Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is such an honor to be here and to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Alexander today. As you can see, there are many who want to speak and have a few words to say. Now, I think all of us wish that we could do this to a background of music with Lamar playing the piano. That would definitely be the proper setting. But I am so pleased to stand and to honor the three terms of service that he has had here in this body and the way he has touched the lives not only of individuals in this body but millions of Tennesseans. We know that he has--and he has talked about it in his remarks-- worked with educators; he has worked with innovators; he has worked with the healthcare community; and he has worked, yes, with entertainers, many of whom hold him so dear and who call Tennessee home. In fact, when I was serving in the House and representing Tennessee's 7th Congressional District, so many times I would look over here and I would think ``What is Lamar not working on today?'' because he always had such a broad portfolio of issues that were demanding his attention. And what we know is he accepted that work to address that broad portfolio of issues. His commitment for caring for the needs of all Tennesseans has really manifested itself in what Tennesseans like to see as a lifelong legacy that has really changed lives. As Governor, he worked to streamline our State's government, was very successful in those efforts, and he brought that desire to streamline government with him when he came to the Senate. Indeed, this is work that has benefited all Tennesseans and all Americans. As Governor of Tennessee, he was very successful in working to persuade Nissan automotive to come into our State. This started a new impact on our State with the auto industry. Then, as the auto industry needed suppliers, he turned his attention to infrastructure to make certain that the roads, the highways, the access that were necessary were there to encourage this business. As the former Secretary of Education under President George H. W. Bush, he couldn't not put his personal touch on education policy, working tirelessly, as he said, to fix No Child Left Behind. This earned him the first-ever James Madison Award. He has a reputation for, indeed, being a go-to lawmaker, and as chairman of HELP here in the Senate, he put a spotlight on the issues that affect the most sensitive aspects of Tennesseans' lives, again benefiting all Americans. I like the fact that he talked about bipartisanship and productivity. Between 2015 and 2019, during his term of service at HELP, he has reported 45 bills out of his committee that have become law--45 bills. As he mentioned, one of those was 21st Century Cures. As a Member in the House and working on originating this bill, we had said: We are going to make this bipartisan. And, indeed, we did, and we moved it from the House to the Senate. And yes, indeed, there were some days we thought: This is never going to happen. But, indeed, Senator Alexander insisted, and, yes, it did happen. He mentioned the Music Modernization Act, and I will tell you, this is vitally important to Tennesseans. As we worked this through the House and then it hit some bumps in the road, Senator Alexander and Senator Hatch did such a great job of pushing this forward here in the Senate. Then, last September, the Nashville Songwriters Association International awarded him the White Hat Award, which is what they give to legislators who have made a significant impact on the entertainment and music community. Well, the highlight reel would be too long to cover in one speech. There are many who are waiting to express their thanks. So, with that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, this week, as we return to DC, we are going to resume consideration of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. Around DC we call it the NDAA. And before I get into discussing some of my priorities in this legislation, I want to encourage each and every one of my colleagues to carefully consider why we go through the lengthy process of drafting and reconciling this authorization. And we do this every single year. The easy answer, of course, is that we have a duty to provide for our common defense and that of our allies and partners. But every year the media devotes most of their attention to how much money we have agreed to spend on the tools of war--the Chinook helicopters, the Virginia- class submarines, and the Reapers. They want to know about the flashy hardware and end up ignoring the people who are in the driver's seat. Thousands of service men and women call Tennessee home, and when I accepted the role of Senator, I took on a special responsibility to look after and to take care of each and every one of them. Their decision to serve came with necessary and serious lifestyle changes, both for themselves and for their families. Anyone who knows a servicemember knows that their lives are not their own. They go where they are told to go. They do the job they are told to do. They do it without hesitation because they have accepted that serving their country is more important than the autonomy they sacrificed when they put on that uniform and took their oath. ``Sacrifice'' is the key word here because it applies not only to the servicemember, but it also applies to their family. This is why we spend so much time focusing on programs that make their lives as seamless as possible. For example, this year, I continued work on military spouse license portability to make it easier for spouses who wish to continue working in their chosen field after they have changed locations, moved from one State to another, because they were told this was going to be their new duty station. We hope these spouses are able to continue their careers, to be fulfilled in their jobs and responsibilities. Last year, we established a pilot program for licensure reciprocity, and this year, we worked to increase funding for this very important program. With my remaining time, I want to focus on our special operations community, especially the 5th Special Forces Group and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. They each call Fort Campbell their home. For those who serve in these elite units, uncommon bravery is an everyday occurrence. They go to some of the worst places on the face of the Earth, to be surrounded by the most dangerous people alive, to do work that no one can ever know about and at a higher occupational tempo than any other aspect of our forces. Their operational tempo is unbelievable. The physical, spiritual, and psychological toll of that work and the stigma attached to it by those who do not understand its importance cannot be overstated. It is not a unique burden, but it is an especially heavy burden. U.S. Special Operations Command knows this and has made taking care of the people behind this mission a priority. They created the Preservation of the Force and Families Program to support these warriors and their families, but, like any program of this nature, it requires continuous innovation and evolution to stay effective. This year's Senate-passed NDAA reaffirms the importance of this initiative to both servicemembers and their families and improves human, psychological, spiritual, and social performance programs. It also requires a deeper study on new opportunities for special and incentive pay parity in order to increase retention of our valuable special operators. This is only one aspect of an expansive piece of legislation, but it provides a useful reminder that every dollar--every single taxpayer dollar that we spend to defend the cause of freedom is gone to waste if we ignore the unique needs of the people fighting our battles for us. We have to put the emphasis on this human capital--on the individual, on their family. This is one of those moments where it would be in everyone's best interest and our Nation's best interest to avoid playing politics with a very important policy--protecting these men and women in uniform, providing for the common defense, providing the tools, the training, and the services they need in order to be ready to deploy, in order to take care of their families, in order to treat their wounds when they return--to care for the whole of the soldier. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, delay isn't an inconvenience when it comes to the NDAA. It is not a bump in the road. When it comes to our Nation's defense spending, delay is dangerous. It is dangerous for our national defense, it is dangerous for the allies and the partners who depend on us, and it is dangerous for our troops and their families. It is my hope that we will be able to proceed with consideration of the final 2021 NDAA with that above all else at the forefront of our minds. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I think everyone has been watching a lot of news lately, and I will tell you I have talked to some Tennesseeans this weekend who feel like they can tell that the journalists working at our mainstream media outlets are getting frustrated by how much pressure we are putting on big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. But, you know, we are putting pressure on them. It is important for them to be in their lanes. It is important that if they are going to be news sources, that they do something like hire a news director. I think they have fallen into the same trap that a lot of people fall into when a story dominates the headlines for awhile, and then it doesn't resolve itself quickly. You know, they get pretty sick of hearing about it. They saw the initial reports of censorship, bias, and antitrust concerns. They didn't feel that personal sense of outrage about what was happening and either checked out of the conversation or let their frustration breed resentment against those who would very much like for their tweets to stay put. But they knew something was going on out there that made them a little bit uneasy. They were hearing about censorship. They were hearing about blocking and throttling and shadow banning, and, you know, they were a little unsettled by lack of privacy and data mining and data harvesting. But we shouldn't use these basic notions of privacy, security, and open debate as a political football. These are, indeed, universal concerns that anyone who owns a smartphone, uses social media, or uses search engines really should care about. And, yes, people are right to feel a little bit uneasy about what is going on in the virtual space. Why shouldn't we be allowed to ask powerful tech CEOs questions about what is going on behind the scenes? We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee a couple of weeks ago--a few weeks ago, just prior to the election. Chairman Wicker was in charge of that hearing, and people listened and thought: Why won't they answer the question? Why don't they admit that they are data mining? Why don't they admit their advertising practices? We click onto our search engines, and suddenly our screen populates with things that we have recently searched and things we have been talking about. So we have another hearing that is coming up tomorrow at the Judiciary Committee. We are going to receive testimony from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey about their now infamous censoring and throttling of the New York Post's social media accounts, their blocking of a story that was relevant to the American people and to the election process. Now, keep in mind, this wasn't some conspiracy site or some anonymous blog known for posting hacked information or stories that are extreme. This was the New York Post, a trusted source in news here in the United States since 1801, when it was founded by none other than Alexander Hamilton. It is not sensationalism. It is news brought to you as a trusted source since 1801. And you are probably thinking, that has been around for awhile. And, yes, indeed it has. It is America's oldest continuously published newspaper. But, apparently, random fact checkers 3,000 miles away, sitting in their posh environs in the Silicon Valley, decided that the Post editors' time-tested vetting processes simply were not good enough for them. They think they know better. They think they are smarter than everyone else. They think--since they control and have power in the virtual space, they think they get to play God. They think they can determine what qualifies as free speech. Now, I have spoken before at length about why this is a problem, and right now I want to focus on what happened on the other side of that takedown. The Post fought both Facebook and Twitter on this content moderation decision. They questioned it. They demanded answers. And after enormous pressure, both from the Post and in the public square, both Facebook and Twitter eventually walked back their moderation decisions and allowed their users to share this article. That they decided to censor the Post is bad enough; that they couldn't even cite a policy that they could back up their decision under pressure is even worse. They couldn't tell you why they took it down, what it violated in their community standards, and what they violated in their terms of service. They did not know. What did they know? What they did know was that they were on Joe Biden's team. They wanted him to win, so they took issue with anything that they did not agree with. It did not fit their narrative. Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter have an enormous amount of control over the flow of information. They were designed to be this way from the beginning. Millions of Americans used their feeds as a main source of news updates. Bear in mind, the internet is a title I function of the 1996 Telecommunications Act--a title I. It is an information service. It is not a telecommunications service. It is not a news service. This is something. It is a wonderful resource that should be the public square but only as long as you can count on it to put factual information in the pipeline, to not censor, and to not take sides. This is why Americans have so many questions about how the companies make their content moderation decisions, and this is why the Judiciary Committee will hold this hearing tomorrow. If either of their companies had been able to come to the table with a simple, defensible explanation of why they chose to censor the New York Post, I don't think they would be in the position they are in right now. But they had no explanation. They didn't repent. They did cave, eventually, but they could not explain why they blocked it. Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Dorsey are competent CEOs who know their businesses inside and out, and it is time for them to get down to the nitty-gritty and explain what happened. How is it that their content moderation practices are still so full of holes as to allow a content moderator--a single individual--to put their opinion in front of a post, to panic and blacklist an admittedly sensational but certainly newsworthy story without any evidence that it contained misinformation or hacked information or false or defamatory information? They did it because they could. They just did not like the story. The ensuing scramble to walk back that decision is an indictment of their internal moderation processes. Whether it is algorithms or individuals, it is subjective. The people who are responsible for this owe us answers, and we hope the hearing tomorrow will help lead to those answers. It bears repeating that these companies are not just entertainment or social media companies. They have an inordinate amount of control over the flow of information, and because of this, they control what we see, what we hear, even what we say, and, thereby, what we think and how we vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, when most Americans think of the sacrifices that our veterans made in the name of defending freedom, they think of those brave men and women running toward the danger. We are grateful that, in their hearts, they have that desire, but as anyone who knows or has worked with veterans knows, they also make sacrifices that really never bubble to the surface or come to our attention. Not only do they sacrifice their own safety, they give up their personal independence, the comforts of home, their relationships with friends and family, their spouses, and their children. Think about what an extraordinary decision they have made--that the safety and security of their fellow countrymen is worth more than losing those precious days. They have made that choice. They put that service and that sacrifice in front of their desires, in front of the desires of their family. They are, indeed, called to serve. These are the people whom we should be looking to for comfort and inspiration during difficult times. They really do have experience in that category. They have made those sacrifices, and they have made those choices knowing that it wouldn't be easy and knowing that they may not come home, but, when they do come home, that sometimes it is tough. It is tough to get back in that groove of where you were, to rekindle those relationships. Our younger veterans, in particular, were painfully aware of this when they put on the uniform. But do you know what? They still made that choice to serve. Here in the Senate, we have backed legislation that really has made things easier for so many of our veterans. When I was in the House, I was honored to help shepherd passage of the VA MISSION Act, and I was grateful to see that receive bipartisan support here in the Senate. It has, indeed, streamlined many of the processes in the VA healthcare system. Last month, I introduced a bill to provide doula services to improve maternal health outcomes for our female veterans, a population that every single month continues to increase. Back in August, I introduced a bill that will allow our K2 veterans to obtain the special health screenings they need to check for cancer and other illnesses caused by exposure to toxic substances in Uzbekistan. In fact, this has been a great year for veteran support. We have passed--or are very close to passing--legislation that will improve and simplify doctor-patient relationships, recordkeeping, and mental health services, and will make those and other important benefits more accessible to our veterans and their families. If you are not already supporting these efforts, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. As the week draws to a close, I would encourage everyone to seek out veterans' stories and to internalize the knowledge that the sacrifices they made were for us. There is so much we can learn from those who have served. There is so much that they have done to help preserve our way of life and our freedoms. It is so much that they have done for the values and the institutions--things that really do transcend politics. I reached out to many of our veterans this week and had great conversations and heard from veterans online. I heard from William, a Tennessean who proudly served in the Air Force. He said his service was ``the best decision of his entire life.'' I also heard from Greg, who served as a C-130 crew chief in theatre during Desert Storm. He put off his college education when he was asked to serve. And I would be remiss if I did not recognize the veterans who are currently serving in our office: Dana Magneson, John Clement, Jay Strobino, Dr. Karen Summar, and Paris Cervantes. I thank each and every one of them for their service and for the continued work that they do on behalf of all Tennesseans. These brave men and women represent the hope of a nation and our promise to the rest of the world that, no matter what, the United States stands ready and willing to answer the call. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, we may be back to work carrying out what should be the normal business of the Senate, but from what I have observed, the American people really don't see this as just another day. They are a little bit anxious, and I really think that it is because, over the past week, they have witnessed some of the most divisive news cycles in recent memory. Allegations of voter fraud are running rampant. These have been unanswered and ignored by most media outlets. Liberal operatives have sent up test balloons on the creation of official enemies lists. Think about that. We have them making enemies lists, wanting to execute a campaign of personal destruction against people with whom they disagree. What does that say about treasuring free speech? The most popular social media platforms--oh--have honestly just outdone themselves by making matters worse by slapping these scary labels on content that is meant to inform and to spark bipartisan debate. Then you have email services that are locking down access to email lists because the distribution is something with which they disagree. This is what has happened to millions of Americans. They gasp every time they see these markers on content, when they can't get to an email list, when they hear about a group they belong to that they can't hear from or communicate with. Yes, it is censorship, and it is something that has divided people, families, neighbors, friends, coworkers, and colleagues. I will tell you, many of them remain divided, but I think we have to say they have been engaged. According to the Pew Research Center, Americans participated in this election cycle at the highest rate in 120 years. Election officials still haven't finished their counts, and already we know that more than 144 million ballots were cast this cycle. I would venture to say that many of those millions of individuals are watching us. They want to see what we are going to do next, how we are going to conduct ourselves. They don't really care if it takes a little multitasking; they are saying it is time for Congress to do its job. You can look at all of the exit polling on the favorability ratings of Congress. I will say it is discouragingly low--the regard in which the American people hold their elected representatives collective body. It is time for us to get some things done. Judging by the footage of demonstrations in many of America's major cities, you might not remember that we are still dealing with the effects of a global pandemic. It seems that for a few days, people forgot there is a pandemic. Democrats in the House and the Senate have wasted months of precious time obstructing the passage of targeted COVID relief legislation that Tennesseans and New Yorkers and Californians and every other American who owns a business or supports a family needs not tomorrow or today; they needed it yesterday, last week, last month. I have spent the past several months coming to this floor to tell the stories of Tennesseans, Tennessee small business people, Tennessee employers who are desperately in need of relief, trying to help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that there is fear and pain in certain sectors of our economy. It is really so inappropriate that those fears and that pain are something they have chosen to ignore. To be frank, it has been like talking to a brick wall. There has been no response. Just last week, I met with the board of the Academy of Country Music for a very hard discussion about the future of their industry. Not one single venue or one studio musician or one sound engineer--their whole industry shut down. This is an industry that has shut down. They did nothing wrong, mind you. They showed up for work. They built businesses. They hired people. They used independent contractors. They paid their bills. They paid their taxes. They did nothing wrong. But the entertainment industry--live entertainment--is shut down. This isn't the huge record labels and big entertainment companies that many people think are the music industry. These are the mom-and- pops. These are the small businesses, the sole proprietors, the independent contractors. These are the people who set up and tear down stages. They put on these amazing sound and light displays that people get so excited about seeing and that really make music and entertainment come to life. They produce the music that you walk around listening to in your earbuds. The support staff at the venues clean up your beer cans and ticket stubs after you have enjoyed a show. I tell you, they also are the artists, the storytellers, and I really think our creative and cultural historians. This industry is absolutely dying. They are not the only ones. There are so many other sectors of our economy that are at a standstill. They are suffering, and so many other people have been suffering. They are tired of what they see as posturing here in DC, using the hurt and the suffering of people as just a political bargaining chip. Do you know what? They have noticed. They have been watching over the past few months. They know that very little has been accomplished, and they think it is time to stop putting politics over people. It is time to stop saying ``We want the issue if it is good for us'' because people are looking for solutions. They were waiting for a mandate--our friends over on the left--a mandate they were sure was going to come their way on November 3, but the American people refused to deliver them a mandate. You see it in elections that took place at the local and the State level. You see it in the congressional elections and certainly here in this Chamber. So far, Speaker Pelosi has refused any offer to compromise. Every offer and gesture that has been made by the White House or this Chamber has been refused. She has clung to that $3 trillion parody of a relief bill that she has stuffed to the brim with billions for liberal pet projects that have nothing to do with COVID recovery--nothing at all. Isn't it interesting that her pet project is not the American people? Wouldn't you think she would want to solve some of these problems? But no--she would rather play politics. This absurd delay has come at great cost. We have so many Tennesseans, indeed, across this country, millions of families and small businesses that will tell you they are in damage control mode because Democrats refuse to allow them the dignity of hope that targeted relief would provide. ``Dignity''--that is a nice word. And we have so many people who are grasping, trying to pay their bills, keep their businesses alive. I will say that our friends across the aisle twice--twice, twice--have declined to vote for targeted relief. It is not too late to step up on behalf of those who have lost just about everything and those who still have a shot at coming out on the other side of this pandemic with their livelihoods intact. It is not too late to pass legislation that would provide better unemployment insurance, more help for small businesses, resources for schools and universities, vaccine research funding, testing funding, and liability protection--targeted relief for millions of Americans who have said: This what we need in order to keep people employed and to keep our businesses open. The legislation is written. All that needs to happen is our friends across the aisle need to say: We are ready to vote on this package. Let's do another round of PPP. Let's do a plus-up in unemployment. Let's do that money for vaccines and testing and resources for schools and universities. Let's give companies the liability protection they need to open their doors. Let's give these entertainment venues the liability protection they need in order to again get on the road, have concerts, play that music Americans love to listen to. It is there. To my friends, let's have no filibusters, no more distractions, and no more extravagant wish lists of pet projects. For goodness' sake, put your politics aside, and let's put the people first. Let's provide the relief they are seeking. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I really appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor and have time to talk about this nomination. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Lindsey Graham for the great work that he has done and to Leader McConnell for the way he has given us the opportunity to work through this process of completing this confirmation. As I have talked to Tennesseans from one end of our State to another, I have heard from them, time and again, how important they think it is to have a judge and a Supreme Court Justice who is not an activist. As we went through the hearings last week, I will tell you that I thought it was so interesting. One of our colleagues said: Oh, we fear that you will usher in an era of conservative activism. They fear that, but do you know what? Conservatives do not want activist judges of any stripe. They want constitutionalists. They want judges to abide by the rule of law. They want Supreme Court Justices who will call balls and strikes. That is what those of us on this side of the aisle want--Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents, who are there in the center. Do you know? That is what they see in Judge Barrett. I have found it so interesting, as we have worked through this process, that people, whether they are Democrat, Independent, or Republican, have said: I was so impressed with her--the way she retained knowledge and information, the way she represented her views, the way she talked about the law and precedent, the way she talked about the Constitution, the way she talked about her relationship with Justice Scalia. They also liked the way her students and her professors and her colleagues spoke of Amy Coney Barrett. They like that because these are people with whom she works. Her children are in school with them. They are in church together. So they have come to know her through the many different and varied facets of her life, and they appreciate who she is and the life that the Barrett family is leading and how that represents their thoughts and their beliefs. There are a couple of things I would like to discuss and points of clarity that deserve to be made in this debate. As we were in committee, our friends across the aisle chose to take much of their time not to get to know Judge Barrett or to question her about opinions that have been written, and she has written right at 100 opinions or has writings that have been published. They chose to take their time to discuss the Affordable Care Act and to talk about individuals and the concern for losing healthcare. I think it is right that the American people know we would all like for every American to have access to affordable healthcare. I think we can say that it is a goal of ours. How we get there and what the system looks like is going to be something that is, really, quite different. They are very wedded to the Affordable Care Act and would really like to push this all the way to government-run healthcare. That is their goal. As many people watched the hearings, they asked: Why did they keep talking about the Affordable Care Act? Of course, the case that is coming before the Supreme Court is a case on severability. It is not about the constitutionality of the ACA. So it was curious to them. I would offer that the reason they probably continued to talk about it was that our friends across the aisle, those in the Democratic Party, are very emboldened right now. They feel as if they are going to do a clean sweep and that they are going to keep the House, take the Senate, and take the White House and that, when they do, they will have a very aggressive, 100-day agenda, and we have heard quite a bit of conversation about this 100-day agenda: statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. They want to abolish the electoral college. They want to begin implementing the Green New Deal. They are going to repeal the Trump tax cuts and implement a new corporate tax. The list goes on and on. The list includes what they want to do with healthcare, which is to have a government-run, government-controlled system. See, they don't want anybody to tell them they can't do this. They don't want constitutionalists on the Supreme Court who are going to stop them from doing this. When you look at the numbers and at what the numbers tell us, you have right at 8\1/2\ million people right now who are enrolled in the Affordable Care Act--or the ObamaCare program--8\1/2\ million. Yet here is the outlier in that: In order to reach their goal of government-run healthcare, which is, basically, a Medicaid program for all, what you would have to do is strip away the health insurance from 153 million Americans who have employer-provided health insurance or who have purchased healthcare on the open market. Those are 153 million Americans. Plus, you would have to take away the Medicare benefits from 57 million Americans who have paid into Medicare with every paycheck they have earned all of their working lives. We have 66 million Americans who are currently in Medicaid. So think of what is going to happen if, on top of the 66 million who are in the Medicaid delivery system, you take everybody from Medicare--57 million--and they become part of that pool. Then you will have taken health insurance away from 153 million Americans. That is where they are headed. That is their goal. Quite simply, when they were going through the process with the Affordable Care Act and you had President Obama and Vice President Biden, what we would hear many times from some of the Democratic leaders was, ``Well, ObamaCare is a stop along the road to government- controlled healthcare.'' That is their goal, and how dare we have a Supreme Court that would get in their way. That is also why they continue to talk about court-packing. While they are trying to redefine the meaning of the word ``court-packing''-- oh, let's not have it be offensive--oh, no--they are wanting to expand the Court so they can get their way. As my friends across the aisle come down and talk about this nomination, I think it is important that we look at the reason behind some of their work and their words and where they think they are going, because they have not made this nomination about Judge Barrett. They have not made it about the Supreme Court; they have made it about themselves. They have made it about themselves, their wish list, their desire for activist judges. How about that? They fear conservative activism. What are they going for? Liberal activism. That is the kind of judge they are looking for, not a constitutionalist, not somebody who calls balls and strikes. They are looking for somebody who is going to do their work for them so they don't have to pass something through Congress. They don't have to deal with ``we the people.'' They want to just say: Well, according to the Supreme Court, this is the law of the land. So that is why they chose not to get to know Judge Barrett, and I will tell you I found her to be one of the most impressive women I have ever had the opportunity to get to know. And she made it very clear, yes, she is qualified to sit on the Court. Her record really speaks for itself. But as we saw, the judge didn't rest on her laurels. She was well prepared. She was patient, thorough, respectful, and she was a credit to her profession. I wish I could say the same for my Democratic colleagues about being thorough and respectful, because I found it to be very disrespectful of the process, of the institution, and of Judge Barrett that they chose not to show up for our hearing. They were not there. AWOL. Gone. Didn't come. And you see, why did they do that? Judge Barrett, a highly qualified, highly skilled female, is just not the right kind of woman. She does not submit to the leftist agenda so, therefore, they don't see her as the right kind of woman. And as we know from many of their antics, some from them and some from their echo chamber, the mainstream media, they feel as if a woman who is pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business--that kind of woman, in their eyes, does not deserve a seat at the table. I find it so interesting. My colleagues across the aisle speak often of how they value diversity, and I agree. Diversity is a strength, and we should seek to hear all voices. That should be a goal--to hear from everyone. But when it comes to diversity of viewpoint and hearing from a conservative woman, an independent woman, a right-of-center woman, this side of the political spectrum--when it comes to diversity of viewpoint, what do they do? They repeatedly choose intellectual isolation--intellectual isolation. Their mind is made up. They are in total submission--total submission to the agenda of the left. So do not confuse them. Don't confuse them with facts. Don't confuse them with a counterpoint. Don't look at them and say: How about being open minded? You know, what you are saying might be true, but what if this is true? Would that change the outcome? I find it so very sad that what they have done is to choose intellectual isolation. I find it very sad that that is what they are role-modeling for young adults, college students, high school students. Don't hear out somebody who is different from you. Don't show respect or a listening ear to someone who is different from you. Don't take the time to provide the common courtesy of listening to what someone may have to say. To my friends across the aisle, I know many of you, and some of you I served with when I was in the House, and may I just offer a thought-- that you are better than that. This Chamber is better than that. And individuals who are nominated for judgeships, for Justices on the Supreme Court, they deserve to be heard. So I would encourage my colleagues to think this through. Judge Barrett is moving through this process. We are going to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, and as we do this, we know that she is going to take that seat as a capable, competent, skilled jurist, and we know that she is going to be someone who is going to sit on that Court, and, yes, she is going to call balls and strikes. Our friends need not worry about an era of conservative activism. Let me assure them, conservatives don't want that any more than they want an era of liberal activism. What they want is a constitutionalist Court that is going to be fair to everyone and is focused on equality and justice for all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I tell you, it is quite an honor to join my colleagues and talk for a few minutes about our Supreme Court nominee, Judge Barrett. In the Judiciary Committee, where I hold a seat, we were doing one of our most important duties--our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent regarding the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. Indeed, we do this with all of our Federal judges who come before us. Last week, we fulfilled that highest level of duty as we examined Judge Barrett's record, her character, and to see if she is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. As you were hearing from my colleagues today, yes, indeed, she is qualified. Now, I will tell you that unfortunately some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent their time fishing for sound bites and feigning confusion over the fact that Judge Barrett takes her cues from the Constitution and not from the latest polling and not from the 24- hour news cycle. Honestly, I think that said more about them than it did about her. That is what happens when leaders who really ought to know better allow politics to take control of their vetting process and their thought process. That is what most Americans took away from those hearings last week, that in the eyes of those on the Democratic side of the dais, there was no way Judge Amy Coney Barrett was ever going to make them happy because, to them, only answers that tracked with their views--views on the left--on abortion, on religion, and on socialized medicine would pass muster. This is an absurd standard, I will tell you, and it is no standard at all because those views shift and change depending on what the loudest megaphone on the National Mall has to say on any given day. So, in the interest of refocusing on our duty to offer advice and consent, I think we could all stand a quick recap of last week's hearing. Here is what we know: Judge Barrett is exceptionally smart, she is focused, and she is a mindful jurist. Her colleagues, students, former clerks, and professional associates from all backgrounds and all world views wholeheartedly believe she is competent and prepared to hold a seat on the Supreme Court. Her record is consistent with the originalist lens she puts over the cases and controversies that come across her desk. Over the course of 2 days of intense questioning, she did not contradict that record or violate the rules of judicial ethics by offering a preview of future rulings. The American Bar Association rated her as ``well qualified'' to serve on the Court. Based on the testimony and evidence offered to the committee, I will tell you, I definitely agree with them. I will vote to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court, and I would encourage all my colleagues who plan on voting no to think long and hard about why that is. If they have not taken the time to get to know Judge Barrett--her background and her record--I encourage them to get to know a little bit about her and also to ask themselves how smart was it to have spent the past month signaling their willingness to dismantle our constitutional framework to score a few cheap points against the White House during a political season. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have to tell you, listening to the Democratic leader there, this is one of the things that social media has taken off on. They lost. They lost the 2016 Presidential election, and they have never accepted the results. Never. It doesn't fit their narrative. So what do they do? Look at this. Let's just not even work. Let's just adjourn. Let's not do our constitutional duty. I tell you what, you can't make this stuff up. You really can't. Cognitive dissonance of this moment in history has overwhelmed the discourse. It is important to make it abundantly clear that the outrage--the absolute outrage from the American people over this incident with social media has everything to do with their very fluid and subjective standards that these companies use to control the flow of information, and over the last few years, they have gotten worse about it. And you know what? They do it until we slap their hands and then pull them back in, and we say: You can't do this. Now, in the case that we are discussing that happened last week, it looks suspiciously like they applied a brandnew set of standards because someone got spooked at the prospect of losing momentum on a political narrative. They are all working together on this. So let's go home; let's not work; let's not do our job; let's bury a story on social media. Why? Their gal didn't win in 2016, and Donald Trump did because the American people said: We are with him, not her. Now, here in Washington we can argue all over election-year politics, but in Tennessee, the people are seeing this for what it is, and they are not talking about politics. They think this is pretty terrifying. They are seeing a news platform censor the news, and they are seeing extremely powerful people cheer it on. To them and to me, that is frightening. They are looking to us to get into one of those policy debates my colleagues across the aisle were so eager to jump into just last week during Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing. Fortunately, for them, we have got a head start on that discussion. Big Tech has spent the last several years building up a body of evidence against its own intentions, and if we don't address their growing influence, we will lose our ability to create responsive policy. I have already come to the floor several times to speak on various ways we are doing this--through legislation, antitrust investigations, and some good old-fashioned committee hearings. Congress doing its job, precisely why we ought not to adjourn, precisely why we should stay here and do our work. On October 28, the Commerce Committee will host a few familiar faces for a hearing where we will analyze the effect that the liability shield found in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has on Big Tech's behavior. Over the course of the hearing, we will speak with Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Google about their approach to using the section 230 shield. We will also examine various legislative proposals to modernize section 230, including one of my own that would resolve some ambiguities regarding what sorts of content moderation policies are shielded from liability and which ones aren't protected. We are going to talk about the unintended consequences that stem from these policies. We are going to talk about their platforms' interaction with activists and with the media. I think we will probably get around to talking about it, whether they like it or not, because we have the bipartisan and unanimously authorized subpoenas in hand to do it, and those subpoenas are good through the end of this Congress. Hopefully, by going straight to the top, we will gain a better understanding of why these companies can't seem to regulate themselves, why they can't seem to stop themselves from having a complete meltdown every single time we turn up the heat and talk about these issues of privacy, talk about censorship, talk about prioritization, talk about preferencing, talk about holding them accountable for the spectrum they use to put out their message and the activity that they are taking now to censor the free speech of the American public. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is a small but very loud sector of the American people who are willing to condition their tolerance for diverging viewpoints on how they feel, they themselves feel about what is being said, worshipped, or reported. And as scary and as frightening as that attitude is to many of us, it is increasingly reflected in the very companies that have the most influence over how we access and consume information. Last week, we saw two of these companies go to extremes to get in line with radicals who are trying to block, censor, and intimidate their way into power. We all know the companies and the controversy I am talking about. Twitter and Facebook censored the spread of a New York Post article containing allegations that could potentially affect the outcome of the upcoming election. That is all I am going to say about the article itself because, frankly, the content bears no importance on how anyone should react to what happened after it was posted. Someone working for a private company--someone who is a content reviewer or content moderator-- someone working for a private company made a unilateral decision to stop Americans from reading the article. They didn't like it. They said: I have the power to stop it, and because I have that power, I am going to stop it. Now that is precisely what happened, and I will tell you, colleagues, it is not just that they blocked the link and the text of the article, it is that at least in Twitter's case, they suspended the Trump campaign's account; they suspended the New York Post account; they locked the White House Press Secretary's account; and they suppressed information posted by the House Judiciary Committee Republicans. They couldn't even provide a plausible explanation for why they did this. Think about that. They made themselves the arbiters of free speech, and they, in their almighty position, decided they were going to determine what you could hear, when you could hear it, and how you could hear it. They decided. The common element, of course, in all of this action that took place was the New York Post story. Was it information or hacked information or just inconvenient information? No one seems to want to answer that question. Why do they not want to answer that question? It is because they didn't like the information. It did not suit their narrative, but the way things stand, they didn't have to, because there is no real accountability and now their weak explanations have been co-opted into arguments made by activists, rival media organizations, and even journalists who were insisting that the information is harmful and must be stricken from the record.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I would be happy to yield to the Democratic leader.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed testimony from Mr. Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Mr. Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, Inc., and Mr. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. I supported the issuance of these subpoenas, and I look forward to hearing testimony on the content moderation policies used by their respective platforms. Over the past few months, I have worked with many members of this body on a statutory fix to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, specifically to the ingrained liability shield that platforms like Facebook use to defend their content moderation policies. Over the years, we have seen Big Tech's biggest players stretch this shield beyond all recognition, far beyond the limits Congress envisioned when they passed the original act in 1996. Now, content moderators wield their power with abandon, banning and deleting content they disagree with right alongside content of the most vile, universally repulsive nature. Last month, in response to growing outcries over censorship, I introduced the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act with Chairman Lindsey Graham and Chairman Roger Wicker to introduce accountability into our dealings with digital platforms and services. This bill is unique because it doesn't do specifically what so many here in Washington would like it to do: It doesn't delete section 230 from the U.S. Code, nor does it put the power to decide what information should and should not be available online in Congress's or regulators' hands. All it does is remove ambiguities from the original statutory language to help companies and consumers better understand when that liability shield is and is not applicable. Still, as we move forward with legislation, it is important to remember that we are creating policy for the internet we have now and will have in the future and not the internet we had back in 1996, hence the reason for the subpoenas we are sending to those three Silicon Valley executives. They are the ones who created the internet we have today, and their justifications and perspectives regarding the future of content moderation could prove useful. Subpoenas do change the tone of the conversation, but we view this as a rare opportunity to glean both insight and accountability from the tech industry.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I don't think I am overstating the severity of the situation when I say that this past week has been one of the most chaotic and divisive in our Nation's history. The American people met the news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death with an outpouring of sympathy; but, of course, rather than let an opportunity go to waste, radicals and activists, fueled by the same hatred that still fills our streets with violence, emerged from the shadows and exploited a nation's grief. Rarely--or perhaps, never before--in the history of this country have the so-called progressive movement, the activist left, and even some members of the Senate minority worked so tirelessly to scare the American people into submission. Their willingness to use differences in family, religion, and personal morality to impugn the integrity and competence of Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett without giving her the benefit of even a single conversation shocks the conscience. It is a scandal beneath the dignity of this body. In the coming weeks, I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to meet with Judge Barrett, as I did today. I think you will find that she is not trying to get off easy. As a fellow conservative woman who cherishes a deep faith and commitment to family, I can assure you, she has already been tested by fire and passed with flying colors.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, this past weekend, we lost a brave and uncommonly fearless American. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg represented many things to many people. For some, her work was the gold standard of legal advocacy. For others, her arguments proved to be intellectual flashpoints, sparking opportunities to think critically about what we believe and why we believe it. But for each and every one of us, she served as living proof that the status quo is often much more fragile than it appears. So today, I think I speak for so many Tennesseans when I say we are thankful beyond measure for that enduring legacy and the standard that she set as she broke barriers and crashed through glass ceilings, opening opportunities for women. I hope that I am as effective as she in increasing opportunities for women each and every day.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, last week marked another Constitution Day celebration. It could not have come at a better time because, for just one little moment, it helped us pause and contemplate two very important things. First, we took time to think about those values that our Founders knew. They knew that these values were essential to the establishment of a model republic. Second, we remembered the progress we have made in deciding for ourselves how the passage of time changes or does not change what we can do to make that ``more perfect Union'' even more so. Free speech, petition, and protest, the right to defend ourselves, the right to cast a vote--these are the freedoms that unite us in times of turmoil, whether we find ourselves in the midst of all-out war or just a particularly contentious election year. I would argue that how a nation reacts to that turmoil says more about its foundation than it does about who controls the news cycle on any given day. Divisive voices are hard at work in this country, and they are doing their very best to convince our friends, families, and neighbors that our foundation is weak and that our founding principles are no longer good enough. I find that very sad. They want us to believe that America as we know it is suddenly irredeemable, that it just can't be safe. You might ask yourself: Why are they saying all of this in spite of hundreds of years and millions of Americans proving the exact opposite is true? Here is what I think. They say it because they want us to give up. They want our neighbors, our families, and our friends to give up, call it quits; our best days are behind us. We have all heard them say this. They say: Throw the Constitution in the trash. Rewrite it. Start over. And after you throw the Constitution in the trash, then let's reimagine the world's greatest democracy through our very own destructive lenses of socialism, critical theory, and political correctness. That is what they say. As I am sure we have all seen, they have come up with some fairly persuasive methods to try to get their way. But I believe that, in the end, these efforts will all be in vain because when push comes to shove, we, the American people, always manage to remember where we have come from and to remember who we are. It is interesting. I think somehow we Americans always find our way home, back to those first principles. Indeed, I pray that continues. Our Founders saw what tyranny really looked like. They saw it up close and personal because they had to live through it. They knew exactly--exactly--what would happen if they put the fate of the Republic in the hands of men alone. So what did they do to give that insurance policy, if you will, that democracy and a democratic republic would continue and would stand? They drafted a Constitution, recognizing that our rights are a gift from God and that these rights are not a product of government action or they are not subject to the whims of a mob. They were also forward thinking. They gave us everything we need to improve upon their work. I think it is important to remember we have done just that. Over the course of more than two centuries, we have built a nation that is freer, more equal, and, yes, striving every day to be that ``more perfect Union,'' not because outside forces compel us to do so but because we, as Americans, chose to make it that way. When I see that a friend or a neighborhood has forgotten this, I like to remind them that two of the most emotional and powerful words in the English language are ``remember'' and ``imagine.'' I tell them: Stop for just a moment. Close your eyes and remember what you really love about this country. Remember the special moments. Remember what your parents and your grandparents have told you about love of country. Remember the sacrifices they have made. And, now, just imagine: What would your children and grandkids accomplish? What would they accomplish if they, too, are allowed to grow up in a place where liberty and justice is for all, where they are allowed to dream these big dreams and then dream up a way to make those dreams come true? These are things that are valued above all else. Of course, as we look at our past and we remember, we look at the future, and we know that in finding common ground--when we find common ground--we see potential, and potential gives us hope. I like to say that hope is staking a claim on an action, on a goal that you are going to achieve. So it is my fervent hope that we will continue to stand on our constitutional principles and that we will defend the foundation of this Nation that has given so many Americans the opportunity to make these big dreams come true I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I don't think anyone would disagree if I said that 2020 has truly been a difficult year. No one could ever have expected what we have faced this year, and it has been a tough one for Tennesseans. We hear about it regularly. We know it is a tough one for constituents and for our citizens all across the country. The months of lockdowns will constitute a defining moment for multiple generations of Americans. My kids and I were talking about how we think that, in years to come, our grandkids are going to talk about what they did during the COVID summer and how they went to school during the COVID pandemic. Unfortunately, Congressional Democrats have decided not to let the opportunity that moment presents go to waste. Democrats are taking advantage of the American people's uncertainty and pain in an attempt to force them to lose faith in their government, in their fellow countrymen, and in themselves. We are hearing from people that this causes them concern because they want to see us work together; they want to see us address these issues that are causing heartache together. I have to tell you, I think it was so unfortunate that last week, some of our friends across the aisle blocked yet another targeted relief package that would have brought billions of dollars in support to the American people. I think we have to realize that this was not a vote on final passage; this was a vote to end cloture and begin the debate on that package. Basically, what our friends across the aisle said to the American people last week is this: We don't want to talk about this. We don't want to discuss it. We don't want to debate it. That is unfortunate. If you look at the bill that the Senate Republicans proposed and brought forward on a cloture vote last week, it is hard to tease out exactly what the problem was with it. It included another round of paycheck protection plan funding. I will tell you, in Tennessee, a lot of our entertainment venues and a lot of our restaurants need this. They need that consideration to stay afloat. There was funding for vaccine development. Is there anybody who does not think we need a vaccine for coronavirus? I haven't met people who think we don't need to be working on that. Everybody is saying: Let's get this to market as safely and quickly as is possible. There was support for healthcare workers. There was support for students and teachers who are still trying to adapt to online learning. I was just doing a virtual townhall with one of our counties in Tennessee. One of their issues is, when will there be additional funding to help us with technology, because 30 percent of our students elected an e-learning format. Do you know what? There was even money for the post office. Back in August, our friends across the aisle thought that was a crisis, but I guess it was their drama of the day because they voted against all of this funding. They voted for weakening the economy, I guess, and they voted against the prospects of American workers. But what they were doing was strengthening the false premise that they are the only ones capable of sparking an economic recovery. This, of course, is demonstrably false. This week, the Census Bureau released its annual report. I will tell you that the numbers prove that the Trump administration's pro-growth policies are working. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that we passed in 2017 is working. It has spurred economic growth. It has spurred an economy like I have never seen in my lifetime. In 2019, incomes grew at the highest pace ever recorded. Last year, the official poverty rate fell to an all-time record low of 10.5 percent. Think about that--10.5 percent. A decade ago, there were more people than ever on assistance. Between 2018 and 2019 alone, more than 4 million Americans rose out of poverty. Think about those numbers. That is a good thing. It was the largest reduction in poverty in over 50 years. The Black poverty rate fell below 20 percent for the first time in history, and child poverty also fell to a near 50-year low. Our record on this is very clear: The Trump administration policies worked. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act worked. That is what the American people are wanting to get back to. I encourage all of my colleagues in this Chamber to read that report and look at these stats, and everyone should remind themselves of the progress we have made as a nation on growing this economy over the last 4 years. Politically, everybody talks about how this is a divided nation, but we have to come together and work under an umbrella of policies that will make life better for all Americans. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would throw that opportunity away. Our citizens want us to work on a relief package that is going to help them get back to work, help our children get back to school, and allow our communities, our schools, our governments, and our businesses to safely operate with liability protections. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, it seems like every other week we turn on the TV only to hear a pundit declare that we are living in the most divisive time in the history of our Nation. Now, as I am sure many would point out, especially if we were having this discussion on social media, those who lived through the Civil War and other contentious eras might have something to say about that, but we can all agree it is a contentious time. What I know for sure is this: Every single day I see the American people losing the hope they once had in the absolute inviolability of our fundamental right to free speech and expression. They may not be too worried about official action changing those rights, but what they do see is a dwindling respect for what those rights mean outside of the context of what lawyers and lawmakers understand as protected speech. They are not thinking about Supreme Court cases. They are wondering what changed in the hearts and minds of their countrymen to turn simple disagreements into all-out war. They long for the days when they would have friendly banter with their neighbors and with their friends and discuss the issues of the day. Well, over the past few months, I have watched this national discourse spiral to the point where most people I talked to back home believe that civil debate is just about impossible, and it worries them. What happened to mutual respect? What happened to point- counterpoint? What happened to civil discourse in the public square? What happened to sitting around the table after a Sunday School class and talking about how what you have discussed applies to the issues of the day? Have we lost it? I have witnessed obvious efforts to threaten and intimidate conservative activists. I have watched these go unchecked by powerful legal figureheads who should have known better. And what is worse, these threats and intimidation tactics have spilled over into the online platforms millions of Americans use to check the news, stay connected to friends, and share updates on the lives of their families. Now, I think we can agree that most of our friends in Silicon Valley who are in charge of those platforms harbor some liberal bias. That being said, I think we can also agree that doesn't mean they can't be objective when it comes to things like content moderation. Of course, that is not how it works out in real life. The modern era's hostility toward debate provides those platforms with a perverse incentive just to flip the switch, shut down conservative voices, and then suggest that we had it coming all along: You shouldn't have been saying such. Well, we all know that this seems to be a one-sided argument. Now, those in this Chamber who follow technology policy know that Big Tech uses the liability shield granted under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to justify this type of censorship. In part, the statute reads: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. Remember that ``otherwise objectionable'' catchall. That is going to be important. Congress originally constructed those provisions to protect startups and innovators from frivolous content moderation lawsuits that could either bankrupt their firms or severely restrict their access to venture capital. But, in reality, Big Tech has abused this privilege. Now, listen to this part because this also is as important as that ``otherwise objectionable'' phrase. Congress originally constructed these provisions of section 230 to protect startups and innovators from frivolous content moderation lawsuits that could either bankrupt their firms or severely restrict their access to venture capital. This was done because the internet was in its infancy, and people wanted to make certain they could get their sea legs underneath them, have a little space, and be able to innovate. If they made mistakes, they would be able to rectify those mistakes and not get sued. Those days are long gone, and, yes, Big Tech has abused this privilege. They became very comfortable with looking at section 230 and using it as a way to issue take-down notices, as a way to restrict content, and as a way to manipulate prioritization. It came in line with their thought processes and their ideas, but, in reality, we know that this has become an excuse to censor content that they disagree with in principle, and, in doing so, they have damaged--perhaps in some ways irreparably--the integrity of the national discourse. The problem isn't just that they have unilaterally imposed their own preferred content filter into the browser and news feeds of millions of Americans and manipulated the availability and quality of the information; it is that in the process of doing so, they have trained their customers to expect that filter to cover their real-world interactions with people whose beliefs are much more diverse than those of the Silicon Valley's wealthiest residents. You know, this is one of those Hollywood versus the heartland sorts of issues. They think they know better than the people across this country, so they feel that they can impose their own filter onto your browser and your news feed and thereby manipulate the availability and the quality of information to which you are going to have access, and they are doing it because they can, they think, because they have been using 230 as their shield. Last week, I joined my colleagues Senators Wicker and Graham to introduce the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, and I thank them for their willingness to work with me and to move a product to completion and introduction. To introduce this legislation means we are introducing accountability into our dealings with this notoriously opaque and unregulated industry To be clear, this piece of legislation isn't meant to construct a new set of guide rails that will let Washington dictate the inner workings of a platform's content moderation strategy. What it does is change the language of the existing statute to clarify some ambiguous terminology. Basically, you are clarifying who can use liability protection, when they can use it, how they can use it, and where it can be applied. First and foremost, the bill clarifies those scenarios when an online platform's decision to restrict access--restrict it, censoring, diminishing, pushing it back--to certain types of content will result in their losing that section 230 shield. Did they do it because they wanted to or did they do it because it is language that should be shielded and taken down? This provision will address those famously vague content moderation policies that are almost impossible for users to challenge. How many times have you looked at terms of service and how many times have you looked at community standards and said: I can't figure out what this means. Guess what. Most people cannot. And the online platform--it is fine with them if you can't figure it out. It gives them more latitude. Next, it conditions the content moderation liability shield on a reasonableness standard. In order to be protected from liability, a tech company may only restrict access to content where it has an ``objectively reasonable belief'' that the content falls within a certain specified category. So the purpose of this is to take away the benefit of the doubt. We want them to really think before restricting content. What they have done is just take it down--no fear that their hands would be slapped. And what do we know about Big Tech? They are going to push the envelope until they get their hands slapped. So, instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt, the next time they decide they are going to go in here and they are going to take something down, we want to give them pause. They need to think before they do that. Our update removes the ``otherwise objectionable'' standard that I mentioned previously, and it replaces it with some specific terms that would protect platforms when they remove content that promotes terrorism, promotes self-harm, or is unlawful. You know, it is a good thing when Congress can be specific in what they mean and when they can be specific in the intent of the law. Changing this language would provide that specificity that is needed. Last but not least, the bill clarifies the definition of ``information content provider'' to include a person or entity that creates, develops, or editorializes information provided through the internet or any other online platform. Now, this will help online publishers, periodicals, and websites that are news websites. But then you have Big Tech block them because somebody puts up something in the comment section that Big Tech doesn't like. Of course, we all are familiar with Mark Zuckerberg saying that his company, Facebook, works more like a government than a corporation. So, this pulls back on what they have used as their control. There has been a lot of discussion in this Chamber regarding the best way to handle section 230. Many argue that we would all be better off if Congress wiped the statute off the books and just got rid of it completely. But I will tell you, I fully believe that is a misguided approach. That strategy will not temper the effects of Big Tech's bias because their bias stretches far beyond interactions that raise section 230 concerns. This isn't a simple issue. Those of us who have been working on section 230 for years are still studying the ripple effects these changes will bring. What we know for sure is that simply closing the book on section 230 via congressional decree would be like casting a protest vote against Big Tech's bad behavior. It would be absolutely pointless. Until we recognize the importance of clarifying and preserving liability protections for the internet we have now and not--not--the internet we had in 1996, Big Tech will keep pushing the boundaries until private corporations will become judge and jury over not only how Americans discover new information but what information is actually there to discover. It is time for the U.S. Senate to step up, to do the work, and to write those changes into law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, last week, journalists at ESPN published the results of a bombshell investigation into human rights violations at NBA training academies in China. When you think about a basketball camp, you probably think of shooting drills or running sprints, but these camps look much different. The investigation focused on training camps located in Xinjiang. This particular region in western China has achieved a certain level of notoriety in recent months for the horrific political violence its government officials inflict on the Uighur Muslim minority. So it is no surprise that the stories told by trainers, coaches, and other NBA employees who helped to run these camps employ disturbing and familiar imagery. According to the ESPN investigation, one former league employee compared the atmosphere at the Xinjiang camp to ``World War II Germany.'' An American coach, who worked at a similar facility, described it as a ``sweat camp for athletes.'' Now, according to the investigation, almost immediately after the NBA launched this program back in 2016, multiple coaches who were staffing the camps reported to high-ranking organization officials that they had witnessed Chinese coaches beating and berating student athletes. Bear in mind that these reports were made in 2016. They also reported that the Chinese Communist Party officials who were in charge of the camp were denying students an education. In coming to this elite camp, they were to receive both an education and elevated sports training, but the reports, going back to 2016, said the children were being abused, beaten, berated, and denied the education. So why then did the NBA maintain these programs? Money. Communist China plays host to an estimated $4 billion NBA market. They say that China is basketball-obsessed, and NBA execs have used every avenue they can to take advantage of that, and they jealously protect these relationships. Last October, when Houston Rockets' General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of the Hong Kong Freedom Fighters, multiple league all-stars, stakeholders, and well-connected employees lashed out in a panic--terrified of retaliation from Beijing. Team owner and Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai not only sided with the Chinese Communist Party as it retaliated against the entire league, but he characterized the Hong Kong protesters as leading a separatist movement. Their over-the-top reactions are proof enough of how fragile the NBA's relationship with China actually is and who is really in control of this relationship. The control is not with the NBA. In June, I sent a letter to the NBA, expressing my concerns about the training camps in Xinjiang and the league's entanglement with the Chinese Communist Party. In their response, they announced that they had closed their facilities in the region and that they had severed their ties to any programs there. The problem is that the ESPN report I referenced previously disputes that assertion. I am reaching out for clarification on that matter, but in their response, I hope NBA officials express clarity regarding all-- each and every one--of their business relationships with China because the NBA and other organizations that maintain close ties to the Chinese Communist Party believe that they are merely taking advantage of a growing consumer market--or that is what they say. To them, it is the smart, savvy play. That is what they believe. In reality, what they are doing is giving the ball away. They are playing right into Beijing's hands, and those hands are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Since 2013, the CCP has operated under a grand strategy to stretch its influence across Europe, Africa, and Asia. This strategy is known as--quite elegantly, they think--the Belt and Road Initiative. It involves making interlinked investments over land and sea, which has formed the beginnings of a modern day Silk Road. The Chinese Communist Party uses energy and transportation infrastructure development, as well as access to investment capital and trade opportunities, to force its way into the good graces of comparatively poor and still-developing nations. I have seen this influence and its effects firsthand. Last year, I traveled to the Horn of Africa and spent some time in Djibouti--a country that welcomed China and the Belt and Road Initiative investments with open arms. China now holds somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 percent of that country's national debt. This is 80 percent of its debt that is held by Communist China. The government in Djibouti, in turn, agreed to accommodate China's first overseas military outpost, grant access to a crucial sea lane, and implement the Orwellian smart cities program. Now, I will tell you, if I asked you to picture a modern day surveillance state, the chances are the picture that would pop into your head would come pretty close to being what is happening right now in Djibouti City. Yet the other thing I saw while in Djibouti was its vital strategic importance to the United States. Our military relationship is one that exists on the frontlines of great power competition, and it is essential to continue American commitment to and investment in African partners like Djibouti. Wherever AFRICOM headquarters is located, we must not lose sight of the importance of resourcing the African continent for great power competition. This is the combatant command that consistently proves it can ``do the most with the least,'' and it is a front where we can play offense, not defense, against two of our major adversaries--China and Russia. The way China does business makes maintaining these relationships incredibly important. The BRI functions behind a veil of secrecy to the tune of somewhere between $1 trillion and $8 trillion in foreign investment. Now, think about this. China invests its dollars in the United States. Currently, China holds over $1.1 trillion in U.S. debt. It does that because Congress has the power of the purse, but Congress seems to think: Print more money. We can issue some debt. We can afford it. All the while, China is making money off of our debt. Then, with those profits, what is it doing? It is investing in countries around the globe. As I said, with what we know now about the Belt and Road Initiative-- the digital Silk Road, its push in the great power competition--it has now spent somewhere between $1 trillion and $8 trillion around the globe. Some of these countries, like Djibouti, are holding 80 percent of the debt in exchange for locating a military post, for having a naval base, for building out its spy network globally. This is what it is up to. The low-interest loans China offers leads these countries into unsustainable debt burdens. Some countries' overall debts to China are well above 20 percent of their GDPs, and many of these loan recipients exist on the brink of a debt crisis. When you get in a debt crisis-- when your debt is more than your income--what happens? The person holding your debt does what? We know. The person owns you In short, China has set a series of ``debt traps'' for smaller, struggling countries so they will just go tumbling over the cliff. For China, everything is going according to plan because that dependency translates to control over key strategic positions all over the globe. Yet, pretty soon, if they are not careful, organizations like the NBA, the National Basketball Association, will be the ``National Beijing Association.'' What is it doing? It is ignoring this. Why is it ignoring it? Because it is convenient. Why is it convenient? The profits look good. It is making money. China is basketball-obsessed. Do we really think that makes it OK? I have to say that it is not OK. What the NBA is doing is ignoring horrific human rights abuses-- absolutely horrific. It is ignoring speech repression. It is ignoring political violence. It is ignoring religious persecution. It is doing it all in the name of finding its next basketball superstar, and it remains willfully blind to the manipulation tactics China uses to hide these abuses. Whether we are talking about debt diplomacy or enthusiastic access to a willing market, all of it is offered up by the Chinese Communist Party as a distraction. I have said repeatedly that the United States must take immediate steps to unravel our relationships with China. The rapid and unnecessary spread of COVID-19, caused by the Chinese Communist Party's reckless attitude in the early days of the pandemic, is proof enough of how dangerously vulnerable we are to the Chinese influence, but this unraveling cannot occur if governments and organizations alike refuse to acknowledge what the American people know to be true, which is that we had a real chance to keep China in check, but we missed the opportunity. The only way that we can retake control of our interactions with Beijing is to retake control of our economy and set our own parameters for engagement with what has become one of the most dangerous and powerful nations on the planet. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the previously referenced article from ESPN, dated July 29, 2020

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks prior to the vote.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is interesting to hear my colleagues talk about China and COVID and our response. I think many of us looked at 2019 and felt like that was really a significant year for U.S.-China relations. It marked the 40th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing, and we also finalized a phase 1 trade deal. This led many of us to being optimistic, but remember that 2019 also marked the 70th anniversary of Chairman Mao's ascension to the chairmanship of the Chinese Communist Party and the 30th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. When you start asking questions about that history and how it has informed the decisions of current Chinese leadership, the capitalist facade that has been so carefully constructed by the propagandists in Beijing starts to peel away, and it starts to crack. After decades of espionage, military aggression, and horrific political violence inflicted on their own people, many here in Washington have grown numb to Chinese hostility. They kind of expect or accept that is the way they are going to act. That is the only explanation I could come up with for the shock that rippled through this town when we discovered that the Chinese Communist Party spent 51 days muzzling the doctors, lawyers, and journalists who desperately tried to warn the rest of the world about the growing threat from the novel coronavirus. Our relationship with China has reached a tipping point. We will never be able to go back to what had been that cautious optimism that we had in 2019. Fortunately, it looks like both my colleagues here in Washington and many of our allies are allowing themselves to process the threat posed by Beijing's standard operating procedures. The UK has banned the use of equipment from Chinese tech giant Huawei for their ongoing 5G rollout, and France has implemented policies that restrict the use of Huawei's products. These decisions are giving some hope to the people I am talking to back in Tennessee every single day. They are happy to see that allies are following in our footsteps. This is a good thing. It is an opportunity for us to role-model how you work to unravel a relationship with an aggressor. They would also want me to tell you that they appreciate the Senate's growing bipartisan support for legislation like my SAMC Act, which will secure our pharmaceutical supply chains from Chinese interference, and Senator McSally's Civil Justice for Victims of COVID Act, which will allow Americans harmed by this pandemic to sue the Chinese Communist Party officials in U.S. court. But we all know that there is no single-shot bill we can use to decouple from China and put control back in the hands of American businesses, educators, institutions, and innovators. We have to begin to unravel these ties with China. Now, there are a lot of people in this town who think that this is impossible, and they will say: Oh, that is ill-advised. You do not want to try to unravel from China. I think they are wrong, and I think that we can and we must do this. But lipservice is not going to cut it. Over the past few months we have talked at length about what needs to be done, but, with few exceptions, we are light on specifics. So last Wednesday I published a white paper laying out the current state of affairs between the United States and China and talked about what got us to this position. Then, I have 120 specific policy recommendations that Congress can use as a basis for future legislation, whether it is trade or agriculture or telecommunications or 5G or our military complex. I would like to use my remaining time to lay out a few of these recommendations as a place to start. By now most Americans are at least familiar with the term ``Belt and Road Initiative.'' This is an initiative program the Chinese have used to buy their way. They have bought their way into the good graces of governments in Asia, Africa, and Europe. The trillions of dollars in investment buys inroads and influence across countries of every economic background and in organizations like the United Nations. While we cannot and should not compete dollar for dollar, we should partner with our allies to prevent struggling governments from falling into this debt diplomacy or these debt traps. We must also secure our supply chains across every sector of our economy and bring critical manufacturing and technologies back to the United States. I mentioned the SAMC Act. It would incentivize companies to bring their manufacturing operations back to the United States and also fund partnerships between pharmaceutical companies and universities so that they can train the workforce we need in order to pull this manufacturing out of China and bring it back to communities right here. We should not hesitate in moving forward on this legislation. Once we invest in this new technology and infrastructure, we are going to have to invest in securing it by securing our emerging 5G networks. To that end, we need to make more spectrum available for the commercial wireless sector to ensure our continued leadership in 5G and other emerging technologies. If we fail to do so, we risk ceding ground to China in the standard-setting bodies that are going to define 5G internationally. We will not be able to stop China alone. We must look toward those international organizations, as well as allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific, to help us deter Chinese aggression and foster stable economic growth. This includes providing support for Hong Kong and Taiwan and promoting universal human rights standards, both in China and across the globe. We will also increase defense investment in the region through a newly created Pacific Deterrence Initiative. Most importantly, we must accept the fact that, at its core, China is not a normal country. It does not behave like a normal country. When Xi Jinping ascended to the head of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012, many assumed he was going to act as a reformer and turn away from the Maoist thought, but, predictably, he did not. We cannot simply wait for this problem to go away. Last week, Beijing escalated tensions by ordering Americans to vacate our only consulate in western China, distancing its abuses in Tibet and Xinjiang from American diplomatic personnel. You know what. It is not going to stop with this. They are accelerating their aggression. We have to become more independent of China. We are too dependent on them at this point. It is time for the United States to deny this era of Chinese impunity and change the way we are doing business. It is time to reestablish rules to guide the global economy, to encourage our allies to join us, and to hold Beijing accountable I yield the floor.