Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I object.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I object.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as our colleagues can hear, we are on the floor talking about the USMCA and the need to get this agreement passed. It really is frustrating. I feel as if we have come to the floor, time and again, to encourage our friends in the House, and I guess we are all but begging them to take a pause from their political agenda and take one vote--just one vote that is going to make a tremendous amount of difference in the lives of businesses, of our auto manufacturers, our farmers, our chemical producers, and workers. Our friends across the aisle like to say they are all for the workers. Well, if you are all for the workers, let me tell you something, there are 12 million--get that--12 million workers who are directly impacted by the benefits that would come from the USMCA, and this is across every single industrial sector. As I have been about Tennessee, what I have heard from so many is a simple question: When are you going to pass this? How long is it going to take? We have heard that you have people in logistics, people who are in farming, and people who are in every single part of the economy who are saying: Why can't you get this done? We all know there is support that we hear about--bipartisan support-- wide bipartisan support in the other Chamber and, indeed, wide bipartisan support here in the Senate, but for some reason, they just can't seem to find the time to schedule the bill and call the vote. America is waiting on them to take this vote. There are 120,000 small and midsize American businesses that will be able to continue exporting their goods to customers in Canada and Mexico. Do you know what is significant? These businesses, small and midsize businesses, are located in every single one of our States. The updated customs and trade rules are certainly going to make sure that even startups are able to participate in this cross-border economy. I have talked to so many new-start businesses that are coming through our universities and our entrepreneur centers, and they say: We want to make certain that we have access to markets around the globe. Isn't this great? They are not just thinking locally or regionally. Some of these talented young Americans, what are they doing? They are thinking globally. They are planning ahead for decades of productivity. This is going to ease regulations for our dairy and beef and pork farmers who are in Tennessee. Indeed, I was out in the past couple of weeks and talked with a farmer who is a cattle farmer. He came to one of our meetings, and I got around to questions and answers. The very first question was, When is this going to be done? When is it going to be done? Why is it taking so long? There was agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States months ago. Why can't this get a vote? These are real problems for real people who are working real jobs and are very dedicated and are working diligently. The intellectual property provisions that are in this bill are so significant for our singers, our songwriters, and our musicians who call Nashville home, and they want to see this take place. I have to tell you, I know that all of these issues I have discussed might not matter to those who are always interested in the 24-hour news cycle and winning the shiny object debate of the day, but I will tell you this: This matters to Tennesseans because Tennesseans exported $13.7 billion worth of transportation equipment, electronics, machinery, chemicals, fabricated metal, appliances, paper, plastics, rubber, and other goods to Canada and Mexico in 2017--a $13.7 billion export community to our neighbors to the north and south. Tennessee businesses and workers have waited long enough, and they want to see the House take action and the vote be completed and the USMCA become a reality. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, my mom would always say: You know, it is not a good sign if you are doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. My colleagues have sought several times, under the guise of election security, to circumvent going to the Rules Committee and trying to bring these bills to the floor. It is important to note that the legislation they are bringing would do something that most people, especially people in Tennessee, tell me they do not want to see happen. What it would do is take away authority from your local election commission, your State election commission, and then vest that authority with the Federal Government. Federalizing our elections, in my opinion, would actually make them less secure. Is there anybody who thinks the Federal Government is going to do a better job of administering an election in Williamson County, TN, where I live and where I have served on the election commission? The answer would be ``of course, not.'' They know that their friends and neighbors who served on those entities would do a better job. I must also remind my colleagues that every single Member--Democrat, Republican, and Independent; every Member of the Senate--agrees that foreign meddling in our Nation's business is a problem. For decades, foreign nations have sought to meddle in our affairs in the physical space. Ought we to have expected them to try this in the virtual space? It ought not have come as a surprise to us. We also know that Members are working on this issue, and that there has been progress that has been made by the Intel community, by State- level authorities, and by those who are making certain these election systems are secure. And guess what. They are doing this without a Federal power grab taking place. I fear that my friends on the other side of the aisle still have not gotten over that they lost in 2016. Further, they have yet to accept that their colleagues in the House of Representatives have turned their best hopes for correcting this electoral disappointment into a farce. We know that in 2016 the Russians seized upon partisan hysteria and used it to pit the American people against one another. They did not affect voting in election systems. It is not too much to ask that my friends in the minority cease using the business of the Senate to continue these requests. I do object to the motion.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, in Nashville, we have a saying: it all starts with a song; but a song is just the beginning of the story. This Sunday, Nashville's unbroken circle of elite artists, producers, entertainers, and musical masterminds will welcome four new members into the Country Music Hall of Fame. Kix Brooks, Ronnie Dunn, Ray Stevens, and Jerry Bradley represent different sectors within the music industry, but they have all contributed to country music's evolution. Kix Brooks and Ronnie Dunn--we know them as Brooks & Dunn--began their careers as solo singer-songwriters but rocketed to stardom as a duo. Their fusion of classic rock composition and heartfelt songwriting spoke to country music fans craving an edge to the genre's traditional ``Nashville Sound.'' Nearly three decades after their first album dropped, their music still inspires emerging generations of fans. From the beginning of his career, audiences and fellow artists alike were drawn to Ray Stevens' wonderful sense of humor, open heart, and commitment to entertainment as an art form. Known for his work in musical comedy, Ray stretched his legs and also made a name for himself as a studio musician, producer, songwriter, publisher, label owner, gospel singer, and country star. Jerry Bradley, this year's final inductee, may not have invented country music, but no one on Music Row would deny the impact his work has had on generations of country stars. Jerry began his career in Nashville when the industry was on the brink of a major transformation. He drove the format into a new era defined by rebels, outlaws, and crossover superstars. Today, I encourage my colleagues to take a moment to think of their favorite song and to remember how it made them feel the first time they heard it. Kix, Ronnie, Ray, and Jerry are responsible for making millions of people feel that exact same way about their favorite song. Their body of work represents more than just a series of accomplishments. It represents the best of Music City. It is a gift.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, in Nashville, we have a saying: It all begins with a song. That is the truth, but that is not where the story ends. It is where it begins. Every record that makes it out into the world is backed by a team of hard-working and creative individuals whose job is to bring the music to the masses: the songwriters, who find a way to express feelings that we mere mortals could never hope to put down on paper; the studio musicians, whose refined techniques satisfy even the most sensitive microphones; the producers, whose vision and intuition can turn a song into a hit cut; and the label heads, whose job it is to take a chance on new artists in hopes of discovering the next country music superstar. Each year the music industry's movers and shakers come together to decide who among them is worthy of a place in the industry's most sought-after circle: the Country Music Hall of Fame. The Country Music Association inducted their first Hall of Fame class in 1961. Since then, the CMA has welcomed some of the most well-known and beloved members of Nashville's entertainment community into the Hall's ranks. This year's inductees have made their mark on both sides of the studio glass. Kix Brooks and Ronnie Dunn--we know them as Brooks & Dunn--started out as solo singer-songwriters, but rocketed to stardom as a duo. Their first album produced four No. 1 singles and sold almost 3 million copies, all in the pre-smartphone, pre-streaming era. Since then, Kix and Ronnie's over 40 top 10 hits, 20 No. 1 singles, and 12 platinum-plus albums have earned them the distinction of being one of the most successful country duos of all time. They have done it all while writing their own songs, designing their own shows, and supporting the art of up-and-coming performers. This dedication to the future of country is why Brooks & Dunn will be inducted into the Hall of Fame in the ``Modern Era Artist'' category. Ray Stevens--when we think about country music, many times, we are thinking about steel guitars and broken hearts, but this year's second Hall of Fame inductee really just wants to make you smile. Ray Stevens is one of the most successful comedy recording artists of all time, but he made his mark in Nashville as a songwriter, studio musician, producer, and gospel singer, in addition to being a star comic and country entertainer. If you look at his catalog, there really is something for everyone. His work spoke to fans in need of a laugh or sometimes spiritual guidance or a song to sing along to after a hard day's work. Ray's wonderful sense of humor, open heart, and commitment to entertainment as an art form made him a Music City standout and the perfect choice to earn the distinction of ``Veterans Era Artist'' in the Country Music Hall of Fame. Jerry Bradley--this year's third and final inductee--may not have invented country music, but no one on Music Row would deny the impact his work has had on the success of generations of country stars. Jerry Bradley began his career in music as Nashville was on the brink of transformation. He understood that fans and artists alike were looking to explore a new sound, and he gave them exactly what they were looking for. He gave them the Nashville sound. He signed bands no other label would take a chance on, he mixed records no other producer could match, and he embraced the importance of the crossover artist as the ambassador of this new Nashville sound. His tendency to ignore conventional wisdom more than paid off. He achieved commercial success and earned the attention of Nashville's tastemakers before becoming one of them himself. This year, the Country Music Association will induct Jerry into the Hall of Fame as a nonperformer but also as one of the most influential people in the history of the entertainment industry. Today, I encourage all of my colleagues to take a moment to think about their favorite song--whether it is a country song, a pop song, a classic rock hit, it is the soundtrack of our lives--and to remember how it made them feel the very first time they heard it and how many times they have enjoyed singing it when a memory pops into their heads. This year's Country Music Hall of Fame inductees--Kix Brooks, Ronnie Dunn, Ray Stevens, and Jerry Bradley--are responsible for making millions of people feel that exact same way about their very own favorite song. The body of work these men represent is more than just a series of accomplishments; it is a gift to all of us who enjoy the music they have made. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the well-deserved retirement of Nashville, Tennessee's own Roxie Gibson. Roxie, or, ``Miss Roxie,'' as we all know her, dedicated her professional life to the service and support of her church, community, and the children who fill the halls each weekday at Oak Hill School in Nashville. In a time when acts of kindness are more often than not eclipsed by the drama and bustle of everyday life, Miss Roxie taught generations of students--and their parents and neighbors, too--to value curiosity and a loving spirit and to never take friendship for granted. Her smiling face will be missed around the halls of Oak Hill School. She is truly irreplaceable. I ask my colleagues to join with me in wishing Miss Roxie a happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, yesterday evening I had the opportunity to invite 100,000 of our fellow Tennesseans to join me in a telephone townhall. We have found this is something Tennesseans like. Instead of having to drive to a location, they are able to just pick up the phone, and as they are doing homework with children or preparing dinner, they are able to jump on the phone and talk about issues that are important to them. We covered a wide range of topics yesterday evening. We talked about nuclear power and gun rights and healthcare for our veterans. We even talked a little bit about an invasive fish species, Asian carp, and how that is affecting our beautiful rivers. There was one thing that continued to come out through the course of this telephone townhall, and I bet you can guess what the topic was that people continued to talk about. Now, bear in mind that Tennesseans are, by and large, very dismissive of what I call the DC shining object story of the day. Tennesseans are much more interested in the story of their lives, but yesterday's news--that breathless race to make news--really had Tennesseans talking. Yesterday, House Democrats, supported by their friends in the Senate, gathered to announce their intention to begin formal impeachment inquiries against President Donald Trump. As you can imagine, this struck a chord with my fellow Tennesseans. They may be far outside the beltway bubble, but they have been keeping a close eye on what the Democrats have been up to for the past 3 years when it comes to President Donald Trump. Let me tell you, they are not very impressed with what has been happening. From their perspective, yesterday's announcement was the culmination of a 3-year witch hunt born of a grudge they have been holding against the President since their chosen candidate failed to win the 2016 election. Before the President had taken his oath of office--bear in mind, he was President-elect at that time--in December of 2016, Vanity Fair published an article entitled ``Democrats are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.'' Believe it or not, this was not just click bait. This was a published article in a major magazine in December 2016. The article details a bill Senate Democrats wanted to use to exploit allegations of conflicts of interest between President-Elect Trump's business dealings and President Trump's duties as President. Bear in mind, the bill was tailor-made to transform conflict allegations into impeachable crimes. And bear in mind, this was conceived before President Trump became President Trump. He was still President-elect. He had not been sworn into office, and they were already writing legislation that would move to impeachment. It was the beginning of their mission toward impeachment, even if they had to fabricate the means to get there. Let me tell you, they were determined to make it happen. The proof is in black and white. In 2017, a group of House Democrats failed to muster enough political will within their own party to support a resolution to impeach President Trump. The same effort failed again in 2018, and it failed again in 2019. Their efforts to use the Mueller report to whip the Nation into an impeachment frenzy failed. How frustrating that must have been for a party and a movement that all but promised they would find a way to impeach the President because they absolutely could not believe he won that election in 2016. It is important to remember and to note the American people chose President Trump and not the Democratic candidate. That didn't matter. Democrats vowed to take him down anyway. They were going to make him pay a very heavy price by making him the victim of a campaign of personal destruction. Now, conveniently, a year before the election, here they go again. They are indicating they think they have cracked the case. In November 2018, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a statement to the Associated Press saying: ``We shouldn't impeach the president for political reasons and we shouldn't not impeach the president for political reasons.'' Let me tell you, for the West Tennesseans participating in the telephone townhall I mentioned earlier, it was painfully obvious that congressional Democrats had finally given up and embraced politics as usual. They see this for what it is: vitriol, anger, jealousy, spite. They know that President Trump and a Republican-led House and Senate delivered much needed tax and regulatory relief, which was exactly what the American people wanted and precisely what Tennesseans were telling us: Get government off our backs. Get government off our land. Get government out of our pocketbooks. We are a nation built on the rule of law and a nation that believes in adhering to that law. Tennesseans, and the American people, want fairness. They want equal treatment. They want justice. And they know injustice when they see it. What they do not want is a breathless revenge scheme orchestrated by a political party. 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. Madam President, I want to express to the Senator from Texas our concern and our thoughts for all of those who have been so impacted. Digital Responsibility Madam President, the Senator from Texas mentioned the floods and the impact that had happened. I found out about some of the good work of the Good Samaritans in the area by watching what was taking place on social media, and I am certain millions of Americans saw firsthand some of the generosity and the help that was given there. Indeed, the internet and social media platforms have transformed the way we communicate, the way we send out information, and many times the way we receive it. Correspondence that, just a few years ago, would have taken pen, paper, and postage is now sent and received with a simple click of a mouse. Everything happens online, from communicating about disasters to shopping to party planning and to campaigning. We share photos and milestones with our ``friends.'' We let people know that we are OK in times of disasters or that we need help. We share all of this not only with our friends, but we are also sharing it with companies that have built multibillion-dollar empires based on their ability to convince us to surrender just one more little piece of unique data about us or about our families. Beyond social media, we live our everyday transactional lives online also. We bank via apps. We sign up for credit cards using codes we have received in an email and manage our finances with cloud-based software. Information we once would have locked securely in a desk drawer, we now plug into an online forum without ever giving it a second thought. We have contributed to our own, as I call it, ``virtual you''; that is, our personal online footprint unique to us, unique only to us. We have done this by trusting these platforms to keep our data secure. In a way, this level of connectivity and trust has made life a lot easier and more convenient, but it has also made us vulnerable to exploitation and exposure. I have spoken before about consumers' justifiable expectation of a right to privacy online. This year, I introduced the BROWSER Act, which I had previously introduced when I was in the House. It is an effort to codify this right to privacy that consumers expect. BROWSER gives Big Tech basic guidelines to follow when collecting and selling user data, and that user is you. It has become understood that you are the product when you are using these social media apps and experiencing this connectivity. You are the product. You have the right to know that you are that product, and you have the right to decide what is shared about your life. But protecting an individual's data is only part of this picture. Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology held a hearing to address the role that digital services play in the distribution of violent and extremist content. We welcomed testimony from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, detailing what they are doing to remove extremist content on platforms. I will tell you, before we talk about policing content, we, as Members of this body, need to make sure we understand how the American people view their use of social media and the internet. Whether social media platforms should be regulated under the First Amendment is beside the point. Americans view these services as open public forums, where they can speak their minds on everything from defense funding to the Emmy Awards. These consumers don't want the Wild West, nor do they want to be censored based on a content reviewer's subjective opinion. What they want is an objective cop on the beat-- just as in the public square, an objective cop on the beat who is equipped to properly identify incitement, threats, and other types of speech that could put lives at risk. This, of course, is easier said than done. In the case of Facebook, for example, that translates to creating a set of standards that 30,000 in-house engineers and analysts and 15,000 content reviewers will be able to apply--45,000 people, and that is just one platform. There is a reason that time and again Big Tech executives look at Congress and say ``Oh, more regulatory control over the way we do business,'' and it is this: Policing legitimately dangerous content is a big job, and policing ``awful but lawful'' content as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg likes to call it, is an even bigger, more daunting task. It takes 45,000 people to do a bare-minimum job for one company. Imagine trying to create easy-to-understand, bright-line standards that 45,000 employees will be able to digest and apply quickly enough to keep up with the flow of content. That has to be an intimidating task. I will tell you, if those executives think the government could do a better job of deciding down to the letter what those standards should be, I think they are mistaken. Only the engineers and innovators know their companies well enough to set their own internal policies for acceptable uses of their platform, but that is not to say that I will not be taking an interest in their ideas. We need to have a Federal standard of privacy and data security. We need to review censorship and prioritization, competition, and antitrust. For example, Facebook is in the process of putting together a content oversight board to adjudicate users whose posts have been deemed in violation and taken down. They have pledged to make the identities of the moderators and their decisions public--barring any safety risks-- and to choose a diverse panel. The biggest unanswered questions here are these: Will the moderators really reflect the American political spectrum? How will they be chosen? The American people will demand more than a promise to be fair and impartial. As I said, government cannot make these decisions in total for Big Tech, but we can help guide them along the way by passing privacy and data security standards. This is where working groups like the Judiciary Committee's Tech Task Force come into play. Last week, I was speaking to a group of private sector tech gurus, and I told them that the only way we will be able to move forward is if the government does more listening and they do more talking and work with us on setting these basic standards. I stand by what I said. It is not--and should not be--Congress's job to decide in retrospect what sort of culture companies like Facebook and Twitter meant to create. It is imperative that these companies understand the American public views them as a public square, an online public square, and it is up to them to be certain that there is an objective cop on the beat. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is such an honor to be here following Leader McConnell and talk about the achievements of our State's senior Senator and recognize his wonderful work, not only in DC but also in Tennessee. I want to touch on just a few of those highlights and the importance to our State. For me, being a State senator involved in our community, coming to serve in Congress, and now serving in the Senate with our senior Senator is something that is a wonderful experience. The majority leader just mentioned that our senior Senator will retire at the end of next year. Of course, we are all going to miss seeing him around Capitol Hill. Senator Alexander has really distinguished himself as a man who is committed to Tennessee tradition and to helping Tennessee find prominence on the global stage. Anyone who has ever entered Senator Alexander's office knows that he is a music lover. What they may not know is that he is also both a classically trained pianist and a pretty good gospel and country pianist. He has even performed on the stage of the Grand Ole Opry, and rumor has it that he really rocked the house the night he was there. His love of music and of Tennessee's musicians has caused him to work tirelessly in these efforts. In the House, I started a songwriters' caucus. He did likewise in the Senate, bringing the issues that confront our Nation's performers into the Senate, finding solutions, and, as the leader mentioned, passing and being instrumental in the crafting--not just the passing--of the Music Modernization Act. He was honored just this week by the Nashville Songwriters Association International, which gave him the White Hat Award. This is an honor that he and I share. It is important to note that the White Hat Award has only been given 15 times in the 52 years of that organization's history. As Governor--then Governor, now Senator Alexander opened the doors to automobile industries, including Saturn, GM, Nissan, and auto parts producers, which solidified Tennessee's place in the global economy. As Senator, he has focused on improving Tennessee from the inside out, giving priority to practical concerns. He led the charge on healthcare, education, and, as the leader mentioned, the opioid crisis. He has supported teachers, stood up for working moms, and enacted tax policies that kept more money in the wallets of Tennesseans. Today, I rise to honor a leader, a friend, and, I have to say, the team captain for our annual Crockett Cup baseball game. And they were the winners. They are the holders of the Crockett Cup. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, one of the occasions that we celebrate every year is Constitution Day, and that actually took place yesterday. It was so exciting to visit with students, talk to constituents, and celebrate Constitution Day and the fact that we have this document. Our Constitution is a disarmingly short document to read. When you sit down to read it, it doesn't really take a lot of time to digest it. When you are done with it, you might easily walk away thinking: That wasn't that hard after all. It is pretty simple, right? We all know that is not necessarily the case. It is easy to understand, but it is so important that we look at it in its entirety. There is an entire body of law dedicated to tearing apart that Constitution. It is mind-boggling when you think about that. We have this document. It puts this foundation in place, and there is law that would rip it apart. There are those who would rip it apart, who are looking for answers to problems our Founders never dreamed of. There has been a lot of talk lately concerning the Founders and how their backgrounds and status in society informed the document that eventually became what is known as the Constitution of the United States. But I think it is even more important to think of the Founders as human beings who came to the Constitutional Convention harboring ambitions and goals equal in gravity to our present passions--their desire to have a United States of America. They wanted freedom from their oppressors on the other side of the world and from a system of government that would inevitably lead to oppression. They said: No more. Let's write this into the fiber of this Nation--freedom; freedom from our oppressors. They wanted to reforge the chains that broke during the Revolution into ties that would bind the several States together under a common goal--bound together, united in purpose and in freedom. After years of blood and uncertainty, they desperately wanted control over their own lives and over their futures, individual freedom--freedom to choose. Because they were human, yes, they wanted power, and so they argued. They argued about everything. They argued about States' rights. They argued about a nation having a debt. They argued about the Confederacy and compacts versus the Federalists' vision of ``a more perfect Union.'' But through all that, the Founders still managed to create a document that set forth a new standard of government--a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is a form of governance that is responsible not to the government but is responsible to the people. They gave us a framework, but there are a great many things that they declined to set in stone. They made a conscious choice, which is why we continually find ourselves engaging in philosophical combat. Unfortunately, as part of that battle, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have gone so far as to undermine the very institutions that define this country. Supreme Court confirmations have turned into a circus. Policy debates devolve into personal attacks. Distinguishing between news and opinion is all but impossible on many days of the week. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to describe the Constitution as a living document, but I don't really follow that line of thinking. Describing our Constitution as a living document is really just a prelude to changing the rules to fit the circumstances, and, in my opinion, that is a dangerous concept. As our Founders signed on the dotted line, the rest of the world looked toward America's shores with skepticism, and, at times, derision. They didn't understand how a government by the people and for the people could possibly fit into the existing mold. After over 200 years of progress, there are still those who remain skeptical of the country that broke the mold and transformed from a struggling cluster of Colonies into a shining city on a hill. I urge all of my colleagues to respect the Constitution. It is not an intellectual straitjacket. Not once has the sum of its contents acted as a barrier to progress. The Constitution is not the source of the freedoms it guarantees, but it does state definitively that its execution secured the blessings of liberty to those who bore witness to America's beginnings and to those who would come after. It is a legacy worth fighting for. Happy Constitution Day. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I want to get straight to the point this morning. I find it incomprehensible that some of our friends across the aisle are repeating the same missteps that turned last fall's Supreme Court confirmation battle into a black mark on the history of this body. I want to make it clear that I have no desire to relitigate the disputes borne from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. I do not want to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle leverage more of the same baseless, salacious allegations in the name of partisan politicking. But when you stop and think about it, since they have chosen to go there, it is imperative that I speak out--that we speak out--about what is transpiring. I was not in the Senate for the first go-around on this, but I am here now, and I can tell you that I intend to give their arguments exactly the amount of deference and respect they deserve. Sitting on the sidelines is never easy, but it is especially difficult when you are watching a fight and you know you could get in there and help win that fight. I know this feeling very well. Last fall, I was fighting to go from the House of Representatives to the Senate. I was also fighting to become the first female Senator from the great State of Tennessee--the very first. While on the campaign trail, I got more than an earful from other Tennessee women who were watching this breathless coverage of Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. These women were concerned that their voices were not being heard in this debate. They were concerned also for spouses, sons, brothers, and male colleagues. They could see these baseless claims, and they were concerned for the lack of due process. They did not like for 1 minute what they were seeing, and I didn't like it either. These women came from all political walks of life and all areas of our State. They were disgusted by the nature of the sexual assault allegations, and they were horrified by what they rightly saw as an eagerness to set aside the due process that is so important to this Nation and to the rule of law. It was being set aside in order to make an example out of Kavanaugh. Were flimsy allegations and social justice buzzwords really the new standard for credibility? As much as I wanted to reassure these women that sanity would prevail, in the back of my mind I remained fully aware that, if left unchecked, insanity is fully capable of carrying the day. It knows no bounds. As it turns out, conservatism prevailed in Tennessee, and sanity prevailed in the U.S. Senate. I was humbled when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh performed my ceremonial swearing-in this past January and when I received the additional honor of being one of two Republican women afforded a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee--humbled, truly humbled, but also prepared to stand up for what I know is right. I will not abide by or participate in the lack of civility that we saw during Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. We have to realize that this is more serious than just evaluating a final tally of political points on the board. Politicians, journalists, and activists are leveraging unfounded criminal allegations against a duly confirmed Supreme Court justice. I repeat that: They are leveraging unfounded criminal allegations against a duly confirmed Supreme Court justice in an effort to undermine not only his work but ultimately the entire Court as an institution. Is this honestly what we have come to? Is this the new low of lows? Can no one see the danger in doing this and letting it continue and giving it air to breathe or to thrive? This is a danger. We are a nation of laws, and the Senate is a body built on process and deliberation. Tennesseans are asking: Who is going to stand and who is going to defend that process in this body? As a woman, as a new Senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I stand to defend the process and for civility. I refuse to leave this political chaos unchecked, and I welcome my colleagues and my friends across the aisle to join me in recognizing that due process and civil discourse are required for constructive, respectful debate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, this is not the first time I have come to the floor to discuss a situation that is on our Nation's southern border and the need that we as a country have for a stronger, more efficient immigration policy. I have made more than one trip to South Texas this year, and each time I have returned, I have found myself more motivated to cut through the noise, and to get something done. What should be a practical policy discussion has, unfortunately, turned political, and very real problems have compounded into an unprecedented crisis. Within these Halls, we have debates over asylum caps and visa requirements. They are indeed important issues, but recent reports on the explosion of human rights violations perpetrated by cartels, coyotes, and international gangs have added some much needed context to these debates. By now, we have all heard how dangerous the journey to our southern border can be for those who are being brought forward by cartels, coyotes, and international gangs. Traffickers have really built a big business--a very big and profitable business--on moving drugs and desperate human cargo across the border. Sometimes these individuals make it, and sometimes the guides leave their charges to die--to die alone in the desert. Rumors of abuse, assault, and gang rape have manifested and been proven true. Border Patrol agents at most ports of entry administer pregnancy tests to girls as young as 12 years of age. While we waste time arguing over talking points, monsters--absolute monsters--are dragging children into the crosshairs of an international crisis. While we debate the best way to amend our loose asylum laws, traffickers are finding ways to exploit those laws, using children to force their way back and forth across the border under the guise of parental legitimacy. ``Child recycling'' is a crude term but an accurate term, and we define it as when a minor is used more than once by alien adults who are neither relatives nor legal guardians but pose as family members for the purposes of crossing the border. How despicable and how very selfish of them. Child-recycling isn't a myth, unfortunately. It is not an urban legend. It is a definite, well-defined, clear and present danger. DHS has uncovered more than 5,500 fraudulent asylum claims since May of 2018. I want you to think about that number--5,500 fraudulent asylum claims since May of 2018. Customs and Border Patrol tells us that unaccompanied minors are particularly vulnerable to trafficking and that drug runners and sex predators are rolling the dice on these fraudulent asylum claims to move their products--which, bear in mind, are people and drugs--to move them more efficiently. Earlier this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement introduced a pilot program they believed would help determine how serious the child recycling problem is. They began administering DNA tests on all adults accompanied by minors who claimed a familial relationship but lacked the paperwork to prove this relationship. As a safeguard, all swabs were destroyed, and no genetic profiles were collected or stored. The purpose was solely to prove a DNA match. And thank goodness somebody was watching. The results have been horrifying. One in five claims of kinship is fraudulent. That means one in five children who were brought to the border and then funneled into the pilot program was likely being exploited. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that finally we have had enough and to voice their support for the End Child Trafficking Now Act. This act requires the Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, to administer DNA tests for all adults accompanied by minors at a port of entry who claim a familial relationship without sufficient legal documentation to prove the connection. Refusal of the test will be met with immediate deportation. Fabrication of family ties or guardianship will carry a maximum 10-year penalty, and the child will be processed as an unaccompanied minor under current law. Proven family members and guardians, however, will be allowed to move forward with the immigration process. The tests themselves are simple--a quick swab of the cheek and a quick wait. I say ``quick'' because we will be using a new form of genetic testing that can analyze a DNA sample in about 90 minutes. I will tell you that I am aware that the various factions in this Chamber have vastly different approaches to immigration reform. We should be having a serious discussion about the fundamental flaws in our policies and our plans to fix them. I welcome these discussions, and I look forward to the changes, but I know and my colleagues know that no one bill or package will repair what is broken in our current immigration system. There is no viable quick fix. We owe it to this country and we owe it to the children who are brought here under duress and under false premises to do whatever we can to prevent what experience and pilot testing have proved we can indeed prevent. Let's make certain that children coming to the southern border are with family and that they are protected. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I so enjoy listening to my colleagues as they talk about the issues that are important to them and to the States they represent. It is, indeed, one of those privileges that we in this body enjoy, and many times we take it for granted. Yet today is a day of remembrance. It is a day that we look back and say we ought not take it for granted because there are many in this world who would threaten our freedoms and our liberties. Earlier this week, I was talking with some of the members of our team, and we were trading stories about where we were on the morning of September 11 and how it affected the way we viewed their place in the world, and their memories, and what their recollections were. Those of us who vividly remember that day still recall an unsettling cascade of emotions. There was shock, confusion, and, finally, dread as we realized we were not, as initially thought, seeing a senseless accident, but that, indeed, we were under attack. As the morning wore on, dread really gave way to fear and panic and, finally, to absolute terror that our loved ones who were in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania and who were in the air, maybe flying home, were among those who were experiencing firsthand what was happening. It was the perfect storm of conflicting media reports and jammed cell service that made it almost impossible to reach out to people and to ask that question, ``Are you OK?'' and to hear their voices. Through the smoke and the blood came a moment of awful clarity. Life would never be the same because we would never again experience life without feeling as if we were a target. The events of September 11 introduced a new generation of Americans to the reality that our country is not and will never be immune to the threat of terror. Those who were teetering on the edge of adulthood may not have immediately made the connection between global politics and the disaster that was playing out on TV in real time. Yet, by the time terrorists struck that second tower, I think a lot of people really had begun to understand what was happening. Later, they learned that a half a world away, a group of men who referred to themselves as al-Qaida had made it their life's mission to murder Americans. They were doing it to prove a point. Yes, it did leave a mark on this Nation and on our citizens. Younger Americans' memories of that day really are fuzzier, but almost without exception, my staff members remember what they now describe as a sense of national unity rising up in the days following the attacks. They remember that every house on the street flew an American flag and that every adult they knew stood in a line to give blood. They saw small town first responders load up those firetrucks and emergency vehicles and head to New York. At the time, they really didn't understand geopolitics, but they did understand fear and suffering because they saw that fear in the eyes of their teachers and in the eyes of the adults who surrounded them; but they also saw the shift that the attacks and the aftermath caused in our country. For a time, partisanship and bitterness was washed away. What you saw was unity, and waving flags. Now, almost 20 years later, memories are growing fuzzy. Sometimes they are nonexistent. Calls for unity have been replaced by heated debate. Too often, the loudest voices look back at 9/11 as an event in the collective memory, and they don't look at it as an occurrence that changed lives and lifestyles forever. They consider in passing the remnants of the attacks in debates over foreign policy and defense spending, but ignore why we remain so focused on national security. This is why every year, without exception, we remind ourselves that the kind of hatred it takes to bring an entire country to its knees gives no quarter. We acknowledge the actions of 19 terrorists whose twisted beliefs led to the violent murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people because even though the panic of that awful morning has faded, our enemies' desire to make an example of us has not. But America, with all her imperfections, still thrives in utter defiance of hatred, divisiveness, and destruction. Today, we remember those who died, and we keep their memory as a beacon against the void that allowed violence and terror. We remember the heroes who defied fear and reason and ran toward the flames, putting love of country and countrymen above all else. And we remember and remind ourselves that by simply standing back up, America made herself the world's best example of what it looks like when love, hope, and valor triumph over the forces of darkness. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to participate today and talk a little bit about my State of Tennessee. I will tell you, as we are talking about what we are going to do and how we are going to be working across our State during the August work period and how we are looking forward to having people visit our State during that time, one of the things that strikes me so very often when people talk about Tennessee and when they hear that I am from Tennessee, they will stop and say: That is one of the most beautiful States. Our State is beautiful, with its rivers, lakes, rolling hills, mountains, and the flatlands over toward Memphis. Indeed, it is beautiful. It is also very long, and that is also quite remarkable to people when they start to drive through the State. They say: I spent a whole day driving through the State of Tennessee. From the time they enter up around Mountain City and Bristol and make their way through to Memphis, it does really take the whole day. I think one of the things that interest people when they cross into Tennessee as they are going down I-81 is seeing the Bristol Motor Speedway. They realize that it is truly a feat of engineering--NASCAR is very popular--and realize the innovation and creativity that has gone into creating that speedway. Then to be there on race day, I will tell you, that is something that is quite amazing, to see those cars speeding around those banked turns and realize it is people who are handling these feats of engineering. People also appreciate, in addition to the Bristol Motor Speedway and car racing, that Tennessee is a State that is very important to the automotive industry. You have Volkswagen in Chattanooga, and you have the GM facility at Spring Hill. Nissan North America's headquarters are located in Cold Springs, right outside of Nashville. Their manufacturing plant is in Smyrna. You have the Toyota plant that is over in West Tennessee. We Tennesseans are also excited about the prospect of having an aerospace park that is going to be in East Tennessee, up at the Tri- Cities. As a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I have had the privilege of working with the Tri-Cities Airport and local officials to make that a destination and to make it a reality. A little further down in the State, as you get on I-40, you will find yourself in the middle of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most visited park in our National Parks System. Senator Alexander and I are continuing the work to designate the Dean Stone Bridge on the Foothills Parkway there in Blount County. Dean Stone was a pillar of the community, and naming the bridge in honor of him is the perfect way to thank him for his dedication in improving the lives of all those who live and enjoy the Smokies in that part of our State. The Smokies are second in my heart to just one Tennessee landmark in Nashville that I think everyone wants to see. They are all country music fans, and they want to see the mother church of country music, which is the Ryman Auditorium. The best singers and songwriters in the world leave their stadiums and their festivals because they want to have the opportunity to play just one song on the stage of the Ryman Auditorium. It is a wonderful place to be and to celebrate Tennessee's creativity and to celebrate the music that fills our hearts and our lives. When I was a Member in the House, I worked tirelessly for several years and fought for the unanimous passage of the Music Modernization Act. That is something that fixed a lot of loopholes that were in U.S. law that adversely impacted our songwriters as they were facing copyright many times. Upon coming to the Senate, I worked with Senator Feinstein, continuing the fight on behalf of our songwriters to close the loopholes that exempt broadcast radio from paying royalties to music creators. Tennessee is also known for some other wonderful music, a little bit further down I-40, and that is the blues. You can't leave the State of Tennessee without going through Memphis and having a visit over on Beale Street, right there on the banks of the mighty Mississippi. The Mississippi River is our Nation's original superhighway, if you will. It is vitally important, not only to river but to rail, air, and highway transportation networks. All of these have found their way along West Tennessee's river lands. Shipping and logistics giant FedEx has its corporate headquarters in Memphis. Memphis is the city of their founding and their headquarters location, and that takes advantage of Memphis International Airport and their cargo operations center. All that being said, one of the things that individuals repeatedly comment on when they talk about Tennessee is how nice the people are in Tennessee, how welcoming they are, and how they engage you and want to make certain that you come back. You will find in Tennessee a very diverse community. Yes, we are the home to artists and athletes. We are the home to engineers, to farmers, to doctors, to soldiers, and to veterans. It is, indeed, one of the best places on the face of the Earth to call home and, indeed, a certain not-to-be-missed destination for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the city of McKenzie, Tennessee's sesquicentennial anniversary. McKenzie has come a long way since her first settlers followed the Natchez Trace to the tall grasses and fertile soil of western Tennessee's ``Barren Lands.'' What started as a cluster of fiercely competitive trading posts flourished into a bustling center of commerce with the arrival of the area's first railroads. The city withstood family rivalry, natural disasters, and the ravages of the Civil War, until it was finally incorporated by the State of Tennessee on January 22, 1869. Today, the roads are paved, and cattle no longer roam the city square, but McKenzie's residents still live and work with the same inimitable volunteer spirit as those who fought for their homes and livelihoods through two great fires, a yellow fever epidemic, and the Great Depression. Congratulations to the Honorable Jill Holland, Mayor of McKenzie, the members of the McKenzie City Council, and most importantly, the people of McKenzie. I ask my colleagues to join with me in wishing them 150 more years of progress and prosperity.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, today I rise and seek my colleagues' support for the BROWSER Act, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation that will protect consumers' data privacy and offer tech companies the freedom they need to innovate. This is something we are hearing so much about. How do you protect your privacy online, or do you have privacy online? The BROWSER Act is the bipartisan solution to that. Innovation really puts the words and the wisdom of the world at our fingertips. Think about it. A click of a mouse, a touch of the screen, and everything you want to know appears right there in front of you. Now that we have all downloaded a myriad of apps and we are using search engines every single day, it is commonplace. But what we have learned and what people are aware of now more than ever is that in the process of doing this, they have given away something vitally important and precious; that is, their privacy and their information. I call it your ``virtual you'' because it is you, your presence, that is right there online. As your transactional life has grown online--you pay your bills, you do your shopping, you order your groceries, you order dinner to be delivered--every time you do that, you are giving these apps a peek into your privacy, into your habits, and there is really quite a battle going on. Who owns the ``virtual you''? Is it you or the bank or the insurance company or the app that is providing that service? Data is the bedrock of most tech companies' revenue streams. The higher the quality of that data, the more money they are going to get for the ad space they sell. The more money they get for the ad space they sell, the more profit they are going to put into their pocket. When you look at all these apps--Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Google, Snapchat--all of these apps are taking your information. They mine your information, and it gets sold--sold for those that are placing ads on your screen. There is a reason companies provide convoluted, pages-long disclosure, full disclosure and privacy policies in tiny print so small you can't read it. It is the same reason that watchdogs warn consumers that if the service is free, you are the product. If the service is free--take a look at these--you are the product. You are because it is your information that they want. Now, I will tell you this: We have come to a season in our society where we have a different story just about every single day of some type of bad behavior from one of these companies. The current story today is about FaceApp, and I think that if I went around the room and asked those who are younger if they have used any of these face- altering apps, they would probably say: Yeah, we downloaded one. They are really a lot of fun to play with. Here is the danger: That app--these face-altering apps and FaceApp-- is not limited to just bits of personal information that are going to be appended to a data set. It could be your image used publicly--with your consent, of course, if you agreed to the fine print by clicking ``download'' or ``get.'' With that, you give your privacy away. Consumers have really grown accustomed to clicking the ``get'' button. They say: I don't have time to read all of this. It would take too long. I don't understand what it means. I just want to use this app. It is convenient. A quick scroll through an average Instagram feed this morning revealed post after post of artificially-aged faces, all thanks to FaceApp, which now owns those images and can do whatever it wants with those images because you unintentionally, when you clicked ``get,'' gave them the permission to use them. This is one of those things where you have to say: Buyer beware and know what you are getting into. Ask anybody who downloaded that app last night, and I bet you they have a little bit of buyer's remorse going on, and they probably wish they hadn't done it and opened those photos to being used by people they will never ever know. Over the past few years, we have watched tech companies lose control of their own narrative, and that is for good reason. Customers feel invaded and are demanding a more satisfying response to the current parade of controversy--something more than just ``Oh, we are going to do better in the future.'' It is clear that the tech company can no longer regulate itself. Big Tech does not have the appetite for self- regulation. That is why I welcome my colleagues on each side of the aisle to sign on to the BROWSER Act. This bill really has been years in the making. I first introduced it in the House of Representatives during the 115th Congress, but my work on the issue began long before that, as I chaired the Privacy Working Group in the House. What this legislation, the BROWSER Act, would do is it would set up a Federal compliance framework that tech companies would use as a guide. It would require companies to secure a clear opt-in from you, the consumer, before collecting sensitive information about your health, your finances, or your Social Security numbers--things that are important and personal to you. They would have to get your explicit permission in order to use those. For less sensitive information, like an IP address or your browsing history or your search and your purchase history, companies would have to give customers the opportunity to opt- out so that they would not have the permission to share that. Companies won't be able to deny service to anyone refusing to waive their privacy, but the Federal Trade Commission will keep the playing field level by applying the rules equally across the entire internet ecosystem. To recap that, you would have opt-in for sensitive information and opt-out for nonsensitive information and one set of rules, with one regulator, for the entire internet ecosystem and a tech platform that would not be able to throw you off because you said: Hey, I want to protect myself and my family. I think it is important, too, to realize that the BROWSER Act does not overregulate the industry, but what this does is it says: Let's have guidelines. Let's have some guardrails up here. Let's have a light-touch regulation that is going to protect the consumer and allow the consumer to protect their ``virtual you,'' their presence online. Lately, what we have seen is some blowback from some very public mistakes that have chased some of these big tech companies into the arms of the regulators, making them all too happy to accept government- mandated rules in lieu of internal standards. You have heard it. You have heard some people like Facebook saying: Oh, my goodness. We will accept regulation now. We want the Federal Government more involved. What they are trying to do is block out innovation and competition and new startups because they control the marketplace. Google. Ninety percent of search is done by Google. Recently, Facebook got a $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission. I said that actually wasn't enough. It should have been more like $50 billion when you look at the business Facebook has built and the valuation they have built. They are a big advertising company. They have this platform. They get you on that platform. They build their valuation off the number of eyeballs they capture to that, the users they have and, remember what I said earlier, the high quality of the data. That is money in their revenue stream, and it is profit in their pockets. Their bad behavior will not change unless we change the way they are going to be able to do business. Understanding the business of Big Tech is half the battle. I have been at this for years, going back to my days in Tennessee, my home State, as we looked at film and entertainment and music and moving from analog to digital in the economy, coming to Congress, working in the House on this issue. I will state that the ins and outs of this industry is not something that can be learned in a day or something you can be briefed on and then all of a sudden you are an expert in that area. If you think you know it all--what I have learned in tech is, the more you learn the less you know, and you have to keep working on it if you are going to properly regulate the industry. I thank my colleague Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham for recognizing the need for institutional knowledge by this body and for asking me to lead the committee's new technology task force. This is a bipartisan group. We will meet regularly with leaders in the tech industry, and we will talk a good bit about data, privacy, competition, prioritization, censorship, and other issues that will arise. Our first meeting is actually going to be later today. I would encourage my friends in the Senate to use this time and use this task force as a resource and study up because these issues are not going to go away. It is time for us to do something on the issues of privacy, data security, censorship, and prioritization. To my colleagues who are really very skeptical that we can use a lighter touch in regulating Big Tech, I want to say this: Washington is historically very bad at culture change. They are very bad at it. What we do know is, when looking at the technology that now underpins every single industrial sector in this country, that technology goes through a life cycle, if you will, in about 18 months. We know there cannot be heavy-handed regulation. We know we cannot regulate to a technology. We know that the guidelines need to be put in place, and the guardrails need to be laid down. We need to make certain businesses are looking at their consumers, and they are saying: You can trust us to be a good steward of your information. Consumers, citizens--Tennesseeans, in my case--need to know I have asked the tech companies to work to restore the trust and confidence that is needed by the online consumer and to move away from having it understood by people--understood in the negative--that if the service is free, you are the product. Let's join together, in a bipartisan fashion, and give the American online consumer the ability to control and to own their virtual ``you,'' which is them and their presence online. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, as I begin my remarks, I would like to thank the Senator from Texas for the work he has done on arranging our travel to the border tomorrow. I am one of those committee members who will make that trip. How wonderful it is that he is working with Chairman Graham to make certain that we are going to be able to visit with the Border Patrol to see and hear firsthand what is going on, making certain that we all focus on the security of this great Nation and provide the resources that are needed. I thank him for that good work.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I am so grateful we had the opportunity to be on the floor this week and to have a discussion about our Nation's security and how we protect and preserve freedom. I have just a couple of thoughts that I wanted to bring forward as we begin to think about July 4th and Independence Day and how we commemorate that day and do honor to the heritage and the tradition of that day and of the freedoms that we enjoy. I came across something this week that I think is just so pertinent to our discussions of this week as we focus on freedom. In 1826, a very feeble and old John Adams received a group of Quincy, MA, town leaders. They were seeking his help in planning an anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence. They wanted the former President to pen a toast that would be read at the event. Imagine their surprise when what they got from John Adams was two words. The toast that he penned for them was simply this: ``Independence forever.'' It is what we had fought for, what had been won, what people had desired, and their passion--independence. Keeping that independence is indeed the task. I am certain they wanted something much more ambitious and eloquent, but they simply got the nugget of what centered him and what should center us. In the Declaration, our Founding Fathers recognized that ``Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes,'' but that true liberty could not thrive in the grasp of tyranny. Today, freedom reveals itself in the lives and actions of every American, and it is our responsibility to preserve it on the battlefield and through our actions each and every single day. With every confirmation of a district or a circuit court judge, we preserve an essential right guaranteed by the First Amendment--the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Earlier this month, I introduced a resolution supporting free speech on college campuses because it is beyond distressing to hear students and their professors argue that encouraging the open exchange of ideas amounts to an act of violence. Our Founding Fathers probably never dreamed they would hear of such a thing. This proud hostility toward diversity of thought should serve as a reminder that questions of freedom rarely remain settled. Last week, famed economist Dr. Art Laffer, who is a beloved Tennessean, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The ``father of supply-side economics'' only became so because he was free to learn and apply the knowledge that he gained to his own groundbreaking work that led to the Laffer curve. Looking beyond Washington, it is easy to see many more examples of freedom in action each and every day. Every Tuesday, my friend and fellow Senator, Lamar Alexander, hosts ``Tennessee Tuesday.'' This gives us an opportunity to meet with Tennesseans who have come to Washington. They are students, small businessmen, writers, and teachers. They have a host of talents that they share, and they have been allowed to invest in those talents. Back home in Nashville, we enjoy the artistry of some of the world's most talented songwriters, singers, and producers. Guess what. In the United States of America, they do not have to go seek permission from any government official to write a song about a broken heart or any other act of injustice that they want to write that song about, sing that song about, or write that screenplay about. The connections we form with each other--whether it be through art, song, or a conversation at a cash register--all run deep. The thoughts and emotions we experience when confronted with provocative ideas are just as much a celebration of freedom as is a flag-raising ceremony or a fireworks display. This is why the very idea of censorship or a global standard of speech and association rouses immediate dissent. We know that these collective understandings regarding a particular type of speech or behavior inevitably lead to collective insistence that the problems of the world could be resolved if only we could agree to compromise on the finer points of freedom. Those understandings assume that the intellectual comfort of the many simply must, just this once, override the ideas of the vocal minority. As we prepare to leave Washington in anticipation of Independence Day, I would encourage my friends in Congress to challenge their own ideas of what freedom looks like. How do they exercise it and enjoy it every day? While John Adams probably never imagined a world of cable news and the comments sections, he provided us with the only context we need when confronted with the choice of preserving freedom or allowing it to slip away--his admonition: ``Independence forever.'' I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, in 1831, a young Frenchman who sought to understand the motivating principles behind the world's newest independent Nation mused: In America, the principle of the sovereignty . . . is not either barren or concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognized by the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences. Alexis de Tocqueville had come to America on a research mission. He had had no special training in government or political science, but he had been fueled by a desire to know if the principles that had guided the early American Republic could help his fellow Frenchmen. Even as an outsider, de Tocqueville had seen freedom, not a lone figurehead or compulsory philosophy, as the foundation to build upon. Freedom had been what he had seen as an enduring foundation. Today, however, the belief in a moral right to self-governance is more often than not portrayed as quaint and the kind of fierce independence that drove our Founders to the battlefield as outdated in comparison to modern concepts of so-called global governance and polite codependence. Yet, when I look at the state of the world and all of its competing philosophies, I am very grateful for our bold commitment to self- defense. That is why I come to the floor today--to express my thoughts on our National Defense Authorization Act and to say a thank-you to Chairman Inhofe for his leadership in pushing the Senate Armed Services Committee to present ideas, to bring forward amendments, and to work through this process together. I am looking forward to the couple of days in front of us in this Chamber with Members from both sides of the aisle. It cannot be understated that the importance of maintaining a regular budget for our military cannot be diminished. The failure to do so will put our troops at a disadvantage. Look no further than the ongoing tension right now between the United States and Iran and how this has magnified the part that deterrence plays--the importance of deterrence--in our defending our security without our resorting to the use of military force. Last week, I spoke at length about two emerging warfighting domains that challenge the way we think about modern defense. These are cyber and space. That is why this year's NDAA expands beyond legacy programs to include the recognition of emerging threats and our responses to those. The next great threat to our sovereignty may be more subtle than a bomb's being dropped on American soil. It could undermine our cyber security or slowly compromise the supply chain that provides us with needed microelectronics. It might cause us to question our position in the world or to rethink our influence in the international community. It is important to understand that these attacks aren't only meant to undermine our relationships and our infrastructure; they are coordinated and intentional attacks on the foundations that de Tocqueville recognized as being powerful, unique, and underpinning what we have in the United States. The implications are clear: Everything we do in this Chamber must be understood in the context of defending America's sovereignty. It means believing in the supremacy of the Constitution and giving the defense community the means to protect us in order to fulfill that first responsibility of providing for the common defense. It means recognizing that freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and free assembly are just as precious as any physical thing we can put under lock and key. Those who would threaten our freedom and safety do not look to America and see our formidable military as the single greatest threat to their destructive agendas. They are most frightened by our unwavering and ardent commitment to freedom. Our enemies are frightened of the young men and women who willingly join the military. They volunteer for service. They are frightened by the strength of conviction that leads men and women on our streets to protect protests even though they would never join those protests--not in a million years. They do this because they recognize that defending someone's right to speak is just as important as speaking oneself. Our enemies are frightened by the confidence with which we defend the Constitution when well-meaning actors ask if we could set the First Amendment aside to better protect impressionable minds from dangerous ideas. Ours is the kind of freedom that is always in danger of extinction, just as the late President Reagan repeatedly reminded us, but it is also worth protecting. This week, I implore my friends on both sides of the aisle to do all they can to ensure that our best, first line of defense has the ability to protect and defend freedom and freedom's cause. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to join with my colleagues this week to mark the implementation of an updated and streamlined healthcare system that is specifically for our veterans. This is made possible by the VA MISSION Act. In Tennessee, we have such a large and vigorous and wonderful population of veterans. I will tell you, we are so grateful to them for their service, and we are so grateful they have chosen to make Tennessee their retirement home. One of our colleagues asked me one day about how patriotic Tennessee is. They had been there to visit. They saw flags out in so many places. They saw signs out that were ``thank you'' signs to our veterans. I told them that I felt like it was because we do have a strong military presence. Fort Campbell is primarily in Tennessee. We have Millington, the air naval station. We have Arnold. We have our National Guard, and a couple of our units have just finished a good deployment. We cherish these veterans, and they are such an integral part of our communities and our churches. We have worked diligently on this healthcare system for veterans to specifically meet their needs. That should be the mission of the VA. It is not to serve itself but to serve the veterans. Once this new structure that is put in place by the MISSION Act is fully implemented, members of the military community who have been, in my words, neglected for too long--their access to healthcare neglected--they are finally going to get the attention and the care they need. I use the term ``neglected'' because anybody who knew they were headed to the VA clinic for a checkup knew that was not going to be a quick checkup. There is a lot of paperwork that goes into that process of asking for that checkup and then seeing it actually take place. I have heard from hundreds of veterans, their stories and their experiences. Sometimes you will hear them say it was a comedy of errors. But it is no comedy; it is a catastrophe of errors. The consequences from this have really taken a toll on the life, the health, the safety, and sometimes the sanity of our veterans community. The reason you hear these stories is because we have asked generations of veterans to put their physical and their emotional health in the hands of practitioners whose hands were tied by arbitrary rules and procedures that turned even simple procedures into what would be a logistical nightmare. I have no doubt that if we went around this Chamber and each Member of this Chamber were to stand, they could-- without any notes, right off the top of their head--give us a story they have heard from a veteran. That should never happen. But as of this month, we have dealt with a lot of these issues. We have removed some of the roadblocks. And the new Community Care Program, which adopted elements from the successful Veterans Choice Program, will continue to allow veterans to seek care closer to home. What was once a cluster of seven programs has been merged into one single system--a whole-of-health, whole-of-the-soldier approach. It makes this process simpler and easier to understand and to implement this program. Options will expand even more with the authorization of local provider agreements and access to walk-in community clinics, which is specifically and precisely, what for years veterans have said they want: Just let me go to the doctor in my hometown. We have a neighborhood clinic over here. We have a clinic over at the pharmacy, the CVS or the Walgreens. Let me go there and not have to drive to a clinic that is out of town. One provision in particular that I believe is going to really make a big difference is the removal of barriers that have prevented VA healthcare professionals from practicing telemedicine. Any of us who have used telemedicine and have Skyped with a physician know this is a timesaver. It gets you in front of the doctor in a more expeditious fashion. It allows you to get that advice to start taking and treating your ailment sooner. It is a huge timesaver. This is now going to be available. As we are crafting these updates, we are careful to consider the cost to the patient and to make sure that veterans won't have to worry about receiving a massive bill if they see a provider at a local community facility. The VA MISSION Act keeps costs at these clinics in line with those at the VA healthcare centers. We have also taken steps to encourage consistent treatment at the VA healthcare centers by providing the funds necessary for these clinics to retain top talent. You have to have healthcare professionals in the clinics in order for these clinics to see their patients. Most importantly, the VA MISSION Act supports these changes via an updated and extensive system of reporting and accountability. For years, this body has debated the merits of various healthcare regimes for children, the elderly, and the poor, but for some reason, we have asked veterans to accept a system incapable of providing care without snarling patients in miles and miles of redtape. For this, we owe the veterans community an apology. It is an honor to work with our veterans and now say that the VA MISSION Act is being implemented and that care is coming to your community. I think this reflects the sincere desire to do right by our best and our bravest. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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