Floor Statements

Madam President, yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with a group about the legislative priorities for this upcoming Congress. I know the Presiding Officer and I are two Members of the Senate who like talking to the people we represent and doing that as much as we possibly can. I always try to cover as much ground as I can when I am visiting with a group.

But what has struck me recently, and this was true yesterday, is that the conversation really started to center around our national security--protecting this Nation--and people seem to have defending this country on their brain--standing up for America.

Some of the things that come up are what they have noticed since November. You have individuals who are now a part of the new administration working hard to try to erase every trace of the Trump era, even the successes--legislation, many times, that moved forward and things that were done on a bipartisan basis.

Part of the problem that people are beginning to have is that President Biden signed off on more day 1 Executive orders and actions than any President in recent memory. Indeed, I think you would have to go back to the time of Ronald Reagan and combine all of those day 1 Executive orders and actions to equal what President Biden has done.

I have a tendency to say they kind of lost the ability to keep track of them because there are so many. They are numerous--every single day--and this has people very unsettled. They see this strategy, and they think this is oddly familiar. Their most powerful leaders are treating policymaking like it is some kind of graduate seminar--all about theories and not about consequences and not about concrete outcomes, at least not as far as Washington is concerned.

The message flowing from the White House hasn't helped ease their concerns. You see, the administration has given the impression that when it comes to national security policy, they are going to exercise strategic patience when engaging with our adversaries. And I will tell you this: Tennesseeans back home might not know all the details of what is in store, but they know that the tone has changed, and they don't like what they are hearing.

When strategic patience failed to yield results during the President Obama administration, analysts dubbed this tactic as strategic passivity, and I believe that is a very apt description because at the heart of strategic patience is the belief that the status quo, while less than ideal, is better than many possible consequences of taking an action.

It is a dangerous posture, especially when applied to powerful adversaries like China that are positioning themselves for global dominance. In fact, our regional allies in Japan and the Philippines immediately expressed concern at the idea that the United States of America would embrace such a tactic.

For the past few decades, they have had a front row seat for the rise of Chinese influence. They watched as China grew from a struggling regional player into our most significant competitor in every domain. It is important to realize that we allowed that evolution in

the hopes that China's transition into a developed nation would foster within its leaders a sense of global responsibility. This approach failed, and now China is a major international player intent--intent-- on global domination.

I can tell you that officials in Beijing are not taking a passive approach in their effort to surpass us. Through their Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese Communist Party has bought or extorted control over the economies of some of the most strategically important nations on the planet. Until recently, their grasp on global supply chains flew well under the radar.

But we can no longer ignore the negative consequences of Beijing's control over access to active pharmaceutical ingredients and prescription drugs to medical devices, natural resources, telecommunications equipment, and, even more, defense materials. Where they couldn't buy influence, the Chinese Communist Party seized it. If they could not buy it, they seized it. They took it outright by reducing themselves to intellectual property theft and money laundering schemes and, more subtly, by installing Confucius Institutes in American classrooms and universities and putting Chinese Communist Party spies on those university campuses in research positions.

Beijing is just as brash militarily. Chinese aggression and violence in the Indo-Pacific threatens regional stability in defiance of basic global norms, rulings offered by international bodies, and showings of strength from Western military players. The Chinese Communist Party has leveraged all of this against the most powerful nations in the Western world, and their belligerence has paid off.

Even when, time and again, news breaks of some human rights horror in Hong Kong Taiwan, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, or Tibet, global leaders hit the brakes on their rebuke of human rights violations because it could draw economic consequences.

The term ``strategic patience'' had been used by now-Secretary Austin prior to his confirmation. We discussed that, both privately and during his recent confirmation hearing, and I am confident he knows how important it is to check Chinese aggression now--right now--before it is too late.

However, the general language used by the Biden administration officials in press conferences and other settings reflects former President Obama's liberal theories rather than concrete policies. Now, to be clear, I think I can speak for everyone here when I say that we are willing to work with the administration on this, but the threat from China isn't merely theoretical, and I hope I have made it clear that we here in the Senate aren't prepared to treat it like it is.

For decades, Chinese Communist Party officials have been successful in using China's modernized economy to distract from the threat their aggressive tactics pose to the international order. The fact is, the concept of strategic patience simply does not apply to Beijing.

The CCP's influence grows by the day and far too quickly to be contained by a cautious wait-and-see attitude. We did wait. We tried. It did not work. We know it did not work. We see the entanglements and the risk of simply poking at those knots and hoping they will resolve themselves. Instead, we need to take a great power competition-tailored approach right up to the CCP's front door and craft policy and budget priorities to match.

To those who would still embrace the kind of restraint the White House seems to have endorsed, I would ask: What about the status quo looks sustainable to you when you are dealing with the aggressiveness of the Chinese Communist Party?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, since 1976, Federal law has prohibited the use of Federal funds--taxpayer dollars--for abortion.

Section 1008 of the Public Health Service Act explicitly States that title X funds ``shall not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.''

But, as often happens in Federal law, there is a loophole: Federal regulations do allow abortion facilities to be colocated within clinics that are following the title X rules, and those

rules are providing healthcare to women.

The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act would close that loophole by prohibiting the awarding of these funds to entities that perform abortions or that provide funds to entities that perform abortions.

The bill allows for exceptions to be mad in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. It would also require HHS to provide an annual report to Congress listing entities receiving grant funds, and specifying which of those grantees performed abortions under the exceptions.

This is not a big change. As I said, this is a simple change. It is one that would add to the protections of women and their unborn children. It is a statutory fix that will redirect tens of millions of dollars in funding to providers, our community care clinics that are offering comprehensive healthcare services for women.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 88, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent 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.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to much of what my colleague had to say about we are in the middle of a pandemic. Families are struggling. Yes, indeed, that is very true. And if you want to talk about making healthcare services more available to more women, then, yes, indeed, what you want to do is make certain that these taxpayer funds are not used to provide abortion services, that these funds are going to the community clinics that are the ones that are providing the screenings.

Many of the Planned Parenthood clinics do abortions. They refer women to the community clinic around the corner for the cancer screenings, for the breast exams, for the Pap smears. So there should be agreement that, yes, individuals should have access to this healthcare. And if you say: If you perform abortions, you cannot have these title X dollars, then the hundreds of community clinics that are access points to healthcare for women in underserved communities, these funds would be made available to them.

I think we also have to talk about rights and privileges and touch on that for just a moment. I fully appreciate, we all have different opinions, and it is wonderful that we live in a country that allows freedom of speech, where we can express our difference of opinions.

What we do have to realize is this, that we have in this country 1,700 lives lost every day to abortion--1,700 voiceless and vulnerable--and to me that is just an absolutely heartbreaking stat that these unborn children do not have the opportunity to enjoy that right to life. I find that very sad.

As I said, this legislation would make certain that all of this money goes to these health clinics but not to a clinic that provides abortion service.

This is the kind of access that, yes, indeed, many families would appreciate having more access and more services available to women at their community clinics.

Mr. President, ahead of our votes today, I wanted to echo the concerns that have already been voiced by many of my colleagues in this Chamber regarding the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

At this point, we are all very familiar with his long legacy of service on behalf of people of the United States, so I will just highlight one example of the ``value'' that he will bring to the table should the Senate vote to confirm him.

When he served as USCIS Director during the Obama administration, the inspector general was forced to investigate an ``extraordinary'' number of internal allegations that Mayorkas was granting ``special access and special favors'' to wealthy EB-5 ``investor visa'' applicants linked to influential Democrats.

When the IG took a closer look at the visa applications for three powerful Chinese nationals in particular, they came to the conclusion that if Mayorkas hadn't intervened, and I am quoting, ``the matter would have been decided differently.''

Now, this is something that we know is inappropriate. We know that this is something for which Mr. Mayorkas should be held accountable. We know that this is something for which he has not been held accountable, and here is what he did: He put his thumb on the scale, pressured his DHS colleagues--pressured his DHS colleagues--to break their own rules and turn the law on its head, all because a few powerful friends asked him to do it. He pressured others for the benefit of some powerful friends, and it is all there for everyone to read in the inspector general's report, and he was never held accountable. Yet, here we are, being asked to support his nomination to the President's Cabinet.

There are plenty of policy differences between myself and Mr. Mayorkas that have convinced me I have no choice but to stand in opposition to his confirmation. But the example I just cited, in particular, gives me additional serious concerns about how his influence would affect the integrity of the Agency.

Just last week, I joined several of my colleagues in a letter to the senior Senator from Illinois, asking him to exercise his judgment as the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and allow for a second hearing so we could examine Mr. Mayorkas's record thoroughly because, while I believe that the President has every right to assemble his Cabinet, I also believe that the American people have every right to understand exactly who is

being put in charge of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws and keeping our border secure, enforcing counterterrorism measures and keeping an eye on the country's cybersecurity. And the current nominee? Never held accountable for showing favor to some friends in high places. That is not the way this is supposed to be.

I would urge my colleagues to consider the American people--the taxpayers who are footing the bill for every salary that is given to every individual working with the Federal Government. What is the standard? What do they expect from their leaders?

Thereby, I oppose the nomination.

I yield my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as we move through what is appearing to be a choppy start to the 117th Congress, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the standards that guide our work here. The mandate that we have does not come from the 24-hour news cycle or from lobbyists or advocacy groups, but it comes, very simply, from the Constitution. It is the foundation of the rule of law, our Nation's Constitution, and it really serves as a pretty good policymaking guideline.

The American people are looking at what is going on here, and they see the cracks that Washington has made in the foundation of this Constitution. These realizations have eroded their confidence in our ability as a body to perform the basic functions of government without devolving into partisan chaos when faced with disagreements.

Many times I will hear Tennesseans say: What happened to robust political debate? What happened to being able to agreeably disagree and have a discussion? Are those days totally lost, or can we return to them? They are asking themselves how many shortcuts--like Executive orders--Washington is going to take before the shortcut becomes the rule or the norm and how many times can Washington chip away at the standards that govern our country before those standards start to crumble or are not relevant.

Restoring the trust of the American people will not be easy because this fundamental lack of faith in our institutions has caused Americans to question their very safety and security in the physical space and also in the virtual world that they have been forced into by the COVID- 19 pandemic.

I like to say we have a lot of security moms who are out there--moms and grandmoms like me--and, quite frankly, they are out in full force, alongside millions of other Americans who now have cause to wonder if their own government will bother making their security a priority. What about their communities? What about their neighborhoods? What about the universities where their children go to school? What is going to be done about riots? What about the virtual space? As they have seen their children move to online school, more of their daily functional life and their transactional life has moved online. How do they keep their families safe? How do they protect their rights to privacy?

In the physical space, yesterday we got the good news that a Federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a nationwide pause on most deportations. That pause was mandated by a DHS memo signed by the Acting Secretary on day one of the Biden administration--not such a great start for the administration's immigration policy team, but the American people will benefit from having the time that has come to them to ask questions about proposed shifts in existing policy. People want to be safe.

I would like to just stipulate for the record that immigration law is very complex. While most Americans aren't experts in the finer points of immigration law, they do have and most of us have a very common touchstone that we relate to; that is, having a secure border.

This should be a basic concept--let's secure the border; let's secure our country--but somehow we have managed to politicize that point that advocates at the highest levels of the Federal Government--for what? A weakened border. Just imagine that. You have individuals at the highest level of the Federal Government who are saying: Let's weaken our border. That is stunning, absolutely stunning to Tennesseans.

Why would you not protect your border? Why would you not want to know who is coming into your country? Why should I be forced to accept a lax border? Why should I be accepting of allowing drug cartels to run those drugs into the country? Why should I be told I should accept human trafficking; I should accept gangs; I should accept sex traffickers coming in across the border?

When we have a weak border, this is what you get. Every town--every town--becomes a border town. Every State becomes a border State because of the impacts--the negative impacts--of drug trafficking, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the toll that that takes on our communities.

Last week, I introduced two key pieces of legislation that attack specific vulnerabilities in our body of immigration law that thousands of bad actors use to game the system every year.

The first is the Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal Immigrants

Act. It does exactly what it sounds like. It blocks certain Federal funds from reaching the coffers of sanctuary States. This includes States that defy Federal immigration law or that allow individuals to obtain a driver license without providing proof that they are here legally or without providing proof that they are who they claim to be. This is no small penalty, and here is why.

In 2020, our Nation had 15 States plus the District of Columbia that have decided to give illegal immigrants a valid State-issued ID, a driver license. These 15 States and DC got $53 million in JAG grants from the Department of Justice. These are funds--these are Justice Assistance Grants that are given to local law enforcement and criminal justice projects to do what? Enforce the law. So if you are not going to enforce the law, why should you get the money? Those funds should go to entities that have said: We will abide by the rule of law. That is where those funds should go.

Now, the second bill is the Ban Birth Tourism Act. This would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit pregnant foreigners from obtaining a temporary visitor visa they could use to enter the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth here. Yes, you heard me right. There is a loophole in the law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because of this, we have some pregnant foreigners, primarily from Russia and China, who circumvent the law, and they get a temporary visitor visa, and they come here working with some of this multimillion-dollar-a-year birth tourism industry. They get coached. They come here. They go to a facility. They give birth. The child becomes a citizen, and then they return. As I said, primarily these are wealthy Russians and wealthy Chinese.

Our citizenship is not for sale. No, indeed. It is hard-fought. It is hard-won. It is hard-kept. The American people are right to expect better than this. Tennesseans want to see something done about this. That is why I, once again, have filed this legislation.

The American people are not unreasonable. They do not lack compassion. They just don't understand why officials who are charged with upholding the law would act in their official capacity to undermine something as basic as border security, as basic as national security.

We have a lot of security moms out there who understand that it is no small task keeping things secure at home. All of these security moms out there know that there are plenty of threats online--threats that they cannot see, but they know that there are a lot of these threats that come into their homes and onto their computer screens and onto the devices of their children because of a lack of privacy online.

How we curate and protect our virtual use, as I call it, is critically important because it defines who we are to the people who we do not see in person. And as I mentioned earlier, more of our functional and transactional life is now online. So tomorrow, to mark National Data Privacy Day, I will once again reintroduce the BROWSER Act.

Mr. President, as you and I served in the House together, I know you remember how I would introduce this bill, the BROWSER Act, to secure online privacy for millions of Americans. Now, at its heart, this is an effort to inject awareness, transparency, and accountability into the relationship between technology platforms and their users.

This legislation sets up a very basic Federal compliance framework that tech companies can use as a guide to update their privacy policies online, make it something that is going to give you the ability to say: This is information that I want to share.

It would require companies to secure an opt-in from consumers before collecting their sensitive data. And for less sensitive information, you, the consumer, would have the ability to opt out and not share that browsing history with that company.

Companies would not be able to deny you service if you want to practice your right to privacy. That makes common sense. It happens in the physical space every single day, and it should also be a right reserved to the individual in the virtual space.

This also would put the Federal Trade Commission, our online privacy regulator, in charge of watching what is happening in the virtual space, applying these rules equally across the entire internet ecosystem. A right to privacy, being secure in our communities and our homes, is something that not only Tennesseans but millions of Americans are wanting to see.

Mr. President, this week Team Blackburn is saying goodbye to Heath Huckabay, who came to us last January as part of a fellowship program between my office and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is located in Oak Ridge, just outside of Knoxville,

Madam President, I tell you, I am going to follow right along with the comments that my colleague from Texas has made, because, in Tennessee, whether someone is a Republican or a Libertarian or an Independent or a Democrat, they have

very high expectations of what this Congress is going to be able to accomplish, and they also have high expectations for this administration. What they are doing is looking there, and they are saying: Politics and politicians are not what this is all about. They don't necessarily matter. Policies matter.

And, as my colleague is saying, maintaining the filibuster rule in the Senate allows robust, respectful debate so that we arrive at a sense of compromise and we do what is best for the American people.

Today, I was talking with one of our Tennesseans, and they were talking about that it doesn't matter what is being said on social media--on Twitter or Facebook or Parler or any of the social media platforms--that when you strip it all away, good policy is good policy, and that is what matters. Good policy is good policy. It is good for the people, and that is where the emphasis should be.

So when I say they have high expectations, I don't only mean that they want good policies; they want this to focus on them. They want it to focus on their concerns, their communities, their schools, their right to feel secure, their right to enjoy free speech, their right to pursue their happiness, their American dream, and their right to celebrate and protect life. It is about them, not politicians, not politics. It is about the American people.

From their perspective, we can spend hours debating the budget or immigration reform or data privacy--which I will talk more about later this week--as long as at the end of the day, whatever compromise we reach not only meets their needs but recognizes that the people are the most important part of this entire equation--the people.

Every Member of this body understands that when the balance of power shifts, sometimes that means that the guy across the aisle is going to get the upper hand. Things change, but it would be a mistake for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to assume that that means we are willing to set our priorities and our principles aside.

It doesn't mean that we are going to submit to their agenda. It doesn't mean we are going to conform to their agenda. It means we are going to stay true to our principles, represent our States, and work-- work diligently--for what is going to be best for the people.

We may have had a changing of the guard here in Washington, but it doesn't mean that any of us has set aside the promises that we have made to the people we represent, and that is why I came out so strongly against the Biden administration and the President's Executive order that really crushed the jobs and the potential for energy security that came with the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.

This was a project that had achieved bipartisan support, and what are we seeing now? Lost jobs, lost livelihoods, more money being taken out of the taxpayers' pocket.

For similar reasons, I came out in opposition to rejoining the Paris climate accords and reversing our course on the departure from the World Health Organization.

For me, this is isn't about politics. It is about the policies this new administration has decided to unilaterally say yes to--without consulting Congress, without including the people in the discussion.

And just so we are all aware, President Biden said yes to more unilateral policy changes on day one than any President in our Nation's history--more than any President in our Nation's history.

The Biden administration looked at those new policies and decided that the result--achieving that outcome--was worth whatever it would cost the American people to get it.

So over the next few weeks, we will also be examining the President's Cabinet picks to get a sense of the tradeoff they will be willing to make.

Safety is at the forefront of everyone's mind back home in Tennessee--not just safety from COVID but from the bad actors and the foreign adversaries who continue to show us just how far they are willing to go to undermine us on the world stage. Back in Tennessee, we have a saying: When somebody shows you who they really are, you better believe them.

And I will tell you that they are paying attention, and I will tell you that they are not very impressed right now with some of the so- called soft talk that they are hearing on proposed policies toward Iran and the communist regime in China.

This is why I chose not to support the confirmation of our new Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines. I also had some pretty tough questions to ask Secretary of State Nominee Blinken about some of these same issues dealing with Iran, dealing with China. Many of the proposals that I am hearing from them have sounded strangely familiar from years gone by.

We don't have to look overseas to find some very real policy differences between what Tennesseans have said they expect and what the Biden administration is signaling that they want to deliver.

In his hearing before the Commerce Committee, Transportation Secretary Nominee Pete Buttigieg signaled to the panel that he would put the administration's environmental goals ahead of some very basic changes to Federal policy that would lighten the regulatory load on the county and city mayors trying to get their transportation projects off the ground.

As I told him, many times the regulations at issue don't just slow the projects down, they kill the project and that town's prospects for growth, for a better life, for people in the community. Hopefully, he is going to keep in mind what it means to these mayors the next time he is asked to consider the benefits of removing unnecessary redtape.

These tradeoffs many times are just too destructive to say yes to. I would encourage all of my colleagues to look at the compromises the President is asking each and every one to make, not just in terms of what we stand to gain but what is going to be the cost.

What is the monetary cost?

What is the cost of freedom?

What is the opportunity cost that will be delivered to the American people in order for the administration to have their way, to get their income? That is the question we should each ask: What is the cost to the American people in order to protect them, in order to meet the expectations that they have? We should be listening to the people. These policies are about them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I consider it an honor and a privilege to acknowledge for the official record Houston County, TN, sesquicentennial anniversary.

Each State is its own melting pot of history and culture, and Tennessee is no exception. In Houston County, the Irish roots of the pioneers who explored the Cumberland River run deep, having buried themselves in the rugged, foggy hills and creek beds that so resembled the founders' homeland.

First settled in the 1780s, the Houston County area served as a new frontier for early pioneers. What began as a small working settlement flourished into a community that bore witness at the crossroads of the Civil War, embraced the possibilities of crisscrossing railroads, and led the charge toward progress that we now look back on as a major industrial boom.

On January 21, 1871, the Tennessee legislature officially established Houston County, named in honor of Texas freedom fighter and the sixth Governor of Tennessee, Sam Houston. Since then, the people who call Houston County home have turned their little

piece of rural Tennessee into a beautiful place to live, work, and raise a family.

Congratulations are in order to the members of the Houston County Historical Society and, most importantly, to the citizens of Houston County. I ask my colleagues to join with me in wishing them another 150 years of progress and prosperity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I ask that I be permitted to speak for up to 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, as we move toward debate over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, I wanted to remind my colleagues that while we stand prepared to negotiate its various provisions, our military men and women stand at the ready. They stand at the ready every single day. It is a 24/7 business for them for a much more serious task, and that is the defense of this great Nation.

As we consider this year's NDAA, we must do so with the understanding that our Nation is faced with new, sophisticated threats to our way of life and to the world order.

Two emerging warfighting domains--cyber and space--are capturing much of the attention of this body and our allies and, I will also add, capturing the attention of our enemies, of those who do not wish us well.

It is these two domains--cyber and space--that pose increased threats to our national infrastructure and our way of engaging with both those allies and our adversaries. Debating defense spending means thinking beyond helicopters and submarines or equipment and artillery and viewing this authorization in the larger context of multi and unseen domain warfare. That is why my colleagues and I on the Senate Armed Services Committee have come to the table with a bill that shores up funding for these legacy programs and devotes new funding to address these emerging threats.

First and foremost, this bill authorizes a 3.1-percent pay increase for the Members of our Armed Forces. That is so vitally important for the men and women at Fort Campbell, which is located right there on the Tennessee and Kentucky border. That is a post where I have spent much of my legislative career involved with those men and women and with the command team.

This is a justified and well-earned raise that recognizes their commitment to defending against unfamiliar threats that rise above and beyond the everyday servicemember's scope of duty.

We have found ourselves once more in the midst of great power competition. America will always have rivals on the world stage. Over the past decade, we have seen countries like China and Russia pursuing increasingly sophisticated and lethal weapons systems.

We have no choice but to recognize this emerging reality and give our military men and women the tools they need to combat developing threats and preserve U.S. preeminence across all warfighting domains.

With this funding, we will prioritize more sophisticated cyber security and space-based strategies, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies. We will take steps to protect the integrity of our supply chain so we can be confident the microelectronics we depend on have not been corrupted by foreign spyware.

A good defense is only as strong as its weakest link, and this bill will allow us to shore up our relationship with the defense industrial base and ensure that contractors are not under the undue influence of foreign actors. This is all in addition to readiness projects here at home.

Our mark includes full funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is critical to our nuclear modernization program.

I think it is worth noting that our friends in the House cut over $70 million from infrastructure and facility operations, which goes toward rebuilding crumbling buildings at the NNSA plants and labs. That is funding that should be restored. Modern and responsive nuclear infrastructure is an essential part of credible deterrence, which is a critical concern in great power competition. Funding for these projects must not end up as a casualty of budget negotiations.

Now, it is true that this is a massive authorization and that much of the funding we authorize will not manifest itself in visible hardware, but I encourage my friends in this body, do not let this deter you from seeing the big picture. National defense is no longer limited to the tools and infrastructure we can see. It includes an enormous covering that is needed by our Nation and our allies in this virtual space.

We must focus our defense budget on future threats, not those of the past, in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past. I believe that this year's NDAA accomplishes just that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I would like to articulate the reason for the objection to the legislation from the Senator from Virginia.

Let me begin by saying that we are all for free and fair and honest elections. I know the Senator from Virginia spent some time as Governor of Virginia. He knows that in 2016, no ballots--no ballots--no one's vote was encumbered or affected. He knows that I have served on an election commission, and I know that the Senator from Virginia appreciates that our county election commissions and our State election commissions are in charge of securing those elections.

I have to state to the Presiding Officer that I know that in the great State of Tennessee, our county election commissions and our State election commission and our secretary of state are very focused on making certain that these elections are fair and honest elections. They are going to do that for all elections--local, State, and, of course, in the 2020 Presidential election.

I think a little bit of context is always helpful. First of all, let me say this: I welcome my colleagues across the aisle to the understanding that bad actors have tried for decades--decades--to influence what is going on in our government and in our country.

Indeed, I remember, as a child in 4-H Club--and I think that probably the Presiding Officer was a member of 4-H Club growing up--to me, as a young girl in South Mississippi, the 4-H Club was a wonderful experience. It opened a lot of doors to me. I recall sitting in a 4-H Club meeting at one point, and I heard about communism. I heard about what the Russians and the Communists wanted to do to our freedoms here in this country, and I can recall how frightened I felt when I heard that.

So to my colleagues across the aisle who in 2016 realized that these bad actors--Russia, China, Iran, North Korea; people I call the new axis of evil--did not wish us well, I am so pleased to know that they have come to this realization that they indeed do not wish us well. My hope is that, in a bipartisan way, we can move forward and make certain we do not allow these bad actors to in any way impede our freedoms or infringe on our government.

Now, specific to the UC that was presented to us, this would require a Presidential campaign and all employees to report their contacts with foreign nationals in which they discuss a contribution, donation, or expenditure, such as an ad, or coordination, collaboration, providing information, providing services, or persistent and repeated contact with a government or a foreign country or a foreign agent thereof.

This is what it all means. These reporting requirements are overbroad. Presidential campaigns would have to worry about disclosure at a variety of levels, so many different levels. Consider vendors who work for a campaign, people who are supplying some kind of good or service to a campaign. It would include those vendors, including all the service contracts. It would apply to door-knockers, it would apply to phone-bankers--down to any person who shares their views with a candidate.

I want to make sure that everybody hears that. Any person who shares their views with a candidate would be reportable. Think about that. Think about what that would cause. With this law, it would be prudent for every campaign contact to start with these words: Before you tell me anything, are you a foreign national?

We have the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Campaign finance law makes it illegal to take contributions or coordinate expenditures with foreign nationals without a green card. We have public official ethics laws.

Campaigns could have to report social media responses or interactions, report every non-U.S. citizen, or even every Dreamer. We hear a lot about the Dreamers. So think about this. You would report every non-U.S. citizen or Dreamer who volunteers for your campaign or knocks on doors or even knocks on the door of a foreign national.

Every vendor contact, every call center, every contract, every discussion--all of this, all of it, would begin with ``Are you a foreign national?''

So that is the overbroad nature of this. The goal is to make sure we never ever have a foreign government interfering, and we share that goal. It was wrong in 2016. It was wrong in 2018. It would be wrong in 2020. That is why we need to make certain we do not have this kind of interference. No one wants foreign interference of any type in our government in any way, shape, or form.

To the Senator across the aisle, we didn't like it when we heard former President Obama say to David Medved: Tell Vladimir, I will have more flexibility after the election. We didn't appreciate that.

We didn't appreciate all that was transpiring back in 2015 with the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One. We had questions about that.

Do we want to make certain things such as that do not occur? Of course, but the UC that was presented is overbroad, and this is something that should be done in a thoughtful way. It should be done in a bipartisan way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you for the recognition and opportunity to speak with my colleagues about an issue that I think is so incredibly important.

We just heard the Senator from Vermont discuss the issue at the southern border. I made a return trip--one of many I have made to the southern border over the past decade--this past Friday. I have to tell you, I thought this situation was just a terrible situation a decade ago. As I have continued to visit and work on issues that deal with illegal immigration, illegal aliens, working on immigration reform over the past decade, many times with great frustration because we cannot achieve bipartisan agreement, I saw a situation on the southern border this trip that was far worse than I ever could have imagined.

In the middle of all of this are some very brave Border Patrol agents, ICE agents, DHS agents, Coast Guard that are there providing healthcare--they are carrying out their job every single day. I am grateful to them for their service. I am so impressed by their resolve to protect this Nation--to protect it.

There is a lesson we could learn from these Border Patrol agents. As they go out, underfunded, disrespected, not knowing what they are going to encounter, there is a lesson that every single American could learn. These men and women are dedicated. They show up. They do their job. They value--they value--citizenship in this country. They value this Nation's sovereignty. And one of the things they know is that citizenship--citizenship--is something the American people should hold very dear. It should not come to somebody illegally approaching our country. It should not come to somebody who is coming here to do us harm.

I will tell you this: To enter one of those reception centers or retention centers in the El Paso sector--which is there in Southwest Texas and right on the New Mexico-Mexico border--is to enter an area where you can just feel the chaos and the uncertainty. It permeates the air.

People know this is difficult. The American people should know this is very difficult. It is a terrible situation that our men and women of the Border Patrol are dealing with--to see young mothers alone with their babies, waiting for answers from a Federal agency about where they are going to go or what is going to happen to them because somebody in Central America lied to them--a cartel lied to them, misrepresented to them what they were going to see.

I heard from a Border Patrol agent that there are adults who are saying:

Well, this is not what we were promised. This isn't what we were expecting. Maybe we should just go back home. They were lied to.

This is why we need to get busy with changing the asylum laws, the magnet that is pulling people here. Change this. It is why I applaud the efforts of the President for making certain that we are dealing with Mexico--having them secure their southern border, having them call out the National Guard to make certain these cartels are not able to operate in Mexico.

Our Border Patrol--as I said, I am just so grateful we have them, and without Americans knowing, they are blessing our lives every single day because they show up and do the job that is in front of them without proper resources because there has not been bipartisan agreement here.

Then, every day they go home, and they have encountered people who have measles, mumps, H1N1 flu, TB, scabies, lice. That is what they are exposed to every single day as they do their job. Healthcare is not their job. Securing the southern border is their job, and everybody who is against giving the Border Patrol what they need to secure that border needs to begin to think twice about that and have compassion for these men and women who are on the frontline.

The appalling conditions absolutely shock the conscience, but they didn't surprise me. This is what is happening because people think they can get by with coming here illegally. Last month, 144,000 migrants crossed the border--last month. In Tennessee, that is just under the size of Clarksville, TN. Think about a whole city coming in.

In the first 8 months of this fiscal year, 411,000 unaccompanied children and families made that same journey.

This past weekend, when I was out with the Border Patrol, 12 people in 3 groups were apprehended right in front of me. That was in the timespan of 30 minutes. There were four from Honduras, and eight were from Cuba. That is just a handful of the approximately 1,000 illegal aliens per day who are apprehended in the El Paso sector.

Ninety percent of those people come as family units, clogging a system designed to process adults traveling alone. The sheer number of people our agents are struggling to process and control is staggering.

Right now, the facilities at the El Paso border station house are taking in 1,247 illegal aliens. That facility is built to accommodate 123. At just one station in the El Paso sector, $26,000 a day is spent on food, just food--food. Where are they getting this money? It has not been appropriated. They are taking it out of their operations budgets. This is why they need us to surge resources to the southern border-- resources for more agents, resources for more technology, resources for a border wall to stop illegal entry into this country.

If it were just a question of numbers, the situation may seem more manageable. But as I mentioned, disease, drugs, and a frightening disregard for the law have transformed these border stations into refugee zones.

Right now, agents at camps are working overtime every single day, trying to keep up. Loopholes in regulations controlling the release of unaccompanied minors to purported custodians are endangering the 11,507 children who crossed the southern border in May of 2019.

I want to be certain everybody understands this: 11,507 is the number of children who crossed that southern border in the month of May.

To make things worse, we are seeing child predators and traffickers cross the border in increasing numbers. Girls as young as 10 years of age are being given pregnancy tests--10-year-olds--because traffickers or adults who are not family members are the ones who are bringing them in. This is an area where my colleagues across the aisle need to work with us and put a stop to this. We don't know if these children are going to smuggling rings, or sex rings and being sent to a pimp, or to labor gangs and being sent to a boss. We don't know because many of the people who are the so-called custodians who are accepting these children, who are their sponsors, guess what, they are in the country illegally.

On June 7, border agents seized enough fentanyl to kill nearly 2 million Americans. I was there in that port when they seized 5 kilos, but the drug lords and the cartels are undeterred. They are so bold in this; do you know what they are doing now? They are posting Facebook ads soliciting mules to run their deadly product across the border. We have to do better. This is something that should no longer be up for debate.

I sponsored the Accountability for Care of Unaccompanied Alien Children Act to codify information-sharing agreements between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services. This would help protect minors from the ravages of exploitation and human trafficking, but that protection isn't possible if there are not going to be agents able and available to check on who is attempting to claim these children.

I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not for these agencies sharing this information, but let me tell you something. If this is going to help keep children safe, if it is going to keep them out of these sex trafficking and human trafficking gangs, we need to know who is a criminal alien, who is in this country illegally, and these children do not need to be sent to them.

We know the White House in May sent an emergency request for $4.5 billion in funds to increase shelter capacity at the processing centers, to feed and care for the detained migrants, to hire agents and staff, and to bolster law enforcement's ability to shelter and protect unaccompanied minors. Our border agents need this money to protect our border and to protect our Nation's sovereignty.

Yesterday, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan expressed serious concerns for Border Patrol agents who are forced to play the part of a translator, caregiver, counselor, and nurse.

Let me ask a question. What do my colleagues think would happen if the Border Patrol decided they had had it? They had had it. They were tired of it, and they were not going to show up for work, to work overtime, to work hard hours, to do a job they are not trained to do. They are trained to protect the border; they are not trained to be a caregiver and a nurse. What would happen if they reached the breaking point, and they didn't show up--because, let me tell you something, this border has reached a breaking point.

It is time for us to realize, yes, there is a crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis; it is a national security crisis, and it is time that our Border Patrol be shown the respect--the respect they deserve by funding the needs that they have to protect each and every one of us and to help keep this Nation safe and secure.

I yield the floor.