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee noted when it was reported out, the legislation was ``not ready for prime time.''

Rather, we took it up precisely because it deserved robust debate and amendment. So I was glad that several of our colleagues were allowed to offer substantial revisions here on the floor. In particular, I am glad the Democratic leader thought better of blocking Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo from including their bipartisan provision on combating illicit trade practices.

But I was disappointed that he proceeded with an effort to end this important debate without allowing the Senate to consider a number of other outstanding Republican amendments.

There is no practical reason our consideration of this important issue should have to compete for sufficient space on the Democrats' dance card.

We are talking about making America more competitive with its biggest and fastest growing rival. If any issue demands thorough, exhaustive debate, it is this one.

Unfortunately, the final bill we will be voting on today will remain incomplete. It includes several smart, targeted measures but leaves many more on the table. And so it will advance as an imperfect approach to an extremely consequential challenge.

One thing this legislation did demonstrate extremely well, however, was that the rules of the Senate don't stand in the way of bipartisan legislating.

Needless to say, final passage of this legislation cannot be the Senate's final word--final word on our competition with China. It certainly won't be mine. As I have warned repeatedly, soft power is only as strong as the hard power underpinning it.

The Chinese Communist Party doesn't hesitate in investing the proceeds of its predatory trade practices and influence campaigns directly into modernizing its hard power arsenal.

Over the past two decades, defense spending in Beijing has increased astronomically. Meanwhile, the Biden administration's proposal for defense spending puts forward such a meager--meager--year-on-year increase, it fails to keep pace with inflation, let alone with our rivals.

The White House request would degrade our ability to project power

quickly out in the Western Pacific. It would cannibalize Pacific Deterrence Initiative funds intended to build infrastructure and enhance interoperability with our partners in the region just to cover shortfalls elsewhere in the budget. And it would cut procurement of critical munitions that are already in short supply.

The administration is playing a dangerous shell game, and the political consequences aren't lost on either side of the Pacific.

The perception that the United States might be any less than fully committed to prevailing in great power competition has left China emboldened and our friends in the region quite worried.

Here at home, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs sounded the alarm, warning that great power peace was ``fraying at the edge.''

Preserving that peace will require more than the action we will take today. It will require this administration to get serious about funding our national defense. It will require major investment in the sorts of cutting-edge capabilities that deter those who intend harm on America and our allies.

So in the coming weeks, we will see whether Democrats' talk about rebuilding alliances has any substance to it. In the annual Defense authorization and the appropriations process, the Senate will embrace this essential debate about restoring America's hard power head-on. This is a pivotal moment, not a time for half measures on America's national security.

Madam President, Southeastern Kentucky lost Eula Hall this May, a humanitarian titan who blessed her community with generosity, tenacity, and dedication. Eula was a self-described ``hillbilly activist'' whose efforts to improve healthcare in Kentucky enhanced the lives of her neighbors and friends. As the founder of the Mud Creek Clinic, now known as the Eula Hall Health Center, Eula was driven by her selfless spirit to deliver quality care to thousands of Kentuckians. Today, I recognize Eula Hall as a lifelong champion of Floyd County and the entire Southeastern Kentucky region.

Eula founded the Mud Creek Clinic in 1973 with a $1,400 donation and a calling to improve healthcare in her disadvantaged community. She served everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, through a primary care clinic, mental health counselor, pharmacy, and food and clothing pantry. Even after her clinic burned down in 1982, Eula did not miss a day of service, delivering help directly from her own home. She redefined healthcare in Southeastern Kentucky from the ground up, leaving an indelible impact on the region.

Eula was born into extreme poverty, growing up without plumbing or electricity and only receiving an eighth-grade education. In spite of these obstacles, she was driven by a higher calling to serve her community. When Eula founded the Mud Creek Clinic, she did so based on a conviction that all Kentuckians, regardless of income, deserved to be cared for by their neighbors. Her work quickly caught the attention of local leaders and physicians, bringing much needed resources to her distressed region.

She was a local activist from a young age, driven by the struggles and suffering she saw during her childhood. Motivated by a desire to assist the vulnerable, Eula gave help to the needy and a voice to the voiceless through an ever-expanding series of projects. With an unflappable work ethic, Eula would go on to run the Mud Creek Water District, piping drinking water to 800 homes, and served as the president of the Kentucky Black Lung Association. Her tireless, grassroots efforts have left an enduring legacy of community-based activism in Southeastern Kentucky.

Eula's industriousness permeated every aspect of her life, even as she entered old age. Just last year, she was working on a proposal to found a nursing home in her area as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In recognition of her determination and tenacity, Eula received a number of awards, including honorary doctorates from Berea, Midway, and Pikeville colleges in Kentucky and Trinity College in Connecticut. She was also the subject of a landmark book on healthcare in Eastern Kentucky, ``Mud Creek Medicine,'' by Kiran Bhatraju. She led a vibrant family, and is survived by 4 children, 8 grandchildren, 14 great-grandchildren, and 5 great-great-grandchildren.

I had the opportunity to speak with Eula just a few weeks before she passed and expressed my deep appreciation for her decades of hard work. During our numerous conversations and visits, I was always struck by her ceaseless devotion to Southeastern Kentuckians. Eula was honored with tributes from around the country, including from the U.S. Senate, but she never sought the spotlight. She preferred to dedicate her entire focus to the needy in her community.

After her passing, Eula was recognized by both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, demonstrating the nationwide impact of her work. She was one of the toughest women I ever met, and it was an absolute pleasure to work with her over the years to deliver much needed help to Kentucky communities. I would like to express my personal gratitude for Eula Hall's decades of service to the Commonwealth and encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in sharing condolences with her family, colleagues, and neighbors, whose lives were uplifted by this one-of-a-kind Kentuckian.

Madam President, during a year of unprecedented challenges, students, staff, and faculty at the University of Kentucky have been fortunate to have Eric King as their tireless advocate and supporter. As UK's executive director of federal relations, Eric has made lasting contributions to Kentucky's students, professors, and administrators. In recognition of that hard work, Eric was honored last month by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities with the Jennifer Poulakidas Outstanding Achievement Award. Today, I, too, would like to recognize Eric for his strong advocacy on behalf of the University of Kentucky community and our State as a whole.

Eric has been making contributions to Kentucky higher education since he was an undergrad, serving as the student body president of Murray State University. Since then, he has dedicated his career to helping Kentuckians. Fresh out of college, Eric served as a legislative correspondent in my office and was later promoted to a legislative assistant focused on energy, agriculture, and environmental policy. He contributed to the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014, which delivered major wins for Kentucky farmers and their families.

Eric also served as the director of government and community affairs at the Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives, KAEC. There, he advocated for a statewide association of 24 consumer-owned electric distribution utilities that collectively serve nearly 2 million Kentuckians. I know that Eric's work at that organization had a real and lasting impact on Kentucky families.

Now, Eric has taken his advocacy skills to the University of Kentucky, working closely with President Eli Capilouto to promote the well-being of more than 30,000 students, 12,000 staff, and 2,000 faculty. When the coronavirus pandemic threatened to shut down colleges and universities across the country, Eric stepped up and fought to include vital funding for higher education in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, CARES, Act. Because of advocacy like Eric's, the CARES Act included the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, providing millions of dollars to colleges and universities to overcome the challenges imposed by the pandemic. Thousands of Kentucky students and graduates benefited from Eric's leadership.

Eric has been described by his colleagues as a man with ``unmatched integrity'' and a ``can-do attitude'' who has made ``incredible contributions'' to our Nation's system of public and land-grant universities. As Eric's former boss, I can confirm that these superlatives are correct. His hard work during the coronavirus pandemic provided vital protection to our colleges and universities, both in Kentucky and nationwide.

Kentuckians--and especially Wildcats--are grateful for Eric's tireless dedication to our State's public university system. On behalf of the Senate, I would like to express my congratulations to Eric for receiving this award and my thanks for his service and leadership amid a time of incredible hardship.