lankford: is that a problem long-term? or giving authoritarian regimes a platform through that is just a matter of having customers, even if those customers block the use of twitter and the country? mr. roetter: the bigger problem is the consequences of the overwhelming model. that is a consequence of trying to get everyone to use the platform and being subject to some constraints, whether it is local governments or some other constraints. the broader problem is the consequences of who sees what content and what that does to people in the real world, as a function of the incentive structure that is created for these companies. sen. lankford: recent testimony on twitter has come out that they have had on their team chinese spies, individuals that work for the indian government, that work for the saudi government, that were on the staff and were funneling information back to those authoritarian regimes. i would assume twitter has a process of going through and venting their employees. i am making the assumption that while yo

lankford: thank you. the issue with the e.r.a.s settled by the federal courts or congress, not by the archivist. we want to make that very clear because there are members of congress that disagree on that. the previous archivist disagreed and said this was not the role of the archivist to make that decision and you have agreed with that publicly and i appreciate your engagement. i have spoken before about a warning label that is currently on our founding documents, that is actually on every document digitized in the national archives and the consideration pretty it warns americans or anyone reading our document that there is potentially harmful content, that this content could be offensive to individuals, whether it is the united states constitution. it is the warning piece on that banner. my question to you in our conversation, that the national archives could consider the constitution an offensive document. there are bits of our history that all of us as americans look back on and are embarrassed of who we were as americans and

lankford: thank you. the issue with the e.r.a. is settled by the federal courts or congress, not by the archivist. we want to make that very clear because there are members of congress that disagree on that. the previous archivist disagreed and said this was not the role of the archivist to make that decision and you have agreed with that i appreciatee your engagement on that. you and i have open about a warning label currently on our founding documents that's on every document on the archives and consideration that warns americans for anyone reading documents as potentially harmful content, this content could be offensive to individuals whether the united states constitution or autopsy photos from world war ii, it's on everything. the one piece on the banner on it. my question to you, i wanted to be misunderstood in any way the national archives consider constitution of potentially offensive documents which is a of cument, not offensive, they are bits of history all of us look back on and are embarrassed we were in decisions with

lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i appreciate my colleague. we have a lot of agreements in areas in lebanon and other areas in the region that we work diligently together to be able to resolve very, very difficult areas in this region. but i do want to say facts are stubborn things. when my colleague makes the statement that we can see what happened during the time of the jcpoa and we can see what happened during the time of sanctions, i'm welcome to be able to look at those facts. during the time of the jcpoa, as i mentioned before, from 2015 to 2017, munitions fired against american troops in iraq increased 341%. many of those munitions were iranian provided. so to be able to say there were no attacks on americans during the jcpoa is just factually not correct. i can take you to a multitude of members of the united states military that will speak specifically of munitions that were fired on them, and all kinds of improvised explosive devices created by the iranian revolutionary gawrpd corps and -- guard

. >> thank you senator carper, senator lankford recognized for questions. >> chairman thank you.thank you for all the witnesses today. and for the ongoing work. address them questions about the collaboration you were discussing at this point. when i was visiting with some of the folks at our southern border several months ago, there were some of our border stations that we're trying to get counter uas equipment out it up and running in operable. in whatever areas on the border, there were 10,000 incursions in just that area of uas coming in across the border from mexico to the united states. they were very eager to be able to get. that when i asked, was the issue? the equipment was there. the people right. there they were waiting on authorization and there was an ongoing dialogue between dhs and faa to be able to discuss how we're gonna get this up? so literally the, equipment, people, the need everything was there. so my question about this collaboration is, how long does it take? in this particular instance, we had a situation where that same equipment along the border was bein

lankford: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr.lankford: two years ago almost to the exact moment, i was sitting on the south lawn of the white house in the blazing sun where a redhead should never sit, getting a sunburn on a hot september day in d.c., watching leadership of the uae, about a lane, israeli and the united states all shake hands and sign an agreement called the abraham accords. it was a remarkable moment in american history. we've become so accustomed in the last two years to this discussion about the abraham accords, we lose track that it was just two years ago we had one of the greatest breakintroduce in middle east peace that we've had in decades. in 1979 egypt and israel came together for a peace agreement under president jimmy carter and the camp david accords. jordan and israel normalized relationships under president clinton. but for 26 years, there were no additional peace agreements, quite frankly very few conversations even. it stopped. all the conversation among foreign affairs was that you had to resolve t

i yield back my time. >> thank you, senator lankford. senator hawley. >> thank you, mr. chairman.t facebook has said in the past that it's their position as a private company, you're not subject to the first amendment. i assume that hasn't changed, is that right? >> that's correct, senator. >> but the united states government is subject to the first amendment. i think we can probably all agree on. hopefully we can. hopefully that's still true in this country. is it appropriate for facebook to work with the united states government to avoid the first amendment, help the u.s. government avoid the first amendment? >> senator, we do think it is sometimes appropriate to be in contact with government and with government organizations. >> to help them avoid the first amendment? >> senator, i'm not sure what specifically you're referring to. >> well, let me ask you this, do you think it's appropriate to work with the united states government to target private individual's speech that is constitutionally protected? >> senator, i'm not aware of that. >> well, let me educate you. on july 16t

senator lankford approached me about this particular bill on the floor a week ago and asked to engage in a dialogue with me about it. i thought it was a legitimate request, and i set my team to task of trying to work something out with senator lankford and now there's a unanimous consent request to pass a bill that's under negotiation, discussion between serious legislators who actually want to find a result. so, no, i'm not going to debate the merits of these u.c.'s. this isn't real. i object. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: objection is is heard. the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, the senator from connecticut just gave us the sum total of his which wisdom, as -- his wisdom, as he walks off the floor again, which is he says this isn't real. the presiding officer is well aware of the how the senate operates. when a senator arises for a unanimous consent request, one of two things happens. a senator objects or the bill passes. i have stood on this floor and passed unanimous consent requests because our colleagues chose not to object. one of the more no

. >> senator lankford, you are recognized for your questions. >> thank you to all the witnesses and for the ongoing work. i do have some questions about the collaboration you all were discussing at this point. when i was visiting with some of the folks at our southern border several months ago, there's some of our border stations that were trying to get counter-uas equipment up and running in one of our areas along the border. we had over 10,000 incursions in just that area with uas coming across the border from mexico into the united states. and they were very eager to be able to get that. when i asked, what's the issue, the equipment was there, the people were there, they were waiting on authorization and there was an ongoing dialogue between dhs and faa to discuss how we're gonna get this up. so literally the equipment, the people, the need, everything was there. so my question is about this collaboration, how long does it take in this particular instance we had a situation , where that same equipment along the border was being used in a different region of the water and had been for

i want to thank senators james lankford and johnny ernst for sending this important bill to the house for final passage. i ask my colleagues to support the bill and for the president to sign s. 3470 into law. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york, the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers on this bill, and if the gentleman from kentucky is prepared to close, then i am, also, prepared to close. mr. comer: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: thank you, mr. speaker. let me be clear, not a single dime of taxpayer money should ever flow to anyone engained in human -- engaged in human or sex trafficking. this bill will ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer money. i ask my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney

lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i want to go into some comments about some things i heard from oklahomans in august appeared -- and thankfully we were not in session here for a brief while. i needed to make a couple of quick comments for those who heard my colleague from illinois say that republicans believe that electric vehicles are socialism if you promote electric vehicles and we oppose electric vehicles an electfication. i have to make a quick comment on that. i don't hear republicans in opposition to electric vehicles. i hear republicans in opposition to handing companies billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money and saying, if you will produce electric vehicles, then we're going to give you these billions of dollars to be able to do it. and i also hear republicans like myself in opposition say that 80% of the lithium to lun the electric -- to run the electric vehicles come from china. until we get our own supply of lithium, we shouldn't run toward electric vehicles and then if you are depe