Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask to be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have a vote coming up--it could be the end of this week--that has to do with the arms sales to the United Arab Emirates. I strongly support this; however, some of my colleagues do not support it, and there is now a joint resolution of disapproval. I would hope that we would really stop and think about that because this is a very significant thing that we are talking about. The agreement between Israel and UAE is one of the Abraham Accords. It is a very significant one. It is one that President Trump was able to get together with the two countries, Israel and UAE, and it is really a great thing. It is a major breakthrough in the Middle East. He has done a lot of great things, the President has. I know he is controversial, but in terms of his energy policy, the military, and the economy he has been right on target. So anyway, Arab-Israeli peace is not unprecedented, but the agreement between Israel and the UAE has moved further and faster than any other agreements that preceded it in the past. It seems that the UAE and Israel are finding new areas of cooperation almost every day. They are now working together on security, pandemic response, education, and even media. This partnership is deep and reflects the growing acceptance of our friend Israel in the region. Most importantly, it did not require Israel to do anything. They didn't have to give up anything. So this is a major, major achievement. Now is the time to take advantage of the gains that we have. President Trump has treated Israel like a friend, and other countries have rushed in to that friendship. We have several other countries in Africa and in the Middle East who are joined in with Israel that have never been there before. The sale ensures that Israel's qualitative military edge is not affected. We know this because the Israelis themselves have said this. Moreover, this sale deepens the UAE's partnership with the United States and prevents it from turning toward China and Russia. Now, this is the problem that we have. If we don't do this, if we don't cooperate with these countries in the Middle East, then you are going to have China and Russia out there taking advantage of it. The UAE is worthy of this sale because it is strongly aligned with the United States in the Middle East. It is a vital counterterrorism partner. The UAE has fought alongside our troops in Afghanistan and against ISIS. They have been our friend for a long time. It is also vital to the U.S. efforts against Iran--both Iran's ambition of regional dominance and its support for terrorist proxies. Voting down this sale would signal to our partners that even when they do everything that we ask--fight alongside our soldiers, pursue shared interests in the region, and make meaningful peace with Israel-- the United States won't have their backs. This is not the reputation that we want to gain. The truth is, they are reliable, and we appreciate that. We are reliable, and the United States has long stood with its partner Israel against its adversary, the Iranian regime. This sale to the UAE is consistent with that approach. Nobody here would support it if Israel were not on board, but they are on board. What is more, they will bolster our longstanding efforts to counter Iran's nefarious regional activities. The UAE is a strong partner that already has cutting-edge technology from our F-16 activity. They have been using that fighter aircraft for a long period of time, and this sale of the F-35 fighter jet is a continuation of that partnership. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the sale and to oppose the joint resolution of disapproval. A vote against the resolution is a vote for peace in the Middle East. A vote for this resolution is a vote to give Iran, China, and Russia more power and influence in that region, and it would make our world less safe. It would send a message, also, around the world that we don't support our friends. It is a very significant vote to take place for the successes we have had in the Middle East, and I encourage people to oppose the resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. INHOFE

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. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 349, S. 434.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; that the committee-reported amendment to the title be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3349 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. 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.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3465 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Comrnittee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing nominations. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 2, 2020, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management The Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 1069. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1069) entitled ``An Act to require the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to establish a constituent-driven program to provide a digital information platform capable of efficiently integrating coastal data with decision-support tools, training, and best practices and to support collection of priority coastal geospatial data to inform and improve local, State, regional, and Federal capacities to manage the coastal region, and for other purposes.'', do pass with an amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment and I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 394, S. 496.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the Sullivan substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. INHOFE. I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 910. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 910) entitled ``An Act to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.'', do pass with an amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment, and I know of no further debate on the motion.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.