Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we will have two votes at 12 noon and one vote at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and 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 ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 446, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5277, which was received from the House.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, my hope is that each of us in this Chamber and their families enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving time, being grateful for all of the blessings that we in this country have. I know I certainly had a wonderful week. I had the opportunity to spend some time across the great State of Tennessee and to talk with Tennesseans about what was on their minds. I will tell you this. In my opinion and experience, as diverse as Tennesseans are, there is one thing in common that I heard repeatedly, and that is that they are through with trying to guess where politicians in Washington, DC, stand on issues. This is something I think all of us need to hear and probably don't want to hear, but our fellow Americans, and certainly Tennesseans, have no idea what their elected representatives believe. Instead, all they see up here is this endless cycle of political in-fighting and failed legislation. They consistently say: We want you to focus on things that are important to us. We want you to focus on things that are important to the country. I will tell you that it is no wonder that our country's discourse is plagued by what is a marked cynicism for even our most earnest efforts. As I thought about this during the week and the visits that I had across the State, I thought: You need look no further for an example of where they see this fighting as being unnecessary than an issue that has become a magnet for derision, and that is the issue of protecting life--more specifically, the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the abortion procedures. In poll after poll, after poll, a majority of Americans have indicated that they oppose public funding of abortion. The numbers on this are not even close. As early as this summer, self-identified Democrats' support for taxpayer-funded abortion struggled to even break out of single digits. The data is clear, and it is convincing. The American taxpayer does not want their tax dollar being used to fund abortion procedures. So how is it, then, that my friends in the minority insist upon loopholes and work-arounds that make taxpayers complicit in the slaughter of the unborn? Their cause has been frustrated, of course, by President Trump's aggressively pro-life agenda. Last year, he proposed the ``protect life rule,'' which cut taxpayer funding under the title X program for any facility that performs abortions or that refers their clients to those facilities that perform abortions. This rule closely mirrored my Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. That was the first bill I filed when I came to the Senate. It is something that is very important to me. But this year, this body's liberal faction once again seized an opportunity to undercut the pro-life agenda via a legislative trick known around this Chamber and Capitol Hill as a poison pill. You see, they found a way to hold hostage millions of dollars attached to the fiscal year 2020 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. That was done via an amendment that funnels family planning dollars to domestic organizations that support abortions overseas. Do you see what they are doing? It is an amendment that funnels family planning dollars to domestic-- U.S.--organizations, but those organizations are supporting abortions overseas. It also uses Obama-era gender policies to define sex--a clear red herring to get people arguing about gender identity so they will ignore the Democratic Party's leftward swing on the issue of abortion. You could chalk all this up to politics, were it not for the existence of the bipartisan budget agreement that both parties agreed to ahead of our work on appropriations. That agreement included a ban on poison pill riders like the Shaheen amendment, as well as assurances that any poison pills would be swiftly removed. We thought we had taken care of that issue with the bipartisan budget agreement, but oh, no, here we go. Yet in order to ``empower women overseas'' Democrats have indicated that they are willing to throw away $847 million for maternal and child health, $100 million for global health security programs, $150 million for nutrition assistance, and $6.2 billion for global HIV and AIDS assistance. They are doing this, throwing all that money away, so they can make a political point. This is an interesting development coming from the party that once deployed their support for abortion in only the most extraordinary circumstances. The party of ``safe, legal, and rare''--their terminology--has become the party that hedges their bets with infanticide and prioritizes convenience over human life. Just across the river in Virginia, Ralph Northam and his cohorts were allowed to set a new reprehensible standard for what left-leaning America is willing to condone in the name of soulless politicking. Tennesseans told me they want to see their representatives speaking up. They want to see women speaking up on behalf of life, families, and the unborn. They see clearly that if protecting life is the hallmark of the conservative movement, then, destroying life is the hallmark of a more liberal approach. They want us to draw a line in the sand and declare once and for all that loopholes and legislative tricks will no longer be tolerated because, for them, abortion is not up for casual discussion. They see how clearly and how easily the left trifles with the lives of children, and they are repulsed by it. What they want us to do is to focus on getting things done that are important to them. And, yes, to Tennesseans, being able to say the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is something that has a deep meaning. 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. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is so interesting to be here on the floor and to hear such a variety of ideas and to know that, across the country, people are logging on and they are tuning in and they are watching how we go about our business. And one of the things that is so interesting as we pull the Internet and online activity into our lives and stay connected, we sometimes enjoy the idea of just ``unplugging'' for a weekend, going to somewhere in the country that holds a really special appeal. Certainly at this time of year, people will talk about going away for Thanksgiving, or maybe they went away during the fall to look at pretty leaves. They see it as an escape and maybe even an opportunity to get just a little bit of smugness in their tone when they talk about how they have chosen a destination that has politely informed them to not expect WiFi and not to expect that Internet connection. But here is a question for you: How many would make that trip, but still knowing there is not that connection, they take the smartphone, the iPad, or the laptop anyway? Of course, we know we all do that. After all, we have been trained to respond to the buzzing, beeping, and the ringing of our device, and so eventually, what happens is we give up and we start wandering around, searching for a signal, and then declaring to all of the very unimpressed locals: Well, I don't see how y'all do it without being able to have access to high-speed Internet. How can you survive without broadband? Well, to my colleagues, let me say this: They do it because they do not have a choice. You know, these days, encountering so much as a spotty cell signal causes concern for those of us who are accustomed to high-speed Internet and broadband connectivity, but I will tell you there are millions of Americans out there for whom a broadband connection or even the pop and hiss of a dialup connection is completely out of reach. In a world where even simple online interactions require lightning fast connections, economies in rural America are falling behind. We read every day about entire industries setting up shop in budding metropolises like Nashville, TN, but to many, corporate America's glowing new hubs sound like remote outposts compared to the familiar crush that is here on the eastern seaboard. Our perspective is skewed. Even so, businesses move inward because they see potential for growth with minimal risk, but there is only so far that they can push it. Rural communities do not have much to offer in terms of operational support or a reliable customer base, and most of them lack a crucial resource: the funding and infrastructure to back reliable broadband services. It is true, ``the cloud'' needs a physical connection to Planet Earth, and broadband networks rely on physical ``Internet Exchange'' points. Without these hubs, subscribers of different Internet providers cannot communicate with one another. While many businesses are certainly capable of fronting the costs associated with building the actual exchange points and running connections to other hubs, there is no incentive for them to gamble on a stagnant economy, so they go elsewhere, and local businesses go nowhere, unable to expand into the global online marketplace. And just to think, a decade ago, we wasted an opportunity to bridge the digital divide, to even close the digital divide. Back in 2009, during the stimulus days, President Obama signed an economic recovery package that included 7.2 billion, $7.2 billion to expand broadband services in underserved areas. Well, predictably, those dollars began to flow into urban and suburban areas, leaving rural communities stranded on the far side of a gulf that Washington had ended up widening. Mistakes were made, but it would be an even bigger mistake to make rural residents suffer through it. This year, I introduced the bipartisan Internet Exchange Act in an effort to get the Senate talking about broadband accessibility. When passed, the bill will offset the start-up cost of establishing broadband connections via a series of grants reserved exclusively for unserved rural areas. That is unserved rural areas, those that have been left out, those that did not benefit from the $7.2 billion that President Obama put in the stimulus for broadband expansion. They did not get any of that money. They got left further behind and pushed further out of the economic mainstream for the 21st century. As with any program, infrastructure alone is no guarantee of success, but the presence of new and expanded Internet exchange facilities will create a stronger and more competitive web. More hubs will enable faster data transmissions, allowing local businesses to expand and, in rural communities, e-commerce to flourish Farmers, manufacturers, miners, will gain access to state-of-the-art technologies that support safer and more productive operations. Medical practitioners will be able to care for neglected populations via telemedicine. Schools and libraries will have advanced tools at their fingertips and open the world to their students. The local law enforcement will add an important tool in their ``public safety toolbox.'' Businesses looking to lay down roots will notice that rural communities are investing in themselves and, hopefully, make the decision to bring jobs and business opportunities to local workers and to rural America. But perhaps, most importantly, rural residents and their guests will be able to decide for themselves whether they want to connect or unplug, and they will be able to do it on their own terms. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to stand with Senator Ernst and my colleagues today to talk about the 2019 Violence Against Women Act. Most women will tell you that they know of a female friend or acquaintance or relative who has experienced the horrors of sexual assault or domestic violence or even trafficking. Through my work with shelters back home in Tennessee, I have learned that the volunteers, the counselors, the advocates, and the attorneys who support these victims are of the utmost importance. They are who the victims need to see the minute they walk through that door, into their arms, and hear them say: How can we help you? This is a safe place. These are the people who come around them to empower them, and the one thing I hear over and over in the wake of one's attack is that these victims need that type of support. This is why, in addition to providing funding for both prevention and educational programs, this year's authorization will do some important things. It will increase funding for the court-appointed special advocates by $3 million. It will provide over $1 million per year for Federal victim counselors. It will also help to provide transitional housing to victims, which is something they will desperately need. They need to know they have a safe place. These resources--and this is important--are going to go directly into the hands of those who are providing these services, and this will have a direct impact on the lives of these women when they need it the most. Just for a moment, I would like to highlight a portion of the reauthorization on which I have spent a good deal of time working this year. It has to do with a particular violent sexual crime that is so grotesque that most Americans prefer not to even acknowledge it. They don't want to admit that this exists. Yet, for the victims of female genital mutilation, the pain and the humiliation are nearly unbearable. You would think that Federal prosecutors would be able to make short work out of such heinous charges, but due to a loophole in Federal criminal law, scores of victims have watched their abusers walk free. The Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2019, which is a separate bill that I sponsored earlier this year, is now a part of this year's reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It will correct fatal constitutional flaws in the Federal statute that bans the practice of FGM. When this is done, under Federal law, prosecutions for mutilation and cutting will be able to continue. I would be remiss if I did not say that in a perfect world, we would not have to worry about allocating resources for safe houses and for victim counseling. We should not have to do this, but this is not a perfect world. So, yes, indeed, we do have to step up and do this for the sake of the thousands of women who fall victim to sexual violence, trafficking, and sexual abuse each year. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and work on this. Let's pass the 2019 Violence Against Women Act. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it really has been quite a year here in Washington for drawn-out policy battles. It is November, and we are still fighting over defense spending, trade, and the results of an election long since decided in 2016. A quick flip through this morning's world news sections serves as my daily reminder that Americans really do have so much for which to be thankful. One might even feel inclined to say we are really lucky to live here in the United States. Yet I will tell you that luck really doesn't have a lot to do with it. Our freedom was bought with the blood of thousands who instigated a revolution in spite of being outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by the global superpower of their time, and thank goodness they had that fighting spirit. That same absolute belief in the right to self-determination went on to fuel the abolitionists, the women's suffragists, and the civil rights warriors. Their fearlessness inspires freedom movements that we are seeing all across the globe today. Just a few months ago, heads turned toward China as thousands of Hong Kong people poured into the streets and said no to Beijing's stranglehold, but just saying no wasn't enough. Now their neighborhoods and universities have morphed into war zones, and Chinese authorities have long since justified shooting live rounds of ammunition into the crowds. Imagine the intensity of the fear it takes to push a government to fire on its own people when the entire world is watching. Beijing is worried, but Beijing will also not hesitate to use any force it deems necessary to tighten its grip on Hong Kong. Now, here in the Senate, we are working on a few pieces of legislation to let the Chinese and the Hong Kong Governments know that the United States is watching. We have included a bill that will prevent U.S. companies from exporting crowd control supplies to the Hong Kong Police Force. It is important, though, for everyone to understand that the motivating factors behind political oppression have nothing to do with tear gas or with stun guns. There is only so much that legislation can do. Governments in Iraq, Vietnam, Algeria, and Lebanon are also hard at work in doing whatever they can to prevent their citizens from stepping out of line, because they know what will happen if their citizens are free to criticize the state, and they are terrified of losing power. This month, the entire world looks toward Central Europe to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall. When East Berliners first stepped into the western half of their city, they revealed to the rest of the world the horrors of living under a political regime that sustained itself by consuming the autonomy of its subjects. History serves as an enduring warning against the dangers of the all-powerful state. As we watch mass protests play out a half a world away, many Americans still see social chaos not as a symptom of a disease but as a spontaneous expression of some nebulous desire to be free. They don't stop to recall what sparked the first feelings of unease long before the Molotov cocktails started flying through the air. This is why, here in the United States, my colleagues in the majority have forced many conversations on the perils of degrading the foundations of our Republic. We have debated ad nauseam the Constitution's place in civil and legal discourse, asking: Does it provide a workable standard or is it just an outdated piece of paper now rendered illegitimate by the male whiteness of its drafters? I think the Presiding Officer knows my response. We defend the Constitution and the system of government it created because we know, from studying history and from observing current events, that freedom does not suddenly expire. Freedom begins to wither the moment those in power convince themselves that a reprieve from uncomfortable policy debates over speech, self-defense, or the size of government will be worth the risk of shelving the standards that protect individual liberty. The current blase tolerance and, in some cases, incomprehensible enthusiasm for socialism and other authoritarian philosophies is sending a strong message to the rest of the world that the standard for global freedom is up for debate. If we acquiesce to the argument that America's founding principles have passed their expiration date, we will have failed as a people and as a world leader. That failure will change the course of our history, and it will be used as a weapon to quash dissent elsewhere in the world. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Rubio for the work that he has done on this a few minutes earlier. Today, I spoke about the cause of freedom and how we are seeing people around the world stand up for freedom--and, yes, indeed, we see this in Hong Kong, and it does inspire us. The message that we are sending to Beijing is that, indeed, we are watching and we are paying attention--and to the Hong Kong protesters, for them to know that we are watching what they are doing and that we are standing with them. It is important to note that China has really earned its place atop the list of the world's most notorious human rights violators, and over the past few weeks, Hong Kong's descent into chaos and bloodshed has provided a much-needed reminder of the horrors, the absolute horrors of authoritarian rule. There can be no change without accountability, and Beijing needs to know we are focused on that accountability, which is why, today, I am so pleased to stand with these other Members of this Chamber in support of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The bill does demand accountability, not only from Beijing but also from us. It will require us to monitor Hong Kong's progress toward autonomy and China's behavior toward Hong Kong people who choose to exercise their internationally recognized rights, those rights that we have spoken of in this Chamber today. The bill will help us identify the tactics Beijing uses to capture Hong Kong's dissidents and then to trap them on mainland China, and we will also ensure that no peaceful protesters are denied visas to the United States because of the alleged crimes. Now, I will tell you, the bill is a great start, but the time and the work that we put in it will be wasted unless every single Member of this Chamber makes a commitment to hold us accountable, to hold China accountable. I would encourage my colleagues to view their support of this legislation as a promise to these protesters in Hong Kong, that their cries for help are not going to go unanswered. 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, this past weekend, I was the first Senator in a really long time to fly into Somalia's notoriously dangerous capital city. I will tell you, at first glance, it looks like things in Mogadishu have gotten back to normal. But the situation on the ground, after you fly in and get out of the plane and you get on the ground, you see it is really quite a different story. There is a reason why our recollection of Somali history focuses on the Black Hawk Down incident--the terrible Battle of Mogadishu--and then- President Bill Clinton's decision to evacuate American troops from the Horn of Africa. Somalia's legacy is rooted in years of violence that overwhelmed the world's most elite military forces, froze the economy, and left the Somali people very much alone in the world--at least until 9/11, when Western powers were forced to focus on multiple fronts in the War on Terror. I was fortunate enough last weekend to visit our Djibouti-based troops at Camp Lemonnier. Our base there was established in the wake of 9/11, and since then, has expanded to support AFRICOM's mission in the Horn of Africa. Their leadership is committed to not repeating the mistakes of the past. They have developed the best unmanned aerial system force in the world. It is amazing what they are doing with these UAVs. Between that program and our impressive intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, the military has stepped up their ability to keep our troops safer in the world's most volatile theater. I was pleased to know that the 101st Airborne out of Fort Campbell-- which is located in Montgomery County, TN, and also there on the Kentucky border--are supporting the vital post-Benghazi East Africa Response Force mission and that the Nashville-based 118th Air Wing unit of the Tennessee Air National Guard plays a vital role in regional security operations. It brought home to me the point of why we have to get the NDAA finished, why we have to get these resources to our men and women in uniform who are fighting every day and need 21st-century warfare in order to keep us safe. The work they are doing there--and of course I can't say exactly what it is that they are doing--should make us all really humbled and grateful for those who choose to serve. Our mission in Africa is changing. Things are shifting a little bit. As we urge our local partners in Africa to take ownership over their own security, the chattering class is at it again and what we will hear from people is: Well, I think we have done enough for Africa. Don't you think we have given enough? My response this week to those who have made that statement has been: No, we have not done enough. We have invested more than a decades' worth of time, money, and manpower. We have lost men, lost ground, regained that ground, expanded our abilities, and have achieved moderate regional stability. But most importantly, we have confirmed the Horn of Africa is still a geopolitical powder keg. The same forces that swept the Horn into anarchy in the 1990s and allowed terrorism to metastasize in the 2000s are now triggering instability all across that continent. For a long time, Somalia managed to limp along as a failed state because a traditional government has never acted as their main arbiter. Powerful clans decided for themselves who would control territory and resources, and the clans are still very evident in that country. The victors, in turn, weaponized access to clean water, food, and healthcare in order to keep citizens in line. Violent extremist organizations like al-Shabaab, ISIS, and factions of al-Qaida have been watching, and now they are employing the same tactics to destabilize existing governments in and beyond the Horn, in northeast Nigeria, and in the Sahel and the Lake Chad regions of West Africa. We may have eradicated the physical caliphate, but mom-and-pop terror shops are thriving. What is more, the digital caliphate is alive and well, and it will take more than ground forces to wipe it out. Many of my colleagues may be tempted to assume that these insurgent hotbeds have lowered Africa's stock in the eyes of global powers, but we shouldn't be fooled about that in this era of great power competition. It is going to sound mighty familiar to all of us, but China and, to a lesser extent, Russia are doing all they can to actually buy their way into strategic dominance. This is some of what we heard and what we learned this week. For example, China has made inroads by agreeing to hold 80 percent of the government of Djibouti's debt. Think about that. China has gone to this country and they have said: Look, we will hold this debt for you, 80 percent of it. In turn, Djibouti has accommodated China's first overseas military outpost and granted them access to crucial shipping lanes. They have also bought into China's Smart City Program, those all-seeing cameras that I encountered at every intersection at Djibouti City. In other words, the Chinese must feel like they have struck gold. They have a huge port going in. They are helping to turn this into an intermodal transit system with a port, with a railway. By the way, we are going to put these cameras up to help you keep your community safe. And what is China doing? China is collecting all that data. They are scanning all of these faces. They are watching everything that comes into these ports and are monitoring everything that goes on the rails. China is doing this not only with Djibouti but with other countries in Africa. They are trying to secure this coastline in Africa for themselves to expand their reach. For 12 years, the United States and our partners have worked together to bring stability to the Horn of Africa. The State Department and USAID have laid the groundwork for education, for health development, institution building, and permanent democratic transition. Yet the region remains vulnerable. Our role is going to change because, yes, we look at it as great power competition through the military. But we also look at the way China and Russia are pushing into their economic sectors. Great power competition is not just playing out in the Indo- Pacific or in Eastern Europe; it is playing out right now on the African Continent. Instead of playing defense, as we do in other theaters, we have the opportunity to be on offense when it comes to Africa. If we decide that now we have had enough, these threats--from the military, that sector, and from the economic sector--will degrade American influence and will threaten the homeland and will imperil the delicate and completely reversible balance that we have fought so hard to gain. Our Nation's security cannot afford to give ground, to cede ground, on the Continent of Africa. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, yes, I do object.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I would like to articulate the reason for the objection to the legislation that is brought forward by my friend the Senator from Illinois. Once again, I found it necessary for the good of the order to object to a unanimous consent request brought by our friends in the minority. Once again, they are attempting to bypass the Senate's rules on behalf of a piece of legislation this body has not had time to debate, to deliberate, or to consider in committee. The American Dream and Promise Act passed the House of Representatives by a near party-line vote; unsurprising, considering the bill addresses the contentious issue of immigration law. This bill, supported by the Senator from Illinois, would offer temporary legal status to 2\1/2\ million undocumented immigrants. Those affected immigrants have tried to remain in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or the DACA Program-- a backstop made possible by nothing more than an Executive memo signed by former President Barack Obama. I think this is important for us to realize that it was an Executive memo that put this program in place. It is not a Federal law. President Trump ended the DACA Program in 2017, arguing the Obama administration's attempt to subvert immigration law on such a massive scale was unlawful and possibly unconstitutional. Soon after, President Trump offered a path to legalization for DACA recipients, but our friends in the minority refused to take him up on that offer. We have to remember this: There was a path to legalization for DACA recipients that was offered by President Donald Trump. Our friends in the minority said: No; no, we do not want that. They continued with the issue. I will tell you, every Dreamer in the country should be outraged by the minority's refusal to come to the table and negotiate on an offer that was on the table. I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to remember that the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision to maintain an injunction on the nationwide DAPA Program--a scheme similar to DACA but aimed at parents, as opposed to children. Although that decision set no legal precedent, it did open up an opportunity for the new administration--and for each and every one of us in the Senate--to rebuild various fixes in our immigration system without running afoul of existing legal barriers. As my friend the Senator from Illinois likes to point out, Senators from both sides of the aisle have been working on this issue--it has been with us for years--and it is imperative we find a consensus solution. If the minority wishes to offer peace of mind and a path forward to Dreamers, they should do it in such a way that allows the American people to hold each and every one of us accountable for repercussions. We should do this through regular order. I reiterate my objection to the minority whip's motion. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object, and I will object.

Ms. BLACKBURN

Ms. BLACKBURN. Madam President, over the past few months, pro- democracy protestors in Hong Kong have captivated the American consciousness with one of the most stunning mass protests in recent memory. Hong Kong people are no strangers to suppression. They are used to the censorship, digital stalking, and persecution embraced by their overlords in Beijing, and they have seen firsthand the dangers of tyranny. Watching these protests play out got me thinking about the core values that we as the American people share with the Hong Kong people and with so many others around the globe. There is really an interesting dichotomy at play: You can turn on the TV right now and see an entire population fighting desperately on behalf of free speech, self-expression, and the right to question their leaders' decisions. Meanwhile, just a few countries away, the loudest voices in the newsroom are begging for just the opposite. Here in the U.S., Americans are constantly being asked if freedom is really worth the fight. Is it worth the never-ending battle to maintain it? The answer is absolutely. When Americans look at the protests in Hong Kong, they do not see a foreign policy gray area; they see scores of revolutionaries fighting an evil regime. They identify with the disrupters, and they cheer for the underdogs who do not pull their punches, which is why, in 2016, they sent a disrupter to the White House. They watch the hysteria that is cable news commentary and get the sense that the people on the screen have completely missed the point. The fight is not and never will be about one person or one movement. It is about the decision to protect liberty or to let liberty die; to protect justice or to let it die. To dismiss this point is to disparage the most important feature of the collaborative American psyche. When asked if freedom is worth fighting for, the answer will always be yes. The calculus flows into discussions on almost every aspect of American life. Most recently, at home and in this Chamber, debate has centered on the ideological makeup of the Federal judiciary. We have repeatedly asked ourselves: Will the judges we are confirming respect and protect the core values of the American people? The answer is yes, they absolutely will. This is not the first time the American public has swung back around to consider our ``first principles.'' We talked about them in the early 90s and again--perhaps more passionately--in the early 2000s. Last week, I was fortunate enough to attend an event at the White House celebrating our success in confirming well-qualified, constitutionalist judges to the Federal bench. We have filled 158 vacancies since 2017, and we are far from done. I am sure, however, that my friends in the minority wish we would give it a rest, but we won't. After all, they have had to work overtime trying to convince the American people that our job is to impose by judicial decree policies that were rejected at the ballot box. They want to do this without the benefit of legislative debate or public comment, which means that confirming constitutionalist judges is far from being in their best interest. So here they come, insisting that ``constitutionalist'' is a dog whistle for racism, sexism, homophobia, and holding regressive and extreme ideas. What a ridiculous strategy. The bipartisan nominees this body has confirmed proved they are capable of resisting the urge to get creative with the law when it suits the loudest voices in the room. Instead, they apply the same foresight employed by the Founding Fathers. These judges know that permitting the government more powers to mold and manipulate society will give rise to a government that will never resist the temptation to overstep its bounds. Our courts are not courts of public opinion, and my friends in the minority would do well to remember the cost of treating them as such. Constitutionalism is our legacy and our inheritance. I urge my colleagues to remember this because we are going to vote to confirm judges who have proven themselves committed to defending our core values and the rule of law in the United States of America. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to speak for a few minutes today to talk a little bit about rural healthcare and to ask my colleagues for help in protecting the 20 percent of Americans who live in rural areas who are in danger of losing--or may have lost entirely-- access to healthcare in their communities. Since 2010, 118 rural hospitals have shut their doors. Fourteen of those facilities are in my State of Tennessee. Medical practitioners are paying attention to this trend and, more often than not, choose stability in the cities and suburbs over the uphill battle that comes with practicing medicine without access to the funding and modern resources many clinics now take for granted. As a result, rural patients are left to suffer through illnesses or emergencies or sacrifice time, money, and mileage for even the chance of a diagnosis. This system is broken, but this year, I have been able, by working with my colleagues on each side of the aisle, to kind of pick up the pieces around this. I have a three-bill rural health agenda, which comes at the direct request of smalltown mayors and local leaders who are struggling in my State to keep these communities afloat. Last week, my fellow Tennesseans, Congressmen Kustoff and Roe, introduced House companions to all three pieces of legislation. I will tell you, I have been talking to Tennesseans, and they want my colleagues in the Senate to know what we should do about this issue. If you have never lived in a rural area, hearing someone talk about driving 20 or 30 minutes to the nearest doctor probably really doesn't seem like a problem to you. But in the country, 30 minutes away translates into miles of driving through isolated areas. Chances are good that you will not even have cell service for part of that drive. There are no EMTs or rapid response teams. And if there is a local doctor, he or she may not have any specialized expertise, which could spell disaster for patients dealing with a complicated diagnosis. The first component of the agenda is the Telehealth Across State Lines Act, which would lead to the creation of uniform, national best practices for the provision of telemedicine across State lines and set up a grant program to expand existing telehealth programs and incentivize the adoption of telehealth by Medicare and Medicaid Programs. But implementation of telehealth will not eliminate the need for face-to-face interactions between patients and doctors. This leads us to another problem. Rural communities keep themselves afloat on strapped budgets, which means that plans to open as much as a bare-bones urgent care facility can be derailed by all the startup costs. The Rural Health Innovation Act--the second part of the agenda-- features two grant programs. The first one will fund the expansion of existing healthcare centers--such as local nursing homes--into urgent care walk-in clinics. Facilities will be able to use grant money to purchase equipment, hire physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other essential staff. A second grant program will expand rural health departments to meet urgent care and triage needs. This is using programs that already exist, tailoring them to the needs of rural America. Of course, this points out the third issue: Expanded facilities are useless if there are no medical personnel. I have been working on this problem with my friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and he spoke about this on the floor a few minutes ago. We recognized from the beginning that throwing money and equipment at an updated facility will not convince medical professionals to establish a rural practice, so we wrote the Rural America Health Corps Act to encourage practitioners to set up shop in rural areas. The bill creates a new student loan repayment program that doctors and other medical professionals can take advantage of. In exchange for those loan payments, they will have to agree to serve for at least 5 years in a rural area with a health professional shortage, but the benefit comes tax-free. I have spoken to rural communities all across my State. I know Senator Durbin has talked across the State of Illinois. I will tell you that these bills don't simply address a matter of convenience. My fellow Tennesseans want my colleagues to know they aren't just frustrated with the long drives and unanswered questions. They are worried that their child's cough will turn into pneumonia before they are allowed a full day off from work to drive to a pediatrician. They have no idea what they would do if they were diagnosed with an illness that requires continuous care. They do, however, know what would probably happen if someone they love suffered a heart attack or had another major emergency. They are very fearful. If these bills pass, they will no longer have to live with the knowledge that they have been abandoned by our healthcare system. They will have access to healthcare in their communities. I ask my colleagues to let these people know that yes, indeed, somebody is listening, and I ask them to do so by cosponsoring Senate bills 2406, 2408, and 2411. 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. Thank you, Madam President. This weekend, thousands of Tennesseans and, of course, millions across this Nation are going to pause and give thanks for our veterans. Quite frankly, this is something we should be doing every single day. I am just amazed and so grateful that there are men and women, like the Presiding Officer, who have worn the uniform and who have served-- brave men and women who wake up every day in some of the most dangerous places on the face of the Earth and do a job that would bring many of us to our knees. We look at this and say it is basically impossible. When our veterans have done their part and come home, they find themselves facing another set of struggles. The challenges the veterans face are well documented, and we hear about them: long waits and long lines at VA hospitals and clinics, long recoveries from battle wounds that they have suffered, and severe emotional and mental health struggles that, if left untreated, could end in tragedy. There are systems in place to help our returning heroes. We just need to be using these correctly. Earlier this year, the VA OIG--Office of Inspector General--released a report showing that the agency's system for keeping track of controlled prescriptions had almost entirely broken down. Think about that. We are in the middle of an opioid crisis in this country. There is a system in place, but the VA's system for keeping track of all of these prescriptions had almost entirely broken down. This is truly unacceptable. Pretty much what is happening is this: The State-operated prescription drug monitoring program--or PDMP--contains valuable information about what drugs veterans are being prescribed outside of the VA healthcare system. VA clinicians are supposed to check this database before prescribing opioid-based and other controlled medications to make sure their patients--that patient in front of them, that veteran in front of them--are not receiving too many pills from multiple sources. Get this. That Office of Inspector General report--the OIG report-- showed that 73 percent of our VA patients who were prescribed opioids walked out of the pharmacy, medication in hand, without a VA clinician ever having performed the minimum required checks. So the system is there. It could be utilized, but what happens? The clinician gives the prescription but never checks the database in 73 percent of the cases. This failure to follow through puts 19 percent of those patients at risk for problems with their care coordination, and almost half of those VA patients were under long-term care for chronic pain and were at a higher risk for opioid-use disorder and overdose. We hear about these reports time and again, and we say: How in the world could this possibly happen? How could this be acceptable? It is not. We look at how it has happened, and here is what we found out. It happened because the VA didn't make the rules clear enough. Get this. Officials highly recommended that clinicians submit a PDMP query, but they didn't explicitly state that it was required under existing VHA directives, and there were no national oversight controls to act as a backstop. So the rule is there, but a bureaucrat, a clinician, says: Well, they recommend it, but it is not required, so I will skirt that. Along with their report, the OIG handed the VA a laundry list of recommendations, including directives to develop national oversight programs, better train their clinicians--that one should be an imperative--and embed accountability checks into the technology used to track patient care. VA officials have submitted now-approved corrective action plans, and we thank the VA Secretary for this. It is our job to make sure that they do follow through with this. The lack of organization that turned VA clinics into unwitting pill pushers has made it almost impossible for veterans to seek help during times of mental and emotional distress. In September, the VA published a report that confirmed our worst fears. As of 2017, there has been no significant change in veteran suicide rates. In 2017, the suicide rate for veterans in Tennessee hit 32.6 percent, which is significantly higher than the overall national suicide rate. It will take more than 1 day of recognition to fix this. It is going to take commitment and an all-hands-on-deck approach. I am an original cosponsor of the Improve Well-Being for Veterans Act, which will help vets connect to the over 50,000 existing suicide prevention programs that are ready and waiting to be helpful. The bill will also give regulators a tool to measure how effective these programs are. It is a good start, but it is not enough. Earlier this year, President Trump launched the PREVENTS Initiative, and we thank him for this attention to the needs of our veterans. PREVENTS establishes a cabinet-level task force responsible for finding the root causes of disconnect between veterans and helpful services from the VA and private organizations. Their job is to develop a strategy for Federal, State, and community leaders to engage with veterans, improve research and access to resources, and work from the ground up to prevent suicide. Here is the caveat: This will work only if we remain in constant contact with veterans back home and use those interactions to find the cracks that veterans continue to fall through. For years, we have listened to frustrated complaints from agency officials insisting that untangling the VA's procedural knots is an exercise in futility. Sometimes you hear: Well, it just can't be done. We do things this way because we have always done things this way. That is not necessarily true. We do them because oversight has not been exercised. It is time for all of us--not just lawmakers and rulemakers--to finally accept that ``honoring their service''--honoring the service of these heroes--means helping these heroes heal when they need it and not leaving them at the mercy of a broken and bloated bureaucracy. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Tapp nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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