Floor Statements

Mr. President, just last week, a Federal judge ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the Biden administration from colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans' speech. So the court ordered Biden administration officials and Agencies not to coordinate with Big Tech platforms in order to suppress American speakers and Americans' viewpoints that they disagree with.

This seems obvious. The First Amendment would mean little if government simply used Big Tech to get around it. Who disagrees with this basic principle that government-directed censorship is un-American and unconstitutional? Well, I can tell you who disagrees with that. The Biden administration disagrees with it. The Justice Department, almost immediately, asked the court of appeals to stay this ruling to allow it to continue to censor Americans while it appeals.

In recent years, increasing evidence has emerged regarding a disturbing alliance in which Big Government and Big Tech work together to censor speech that they don't want Americans to see nor to hear. Published emails among Twitter executives reveal the extent to which the company worked to prevent Americans from seeing a New York Post news story just weeks before the 2020 election. The extent of the suppression was breathtaking. Indeed, the Twitter executives locked the Twitter account of the White House Press Secretary simply for mentioning this New York Post story.

Facebook admits that it, likewise, limited the spread of the story based on a general warning from the FBI about it being propaganda. This is even though the FBI had verified the authenticity of the laptop in question.

This censorship activity has carried over into the Biden administration. In 2021, then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the government is ``in regular touch with social media platforms'' and ``flagging'' problematic posts for Facebook that spread what she called ``disinformation.''

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, disclosed that it had communicated with more than 30 Federal officials about content moderation on its platform, including senior employees at the FDA, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and, of course, the White House. YouTube, which is owned by Google, disclosed that it had such communications with 11 Federal officials.

The disturbing truth is that when Biden administration officials don't like what Americans are saying, they simply reach out to their allies at Big Tech to silence it. Government using its power to coerce censorship of disfavored information is what the Chinese Communist Party or the North Korean regime would do. It is not only fundamentally un-American; most often, it is unconstitutional.

The other day, a Federal court confirmed that the government cannot use Big Tech as a tool to end-run the First Amendment. The judge wrote that the case ``arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history.''

Americans deserve to know when their government and Big Tech platforms are trying to manipulate what they can say or what they can read. I introduced legislation last Congress and again this past May to require this transparency. The Disclose Government Censorship Act would require that government officials publicly disclose communications with Big Tech regarding actions to restrict speech. The act contains appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or national security activity.

Our Nation was founded on the idea that protecting citizens' speech from government censorship under the First Amendment would protect the people's right to govern themselves by preventing government from controlling information and ideas. Americans deserve to know when their government is covertly trying to accomplish what the First Amendment prohibits.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1672 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiments my Democratic colleague expressed, and I very much appreciate his work and his concerns with respect to Big Tech. I share those concerns.

And I share some optimism today that we will find common ground to work together. The legislation I have put forward simply allows Americans to see when the government is trying to censor them. My colleague suggests that this is because of concern over protections for law enforcement and national security work.

I would like to say this. My legislation contains appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or national security activity and preserve the confidentiality of those communications. But in assuming that the details of those protections are my colleague's only concern, I am happy to work with my colleague to address those concerns and ensure that the core of this legislation, which requires disclosure of government censorship efforts, is quickly enacted.

I hope that Senator Peters and I can work together and do this because it is too significant to ignore. Our government, at the end of the day, works for the American people, and to ensure that this continues, the First Amendment prohibits the government from controlling what Americans can say or read. But now government is using Big Tech to accomplish such censorship, and without disclosure of such communications, Americans' free speech rights become a dead letter because there is no way to address improper government efforts to ban speech.

My legislation would preserve these rights by allowing Americans to see when government is trying to silence them. It is a basic element of self-government. I look forward to working with Senator Peters and his committee to try to make this something that can be acceptable to all.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Blackburn and myself, a Vanderbilt alumnus, we would like to congratulate the Vanderbilt University bowling team on winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association--NCAA--championship, the third national championship for the women's bowling program and the sixth national championship in Commodore athletic history.

The Commodores were a dominating force during the 2022-2023 season, compiling a 98-29 record and winning four tournament championships including a regional NCAA crown. Five team members earned All-America honors with Mabel Cummins, a neuroscience senior, being named the national player of the year. The team earned an outstanding 3.559 GPA and placed seven members on the Dean's List.

This achievement would not have been possible without the hard work, talent, and teamwork of the following outstanding student athletes: Alyssa Ballard, Kailee Channell, Mabel Cummins, Kaylee Hitt, Amelia Kiefer, Jennifer Loredo, Amanda Naujokas, Paige Peters, Caroline Thesier, and Victoria Varano.

John Williamson, the head coach of the Vanderbilt bowling team, was named the national coach of the year for the fourth time and has led the program since its inception in 2004. Over the past 19 years, Coach Williamson has transformed Commodore bowling into one of the Nation's finest, winning both on the lanes and in the classroom. Coach Williamson should also be commended for combining athletic excellence with academics as well as international service experiences.

These student athletes were coached and mentored by a dedicated team of coaches and athletic department staff, including: head coach John Williamson, associate head coach Josie Barnes, deputy athletic director Dr. Kristene Kelly, associate athletic trainer Alda Burston, associate director of strength and conditioning Darren Edginton, assistant director of event management Renee Mackin, assistant director of student services Max Martin, sports dietitian Jasmine Gilbert, and head of athletic communications Rod Williamson.

We would also like to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of Vanderbilt University athletic director Candice Storey Lee, an alumna and former Vanderbilt women's basketball player.

Congratulations, Commodores. We are proud of you.

I thank Senator Blackburn.

Mr. President, I join Senator Blackburn today to honor the heroic, lifessaving actions by Officer Rex Engelbert of Nashville, TN; Detective Michael Collazo of Smyrna, TN; Detective Sergeant Jeffery Mathes of Nashville, TN; Detective Ryan Cagle of Charlotte, TN; and Detective Zachary Plese of Nashville, TN. These dedicated officers showed exceptional courage by putting their lives on the line to save others.

On March 27, 2023, an unspeakable tragedy took place at The Covenant School in Nashville, TN. A cowardly and depraved murderer's gruesome actions took six innocent lives--including those of three 9-year-old children. I join the families affected, the Nashville community, Tennesseans across our State, and millions of Americans in mourning this heartbreaking and outrageous act of evil.

What is unmistakably clear is the incredible bravery and heroism of the first responders, who prevented this tragedy from being even worse.

Officer Engelbert, Detective Collazo, Detective Sergeant Mathes, Detective Cagle, and Detective Plese, nobly and without hesitation, rushed into an active shooter situation at The Covenant School. Released body camera and surveillance footage shows that these officers confronted and eliminated the lethal threat within a mere 3 minutes.

The rapid response and swift assessments of the emergency not only underscore the strength of their training, but also their bravery as they quickly entered the school despite obvious risks to their own safety. Their actions likely saved countless lives.

I echo the words of Governor Bill Lee when I say, ``Gratitude doesn't begin to cover it.''

Today, we honor the heroic actions of Officer Engelbert, Detective Collazo, Detective Sergeant Mathes, Detective Cagle, Detective Plese, and the other brave first responders who rushed to the aid of strangers, putting others before themselves that day. I join Tennesseans and all Americans to express our heartfelt gratitude.

Mr. President, title 42 will terminate tomorrow with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Title 42 is one of the last tools available to Border Patrol agents, and the President is surrendering it during a record-shattering border crisis. It is unconscionable for Congress to stand aside and do nothing to preserve this critical authority.

Title 42 authority was initially based on the pandemic. While I agree that the pandemic is over, the border crisis is worse than ever. Whether to keep effective border security policies in place should not depend on the pandemic.

There is a new epidemic that is plaguing our Nation, one that demands immediate action. Deadly fentanyl--produced with the help of the Chinese Communist Party and smuggled across our southern border by drug cartels--has flooded into our communities. More than 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in the last 12 months alone--most from synthetic opioids like fentanyl. It is the No. 1 cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45.

The rise of fentanyl overdose deaths affects every State and every congressional district. It kills the young, the old, the rich, the poor. It affects cities and small towns alike. It is not a partisan issue, and finding a solution shouldn't be partisan either.

With the end of title 42, even the Biden administration is openly preparing for an already-recordbreaking crisis to get far worse by sending 1,500 Active-Duty troops to the southern border. It is an admission of the impending invasion.

To allow title 42 to end without creating a permanent new authority to replace it only empowers drug cartels. It enables them to illegally send migrants across the border at strategic points, bogging down Border Patrol agents with paperwork and processing that takes five times longer than under title 42. This dramatic increase in processing times will significantly decrease scarce resources available to actually patrol our southern border. Cartels will use the longer and more frequent enforcement gaps to move fentanyl across our border. We cannot allow this to happen.

Title 42 is an effective and important tool for controlling the flow of illegal migration at the southern border, but it is also an effective and important tool for dissuading migrants from making the dangerous journey to the southern border, to ultimately be exploited by drug cartels. But the current administration has no interest in dissuading migrants from coming to the United States. Instead, through Biden's border policies, they entice thousands more migrants per day to illegally cross into the United States, risking their lives as they magnify the humanitarian crisis at our border.

That is why I introduced legislation to add drug smuggling as an additional basis for invoking title 42 authority. It is called the Stop Fentanyl Border Crossings Act. Overdoses have become an epidemic in America, and no one can deny that. My legislation would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use title 42 to combat substantial, dangerous drug trafficking across our southern border. This bill would give Border Patrol a necessary tool to focus on stopping drug traffickers.

It seems like an obvious step to take. Everyone agrees fentanyl trafficking is a dire problem. Yet, in the last Congress, Democrats blocked this legislation three times. Now that title 42 is

actually coming to an end, it is time to get past the political posturing, and I hope my colleagues will join me. We cannot sit idly by. Without this authority, the recordbreaking border crisis and deadly drug overdose crisis that will follow will become unimaginably worse.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 1192 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, my Democratic colleague is objecting to legislation that simply gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to limit border crossings when necessary to combat substantial, dangerous, illicit drug smuggling. It doesn't provide authority to stop all asylum claims. It only applies where substantial illicit drug smuggling is endangering health. More than 100,000 Americans are dying annually of drug overdoses, many of which result from drug smuggling at the southern border.

This legislation isn't a mandate; it is a tool to help save American lives whenever that is possible. Everyone acknowledges that an already recordbreaking crisis will get worse without title 42. American lives and American communities hang in the balance. Yet my colleagues across the aisle are categorically opposed to any commonsense policy that will help us address this problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 72, as modified, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, in the last fiscal year alone, appropriations to FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program have increased by more than 5 times, totaling approximately $1 billion in the last 2 years alone. Currently, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated to this program are doled out annually by a national board comprised of the very same organizations that receive those funds. This amendment in no way impugns the integrity of the organizations involved. Rather, it helps them avoid the reputational risks that can occur when the pitcher is also the umpire.

My amendment is simple and common sense. It will restructure the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to ensure that the individuals sitting on that board do not have this obvious conflict of interest. Instead, the national board composition would be shifted to include qualified individuals who do not work for the organizations that seek funding from the board.

At a minimum, Congress must resolve this blatant conflict of interest within the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, especially given its dramatic increase in funding in recent years. That is what this amendment does.

I yield back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, in February, the Biden administration argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that title 42 will terminate in May of 2023 with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Removing one of the last tools available to Border Patrol agents during a record-shattering border crisis is intolerable. Congress should not stand by and refuse to address this obvious problem.

Title 42 authority was initially based on the pandemic, and while I agree that the pandemic is over, the border crisis and the deadly drug overdose crisis that it fuels are worse than ever.

Whether to maintain border security policy should not depend on whether there is a pandemic. That is why I am reintroducing the Stop Fentanyl Border Crossings Act today. This legislation would preserve continued use of title 42 authority to combat drug trafficking at the border.

Clearly, the deadly epidemic has not ended. Deadly fentanyl is flooding American communities--deadly fentanyl, produced with the help of the Chinese Communist Party and smuggled by drug cartels across our southern border.

More than 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in the last 12 months, most of them from synthetic opioids like fentanyl. It is the No. 1 cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45.

The rise in fentanyl overdoses and deaths affects every State and congressional district. It kills the young and the old, the rich and the poor, in cities and in small towns alike. It is not a partisan issue, and finding a solution shouldn't be partisan either.

When I talk to Tennessee sheriffs, they tell me that fentanyl is becoming more and more lethal, how a so-called ``bad batch'' can kill dozens of people. Once this deadly substance arrives in American communities, it is too late. We have to stop it before it crosses our borders. That is why I have reintroduced this legislation to combat drug smuggling.

When I travel to the border, Border Patrol agents tell me that the cartels use human waves of illegal border crossers as cover to transport fentanyl and other deadly narcotics. While Border Patrol agents are diverted to manage caravans of border crossers, the gap in coverage is then exploited by the smugglers. In many cases, these are well-planned and carefully coordinated occurrences.

The agents told me that ``the people don't stay at the border, and the drugs don't either.'' They also told me that title 42 is the last tool the Border Patrol has left to partially slow this ongoing tidal wave of illegal crossings. We can't afford to take away this tool in the midst of a crisis.

Letting title 42 end without creating a permanent, new authority to replace it empowers drug cartels. It enables them to send migrants across the border at strategic points, bogging down Border Patrol agents with paperwork and processing that takes five times longer without title 42. This dramatic increase in processing times absent title 42 will significantly decrease the scarce resources available to actually patrol our southern border. Cartels will then use the longer and more frequent enforcement gaps to move more fentanyl across the southern border. We cannot allow this to happen.

My legislation simply adds drug smuggling as an additional basis for using title 42 authority. It would help Border Patrol stop drug traffickers.

This should not be controversial. Yet, last Congress, Democrats blocked its passage three times on the Senate floor. Now that we are staring down at the end of title 42, it is time to pass this bill. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will not let title 42 expire without action. We must protect the border security tools we have to stop the fentanyl flowing across our southern border before more lives are lost.

Madam President, in February, the Biden administration argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that title 42 will terminate in May of 2023 with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Removing one of the last tools available to Border Patrol agents during a record-shattering border crisis is intolerable. Congress should not stand by and refuse to address this obvious problem.

Title 42 authority was initially based on the pandemic, and while I agree that the pandemic is over, the border crisis and the deadly drug overdose crisis that it fuels are worse than ever.

Whether to maintain border security policy should not depend on whether there is a pandemic. That is why I am reintroducing the Stop Fentanyl Border Crossings Act today. This legislation would preserve continued use of title 42 authority to combat drug trafficking at the border.

Clearly, the deadly epidemic has not ended. Deadly fentanyl is flooding American communities--deadly fentanyl, produced with the help of the Chinese Communist Party and smuggled by drug cartels across our southern border.

More than 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in the last 12 months, most of them from synthetic opioids like fentanyl. It is the No. 1 cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45.

The rise in fentanyl overdoses and deaths affects every State and congressional district. It kills the young and the old, the rich and the poor, in cities and in small towns alike. It is not a partisan issue, and finding a solution shouldn't be partisan either.

When I talk to Tennessee sheriffs, they tell me that fentanyl is becoming more and more lethal, how a so-called ``bad batch'' can kill dozens of people. Once this deadly substance arrives in American communities, it is too late. We have to stop it before it crosses our borders. That is why I have reintroduced this legislation to combat drug smuggling.

When I travel to the border, Border Patrol agents tell me that the cartels use human waves of illegal border crossers as cover to transport fentanyl and other deadly narcotics. While Border Patrol agents are diverted to manage caravans of border crossers, the gap in coverage is then exploited by the smugglers. In many cases, these are well-planned and carefully coordinated occurrences.

The agents told me that ``the people don't stay at the border, and the drugs don't either.'' They also told me that title 42 is the last tool the Border Patrol has left to partially slow this ongoing tidal wave of illegal crossings. We can't afford to take away this tool in the midst of a crisis.

Letting title 42 end without creating a permanent, new authority to replace it empowers drug cartels. It enables them to send migrants across the border at strategic points, bogging down Border Patrol agents with paperwork and processing that takes five times longer without title 42. This dramatic increase in processing times absent title 42 will significantly decrease the scarce resources available to actually patrol our southern border. Cartels will then use the longer and more frequent enforcement gaps to move more fentanyl across the southern border. We cannot allow this to happen.

My legislation simply adds drug smuggling as an additional basis for using title 42 authority. It would help Border Patrol stop drug traffickers.

This should not be controversial. Yet, last Congress, Democrats blocked its passage three times on the Senate floor. Now that we are staring down at the end of title 42, it is time to pass this bill. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will not let title 42 expire without action. We must protect the border security tools we have to stop the fentanyl flowing across our southern border before more lives are lost.

Mr. President, I move to discharge H.J. Res. 26 from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 26.

Mr. President, I am looking forward to a robust debate today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I just want to convey my thanks and deep respect to our Republican whip for his thoughtful comments and my other colleagues who have been here today to speak on this serious matter. Thank you, all.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I understand that this was the first opportunity for my colleague from Nebraska to speak before the Senate. I want to commend him and thank him for being here to support my legislation today.

Congratulations.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, just to set the stage before a few more of my colleagues come to speak on this resolution, just moments ago, over at Union Station, where there is a protest going on right now protesting our actions here, with people protesting in favor of this soft-on-crime position that the DC Council has taken, those protesters just witnessed an attempted carjacking. The assailant who was attempting the carjacking was confronted, and as that person fled, they ran right through the crowd.

That is the situation that we are dealing with right now, and I so appreciate my colleagues being here to speak on it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would just like to say thank you to all of my colleagues today who have joined me. I thank Senator Lee for his thoughtful remarks. I am looking forward to a very robust showing this evening as we vote on my resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon take up my resolution to nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act recently passed by the DC Council--a measure that becomes more central every day as the harrowing reports of lawlessness and deadly violence in our Nation's Capital steadily accumulate.

Carjackings in DC have increased for 5 consecutive years and have more than tripled in the past 3 years. For the first time in 20 years, DC has experienced back-to-back years with more than 200 homicides. Car thefts are up 111 percent this year. It has gotten so bad that the city recently announced that it is giving away free steering-wheel locks to owners of frequently stolen cars here in the District. Instead, how about just enacting laws that stop crime in the first place?

Sadly, violent crime has become an epidemic in our Nation's Capital, where our constituents, Americans from across the country, and people from around the world come to live, come to work, and come to visit, from schoolchildren to World War II veterans. Yet, unbelievably, despite escalating crime and palpable unease from all who visit or live in DC, the DC Council recently passed legislation to reduce penalties and eliminate minimum sentences for violent criminal offenses, including carjackings, robberies, and even homicides.

DC's crime bill also dramatically expands jury trials in misdemeanor cases, which may sound good to a law school classroom but in practice will overwhelm the system and force dropped charges and crippling delays in countless criminal cases integral to preserving order and public safety. The DC crime bill reduces penalties on violent crime in the midst of a violent crime wave. It is the opposite of good policy and will make the crime wave even worse. It sends the wrong message-- that DC is not serious about fighting crime.

DC's own police chief recently concluded that one of the main reasons for rising crime in the District, especially among youth, is the perception among criminals that they will suffer no consequence. Yet the council proposes to reduce the consequences even further.

Make no mistake, this DC crime bill will deliver the wrong results. Under these soft-on-crime policies, public safety will deteriorate further.

This is common sense to most people. It should be no surprise, then, that Mayor Bowser recently vetoed the DC crime bill just this January. She said:

This bill does not make us safer.

I couldn't agree more.

Yet, putting woke ideology over public safety, the DC Council overrode the Mayor's veto. That is why I am bringing forth this resolution to block the DC crime bill.

Washington is a Federal district, and the Constitution puts Congress in charge of governing it. This makes sense. Countless Americans from all over the country visit our Nation's Capital each week to meet with their Federal representatives and to enjoy our national history. Congress has a constitutional obligation to make sure these visitors can walk down the sidewalk or enjoy a meal without fear of becoming victims.

This resolution passed with significant bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and I am confident that an even larger bipartisan majority of this body will support it tonight. Numerous law enforcement groups, including the DC Police Union, are supportive. Polling shows that 72 percent of DC residents believe that the DC crime bill sends the wrong message.

A few weeks ago, the White House put out a statement of policy opposing my resolution--based on the President's support for DC Statehood, I presume--but last week, the President indicated he would, in fact, support my resolution. I am glad the President has recognized that Congress has a legitimate, constitutional role in reviewing and in rejecting DC's harmful legislation.

To this point, given the now-widespread recognition that this is a bad bill, imagine if Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution and the DC Home Rule Act to block DC laws. This dangerous bill would become law.

Apparently seeing the writing on the wall this week, the chairman of the DC Council cooked up a desperate and legally baseless ploy to ``un- submit'' the bill to Congress in an attempt to avoid a vote of disapproval. But the DC Home Rule Act is clear: There is no valid action of this nature. No matter how hard they try, the council cannot avoid accountability for passing this disastrous, dangerous, soft-on- crime bill.

Violent crime has become an epidemic in America. This resolution is a referendum on it. Do you want to decrease jail time for violent criminals? Do you want to prioritize the interests of law-abiding citizens or the interests of criminals? This will be one of the

only opportunities during this Congress for this body to send a broad message on violent crime--a message that may impact the safety and security of Americans throughout our Nation.

I appreciate that many of my colleagues have cosponsored or indicated their support for this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it tonight.

Stopping violent crime should not be a Republican or Democrat objective; it should be a commonsense one. I hope the Senate sends that message today by adopting this resolution and by sending it to the President's desk.

I yield back all time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to say that I appreciate and am very touched by the remarks of the good Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.

And I thank Senator Graham so much for his support and his presence here tonight.

Mr. President, I would just like to thank my colleagues Graham, Bozeman, and Lankford for being here this evening to support this effort.

We need to make certain that our Nation's Capital doesn't become a national embarrassment, and we need to make certain that we send a strong message that the American public have had it with crime in America. The crime spree that is happening in our major cities must come to an end.

We are putting a marker on the ground tomorrow. I want to thank all my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, who are joining me in this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend, Fredrick D. Schaufeld, for receiving the 2023 Horatio Alger Award. Fred has spent decades giving back to his community by creating job opportunities and a path to prosperity for so many, while at the same time contributing significantly to philanthropic efforts. No one is more deserving of this honor than Fred Schaufeld.

The Horatio Alger Award symbolizes the values of personal initiative and perseverance, leadership, and commitment to excellence, belief in the free-

enterprise system and the importance of higher education, community service, and the vision and determination to achieve a better future. These are the ideals that serve as Fred's North Star.

Throughout his career, Fred has exemplified the best of American exceptionalism. In addition to his time in the private sector, Fred has spent decades giving back to his community, whether through his time as the chairman of the Inova Health System Foundation or through his participation on the board of the Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts. Additionally, and one of my personal favorites, Fred is a recipient of the Loudoun Laurels award and the Loudon County Boy Scouts' Good Scout award.

I would also like to congratulate his wife Karen for her contributions to these causes over the decades. I know firsthand how important a supportive partner like Karen can be, and I am so pleased that you both are recognized in such an appropriate manner for your efforts.

Congratulations.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Blackburn and myself to honor the legacy and impact of Brad Gioia's 29 years of service as the head of school for Montgomery Bell Academy.

Since Brad was called to serve the MBA community nearly three decades ago, he has grown the preparatory school into a world-renowned institution. MBA's mission is to ``provide each student with the tools to reach his maximum potential as a gentleman, a scholar, and an athlete.'' Brad Gioia has dedicated himself to fulfilling this mission. Senator Blackburn and I are honored to recognize his great service.

During the past 29 years, Brad has grown MBA's student population by two-thirds, increased the school's budget by 1,100 percent, and quadrupled the school's endowment. Most impressively, he has developed the comprehensive Wilson Grant program, which has sent hundreds of students to study and serve others all over the world.

Throughout his tenure, Brad has been a constant figure of support, dedication, and commitment to the students of MBA. He created a culture of support where all boys are celebrated when they excel, whether it is in academics, athletics, music, art, debate, mock trial, service, or theater. The strong sense of community that Brad Gioia built at MBA will reverberate for decades to come, and our community is forever grateful for his selfless service to the thousands of young MBA men over the years.

His dedication to the MBA community and the greater Nashville community will be missed, and his legacy will not be forgotten. On behalf of Senator Blackburn and the entire Nashville community, I thank you for your tireless years of service as the head of school for Montgomery Bell Academy. We wish you, Minna, Christopher, and Gabby all the best as you enter the next chapter of your life.

Mr. President, in the last week, new details have come to light regarding Twitter's top executives' past collusion with political figures to censor speech that they did not want the American people to see. This problem is not limited to Twitter, but this news underscores the problem and the need for congressional action to protect the rights of the American people. Americans deserve to know when their government and Big Tech platforms are trying to manipulate what they can say or what they can read.

Recently published emails among Twitter executives reveal the extent to which the company worked to prevent Americans from seeing a New York Post story, and this was just weeks before the election. The extent of the suppression was breathtaking. Indeed, the Twitter executives locked the Twitter account of the White House Press Secretary who simply mentioned a story that was published in an established American newspaper with one of the largest circulations in the country. Facebook admits that it likewise limited the spread of this story based on a general warning from the FBI about ``propaganda.''

Evidence has also emerged that in 2020, Biden and Democrat campaign officials were going so far as to send lists of tweets for their corporate allies to remove--requests that Twitter granted.

This censorship activity has carried over into the Biden administration. In 2021, then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the government is ``in regular touch with social media platforms'' and ``flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread [what she called] `disinformation'.''

For example, a Facebook official emailed Surgeon General Vivek Murthy stating:

I know our teams met today to better understand the scope

of what the White House expects from us on ``misinformation''

going forward.

A Facebook employee later told the HHS Department that a number of posts had been deleted.

In addition to regularly flagging posts for Twitter and Facebook to take down, the CDC proposed setting up a monthly ``misinformation meeting'' with Facebook in order to censor American speech.

Additional Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits have also revealed improper coordination between

government Agencies and social media companies to restrict speech here in America.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, disclosed that it had communicated with more than 30 Federal officials about content moderation on its platform, including senior employees at the FDA, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and the White House. YouTube, which is owned by Google, disclosed that it had such communications with 11 Federal officials.

The disturbing truth is that when the Biden administration officials don't like what Americans are saying, they simply reach out to their allies at unaccountable big tech companies to silence it.

Government using its power to coerce censorship of disfavored information is what the Chinese Communist Party or what the North Korean regime might do. It is not only fundamentally un-American, but often, it is unconstitutional. Government cannot use Big Tech as a tool to end-run the First Amendment.

The American people deserve to know when their government, which is supposed to work for them, is using Big Tech to censor their speech or manipulate the information they see. I introduced legislation in July of 2021 to require this transparency. Yet the Senate has failed to act on it.

The Disclose Government Censorship Act would require that government officials publicly disclose communications with Big Tech regarding their actions to restrict speech--actions that would plainly violate the First Amendment if the government did it itself. The act contains appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or national security activity.

It would also require a cooling-off period to address the revolving door that occurs between government and Big Tech. This Washington revolving door fuels politically driven censorship, as evidenced by the fact that the former FBI general counsel who resigned because of the Steele dossier scandal was then hired by Twitter and, unbelievably, was at the center of the decision to suppress the New York Post story in 2020.

Our Nation was founded on the ideal that protecting citizens' speech from government censorship--under the First Amendment--would protect the people's right to govern themselves by preventing the government from controlling information and ideas. Americans deserve to know when their government is covertly trying to accomplish what the First Amendment prohibits.

Now, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2527 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, my Democratic colleague is objecting to legislation that simply allows Americans to see when the government is trying to censor them.

My colleague states that his objection is largely on procedural grounds, and he has concerns that my bill hasn't been marked up in committee, but the committee to which this bill was referred has had over a year to review the legislation, and no progress has been made.

I would ask that my colleague commit to working with me on my legislation to address this important First Amendment issue in the next Congress. This problem is simply too significant to ignore. Our government works for the American people. To ensure this continues, the First Amendment prohibits the government from controlling what Americans say or read. But now government is using Big Tech to accomplish that censorship. Without disclosure of such communications, Americans' free speech rights become a dead letter because there is no way to address improper government efforts to ban speech.

My legislation would preserve these rights by allowing Americans to see when government is trying to silence them. This is a basic element of self-government.

I yield the floor.