Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I was thinking a bit earlier today about what we were doing at this time last year. We were busy hosting Tennessee Tuesdays and welcoming Tennesseans and families and children with such curiosity and bright eyes and lots of questions about our Nation's government, about these beautiful buildings in which we work every day, and about the job that we have in representing them. I like that curiosity, and I like that energy that, generally, is brought to our Chambers and to our work during the summertime. This year, things really are a little bit different. I think it is a very worthwhile exercise--and I appreciate that my colleagues are participating in this exercise--to remind ourselves why this year is different. The answer, of course, as to why is this year different is the Chinese Communist Party. It is the one that is to be held responsible, to be blamed for the sickness, the chaos, for this crisis that we have had, which is a health, food, and financial crisis all rolled into one. It has happened because of decisions that China made, decisions that were made by the Chinese Communist Party's leadership. There are some things that are the known knowns, if you will. They are the things that we know happened as you look back over what has happened with COVID-19. What we know is this: On December 31, 2019, government officials in Wuhan, China, confirmed they were monitoring the spread of a disease that looked a lot like pneumonia. They didn't know exactly what it was. It didn't have all the markers, but a lot. But on New Year's Eve, they let us know: Hey, we have a problem out here. Just days later, they confirmed it was caused by a novel virus that had infected dozens of people. We now know it was hundreds of people. It wasn't until January 23, however, that authorities shut off Wuhan from the rest of the country. By this time, the virus was spreading like wildfire. Let's pay close attention to what I just said. They shut off Hubei Province, they shut off Wuhan not from the rest of the world, not from other countries, but from the rest of China. Don't you dare go anywhere else in our country. This is contagious. Now, as if that 23-day gap wasn't bad enough, credible watchdog reports revealed that the CCP--Chinese Communist Party--lied--they lied to global health officials about the danger posed by the virus for not just a day or two while they figured it out but for 51 days before they sounded the alarm and said: Listen up. Pandemic. Pandemic. Fifty-one days. This deception allowed a regional outbreak to spread into a global pandemic that has so far killed more than 140,000 Americans. It would be easy to chalk all of this up to incompetence and overwhelmed bureaucrats, but every Member of this body knows that is not what happened. That is why, over the past few weeks, more and more of my colleagues here in the Senate have agreed to support legislation that will allow Americans to hold China accountable for the destruction caused by the pandemic. On Monday, Senator McSally introduced the Civil Justice for Victims of COVID Act--a bill that I am very pleased to support and to be a cosponsor. This bill contains elements of my Stop COVID Act, which I introduced earlier this year. It would strip Chinese officials of their sovereign immunity for reckless actions that caused the pandemic and would give our Federal courts the authority to hear claims that China has caused or contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not an unusual step. We did this after 9/11 for the 9/11 families. What we would do is give them the opportunity to go to court and make their case--hold China accountable. It is time for this body to reject the artificial backstops that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use to protect China from criticism, and I encourage those colleagues to ask themselves: What are you afraid will happen if we hold China accountable for what they have done? What do you fear? We have known for years that Beijing uses every tool in its toolbox to spy on us. Look at what we have learned about Huawei. They embed the chips in the hardware. You do not know they are there until they activate. We know they steal our intellectual property. Look at what they have done to the music industry, to the entertainment industry, to publishers, and to automotive engineers. China--they can't innovate their way to success, so what do they do? They steal their way to success, and then they lie about it. China continues to cause chaos on the international stage. Look at their work pushing into the South China Sea. Look at what they have done to the freedom fighters in Hong Kong. Look at how they act and how they pressure and try to stifle Taiwan. This is standard operating procedure for the Chinese Communist Party. Now, because they chose to lie and not come forward, we have more than 140,000 Americans who are dead. Millions more have lost their jobs, and they have lost their sense of community. How much further are we willing to let this go? I will tell you this: As I, every single day, talk to Tennesseans about China and what has happened with China and how China has not been an honest broker, not only in this but for decades, Tennesseans have had enough. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, it has been so wonderful to be in Tennessee over the past couple of weeks and to have the opportunity to listen to Tennesseans. We have listened and talked to local elected officials and teachers and parents from one corner of the State to another. They are very aware and are truly focused on the challenges we are going to be facing this fall in just a few weeks. Some of our school systems in Tennessee are going to be going back to school the first week of August. They have a lot of questions as to whether they are going to end up with classes meeting in person or online. Up until now, students have relied on virtual schooling platforms to stay connected to their teachers, and it is likely that in many communities, this system will continue at least through the fall semester. Relying on Google and other educational software providers keeps teachers and families safe from COVID-19, but these programs come with their own brand of hazards. Our increased reliance on Big Tech has highlighted just how vulnerable we are when things go awry. Even the platforms that have become commonplace over the years pose risks and not only just risks to children. You need look no further than last week's Twitter meltdown for evidence of how quickly a hacker or even an insider can turn a few tweets into a threat. I will tell you this: In Tennessee, we have a lot of security moms. Those security moms you hear so much about are really back in full force. They are concerned. They are paying close attention, and they are not going to back off of the Googles and the Facebooks and the Instagrams. They want to see these companies held accountable and transparent about how they follow and use data because when they see their children spending hours staring at TikTok or YouTube, they are beginning to see and fear a vulnerability. When they see their children using their classroom software, they begin to see and fear a vulnerability. They haven't forgotten that back in 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a complaint with the FTC against Google alleging that their Google for Education platform was exploiting students' personal information and potentially exposing it to third parties. A 2017 report confirmed and expanded on these concerns. These programs have continued, but Big Tech has left parents with more questions than answers about what is happening with their children's data. How are they pulling in this information? How are they tracking these children? What are they doing with the Chromebook in schools program? Who has this information on their children, and what are they doing with it? What kinds of files are they building about our children? You know, I have said that one of the questions we should ask and work until we can find an answer is, Who owns the virtual you? Who owns it? Because the virtual you is you and your information online. It is you and your presence online. This is what parents fear. I will tell you, that fear is complicated because of the rise in mandatory use of technology by students. It has prompted me, along with several of our colleagues here, to ask the FTC to launch a major investigation into how these platforms protect student privacy. That is the question they have to answer. Are you protecting it? If not, why not? If not, are you selling it to the highest bidder? Are you profiting from this educational information? These security moms know it is not just their kids' safety and privacy at risk. They do their banking online, their shopping online, and they have had to deal with the nightmare of having their identity stolen during one of the many infamous retail hacks

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, over the past few months, we have all watched the power that the digital community has to make someone's passing thought go viral and the power that the digital mob has to make controversial voices completely disappear. Well, who is the ``digital mob'' exactly, because right now we are hearing a lot about mob rule. Sometimes it is hard to tell who the mob actually is. Is it the millions of users who swarm social media platforms at the very first hint of a controversy, or is it the professional activists who provoke many of these attacks? They seem to know just when to pitch a thought, a word, or an idea. Could it be the platforms themselves that cave to the pressure and police speech when they don't agree with that speech? So let's drill down on this just a little bit. Today I want to focus on the Googles and the Facebooks of the world because, when it comes down to it, they are the ones that are in the driver's seat. They are the ones that end up calling the shots. For years, tech companies have waged a very public war against platform users who speak out against the popular narrative, and the executives charged with defending these calls routinely struggle to explain the arbitrary nature of their content-moderation policies. Every time moderators remove a post for what is called shocking content or cause a moral panic by placing a warning label on satire, Big Tech asks us to just, oh, write it off: It was a mistake. We really didn't mean to do it. Move on. But we haven't moved on because the platforms themselves have provided plenty of evidence to confirm that Big Tech's employees bring their bias to the workplace. Bear in mind, all of these employees who are developing the search models--the algorithms that are prioritizing your search, that are mining your data, that are policing your speech--are bringing their bias and their prejudice to the workplace. These fears were confirmed back in 2017 when the New York Times reported that a Twitter employee intentionally--intentionally--deleted President Trump's account, not because of any violation but because the employee had an ax to grind. They did not like President Donald Trump. This May, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook set up a multistep approval process for changes to its ``integrity ranking initiative'' due to ``reasonable concerns that overzealous engineers might let their politics influence the platform.'' Think about that. Facebook set up a multistep approval process for changes to its integrity ranking initiative due to reasonable concerns that overzealous engineers might let their politics influence the platform. Do you think? Of course they were. Of course they were. The problem: They have been doing it all along and trying to say it is just your imagination when, actually, it is not. I don't think anyone anticipated that digital platforms would become powerful enough to act as judge and jury over what information Americans should be allowed to access online. Congress certainly didn't anticipate it when drafting legislation to keep those companies in check. But they have overstepped their bounds. They continue to misbehave until we come along and slap their hand, and then they try to act as if they are going to solve their problems, which leads us to our current debate over section 230 reform. Big Tech relies on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to shield themselves from content-based litigation. The statute also acts as a sword that platforms can engage to remove content they judge to be obscene, violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. In the section 230 world, then, the users--the users--are responsible for what they post, not the platform that hosts the content. The platforms, however, have the right to set their own content guidelines within limits without being sued. That sounds reasonable. Section 230 is important, specifically, because of what it doesn't do. It does not force companies to choose between moderating every piece of content they host and letting their websites turn into the Wild West. But, as I said, no legislation could have anticipated our current digital landscape. Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook now have the power to ruin content creators who step out of line. And it is their line. Even if those creators manage to stay on the right side of the moderators, they know their online presence--and many times this is also their livelihood--lives or dies at the hands of employees given the near-impossible task of remaining completely neutral 100 percent of the time. The dynamic between users and platforms has changed. And now, Congress must change the law that guides that dynamic. Here is the problem. This country has become so polarized, I am not sure Big Tech understands what a healthy dynamic would actually look like. No longer do their choices seem to make sense to many Americans. The compulsion to flag and report and threaten has become a reflex. When the digital mob chooses to attack on any given day, then, their choices are going to change with every news cycle. As we have seen, this heavily influences how Big Tech chooses to police content on their platforms. You may have been saying or posting something for years--no problem. But then one day, that digital mob--because of the news cycle--will choose to attack you. Conservatives have suffered under this mob rule. There is no denying it. There is no denying that there is a digital mob. But reform can happen without overextending the heavy hand of Federal regulation over the entire tech industry. As someone who knows what it feels like to be censored, I get it. I absolutely understand why we need these reforms and why Congress needs to act now, this year. But I also know that the more you rely on threats to motivate good corporate behavior, the more likely you will be to find reasons to follow through on them. We must find stronger ways to rein in tech firms seeking to become the new speech police. We know for a fact that Big Tech's biases are the problem. But when did more government become the solution? We already tried that approach. We called it the fairness doctrine. Guess what. It did not work. Instead of encouraging free and fair discourse, powerful parties use those rigid standards as leverage to control speech. And, I will tell you, I can think of few things more dangerous than allowing lawmakers and bureaucrats to weaponize the full force of the Federal Government against the private exchange of information. What we do know is this. Big Tech's era of self-regulation is over. It no longer works. Big Tech is not a group of infant companies. They are referred to as Big Tech because they have grown. This self-regulation is over. It is time for Congress to take an action. But punitive, one-size-fits-all standards will put these tech companies in a straitjacket. It would hamper innovation, and, eventually, it would collapse the industry. Instead, we should set up and give Big Tech guidance that will encourage growth and will encourage innovation, while also making it abundantly clear that Congress will not allow Big Tech's political bias to determine what information Americans are allowed to access online. We will not allow Big Tech and their political bias to determine how information is prioritized through your search engine. We are not going to allow Big Tech and their political bias to data-mine every email, every text, and every search, and then use that to access your information online. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the previously referenced articles from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham for adding the bipartisan and critically important END Exploitation Act to the EARN It Act, which is set for markup on Thursday. This bill, which I introduced with Senator Cortez Masto, would lengthen evidence preservation time in online child exploitation cases and assist law enforcement in prosecuting child predators. Once passed, the law will double the length of time we require tech firms like Facebook and Snapchat to preserve evidence and reports of online child exploitation. In 2018, tech companies reported over 45 million--45 million--photos and videos of children being sexually abused. Unfortunately, that was double the number of reports in 2017. This legislation will give the police more time to investigate these horrific crimes. It will put child predators in jail where they belong. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I want to begin by saying thank you to my colleague from Florida who is doing so much good work on the Armed Services Committee, and I also thank Chairman Inhofe and other members of the committee who have made it a priority to be certain that our men and women in uniform are well cared for and their families are protected and that we are thinking toward the future as we look at this year's NDAA. As we have gone through this year's NDAA drafting process with a unique frame of reference, the effects of the COVID pandemic have made our national security, our supply chain, our reach and development vulnerabilities national news. I think they have shifted somewhat the focus that the American people have had, and I can't remember a time when I have had so many Tennesseans contacting my office asking questions about our critical infrastructure supply chain: How are we protecting ourselves and how do we look at what is transpiring in our Nation and globally to consider how we best protect ourselves and defend this Nation? The fallout from the pandemic has highlighted the need for our Armed Forces to reassert themselves globally. The proposed 2021 NDAA that we are gathered on the floor this morning to discuss and to show our support for this legislation and for its funding will do some critical things. The newly created Pacific Deterrence Initiative will enhance U.S. global leadership and devote needed attention and resources to multinational fusion centers in the Indo-Pacific, where we can work with our allies and partners to reduce the threat of Chinese aggression. And that is something that through COVID, through the way China has stolen our intellectual property--this has come to the forefront. Just having the presence will not be enough. If we don't focus on innovation as an essential element of our national security, we will fall behind. It is imperative that we continue to lead in technology, in research and development, in making certain that the 21st century is going to be a century of freedom. In this year's NDAA, we prioritized education. The proposed package includes funding for JROTC educational opportunities in STEM fields. I will tell you, in Tennessee, we have the Dobyns-Bennett High School in Kingsport, TN. They are continuing great work in these JROTC programs. We are also going to invest in collaborative research between academia and military. Programs like Pathfinder Air Assault will strengthen our Armed Forces against dangerous adversaries like China, Iran, and Russia--all part of the new ``axis of evil.'' I am thrilled to see what researchers at the University of Tennessee, University of Memphis, and Vanderbilt University will do with this opportunity. We are also going to take all of the progress we have made in cybersecurity and bring it on home to our State and local governments. National Guard cybersecurity assistance programs will improve homeland security at every level of government by leveraging Department of Defense resources against foreign adversaries. Last but not least, I want to highlight the inclusion of language that will secure American supply chains by requiring a percentage of critical technologies to be manufactured and assembled in the United States or an ally country. All these items appear right alongside more funding for a better quality of life for our military families. We will also be seeing more Chinooks flying home to Fort Campbell, TN, and investing in practical improvements on our military bases. Ours is the kind of freedom that is always in danger of extinction but always worth protecting, and with this bill, I believe we have ensured that our best first line of defense has the ability to do so. We thank our military men and women I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, in the early days of the internet, when we were all just beginning to get online and experience what it was like to have at our fingertips an entree to the entire world--all of the information you could want--everything at that point really felt like a novelty. It had a newness about it. Technology was new, and consumers were able to take their time carving out a comfort zone for what they wanted to do online. They were signing up for Facebook, and they were trying to figure out which of their retail merchants they wanted to visit online, how they wanted to shop online, what transactions they wanted to begin to put into that search engine, and then conduct those transactions online. At the same time, technology firms were carving out their place in the market. I don't have to tell you that this dynamic has really changed from those early days and those first experiences with the virtual space. We walk around with computers in our pockets. That level of convenience and connectivity is great, but it has thrown off the balance of power between what is now called Big Tech and consumers. Over the past few years, these companies have treated the American people to a series of scandals that have opened the floodgates to mainstream concerns over issues like data privacy, child exploitation, a national security risk, and blatant, anti-competitive business practices. Just this week, I sent a letter to the Attorney General about Google's latest attacks on conservative media outlets. As a reminder to everyone, Google threatened to remove the Federalist and ZeroHedge from the Google Ads platform after determining that these outlets' comments sections--did you get that? It was their comments sections, which are the areas you go to participate in public debate--contained content that violated company policy. Well, how about that? A representative from Google ran to the press and insisted that both outlets had published dangerous, hateful content. It really makes you wonder: What was their real reason for this threat? What was the real reason for the Google representative's breathless accusations to the press? In my letter, I encouraged Attorney General Barr to meet with representatives from both the Federalist and ZeroHedge so that they could explain firsthand what a permanent ban from the Google Ads platform could lead to in terms of loss of traffic and revenue. Of course, the answer to that inquiry is that a ban would be catastrophic for any outlet, and here is the reason: Guess who dominates online advertising. Google. It is called a monopoly. It is called ``they control those ad platforms.'' This Friday, State attorneys general are meeting with Justice Department officials to discuss this, and if I were Google, I would be a little bit nervous about that. I think it is fair to say that many of these attorneys general have just about had it with some of these online practices. This particular scandal is interesting because it implicates both antitrust concerns and the section 230 protections that are laid out in the Communications Decency Act. Lately, we have heard quite a bit about section 230, and we have already discussed at length whether it should be left alone, reformed, or scrapped entirely. When section 230 was implemented in the early days of the internet, the vision was that it would shield emerging and new technology firms from lawsuits. It would give them the ability to kind of stand up, if you will. It would, in good faith, allow platforms to remove content that they would find to be obscene, violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable even if the material would be otherwise constitutionally protected speech. At the time, when all of these businesses were in their infancies, when they were new starts, this worked pretty well. Startups were allowed to innovate without having to worry about lawsuits sending their companies into bankruptcy or threatening their ability to raise venture capital, but, as I said earlier, times have changed. Now, as is the case with most policies involving Big Tech, heavy- handed government intervention will not fix this problem. Still, many of my colleagues here in the Senate believe that using strict legislation and policing speech is the only path to reform. I will tell you, as someone who has been censored by a social media platform, I fully appreciate and understand their points of view. Not only is it frustrating to become a victim of that bias, but it is also so disheartening to watch our country devolve into a place where people would rather be shielded from debate than learn from the people with whom they disagree. You know, there used to be a time when you would engage your friends who had different opinions than you. You would engage them and participate in some point and counterpoint and have a friendly discussion about your take on the issues. Yet, when it comes to reining in Big Tech, the innovators have to be allowed to innovate. They need some guardrails, but they do not need straightjackets. This is the same approach I took when drafting the BROWSER Act, which was the data privacy legislation I introduced in the Senate last year but had worked on this since I had been in the House, and it is the approach that we are taking with the bipartisan Tech Task Force. Policies like these take a lot more time and a lot more one-on-one communication to draft and to work through to a resolution, but they are much better for the industry and innovation than something that is purely punitive. I am working closely with the White House and the Justice Department on a series of changes to section 230 that will allow us to fix the rules we have without having to start from scratch. First, we can incentivize online platforms to address truly illicit content by implementing three carve-outs that exempt specific categories of speech from immunity. First, facilitating or soliciting third-party activity that violates Federal criminal law--we call this one the ``bad Samaritan carve-out''; second, content involving child exploitation and abuse, terrorism, and cyber stalking; and third and last, we will revoke that immunity if a platform is caught failing to act when it has actual knowledge of or was provided with a court judgment regarding unlawful content. We also need to clarify once and for all that section 230 immunity does not apply to actions brought by the Federal Government. But what about those startups, those up-and-coming tech companies that are looking for the next great idea? How will reform treat them differently from the Facebooks and the Googles of the world? What we can do is limit liability based on minimum platform user thresholds. We would limit those section 230 protections to platforms with fewer than 50 million American users. Just for reference, Google has 259 million American users, Facebook has 221 million, and Twitter has 64 million American users. Under this standard, a user alleging harm would be able to move forward with a lawsuit against a platform only if that platform's user threshold were above 50 million U.S. users and a court has reasonable grounds to believe that the platform contributed to the offending post or refused to act on it once notified. These are all simple changes that will rebalance the relationship between online platforms and their customers, and we shouldn't delay in our implementing them because the internet is more than just a place where we post our status updates or photos of what we had for dinner; the digital revolution fundamentally changed the way we live our lives, consume the news, and interact with corporations, media outlets, and our local governments. We can't afford to let these platforms leverage their own biases to arbitrarily decide who is allowed to speak or what information we are allowed to consume, but we also can't afford to implement heavy-handed policies that will inevitably collapse the entire industry. I look forward to the Senate's continuing its work on this on both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I so enjoyed listening to the comments of my colleague from Texas, and it causes me to think that, yes, we are moving forward with another week, and what we have to realize is that, indeed, our Nation was built on free speech and the premise to have dissent or robust, respectful political debate. That is something that keeps our Nation strong. To go back and look at the work of our Founders, there was barely a day that went by that they were not having that robust debate, that they were not having those arguments that were really constructive conversations that would say: We are here; how do we go here? That is how you solve problems. Indeed, that is what Tennesseans are telling me every day that they want us to do: Solve these problems. Let's get ourselves on the right track When you look at it and go back and look at the Founders, you see that the debates they had were not superficial. They were not necessarily the bright, shiny object story of the day. They were deep, philosophical debates on issues that were about the future of the Nation they were trying to build. Everything was on the line, and no one kept quiet. They felt as if their opinions were important, and indeed, today, there is a lot on the line when we talk about civility and when we talk about the strength, the core, and the preservation of our rights and our freedoms. Nobody spared anyone's feelings at that point because the stakes were too high and they were focused on freedom. How did they create a free nation? How did they create it so that it would pass to their children and their grandchildren? Indeed, you can go forward in history and look at the words of Ronald Reagan reminding us that freedom is not something that is permanent. Every single generation--every single generation--has to fight for it. Madam President, of course, we say an extra thank-you to you and others in this Chamber who have worn the uniform and have served, and we are grateful for that service. I would state that, in spite of all the strife that our Founders went through, they never wavered from their commitment to building a society that was, in their hearts and minds, a society of the people, for the people, by the people--of the people. It was freer and more Democratic than the land they had left in order to get here. The First Amendment to our Constitution is more than just a prohibition against government repression. It is a warning against the private attacks on free speech. The success of online discussion platforms is a testament to how much the American people still value the free exchange of ideas. Don't you love it? In a good conversation with good friends, somebody makes their point, and you make a counterpoint. Then you discuss it, and you have a respectful conversation. Everyone from political candidates to corporations to the free press has taken advantage of the opportunity to reach those millions of eyeballs that are scrolling through social media timelines and news aggregation services. For a while, it looked as if the system would revolutionize the way we read and the way that we share information, the way we have that debate, and it did--just not necessarily for the better. I believe we should always encourage more speech, and when you look at the early days of Twitter and Facebook, it seems that they were on the right track, and we kind of call that the good old days of social media. Over the past few weeks, we have seen these platforms devolve into a state of all-out war that makes our previous concerns about censorship and speech policing look petty. Liberal activists have deployed against anyone and anything that strays from their preferred narrative. It is the cancel culture in full force. Even more concerning than digital mob rule is the behavior of corporations and platforms caving to these intimidation tactics and selectively policing dissent. Just imagine what would have happened all those years ago in our founding if one group decided they were going to shut up and quiet another group. What if they had decided that respect doesn't matter? What if they had decided that debate doesn't matter? It is our way or the highway. What do you think would have happened, and where would we be today? Google and its parent company, Alphabet, have distinguished themselves as the worst offenders. Google is under investigation for potential antitrust violations, but that hasn't stopped them from surrendering to this latest political moment. Last week, Google threatened to kick two conservative-leaning media outlets off of the Google ads platform after determining content found in the respective sites' comment sections violated platform policies. A representative from Google complicated matters by running to the media and insisting that the ban was imposed because the Federalist and ZeroHedge had both published derogatory comments promoting racial violence. NBC and other news organizations ran with that false narrative, and before you knew it, thousands of voices condemned in unison the speech and opinions of dozens of writers who had done nothing wrong. They were, as the left likes to say, ``deplatformed,'' which, of course, was the goal. The ease with which Google fell in step with this coordinated campaign to chill speech becomes all the more concerning when one considers that they didn't just threaten the livelihoods of the writers, editors, and graphic designers employed by those outlets. Google employees let their bias--hear that?--Google employees let their bias, not the facts--not the facts, the bias--their bias, the bias that they bring to work with them, the bias of their worldview, which they think is right--they let their bias and their prejudice lead the way and decided that the American people didn't need to see what those writers had to say. Who told them that they are the speech police? Who told them: Google, you are in charge. You decide what is going to be prioritized on your platform. Google, you go in here, and you decide if this is worthy or unworthy content. It is all up to you. Google, you can subjectively manipulate these algorithms based on what you think. What we have are Google employees who let their bias lead the way, and they decided that the American people didn't need to see what writers had written because they, the employees' superiors, decided you didn't need to know that. They determined that the speech was dangerous, harmful, and illegitimate. So what did they do? They shut it down before you could browse it. Just imagine--just imagine--if the Founders had been so brazen in their actions: Let's not have a discussion on that point. Let's just throw it to the side. Let's not hear somebody out. Let's just push them aside. No, they didn't form a clique who said: We are better than you. We are smarter than you. What did those Founders do? They looked at one another and said: We are all in this together. We are here because freedom is paramount in establishing a nation that is a nation of, by, and for the people--all of us. That is the goal. You know, I think what Google has done is a bold move coming from the same parent company that has allowed YouTube's reprehensible comment section to spiral into notoriety. But if you comment on the Federalist, beware. You see, it is not about protecting customers. All they are doing is defending a dangerous and un-democratic double standard. These incidents are not isolated, and there is no meaningful choice publishers can make to take their business elsewhere because Google effectively controls online advertising. Last year, they brought in $100 billion in ad revenue. You know, even in this town, $100 billion is not chump change. That is a lot of money. This year they are flexing their muscles against competitive conservative outlets just as more mainstream outlets are facing cutbacks and layoffs. I know this body is well aware that Big Tech needs some guide rails to control their approach to consumer privacy, data security, and these increasingly oppressive content moderation policies. Google is the main player. The majority of searches are done through Google. Is it a monopoly? Pretty close to it. Should it be viewed under antitrust? Worthy of discussion. Right now we are working out the proper strategy to reform the section 230 protections. This is written into the Communications Decency Act that the Googles of the world hide behind when they want to silence you, when they want to shut you down because they do not agree with you. Their bias is against you. Their prejudice is against you. They don't like what you have to say. In this body we may not agree, but we will fight to defend the right of individuals to stand up and have their say. The First Amendment says that political speech is--guess what--free speech. The First Amendment says that you, the citizen--remember that line, ``of the people.'' The people have the right to petition their government to seek a change. But, oh no, Google or Facebook--I have to say, I remember the comment from Mark Zuckerberg that Facebook was more like a government than a business. We have the Communications Decency Act, and there is a section in it called section 230, and that is the section that Big Tech goes and cowers behind when they want to shut you up. Section 230 needs to be reformed. DOJ has said that this is something that is ready for reform. We need to protect free speech. We need to make certain that illicit content is moved off. We need to look at competition. We need to look at the threshold for users--maybe not revenue--but look at a threshold for users and put some guidelines in place. We are dealing with an industry that has moved on to using social pressure to provide cover as they act as judge, jury, and executioner over what Americans should be allowed to know. If you are researching something online, what do you do? You Google it. You get in that search engine; you go looking for it; and then you look at the things as they come up. Maybe what you are looking for doesn't show up on the first page even though it is something that has been in the news. Why would that be? Oh, prioritization--because Google prioritizes how this information gets delivered to you: if they like it, top of the list; if they don't, bottom envelope. Today, I sent a letter to the Attorney General, outlining the threat this poses to a free and fair press and calling for a full investigation that examines the company's control over the internet economy. I also encouraged AG Barr to meet with the news publishers who have been harmed by this anti-competitive behavior and learn firsthand about the fear and intimidation tactics activists have weaponized against legitimate journalism. This can no longer be chalked up simply to bias. The people making these decisions are the most powerful voices in the world, and they have decided that they don't want you to think. They don't want you to challenge the narrative, and they sure don't want you to rock the boat and draw the ire of activists who still don't believe these efforts at censorship have gone far enough to silence conservative voices. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for the work he is doing as he brings forward this resolution for Hong Kong. I want to take just a couple of minutes to remind those of us who have been watching this issue and have concerns about this resolution that the aggression we are seeing now is not something that is new. This is newly realized. As those of us who have followed this and followed the dealings of the Chinese Communist Party know, the newest so-called national security law is nothing more than the party's response to the threat that uprisings and protests in Hong Kong pose to its hold on power. It just can't stand it. It watches the freedom fighters in Hong Kong, and it thinks: What if it gets away from us? Hong Kong is our financial center, and it is watching what is happening in the rest of the free world. Australia, Canada, and the UK all have signed the official joint statement with us, the United States of America, expressing deep concern with this so-called national security legislation, which really is the Communist Party's way of stepping into Hong Kong and usurping the power--of going back on a deal it made long ago. Beijing claims that it needs this law to control against ``subversion of state power,'' but, again, anyone who has been paying attention knows that it will use this standard as an excuse to redefine ``subversion'' and engage in the violent repression of speech, association, and movement--with no cause and without mercy. This is how it has kept control. It is a pattern, and there is no reason to believe it is going to do anything differently this time around. Over the past year, we have seen how willing Chinese officials are to trample every international norm, every law, every principle of diplomacy to force their hand on their own people and on other countries. Now, against all odds, forces in Beijing have found a way to make life in Hong Kong more dangerous than it has been by delegitimizing peaceful and nonviolent protests and journalism that doesn't mirror party propaganda. They have seized even more hope away from the freedom fighters who have captured the world's attention in their stunning displays of defiance. It is really quite a battle that is taking place, and I thank my colleagues for the good work they have done in standing against the Chinese Communist Party's aggression. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, for more than 200 years, the American people have exercised their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We understand how very vitally important it is for each of us to have that right to petition our government, to have our say. But just as we learned from our moms and dads when we were kids, there is a right way and there is a wrong way to get things done when we feel that, in our opinion, the government has fallen short. I would understand if this differentiation between right and wrong sometimes causes confusion because, although the American people are united in their desire for justice and equality, that sense of unity, they feel, is under attack. Over the past few weeks, we watched thousands of protesters peacefully march in the memory of George Floyd and countless other Black Americans who have been killed--who have lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement. Sometimes these protests are vigils, and they are very quiet. There are other times they fill the streets and they are a bit disruptive and they demand accountability from their government in a way that has really captured the attention of the entire world. On the other side, however, we have watched professional agitators who have come into some of these protests, and then they have turned them into riots. The self-prescribed culture warriors silence anyone and anything that deviates from their own chosen narrative, and that is very unfortunate. The paths we take to achieve our desired outcomes are informed by the goals we have, not the other way around. This is why we must question the goals of those whose activism has taken a repressive turn because peaceful protest is an essential element of addressing government. That is how you achieve change. That is how you get people with you and working with you. It is a part of who we are. This absolute protection against suppression in any form makes the recent dismantling of meaningful public discourse all the more disturbing because as you look back through our Nation's history, you realize freedom and freedom's cause has been well served by robust, respectful, bipartisan debate--hearing all voices. Do you remember how sometimes we would joke about the cancel culture because it was the product of social media influencers and overenthusiastic fan clubs? What we see now is that has taken hold of the entertainment industry, corporations, and editorial boards. Outrage manufactured along partisan lines dominates every news cycle, all in an intentional and targeted effort to divide the American people and, thereby, what would that do? It destroys our cultural identity. If this isn't what chilling speech looks like, then I don't know what does. I would like to be able to say this body stands united against this wave of malice or that I am confident we have demonstrated a commitment to real reform, but I fear that we have not yet arrived at that place. In spite of everything, in spite of it being clear that those who seek to divide and destroy this country are working just as hard as those who seek to unite it, other priorities remain in play. This has become especially evident today.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, as I do every week, this past weekend, I went back to Tennessee. I will tell you, it really did my heart a lot of good to see people who are out and about and enjoying beautiful weather and enjoying our beautiful State. Nashville is beginning to open the doors of our music venues. Our church bells are ringing, people are attending services, and our hikers are back exploring our beautiful State parks and the Smokies. Here on Capitol Hill, though, things really do look a lot different. When we come back into town, we still return to empty offices and emptier hallways. I will tell you, I have had a lot of people ask me: What in the world is happening in Washington these days? Well, even though the Chamber will look empty to those who are watching on TV, I want everybody who is watching to know that the Senate is here, and the Senate is at work. Before the pandemic sent everyone home, we had made great progress repairing our Nation's judiciary and filling empty seats at important Federal agencies. The Senate has placed 198 well-qualified, constitutionalist judges on the Federal bench. This week, we are going to hit that 200 number. We will be considering more of our district court nominations in coming weeks. We are also preparing to consider the nomination of a former member of our House Republican Study Committee team. Russ Vought has been serving as OMB's Acting Director since January of 2019, and soon we will decide whether to make that position permanent. I will tell you, I think Russ is more than worthy of that honor, and I encourage my colleagues to support his confirmation when the time comes for that vote. China At this point, we know for a fact that the Chinese Government withheld information about the novel coronavirus that could have spared the American people a lot of heartache and even prevented the COVID-19 outbreak from escalating into a global pandemic. Their lies have already had catastrophic effects on the American economy, on loss of life, on people's livelihoods, and on their well-being. But I think it is important to reiterate that this kind of behavior from China is not new. It is not new. It is just newly realized. For a long time now, corporations, educational institutions, and even Members of this body have been happy to ignore the problem because of profits. I have spoken at length about the many ways that Big Tech's entanglement with Beijing has jeopardized our privacy, intellectual property, and our Nation's security. Everyone here is familiar with the Chinese Communist Party's shameless use of political violence against the Uighurs, the Tibetans, and the Hong Kong freedom fighters, but what many don't know is that the Chinese Communist Party has been using their Confucius Institute program to fly under the radar at American colleges and universities and to suppress information about the true nature of the Chinese Government's role. These so-called institutes are pitched as opportunities to promote cultural studies, but in reality they are propaganda mills directly funded by the Chinese Communist Party. By design, they threaten academic liberty and free speech. But somehow Beijing has managed to place 72 Confucius Institutes on American college campuses. It is hard to believe, but 72 of our Nation's colleges and universities are hosts to these Chinese Communist Party-funded Confucius Institutes. They even say that this is part of their soft power and their propaganda. American students deserve to know who is really talking to them at these institutes. Last week, we took the first step toward protecting the integrity of our universities by passing the bipartisan CONFUCIUS Act by unanimous consent. The bill would grant full managerial authority to the universities that host Confucius Institutes and prohibit the application of any foreign law on any campus of a host institution. This is one piece of a larger effort to expose the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to pollute the minds of our young people. We thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in passing this legislation last week. Earlier this year, I introduced the Transparency for Confucius Institutes Act, which would require ``program participation agreements'' between these institutes and their American hosts to address the way Chinese officials influence what can and cannot be taught in these programs. I also led a group of colleagues in urging Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to increase agency oversight of these programs so that we--the American people, the American taxpayer, students, and their families-- know what is being taught and the programs that are being offered in these institutes and, also, know who is paying for this. Since March, life in America has changed dramatically, but the challenges and threats this country faces have not gone away. Because of that, it is important that, yes, we keep our attention on these issues that are still out there. Even though our attention has been placed on the crisis and the matter at hand, we still have a duty to govern and to protect the country and her institutions from destructive influences at home and those that come from far away. I encourage my colleagues to remember this and to stay focused as we begin another week of negotiations and votes. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, this weekend, I was thinking about the toll that the recent loss of fellowship has really taken on the American people. I think everyone would agree that, over the past few months, we have really felt levels of loneliness, anger, and frustration that we have never experienced in our lives. For most of us, it has been a long time since we have been able to gather with friends and family or to go to a church service. This isolation has brought to the surface conflict that has been brewing for a very long time. For many years, powerful forces in politics and popular culture have insisted that there is nothing we can't learn from interacting with one another online. Technology has brought the world together under the premise of this false intimacy and convinced millions of people that what they see on their screens is all they need to know about the world. There are many things that Americans can rightfully disagree about, especially during an election year, but contrary to what our social media timelines would lead us to believe, most Americans have held onto the lessons we all should have learned when we were mere children. When we were little, we learned that, as Americans, we have a duty to fight hatred wherever we find it, to be kind to one another, to practice the Golden Rule. Instead of giving in to stereotypes and assumptions, we should reject our own biases and, instead, meet people where they are, with open arms and listening ears and loving hearts, and truly listen to what they have to say. There are destructive forces at work in this country that want the American people to forget these lessons and, instead, make a false choice between putting their beliefs into practice and protecting the institutions and symbols that define our Republic. They want to convince you that this Nation is broken beyond repair. That is their goal: to undermine what you believe and to convince you that the path forward must be forged at the expense of faith, hope, and free speech, free expression. This is a lie. Worse, it is an obvious lie to anyone who has studied our Nation's precious history. For hundreds of years, the American people have persevered in spite of conflict and more-- civil unrest, economic downturns, and neighborly disagreements. That is what we are going to do now here in Washington, back at home in Tennessee, and in our communities. Instead of allowing Congress to come to a standstill, we will make and encourage strong policies that protect the American people. Even though the mainstream media has temporarily forgotten that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, the Senate has not forgotten that. We will continue to monitor the progress of businessowners as they slowly repair the damage done to our economy by extended lockdowns and do everything we can to make sure our scientists have the resources they need to develop a vaccine for COVID- 19. Our relationship with China has changed forever, and we must pass legislation to reflect that. Our supply chains that provide pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and critical national resources are all vulnerable to manipulation by Beijing. We should pass legislation to incentivize domestic manufacturing, starting with the SAM-C bill that Senator Menendez and I have offered in this Chamber. This would support stateside pharmaceutical production. We must also continue working with Big Tech to create responsible privacy guidelines and protect consumer data from Chinese hackers. Last week in Judiciary, we heard testimony that confirmed a history of corruption at the highest levels of the Obama-led Justice Department. There are many, even in this Chamber, who would rather not talk about that, but we must press forward with this investigation. We have to get to the bottom of what happened at the Department of Justice and with the FBI during Operation Crossfire Hurricane, and we will do all of this. We will do the job that we were elected to do while we maintain law and order and insist that those enforcing the law are accountable to the citizens whom they are sworn to serve and protect. To those who insist that we as a nation are irreparably broken, I want you to know that I and the American people have taken note of your words, and now I hope that you will take note of mine. This country is strong. Our people are resilient. Over the course of just a few months, many of them have lost everything. They have lost the lives of family members. They have lost their livelihoods. Their lives and their futures--every waking moment of every day--are filled with uncertainty, but they still hold tight to those lessons they learned when they were children. They know that they were endowed by their Creator with the liberties that make America special and that no force on Earth has the power to separate them from their faith in God and their country and in one another. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Braun and I be allowed to complete our remarks prior to the rollcall votes.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have to say that Tennesseans are enjoying being out and about. They are so thrilled to see the restart of our economy. Whether you are going to hair salons, restaurants, shopping centers, office parks, or manufacturing facilities, what we are hearing from Tennesseans is: Thank goodness we can get back to work. They are grateful that they have had the PPP to help them bridge from the shutdown to the restart. There has been $8.8 billion that has made its way into our State through the PPP program, and our Governor, our Tennessee General Assembly, and our mayors are really working diligently to be certain that our economy opens up, that people are at work safely, and that we continue to defeat this COVID-19. Over the past few months, we have seen Congress push forward, putting about $3 trillion into the economy for a restart, and State and local governments have already put over $139 billion worth of aid to good use by supporting local healthcare, helping to rescue businesses, and keeping companies working and local payrolls going--keeping people on the job. Our Governor and general assembly in Tennessee have just announced a new program that they are doing in conjunction with local businesses. Now, imagine for a moment what it was like to watch the economy tumble from the perspective of a community that was already struggling and trying to make ends meet. The pandemic caused catastrophic damage to the traditional economy and also to many of the service organizations that were there to meet needs. In Tennessee, as in many States, struggling communities depend on these nonprofit groups. This is why we fought so hard to include eligibility for nonprofits in the rescue funding packages. I will tell you that this is making a difference in Tennessee for some of our nonprofit organizations, like the East Tennessee-based Appalachia Service Project. ASP teams travel throughout Central Appalachia. They repair homes for low-income families. Mayors in the communities that ASP visit are running on tight budgets, and they depend on volunteers to fix up unsafe or uninhabitable homes. You can only imagine how it felt to the people at ASP to watch their funding evaporate, knowing that the leaky roof that needed attention over in Sneedville would end up turning into a rotten floor and a moldy wall and would be a safety hazard for the individuals who lived there. Fortunately, ASP was able to get an SBA loan that gave it a little bit of breathing room. Although it has had to cancel its volunteer program, its essential staff and contractors will be able to continue working all through the summer. The various rescue programs that Congress agreed to implement were not perfect by any means, but did they have a positive effect? From what we are hearing in Tennessee, they did, and they have been put to good use. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I want to say just a couple of things to Tennesseans and to Americans. All are expressing their rage and grief over the murder of George Floyd in Minnesota. I will tell you that this event of May 25 cannot be written off as a simple use of force or as being unfortunate or regrettable. We all know that, on that day, George Floyd was killed by a police officer while other officers looked on and heard his begging for life and his cries for help. The officers responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I offer my prayers and condolences to the Floyd family, just as so many other Members of this Chamber have done, and I support the President's call for the Justice Department to investigate this death.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I first thank my friend, Senator Leahy, for allowing me to speak, for we are all dealing with the Committee on the Judiciary. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be recognized as soon as I finish my brief remarks.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mark Menezes, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Brian D. Miler, to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, Department of Treasury. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, last week, I received the very sad news that the 5th Special Forces Group, which is stationed at Fort Campbell, which is in Tennessee, was going to have to forgo and cancel their annual Memorial Day Gold Star Ceremony. This is a tradition at the post. It is something that is so special to those Gold Star families, and we are disappointed with that but understand. I have really been pleased that today Senator Ernst has organized a time for us to come to the floor to really come together to honor not only our fallen but also their loved ones, who have had to spend this year's remembrance separated from other Gold Star families, and we know that is a time they cherish, having that togetherness. Although the formal ceremonies are canceled, please note that each of these families is in our prayers, they are in our thoughts, and that we grieve alongside them. This Memorial Day, reflections are framed by a world that has really been made much smaller by our shared experiences with COVID-19. Even so, the state of our world makes the battlefields we send our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines to seem very far away because in their world, authoritarian regimes rule with an iron fist, and they violate human rights with impunity. Violence often replaces diplomacy as the preferred method of dispute resolution and freedom, when it is discussed at all. Many times, it feels like an impossibility. This is what they deal with on a daily basis. The danger this creates is no secret to anyone. Like the rest of us, our soldiers read the news reports from the frontlines. They hear the enemy propaganda. They hear those who repeat the enemy propaganda. Many of them have experienced the ferocity of the enemy attacks against our forces and against our allies. They know what they are up against. They see it and they live it each and every day. Yet, in spite of the danger, they answer the call because they have something inside them that says that freedom is worth fighting for. It is their commitment to that cause of liberty to allow us to live in a free and open society, to allow us and our children to pursue those dreams, to dream those big dreams and to make them come true. Whether we lost loved ones and friends on the battlefield or, later, lost them to the trauma of combat and loss, this weekend, we thank them for their sacrifice, we honor their memory, and we express our gratitude to their families, who this year will have to celebrate as a family and not with others. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have just returned from being in Tennessee this weekend and lots of phone calls, seeing a lot of people out and about. I will tell you, this COVID-19 has changed a lot about how we go about our daily lives, but it has not changed the way Congress works out its differences. We are still arguing about spending and debt. We are still debating the importance of federalism and how the Constitution can help us determine what we can and should do on a Federal level to help our communities back at home. Now, in Tennessee, our cities all across the State, from one corner to another, are getting back to that daily routine. Many of those businesses were able to improvise their way through the early weeks of lockdown, and now they are finding what they are calling their new normal, their new processes. Some of them received emergency loans from the SBA. Others became one of the more than 80,000 small businesses and self-employed workers who were able to take advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program. But no matter how hard they work or how smart their plans are, we know that, in the end, we are going to lose a lot of our favorite neighborhood stops. It is tough. It is really tough out there. Some of those businesses are already gone. And that is going to happen in spite of the unprecedented investment that the Federal Government, working with our State and local governments, has made into our business and our healthcare sectors, making certain people are able to stay afloat and bridging from that rescue to a business restart and bridging on to recovery. Well, as we saw this week, the more Washington spends, the more Washington's focus drifts away from emergency measures and that rescue, and it doesn't go to a restart or a recovery. What does it do? It goes to, How can we use this crisis to grow government? How can we use this crisis to take away a little bit more of your freedom? Last week, House Democrats passed a $3 trillion spending package that they used as a vehicle for a lot of their pet projects. We have all heard about it: pension bailouts, unsustainable environmental mandates, fundamental changes to tax policy, all of these line items that have no business being slapped on the coattails of a bill that was sold as being a safety net for panicked Americans. You will be relieved to know that that bill will never see the light of day here in the Senate. But, you know, it might not be a bad idea just to put it on the floor and see if our friends across the aisle want to vote for it--$3 trillion, $3 trillion. It is disrespectful to people who are hurting. It is disrespectful to small businesses that they have become a bargaining chip for the Democratic, left-leaning socialist wish list. That is what they think of you. When you walk down Main Street and you see shuttered businesses, I want you to remember that. That is what they think of you: They can use you to get what they want. In fact, I will say this. We have been pretty busy focusing on bipartisan efforts that will help in the short term and will help with a postpandemic future, something that will really bring relief and clarity to the American people--not things like a liberal wish list.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Ernst for her work in organizing this effort today to come to the floor and talk about the good things that are happening in our States. We know that the pandemic has changed a lot about the way we live and work and do business, and Tennesseans are certainly no exception to that. One thing that has been consistent in this entire episode with the pandemic is the way Tennesseans step up to take care of one another. The numerous acts of kindness and graciousness that have been shown from neighbor to neighbor and community to community is something that shows the goodness of the American spirit. We are just blessed to be home to thousands of people who have demonstrated their desire to help make life a little bit better for their neighbors and their friends and sometimes for people they do not know but people who have expressed a certain need--people like Jeremy Hopkins Jeremy is from Jackson, TN. He is an engineer at the Toyota Motor manufacturing facility that is in Jackson. He became aware of a need for PPE at a hospital in New Orleans. A friend of his made him aware of this need. Being an engineer, he fired up his personal 3D computer and printer and got to work making face shields for the healthcare workers in New Orleans. He worked with Union University and some of the students there--Union is located in Jackson, TN--and he was able to ship 57 shields to healthcare providers in New Orleans. And then he used his remaining materials to make another 173 shields for clinics in West Tennessee and Mississippi. Steve Archer, a U.S. Air Force veteran and medical supply and logistics technician from Fountain City, decided to head to New Jersey to see how he could help to make certain that PPE was delivered on time to hospitals and nursing homes and healthcare providers. While he was helping them, he contracted COVID-19. Since that time, he has recovered, and he is back on the job in Tennessee. The Knox County Baptist Disaster Relief team has also been working some long days at the Sevier Heights Baptist Church. What they are doing is cooking and assembling meals for the homeless. Our famous distilleries--moonshine and whiskey, which they have been making there in Tennessee--have changed their production to making mass quantities of hand sanitizers. Our wonderful singers and songwriters and musicians and choirs are holding concerts by Zoom and online to bring some relief and happiness to people all across the globe. We are all enjoying these virtual concerts. The always amazing and inspiring Dolly Parton is our Tennessean of the Year. Dolly is reading bedtime stories from her Imagination Library on YouTube each week. And, of course, I would be remiss if I did not thank some wonderful women who decided to pull out that sewing machine and get busy making face masks for critical workers all across the country. Dottie Godolphin, Marilyn Thomas, Janis Blair--well, Dottie, Marilyn, and Janis are seamstresses par excellence. They are creating these masks, and they are sending them where there is a need all across the country. We are known as the Volunteer State in Tennessee. This pandemic is showing us that just as throughout our Nation's history, Tennesseans have shown up when they have been called and asked to volunteer and to give their time, their efforts, their energy, their talents, their resources in order to improve the lives of others. We thank each and every one who is doing this. And those whom I have mentioned, we say a special thanks for doing your part to ease the life of others during this pandemic. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. 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.