[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 2, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7170-S7173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            FAIRNESS FOR HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS ACT OF 2019

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 1044 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1044) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for 
     employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country 
     numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding to the 
measure?
  There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the 
Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lee 
substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; and the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2690) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. LEE. I know of no further debate on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Hearing none, the bill having been read the third time, the question 
is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 1044), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered


                        Tribute to   Rob Bishop

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend and 
colleague, Congressman   Rob Bishop. After 18 years of service in the 
U.S. House of Representatives, he has decided to hang up his gloves and 
embark on his well-deserved retirement.
    Rob Bishop has served Utah's First Congressional District with 
integrity, tenacity, humility, and humor, and it is my high privilege 
to have worked with him over the last 10 years and, in the process, to 
have become his friend.
  Born and raised in Kaysville, UT, Rob has been a lifelong resident of 
Utah's First Congressional District, with the exception of the 2-year 
mission where he lived in Germany while representing the Church of 
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He graduated from Davis High School 
with high honors and later graduated magna cum laude from the 
University of Utah with a degree in political science.
  The embodiment of a public servant, Rob began his career as a high 
school teacher at Ben Lomond High School and Box Elder High School, 
teaching courses in German, AP U.S. history and government, and 
coaching debate. He notoriously had one rule in the classroom: I am 
never wrong. That might tell you something about   Rob Bishop.
  An avid lover of musicals, he was active in community theater, where 
he happened to have met his wife Jeralynn. They first met on the 
production of ``South Pacific'' at the Palace Playhouse, and they later 
starred together as the prince and princess in a production of ``Once 
Upon a Mattress.'' In their real-life love story, they have five 
children--Shule, Jarom, Zenock, Maren, and Jashon, with spouses 
Melissa, Kristin, Shalise, and Courtney, as well as nine grandchildren.
  Inspired in his public service by Barry Goldwater, he was also 
involved in local politics from a young age, working at various levels 
of government and of the Republican Party. He has gone from being a 
precinct chair to a member of the Republican National Committee and 
from being vice chair of the Davis County Teenage Republican Club to 
the adviser to the Utah Teenage Republicans in 1996. Starting in 1997, 
he served two terms as chairman of the Utah Republican Party.
  At just 25, he was elected to the Utah House of Representatives when 
he was known for always wearing sweaters and no socks. He served in the 
State legislature for 16 years and, during the last 2 years, having 
been unanimously elected, served as speaker of the house of 
representatives.
  In 2002, after serving in the State legislature and having spent 28 
years of teaching, he decided to serve at the national level. As   Rob 
Bishop said in one of his most popular campaign slogans: ``Utah has 
plenty of Bishops--send this one to Washington!''
  Rob has faithfully devoted his life to representing Utah's First 
Congressional District, and he has been doing that ever since making 
that critical decision to run for Congress.
  I remember one of the first times I worked with him when Rob was a 
relatively new Member of Congress and I was serving at the time as 
general counsel to then-Governor Jon Huntsman. At the time, a private 
fuel storage organization was trying to store spent nuclear fuel rods 
in above-ground storage casks along the Wasatch Front corridor, just 
miles from Utah's major metropolitan area and just under the low-
altitude flight path of fighter jets flying between Hill Air Force Base 
to the Utah Test and Training Range.
  Out of all of the Members of Utah's congressional delegation at the 
time, all of whom, I would adhere, were similarly opposed to this 
proposal to store spent nuclear fuel in this particular place in this 
particular way--our congressional delegation was united in

[[Page S7171]]

that regard--but   Rob Bishop stood out as one who was particularly 
concerned about it and was particularly determined to prevent such a 
dangerous idea from taking place.
  Congressman Bishop had a full understanding of the problem, and he 
had a complete mastery of the scientific facts of the issue, and he had 
detailed, helpful ideas about how to address it. He also understood the 
significant and long-lasting potential ramifications that this plan 
could have had for Hill Air Force Base and the Utah Test and Training 
Range.
  Thanks to   Rob Bishop's vision, direction, and determination, he 
developed a strategy and worked hard to implement that strategy and 
eventually worked to pass a bill designating the area in question as 
wilderness--creating a wilderness curtain around the designated storage 
area--making it impossible for the storage plant to be completed.   Rob 
Bishop thus successfully prevented spent nuclear fuel rods from coming 
to Utah and being stored in a particularly unsafe way and in an unsafe 
place close to Utah's major population center.
  Though relatively new to Congress at the time, Rob was punching way 
above his weight. Why? Well, because he is awesome and because he was 
willing to dive into the nitty-gritty details of an issue and put 
in the hard work, not knowing and, frankly, not even caring who got the 
credit. Rob Bishop just wanted to get it done. That is who   Rob Bishop 
is, that is how he serves, and that is why we love him. That has 
characterized   Rob Bishop's entire time in Congress: doggedly, 
thoughtfully, and honestly working for Utahns' best interests, and 
never really caring much who got the attention.

  He served on the Armed Services Committee, the powerful House Rules 
Committee, and the Science Committee. As both chair and ranking member 
of the Natural Resources Committee, he chaired hearings with his 
characteristically witty quips and wry jokes. He has also chaired the 
Congressional Western Caucus, served on the House German Caucus for his 
whole tenure, including for 2 years as chair, and he helped found the 
10th Amendment Task Force.
  When Speaker of the House John Boehner created committees for 
congressional reform,   Rob Bishop was named chairman of the Committee 
for Procedural Reform and, later on, leader of the Rules group. Under 
Speaker Paul Ryan, he was named chair of the Federalism Committee. Rob 
did all this in addition to being a staunch advocate for the military 
and, in particular, for Hill Air Force Base.
  One of his proudest achievements was getting an extension of the 
Michaels airstrip at the Dugway Proving Ground in Tooele County. When 
he was told that there was no funding for it to be attained at the 
Federal level, he successfully got the Utah State Legislature to 
appropriate the funding to make it happen. He was instrumental in 
establishing Falcon Hill, an aerospace research park just outside of 
Hill Air Force Base and a public-private partnership between the Air 
Force, the State of Utah, and private developers that was the first of 
its kind anywhere in the country and a model of many more like it to 
come.
  Rob has also brought his love of baseball with him to Washington. A 
huge admirer of Mickey Mantle and Ernie Banks, Rob is known to have 
actual dirt from the pitcher's mound at Yankee Stadium in his 
Washington, DC, office. He has been a long-time supporter of the Salt 
Lake Bees, even championing the construction of their stadium while he 
was in the State legislature, and he is a diehard Cubs fan. Every year, 
he dons a uniform himself, leading his office in the intramural 
baseball league on Capitol Hill, with their team name known as the 
``Raucus Caucus.''
  Rob has brought the same passion he has for baseball to serving his 
constituents. He has, for years, worked with the Close Up Foundation to 
bring high school students to Washington, and he has partnered with 
teachers and students to put on an AP government conference every year.
  He has famously led constituent and student groups on long, expert 
nighttime tours of the Capitol Building. In fact, he is known as the 
guy who gives the very best Capitol tours in all of Washington, and he 
has consistently spent hours upon hours late into the night making 
personal phone calls to each constituent who writes in to his office.
  One of my favorite things about   Rob Bishop is precisely how 
understated and down to Earth and often self-deprecating he is. It is a 
true feat when you have been in Congress as long as he has and 
accomplished as many things as he has.
  While he is known for his sharp three-piece suits here in Washington, 
I can't count the number of plane rides I have taken with   Rob Bishop 
where he shows up on the plane actually wearing gym shorts, sandals, 
and a hoodie. In fact, basically every time, he has given me the sage 
advice not to torture myself wearing a suit while on a 4-hour plane 
ride.
  In fact, just the other day--just this week, as we were flying from 
Salt Lake City to Washington, DC, he commended me for finally having 
gotten the memo. At least this time, as he noted, I wasn't wearing a 
suit, although he derided me a little bit for not wearing shorts.
  But when you have a conversation with   Rob Bishop, you never feel 
that he is trying to advance his own agenda or gain attention or 
fanfare. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. It feels like a 
real conversation with a real goal to fix a problem. He simply tells it 
like it is--an altogether rare, refreshing, and much needed quality on 
Capitol Hill.

  When Rob ran for Congress, he said it was his goal to make Congress 
less powerful when he left than it was when he came. In all of his time 
here, he sought to put power in Washington back in the hands of Utahns 
and back in the hands of people across the country in their respective 
States. Just so, in all his time here, he slept on either an air 
mattress or on a futon so that he wouldn't get too comfortable, so that 
he would never feel too ``at home'' in Congress.
  Rare is the person who can come to change Washington but not ever be 
changed by Washington.   Rob Bishop has managed to do just that. He has 
made a real difference for the people of Utah and the people of the 
United States of America.
  It has been a distinct pleasure to call him a friend and a colleague, 
and I have to say I am going to miss   Rob Bishop's service here in 
Washington. Just the same, we have all benefited and we will all 
continue to benefit for many decades to come from what he has done 
here, who he has been here, and what he has stood for here so valiantly 
and consistently and faithfully and with such great decency and 
humility.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                       Communications Decency Act

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is a rather complicated issue that 
is out there that not many people are aware of. It emanates from back 
in 1996 with the passage of something called the Communication Decency 
Act.
  Just a few weeks before the 2020 election, Twitter did what was 
previously unthinkable: It suppressed a longstanding, legitimate news 
outlet--that was the New York Post--from sharing an article either 
publicly or privately it deemed unfavorable to Presidential candidate 
Joe Biden. Obviously, they were concerned about Joe Biden, and they 
were using this act to suppress information that may not have been 
favorable. That is not what is supposed to happen, what it is supposed 
to do. To make it worse, they suspended an account of the Post--that is 
a major news outlet--for over 24 hours.
  While other big tech entities suppressed the story as well, the 
depths of Twitter's censorship reached new heights, telling users that 
sharing the article could be ``potentially harmful.'' There is no 
criteria to determine what is potentially harmful; they just decided--
it is a liberal mindset, and they want to punish people who are not 
sharing their mindset.
  Contrast that with the refusal to moderate any comments made by 
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a 
``cancerous growth'' to be ``uprooted and destroyed'' and for the 
``elimination of the Zionist regime'' through ``firm, armed 
resistance'' despite having a policy against hateful conduct and 
glorifying violence. That is what they did. Those are the words. That 
is what they did.

[[Page S7172]]

  Yet it proves what President Trump has been talking about for a long 
period of time on social media. Look what they have done to him over 
the last 4 years.
  It is time to make sure that Twitter and other social media platforms 
are held accountable for engaging in censorship by repealing section 
230 of the Communications Decency Act. Now, that sounds a little 
complicated. The Communications Decency Act--we know why it was 
started, but we know times have changed, and now it has turned into a 
very liberal political organization.
  For over 20 years, social media platforms have benefited from 
protectionism unprecedented in the modern era--a complete liability 
shield protecting them from how they moderate or censor content posted 
for their users. To add insult to injury, there is no one to check the 
partisan censorship of these social media platforms. Instead, they are 
coddled by section 230's ``Good Samaritan'' provision, which allows 
``good-faith'' efforts to restrict objectionable material. But the 
problem is, they are the ones who decide what is objectionable.
  We all know Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan. The moral 
imperative that comes from the parable has guided many legislative 
protections for those seeking to do good--doctors responding to 
problems with people in midair. I can remember many times I was 
involved as a volunteer pilot helping to get people medical care. 
People who are trying to do the right thing. We know that is 
significant. We know that is what the history was supposed to be on 
this section, section 230. It was intended to make sure that Twitter 
could flag and remove unquestionably harmful content, like ISIS and 
their propaganda videos.
  In the case of the social media platforms, however, it amounts to 
nothing more than the fox guarding the henhouse. Instead of focusing on 
moderation to protect users from death threats or harassment and to 
prevent criminal behavior, Twitter is allowed to determine what is 
``otherwise objectionable'' and censor it from the platform, with no 
right to appeal and no transparency. I mean, where else can you go in 
America and find someone who is totally immune from that type of 
behavior? You can't. It doesn't exist.
  This is a case in point. Last year, they kowtowed to the Chinese 
Communist Party by removing the accounts of more than 100 dissidents 
ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I 
remember that well. I remember where I was when that happened. But they 
didn't want people to know that type of thing actually went on, and 
that was somehow objectionable.

  Twitter's censorship and actions over the past few years make it 
clear it has decided that President Trump is objectionable, and they 
decide that they are just going to act accordingly. That is not 
surprising when you look at the employee culture they have in that 
media.
  Here is the problem with section 230. According to a strict 
interpretation of the 1996 law, that is allowed. Partisan censorship is 
allowed. Senator Ron Wyden even admitted that, when written, section 
230 wasn't about neutrality or protecting the free marketplace of ideas 
on platforms.
  Clearly, we need to completely overhaul section 230, and the best way 
to do it is just repeal it. Repeal the whole thing. That is what the 
President wants to do. Then you could start over again and build up.
  Times have changed. The argument we hear against reforming alone or 
repealing would be that any changes to section 230 would give social 
media platforms like Twitter greater control over content on their 
platforms. They are not wrong, but that argument ignores the fact that 
censorship is already happening for Americans due to their political 
beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment--it is supposed to protect 
people--without any transparency or recourse.
  Others believe in the need to reform 230 incrementally, but those 
solutions are merely bandaids on a bullet wound. We have seen the 
negative impact of incremental reforms. They just don't work. A good 
example: Efforts to hold users accountable for information by requiring 
a ``real name'' associated with an account has seen Native Americans 
blocked from platforms for using their legal names.
  Social media platforms and supporters of section 230's last-ditch 
argument is to tell conservative voices to create their own social 
media platforms since they clearly aren't welcome in those that are 
existing today. That sounds good, except that the problem is that 
Twitter and others have a de facto monopoly on social media. House 
Democrats agree. They wrote a 400-plus page report arguing Big Tech 
constitutes a monopoly.
  Just remember the internet, what it was like back in 1996. In 1996, 
only 20 million Americans had access to the internet--only 20 million 
Americans in 1996. Today, 313 million Americans have access. So now it 
is a way of life.
  The reality is that section 230 is simply outdated for today's usage 
and is a strong case for why all laws should sunset. One of the 
problems I have with laws that are passed is that they can be passed, 
the problem is corrected that caused the laws to be passed, but the 
laws stay on the books. That is exactly what has happened with this.
  Section 230 is outdated and needs to be changed. Otherwise, we will 
find ourselves here time and again, forced to rectify decades-old laws 
with modern technology and ideas.
  Let me simplify. Section 230 allows Twitter and other liberal social 
media companies to be exempt from liability--there is no accountability 
whatsoever--for what their users say. For example, Twitter can't be 
held responsible for someone who posts a death threat against me, and I 
understand that. That is where we are today. But they are also 
protected from what they censor even if it is in violation of the First 
Amendment or it is protected speech. No one else has this shield. No 
one else in society has this, which is why President Trump is right. We 
need a total repeal.
  If you look at what they had done to President Trump over the last 4 
years, you will know exactly what I am talking about. But the place for 
repeal is not the Defense authorization bill.
  There is an idea that the Defense authorization bill for 60 years in 
a row now has passed, and so everybody who has something that doesn't 
pass normally, they try to put it on as an amendment--having nothing to 
do with the military and having nothing to do with our defense system 
for the ensuing year. So that is how this one was decided. They put 
this on. The problem is, if it had that language repealing it, we would 
not have a defense bill. So there is not a choice in this case. We need 
a place for repealing section 230, and we need to do it.
  The NDAA is about making sure that our troops are cared for. It is 
for our kids in the field. They are the ones we are supporting. They 
are the ones who need us. If we don't have this Defense authorization 
bill passed by December 31, our pilots are not going to get flight pay; 
the kids are not going to get hazard pay. The whole thing will fall 
apart.
  Just think about the problems we are having in the military. One of 
the big problems is--and the Presiding Officer recognizes this because 
he is on this committee--right now, our big problem is how to get more 
pilots into the Air Force, into the services. They can't do it because 
of the competition out there. We can't compete with the private sector. 
Now, if we take away their flight privileges, then it could be goodbye 
to most of our pilots.
  We just need to get this thing done. It should not be on the Defense 
bill. I want to make this appeal to make sure that no one has the idea 
that the National Defense Authorization Act is the place to have it.
  I give the President and my colleagues my commitment that I will do 
everything possible to work toward a complete repeal of section 230 
through other means. It has to happen. President Trump is right. Total 
repeal is the only answer if we are going to make sure we get this 
thing done--not on the bill, not on the Defense authorization bill, but 
in any of the other vehicles that come along. It has to be done.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S7173]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think it is important that we 
acknowledge what is going on right now. What is going on is that the 
most significant vote of the year is taking place. It is called the 
Defense authorization bill, the NDAA. It has passed every year for 60 
years now. This will be the 60th year it is passed. Nothing else has a 
record like that.
  Yet there is always trauma at the tail end, and the reason there is 
trauma is that everyone knows it is going to pass--and it is going to 
pass--so anything they can't pass during the normal process of the 
year, for any number of reasons, they try to put on this as an 
amendment. Some things are not acceptable because they have the effect 
of killing the bill.
  Now, we have two people who have been working with the committees 
putting this thing together. I know that the Presiding Officer knows 
this, but these people have worked an entire year and many, many more 
than half the weekends. People have this idea that people don't work in 
Washington on causes. They do on this one.
  John Bonsell in my office has been the director, the support of the 
bill, with Liz King on the Democratic side. They have worked hand in 
hand together. People talk about how Democrats and Republicans fight 
with each other. Not on this bill. We all support it. We all want it. 
We all want to make sure it is done and it is done right.
  So we have a defense authorization bill. It will be the largest one 
that we have had in the history of the Defense authorization bills. It 
is one that, without it, we are not going to be able to take care of 
our kids in the field.
  We have to remember that, while there are a lot of hitchhikers on 
this bill on causes that we have determined to be worthwhile causes, we 
don't do it if it is going to be something that will take down the 
bill. So we want to make sure that nothing would jeopardize passing the 
Defense authorization bill.
  Now, the key is December 31 of this year. If we don't have the bill 
passed by December 31 of this year, I mentioned that we have problems, 
that any of the specialist groups--and I talk about the pilots; I talk 
about those involved in hazard occupations--the SEALs--the individuals 
who are out there risking their lives to a greater extent than others 
do in the military. And they are out there doing it for this reason, 
and we want to make sure that they are willing to take these risks. We 
want to make sure that we are taking good care of people.
  I run into people all the time who say: You are always so concerned 
about our military. Yet the chief competition that we have is with 
whom: Russia and China? Russia and China actually, after the last 
administration--that was the Obama administration. In the last 5 
years--that would be from 2010 to 2015--he knocked down the military 
budget by 25 percent. It had never happened before--not since World War 
II anyway. Yet we found ourselves in a situation where we couldn't 
compete.
  Now, they will argue with you, and they will say: Well, we spend more 
money on defense than Russia and China put together. That is true, but 
there is a big difference, and that is that in Communist countries they 
don't care about taking care of their troops. Our job is to make sure 
that our kids have a prosperous career. They want to defend their 
country, but they also have families. They have to take care of their 
families.
  Housing has been a huge problem in the military, so we want to make 
sure that we have good housing for our troops--not just here in the 
United States but around the world--and we are doing that.
  Now, in Communist countries they give them a gun and say: Go out and 
kill people. They don't care about the troops. They don't spend any of 
that money.
  So the largest expense, the largest ticket on running a military 
operation is taking care of the people. So that is why it is important 
that people understand this.
  There is also a document that nobody reads anymore. It is called the 
Constitution. You read that and say: What are we supposed to be doing 
in Washington? We get involved in so many different things. Yet, when 
you read the Constitution, it says that our primary concern should be 
to defend against an outside enemy, and then other areas--
transportation and a few other areas--are mentioned. But the No. 1 
concern is that we have to have a military that is second to none. We 
want to make sure.
  Let me say this about our President. When he first came into office, 
President Trump recognized what had happened to our military and had 
recognized that there are things like hypersonic--that is a very 
recent, modern technology that they are working on in China and Russia 
and other places, and we are actually behind them at this time.
  People assume that America has better everything in the military than 
China has and Russia has, and that is not true. They have artillery 
systems that are better than the artillery systems that we currently 
have.
  So we have a job that I consider to be the most significant job--
significant job for the defense of our country, and it is just that: to 
defend our country.
  I want to applaud all of these people who work long hours. We are now 
to the point where they are what they call turning the page. We are 
ready to pass a bill. We are in the process of getting signatures from 
the committees.
  There are a lot of people who don't like the idea of having to sign a 
bill and sign on to a bill, yet they know that in order to maintain a 
superior position over China and Russia, we have to do that, and we 
have to show our superiority, and we have to make it last. That is what 
we are doing right now. It is a very significant time.
  I anticipate that we are going to be able to get this done, and I 
applaud the President for the time that he has spent and the money that 
he has spent on rebuilding our military. You hear him say all the time 
that we now have the strongest military that we have ever had and we 
are in great shape. But we are still rebuilding. We still have areas 
where our adversaries have better equipment than we do.
  So that is what is going on today. That is what is taking place. It 
is a very proud time that we can say that we are now addressing those 
things that are the most significant things going on in Washington 
today.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the postcloture time on 
the Waller nomination expire at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote 
on confirmation of the nomination; I further ask that if cloture is 
invoked on the Hardy nomination, the postcloture time expire at 1:45 
p.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; 
finally, that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________