[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.
____________________