[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 215 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7686-S7695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Coronavirus
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there is a lot going on and not enough of
some things we really need to go on going on.
But I think it is worth noting again--lest the moment be lost somehow
in all the back and forth and all the chaos--that we have reached a
watershed moment in the war against COVID-19.
As you know, the first successful vaccine was approved last week. I
watched online as the Vice President of the United States and his wife
received the vaccine. I applaud them for demonstrating their
confidence, which should be all of our confidence, that this vaccine is
not only effective but also safe.
[[Page S7687]]
In my State of Texas, it is estimated that there will be a million
people vaccinated by the end of this month. That is a modern medical
and logistical miracle.
Yesterday--the news keeps getting better--the FDA's expert advisory
panel recommended the Agency approve a second successful vaccine,
meaning millions more doses, over and above the Pfizer vaccine, could
be headed out the door in a matter of days, if not hours.
The light at the end of the tunnel is getting bigger and brighter
every day, but we are not out of the dark yet. As we know, tragically,
more than 300,000 Americans have lost their lives to this virus.
Millions have lost their jobs and their livelihood. Countless small
businesses have permanently closed their doors, and the devastating
impact of the virus across the country is growing day by day.
Earlier this year, we were able to come together in four separate
pieces of legislation in a bipartisan--nearly unanimous--manner and
respond with the sort of alacrity and speed and with the scope that I
think our constituents expected us to. We didn't exactly know how big
we needed to go. We just knew we needed to go big and we needed to go
fast.
We appropriated more than $3 trillion of coronavirus relief. We
didn't know how long the virus was going to last. And when we tried to
offer additional aid to the American people, unfortunately, the
partisan dysfunction that sometimes creeps in--particularly, in the
days leading up to a national election--prevented us from providing
that relief.
But the election is over, and it is time for us to do our jobs.
Really, we need to build on our past success.
The bills culminating in the CARES Act in March bolstered our
healthcare response by making testing free of charge. Remember that
used to be the watchword, what people would continue to say day after
day after day: testing, testing, testing. You are not hearing that
anymore because testing is ubiquitous.
We provided vital funding for hospitals and armed our medical workers
with the personal protective equipment they needed to sustain this
fight on the frontline. We poured funding into research and development
of vaccines, therapeutics, and treatment. And by any measure, those
efforts have been a success.
While, as I said, the number of people testing positive has gone up
pretty dramatically, the death rate has remained much lower than it was
in the early days of the virus. That is because, I believe, the
treatments have improved, the therapeutics are working, and our
healthcare providers are learning how to treat people with the virus in
ways that are saving lives.
The work we did up through March buoyed the workers and families who
needed the help with direct payments, bolstered unemployment insurance
benefits, and even gave the option to defer student loan payments with
no penalty. We knew people needed help, and we acted responsibly, I
believe.
We also supported our wobbly economy with the assistance for the Main
Street businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program and loans for
the industries that our States and Country rely on.
But as time has gone on, much of the funding provided by those bills
has run out. As I said, we didn't know in March how long this was going
to last, either the public health challenges or the economic challenges
associated with it. But we have a better picture of what is needed now
and we need to act and act soon--money for schools, vaccine
distribution, and for airlines, which, through no fault of their own,
are seeing their ridership plummet. They need help. Each of these are
worthy of our best efforts to help.
Critical provisions that supported everything from unemployment
benefits to the Paycheck Protection Program have already lapsed or are
within just a few days of doing so. I know people wonder: Why does
Congress wait so long, to the 11th hour to act?
Well, call it human nature, call it stubbornness, call it politics,
call it what you will, but deadlines do force action, especially here
in the Congress. I believe we are on the cusp of positive results for
the American people.
For months now, disagreements on what the next relief bill should
look like have stopped us from making progress. Unfortunately, I think
it was more about the election and stoking the fears and anxieties of
the American electorate in the run up to the election. I think that is
what prevented us from passing additional bills after the CARES Act in
March.
Then Nancy Pelosi and the House passed the Heroes Act, which
everybody recognized--the mainstream media and even Democrats
acknowledged--was not going to go anywhere. That was another $3
trillion bill that helped the nascent marijuana industry, providing tax
cuts to the wealthy people living in high-tax jurisdictions like New
York and San Francisco. It was clearly not designed to pass, but rather
to send a message.
Well, we knew we needed a targeted bill to send relief to those who
needed it most, without driving up government spending even higher than
necessary. Over these last several months, too much of the discussion
has been focused on the areas where we disagree and, truthfully, there
is no such thing as a perfect bill. You can always find a reason to say
no.
But I don't believe that is the reason our constituents have sent us
here. They want us to be responsible. They want us to be careful with
their tax dollars, but they do want us to act in their best interests
by trying to find ways to build consensus--even when we can't agree on
everything, to at least agree on the things we agree on. I think they
expect us to do that.
We all understand that our workers and many people have had the rug
pulled out from under them. They had no money coming in the front door.
They are worried about paying the rent or mortgage. Their kids are at
home going through virtual schooling. I mean, it is tough on a lot of
people. It is not so tough if you are a Member of Congress and are
receiving a paycheck. But for millions of our constituents back home,
they have been waiting and waiting, and they have been hurting because
we have not been able to get our act together.
The second round of the job-saving Paycheck Protection Program would
help a lot. It would help our small businesses, throw them another
lifeline. That was really one of the most popular parts of what we were
able to do in March.
As the Presiding Officer will remember, we appropriated $350 billion
and it went in 2 weeks. So we appropriated another $320 billion to
provide loans to small businesses and incentives for them to maintain
their payroll so people would have income and so that those small
businesses, once we got the virus in the rearview mirror, would still
be around and help rebound our economy.
In Texas alone, there were 417,000 Paycheck Protection loans--$41
billion worth. The average loan was $115,000; although, I was on a Zoom
call with some in the Texas Bankers Association, and one of them told
me that their smallest loan was $300. I am sure there is an interesting
story behind that. The point is this was needed help, and it has run
out.
Then we need another investment in vaccine distribution. The
logistical challenge of getting this vaccine around the country is
mind-boggling, but we can see it is already working because of thorough
planning and good execution, but they need more money to make sure that
we get the job done. We also need to make sure that schools,
particularly as people feel more comfortable going back to school in
person, get additional support so they can bring the children back into
the classrooms and keep them and the teachers and other employees
healthy at the schools.
We know virtual learning has been a disaster, particularly for low-
income students. Unfortunately, broadband is not universally available
in the United States, and there are parts of my State wherein as many
as a third of the students don't have access to broadband. So how in
the world are they going to continue their educations? Local officials
and State officials have tried to help, leaving parking lots outside of
the school libraries available so you can drive up and gain access to
the Wi-Fi from the schools, or they have distributed hotspots so that,
if you get access to cellular service, you can actually tie into Wi-Fi
and get online and
[[Page S7688]]
continue your studies. Yet, for many of our young people, these school
lockdowns have been a disaster in terms of their educations. So we need
to do more in that area as well.
Common sense tells us that, when you are sitting across the table,
negotiating with somebody, if 80 percent of what you are talking about
is agreed to, the process should move along pretty quickly because
nobody gets 100 percent of what one wants around here. It is just not
possible. While it is unfortunate it has taken us so long to reach this
point, I am encouraged that maybe, just maybe--now with the deadline
for government funding running out tonight at 12 midnight--this is
forcing action and that a deal is in sight.
There has been more bipartisan cooperation and communication over the
last several days than there has been in the last several months. A lot
of people have put a lot of effort into this on a bipartisan basis, and
now the decision is with what we call the ``four corners''--rank-and-
file Members of the House and Senate. We are not going to have a chance
to amend this deal. It is going to be proposed by Speaker Pelosi,
Democratic Leader Schumer, Leader McCarthy, Majority Leader McConnell,
and the White House. So I am sure it is not going to be perfect.
Unfortunately, we will not have a chance to make it better. I hope the
partisan divisions that have paralyzed Congress for much of the year do
not rear their ugly heads in these final hours and at this critical
stage of negotiation.
There is too much at stake for us to go home for the holidays
emptyhanded. There are too many people who are hurting, too many people
who are anxious. The number of people having overdosed by self-
medicating since the virus hit is, I think, about 80,000, I read. You
can imagine people self-medicating, whether it is with alcohol or drugs
or people who are trapped with an abuser, either a spousal abuser or a
child abuser. Because they are not going to school, their teachers
can't look for signs of that abuse and get them help. Reports of child
sexual abuse are down 40 percent. It is not because it is not
happening; it is because kids aren't in school, where teachers and
others can come to their aid.
I can only imagine a single mom, say, with three kids of different
ages at home, trying to continue their educations, but she is worried:
How do I keep working--maybe she is an essential worker--so she can pay
the bills to put food on the table and pay the rent. Can you imagine
the chaos and stress?
There is too much at stake for us to go home for the holidays
emptyhanded. We need to remember we are not here for our benefit; we
are here for the benefit of the people we are honored to represent--in
my case, 29 million Texans. We have a fiduciary responsibility. We are
in a position of trust. They have entrusted us with their welfare. The
American people have waited long enough. We can't let them down again.
We are on the 5-yard line, and we need to deliver. We need to get this
done and get this done soon.
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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 8428
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we had a hearing this week, the
Immigration Subcommittee of Senate Judiciary, and Senator Blumenthal
was there with me and others. We listened to people from Hong Kong tell
the story of what is happening because of the repressive regime in
Beijing and what is happening to those in Hong Kong who are
demonstrating in favor of democracy.
This hearing on the crisis in Hong Kong also raised a lot of
questions about the United States and our own immigration and refugee
policy toward those who are being persecuted.
At the hearing, there was some powerful testimony. I recall one of
the witnesses, Mr. Chu, who said that he was aware of students--Chinese
students--currently in the United States who have already been
designated as enemies of the state by China and who, if they are forced
to return to China, will face prosecution, imprisonment, and who knows.
It was a very personal story because these people are friends of his
who, through no fault of their own, only speaking out against the
regime in Beijing, now will face long prison sentences if forced to
return to China.
I am amazed, as I meet these people from China and Hong Kong, at the
courage they show. Mr. Chu, for example, had come to the United
States--been sent to the United States by his father at the age of 12
because his father had made a practice of helping the Chinese who had
demonstrated on Tiananmen Square and providing the equivalent of an
underground railroad for them to escape China. I guess the people in
Beijing were on his heels, and so to protect his family, he sent his
12-year-old son to the United States, who has lived here for a number
of years. He is an American citizen now.
This repression and the Chinese Government meddling in the lives of
the people of Hong Kong are appalling. Thousands of protestors in Hong
Kong have been persecuted for fighting for the liberties that we
Americans routinely say we enjoy--freedoms of assembly and speech, the
right to vote, due process, and the rule of law.
The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese
Communist Party in June has enabled the ruthless abuse of protesters,
political leaders, journalists, and teachers. Despite its name, the
national security law is not about security; it is about fear--fear of
the voices in Hong Kong calling for reform of democracy and freedom.
I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my feelings
about the crisis in Hong Kong, but the question today is, What are we
willing to do about it?
Last week, on a unanimous voice vote, the House of Representatives
passed the bipartisan Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act, which
would grant temporary protected status to Hong Kong residents currently
in the United States and provide an opportunity for refugee status to
Hongkongers facing persecution.
At Wednesday's Judiciary Committee hearing, we received a clear
message: Congress needs to pass the Hong Kong People's Freedom and
Choice Act in the Senate now. We can do it. In fact, we can do it
today. Think about the message it would send from the United States to
Hong Kong and to the world if we sent this bill to the President's desk
to be signed into law. It is bipartisan. It was unanimous in the House.
It is timely, and it addresses a real problem.
Under the bill, Hong Kong would be designated for TPS for 18 months.
To qualify for TPS status, eligible Hongkongers currently in the United
States would need to first clear a criminal history and national
security screening and pay a $360 filing fee.
Some of the critics have said: We can't trust the Chinese in the
United States. They may be spies.
That is why we require, under the TPS, that anyone applying for this
TPS status has to go through a criminal background check and a national
security screening.
I want America to be safe--we all do--but just to categorically say
``If you are from China or from Hong Kong, you are a suspicious
character, and we don't want you to stay here'' isn't fair. It isn't
realistic.
Sixty-seven hundred students are here now legally in the United
States from Hong Kong and China, and they were admitted to the United
States under standards and investigations. They are students at our
universities, and they would qualify for this important temporary
humanitarian protection so that they aren't forced to return to a
literally dangerous situation.
TPS can be granted by the President if he wishes, but the Trump
administration has failed to protect Hongkongers in need.
This bill also establishes expedited refugee and asylum access for
qualified individuals and their family members. This would enable
persecuted Hongkongers to register with any U.S. Embassy or Consulate,
or with the Department of Homeland Security if they are in the United
States.
Refugees and asylees would be required to meet all legal requirements
and pass background checks before
[[Page S7689]]
being granted status in the United States. That is just not a minor
administrative chore. We are serious about it. If you want to come to
the United States as a refugee or asylee, we will do everything we can
to make certain that you are no danger to anyone in the United States.
The refugee policies of this outgoing administration have put at risk
Hongkongers who are fleeing Chinese persecution, not to mention
millions of other vulnerable refugees. Since the enactment of the
Refugee Act of 1980, the United States has resettled on average of
80,000 refugees a year. That is our annual average since 1980. However,
in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in history, the current Trump
administration has set record low refugee admissions figures for 4
years in a row, culminating in the lowest levels in history this year
at 15,000--from 80,000 to 15,000.
How many refugees has the United States admitted from Hong Kong in
the last year? Zero--not one.
When you look at what the Communist Chinese Party is doing in China,
threatening these demonstrators who are marching in the streets for
things that we say over and over are the underpinnings of our
democracy, and to think that we have not granted one single person in
Hong Kong refugee status is hard to imagine. The Trump administration
has decimated legal protections for Hongkongers and other innocent
victims of persecution.
For example, under the rule issued last week, Hongkongers could be
denied asylum if they transit other countries on the way to the United
States, if persecutors detain them for only a brief period, or if
persecutors were not able to carry out their threats before the
activist fled.
According to the testimony of the Hong Kong Democracy Council
executive director, Samuel Chu, on Wednesday--I mentioned him earlier--
the people most immediately at risk in Hong Kong are the approximately
10,000 individuals who have been arrested by the Chinese Government
crackdown.
Make no mistake. We know what the Chinese Communist Party is up to.
As for these concentration camps--they call them reeducation camps--
that they created for the Uyghurs, we know what they are doing. They
characterize them in many different ways, but we have seen this
throughout history. The question is, What are we going to do about it?
We are going to protest what is happening to the people in Hong Kong,
but will we take one step--even one small step--to provide them
security and safety?
Not all of them are going to wish to leave Hong Kong, I understand
that. Some of them can't. Some of them may receive assistance from
another country. The British Prime Minister has offered a path to
citizenship to up to 3 million Hongkongers eligible for overseas
passports. The Australian Government has stepped in with visa options
for students and workers from Hong Kong. Canada announced multiple new
immigration measures supporting Hong Kong residents, including measures
to help Hong Kong students in Canada.
I have a basic question. What are we going to do? You hear this about
the British stepping up, the Australians stepping up, the Canadians
stepping up. Where is the United States?
This is our chance today. Senator Blumenthal is going to make a
unanimous consent request to actually have the United States do
something.
One country cannot take in all the refugees from Hong Kong nor should
it be expected to, but surely the United States of America, the most
powerful nation on the Earth and, we hope, a model for democracy in the
world, cannot protest what is happening to the innocent people of Hong
Kong and the repressive regime of Beijing and then do nothing.
Passing the Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act is urgently
needed. The situation continues to deteriorate. We need to do it and do
it quickly. We need to protect Hongkongers in need. Think about the
message that it sends to the world if the United States agrees with
Senator Blumenthal's request today and passes the measure that has
already passed the House of Representatives and it becomes the law of
the land. How will the Chinese Government pass that off as
insignificant, when all of these countries are basically saying their
treatment of the people of Hong Kong is abominable?
We should act quickly. The Senate Judiciary Committee has failed to
raise another bill, the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act, sent to it 6 months
ago. So they have had their opportunity in the committee to do
something. Under the Democratic majority, the House did their job and
acted quickly with a bipartisan bill.
We have seen a lot of speeches on both sides of the aisle about how
mad we are at the Chinese Government. The question today, in the next
few minutes, is, Are we mad enough to do something?
Do something significant. I ask the Senate to join the House in
passing the Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act now. Let's send
this bill to the President and send a strong message to the people of
Hong Kong that they are not in this alone.
How fortunate I am to have a colleague like Dick Blumenthal. We see
eye-to-eye on this issue. He jumped on the measure and said he wanted
to move on it, and I thought, darn, I wish I would have been the first
one, but I am happy to accompany him on this effort.
I sincerely hope that this is truly bipartisan. If our protest
against the Communist Party of China is meaningful and bipartisan, it
will be powerful
I yield to my colleague, Senator Blumenthal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am really honored to follow Senator
Durbin, a staunch and steadfast champion of refugees and immigration
reform who, year after year, has shown the courage to stand up on this
issue.
And to emphasize a point that he has made, there is an urgency to our
acting. There is a sense that time is not on our side for the lives at
stake here. The world has watched in horror as China has cracked down
on the incipient democracy movement in Hong Kong. We have seen the
yellow umbrellas. We have seen the marchers in the streets and the
brutality and the cruelty of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese
authorities, using clubs and guns with the kind of thuggishness that
has come to characterize the Chinese anti-democracy movement there and
around the world. We have an opportunity to take a stand and speak out
and do something in defense of the brave protesters who are risking
their lives.
We have seen this kind of democracy movement before. We know it is in
the great tradition of our country to stand with those protestors and
those marchers who are saying to the Chinese Government: We will not
let you break the agreement that you did in 1984 with the United
Kingdom to preserve these freedoms and to make Hong Kong an outpost of
democracy in the repressive regime of China. We will not let you chip
away at our rights or extradite our people to China. That law was the
spark that ignited these protests. We will not let you mock our demand
for freedom and democracy.
The Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act of 2020 was passed
unanimously in the House of Representatives with overwhelming
bipartisan support, and it would very simply give those protesters
protective status in this country, the greatest Nation in the history
of the world, saying to them: We will give you a safe harbor. We will
give you a place where you can be protected.
And remember, what the Chinese are saying is: You can be indicted.
You can be arrested. No matter where you are in the world, if you
violated our law, we will bring you back.
And we would say to those protestors who are simply demanding
fundamental freedoms that often we take for granted here: We will give
you protective status. We will give you temporary protective status
right away. We will make sure that you have that safe harbor.
Now, I know that my colleagues, Senators Rubio and Menendez, have a
bill that is actually called the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act. We had a
hearing on it the other day in the Judiciary Committee. All of my
colleagues expressed support for the individuals who came to us asking
us to act on that measure.
[[Page S7690]]
The Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act of 2020, in fact, would
go beyond that measure, only to say that you don't have to be formally
charged in China and you don't have to be in specific categories of
protestor. You can be a journalist, and you can get temporary
protective status. It would also say that you don't have to demonstrate
individually a fear of persecution, but you do have to be screened. You
do have to demonstrate that you are not going to be a national security
threat.
My colleague Senator Durbin is absolutely right to make this point.
Nobody wants Chinese spies in this country. There would be a background
check and a screening just as there are for other refugees under this
measure.
The other day, at this hearing, we heard from Samuel Chu and Nathan
Lau and we heard from Joey Su. These activists are fighting for their
freedom. We heard their stories, so powerful and moving. Their faces
and voices should be heard and heeded in this body.
We are far removed here in this sedate setting from the clamor and
the cruelty of those streets in Hong Kong, where men and women have
stood bravely against the physical brutality and force of the Chinese
regime. But we should send a message to the world: We are going to
stand with those refugees who come here heeding the lady who stands in
New York Harbor with a message of hope and freedom. The same lady who
many of our forebears in this Chamber saw when they came to this
country--like my dad, in 1935, at the age of 17, alone, seeking to
escape persecution in Germany, speaking no English, knowing virtually
no one, having not much more than the shirt on his back but believing--
believing--that America would offer him the safety of freedom as a
refugee.
That is our tradition in this country. It goes beyond party,
geography, race, or religion. It is what makes America truly great. We
are a nation of immigrants and refugees, and my hope is, as I stand
here, that we will have the same unanimity in this body as the House
did, despite all the other divisions that persist at this point; that
we will have the respect for the moral imperative to act now and make
sure that we fulfill the message of America now that is more important
than ever before in light of the repressive regimes, even in our own
region, whether it is Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, where
we can say to the world: We are going to stand by our principles, and
we are going to do it now because of the urgency of this moment and the
need of these refugees for temporary protective status.
Let us act now.
So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 8428, and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, today, we
have good news and bad news. The good news is that our Democratic
colleagues are finally discovering that the Chinese Communists are not
our friends. They are finally acknowledging that the Chinese Communists
are murdering, torturing, oppressive tyrants, and our Democratic
colleagues are likewise discovering that Hong Kong is a beacon for
democracy and a beacon for liberty. That is, indeed, good news.
The bad news is, the bill that they have put forth is not designed to
do anything about it. This is not a Hong Kong bill. It is, instead, a
Democratic messaging bill because House Democrats made, I think, a
cynical decision to try to exploit the crisis in Hong Kong to advance
their longstanding goals of changing our immigration laws.
It is not news to anyone who has been watching the political battles
of recent years to discover that our Democratic colleagues embrace open
borders; that when it comes to illegal immigration, their preference is
to make all immigration legal. This bill advances that longtime
partisan political agenda that the Democrats have.
When it comes to standing up for Communist China, for 8 years I have
led the fight in this Senate to stand up to Communist China. China is,
I believe, the single greatest geopolitical threat facing the United
States for the next century.
In October of last year, I traveled to Hong Kong as part of a friends
and allies tour throughout Asia, met with the Hong Kong dissidents--
those brave, young students standing in the streets, standing for
freedom, and standing up against Chinese tyrants. I did a satellite
interview on an American Sunday show from Hong Kong dressed in all
black in solidarity with those protesters because Hong Kong today is,
as I have said many times, the new Berlin. It is the frontline in the
battle against Communist tyranny.
This bill, however, is not designed to fix that problem. Right now,
today, under current law, individuals in Hong Kong are already eligible
to become refugees under our immigration law. In fact, in July,
President Trump explicitly expanded the number of refugee slots
available and allocated them to Hong Kong. This bill, instead, is
designed and would dramatically lower the standards for both refugee
and asylum status to the point where individuals would qualify even if
they cannot establish an individualized and credible fear of
persecution.
The Senator from Connecticut just listed that as a virtue of this
bill--that no longer would you have to establish a credible fear of
persecution; instead, this bill would dramatically lower that standard.
There is no reason to lower that standard, and there is particular risk
when doing so, we know, would be used by the Chinese Communists to send
even more Chinese spies into the United States.
The Senator from Connecticut assured us: Well, don't worry. We will
do a background check.
Well, the last I checked, when the Chinese Communist Government sends
spies into our country, they are quite willing to concoct a bogus
background portfolio of materials. Who do you think the Chinese
Government would be seeing coming in? We just recently had news of
Chinese spies targeting Members of Congress--targeting prominent
Democrats. This is an espionage threat America faces of our adversaries
taking advantage of our laws and targeting our leadership.
The truth also is that China has confiscated passports and, I am
told, stopped issuing exit visas to persons deemed problematic. As a
result, China is highly unlikely to let actual dissidents leave Hong
Kong, so this bill isn't directed to help them.
But I will say this: We urgently need to have a real, substantive,
bipartisan conversation about countering the Chinese Communist Party,
about defending the United States of America, about standing up and
winning this battle. This bill doesn't advance that objective, but what
I am going to do is I am going to give our Democratic colleagues the
opportunity to actually support legislation that would stand up to
China.
So, momentarily, I am going to ask unanimous consent for one bill and
discuss a second bill that I also later intend to ask unanimous consent
to pass. But first, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I really regret this attack on a bill
that was passed unanimously--Republicans, unanimously, and Democrats,
unanimously--a bipartisan bill by the House of Representatives. If my
colleagues are serious about moving a bill to the desk of the
President, only this bill will do it because only this bill has been
passed by the House of Representatives.
There is an urgency to this cause for the sake of these refugees who
haven't been permitted to leave their country, haven't been sent by
China, haven't simply come into this country as potential espionage
agents. They have come here because they fought for freedom in their
country. So to say that we have discovered that we need to stand up to
China, sorry about that, but it is just preposterous.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the question through the Chair. Isn't it true
[[Page S7691]]
that this bill that we are promoting, which just passed the House
unanimously on a bipartisan basis, also protects the 6,700 students
here in the United States with student visas from being forced to
return to Hong Kong when our State Department is warning Americans it
is unsafe for them to travel to Hong Kong? Is that not true?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right, and I
was just going to, as a matter of fact, make that point because I think
it is central to the objection that has been raised.
In fact, the people in danger here are already here. They are in
danger if they are sent back, as they would be without that temporary
protected status. So that point, I think, refutes, essentially, the
argument that has just been made by our colleague from Texas.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield further for a question--and
this notion that the Chinese in the United States are all suspect
spies, is it really--is that the point you want to make? Is that really
the point you want to make? Do we have background checks involved here?
Do we have screening involved here?
We are all intent on keeping America safe, but to categorize a group
of people as all potential spies--and, therefore, they are going to all
be fed to the lions of Beijing if they are returned--seems to me to be
fundamentally unfair and not consistent with what America has learned
about immigration. There were suspicions in World War II about all
those people coming from Europe, and they were turned away, many of
them to their death. We can't make that mistake again. If there is any
suspect person, there is a way to determine that with screening,
criminal background checks, and the like.
So the 6,700 who are here, we were told at the hearing--I think you
were there; it may have been a minute or two before you arrived--one of
them is a student of Georgetown, for example, who now has a price on
his head from the Chinese Communist Party, and the question is whether
we are going to force him to return into imprisonment. I don't think we
want anyone who is suspected of spying on the United States at all, but
to dismiss all of these people as possible spies doesn't sound to me--
does it sound to you?--as consistent with who we are as a people.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. To answer the Senator from Illinois very directly, it
is totally antithetical to the principles of democracy in the United
States of America. It is totally abhorrent to the values of our
constitutional Nation, and it is, frankly, absurd.
Here we are, according to my colleague from Texas, standing up and
being tough on China, and we are doing what? We are sending back their
opponents so they can imprison them and kill them? That is the notion
of being tough on China--to enable them to imprison and kill their
political opponents?
I ask my colleague from Texas to rethink the practical implications
of this measure and to consider why the House of Representatives
unanimously passed this. It doesn't lower the standards for political
refugees coming to this country. It doesn't eliminate any security
checks. It takes people, many of them living here already--not spies,
by any means--and sends them back to the meat grinder of the repressive
Chinese Communist Party. It may sound like good rhetoric to oppose this
bill, but my colleague from Texas heard the testimony of these freedom
fighters and why they need temporary protected status and why they
support a safe harbor.
So I continue to insist that this bill, like the Rubio-Menendez bill,
protects essential American values, and I ask him to reconsider his
objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3835
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, my colleague from Connecticut just said that
they were being tough on China. As I explained, this bill is not being
tough on China.
But a bit of good news: They will have the opportunity, moments from
now, to in fact be tough on China. I have introduced, roughly, a dozen
separate pieces of legislation designed to do exactly that, to stand up
to the Chinese Communist Government. I am glad also to see my
Democratic colleagues discovering the human rights travesties that are
playing out in China.
Look, my family knows the oppression of Communist governments. My
father was imprisoned and tortured in Cuba. My aunt, my Tia Sonia, was
imprisoned and tortured by Fidel Castro's thugs. So, when it comes for
standing for dissidents, there is a reason why, for 8 years, I have
gone to the Senate floor over and over and over again speaking up for
dissidents who are being tortured and oppressed by Communists. Here is
a chance for the Democrats to join us in that regard.
Mr. President, there are two separate bills that I have introduced
that I am going to discuss. The first is a bill called the SCRIPT Act.
For years, we have known that China's surveillance state and
censorship practices are used to maintain its human rights violations.
And what this devastating pandemic has shown us is that China's
surveillance state and its censorship practices are also profound
threats to our national security, to our public health, and to our
public debate, as the Chinese Government hid information about the
COVID-19 pandemic that began in Wuhan, China, hid it for months on end
and allowed millions across the globe to be threatened--their lives and
health and safety to be threatened.
In addition to their espionage activities, the Chinese Communist
Party invests billions into spreading propaganda, even using American
media outlets, telecommunication infrastructure, movies, and sports
teams to spread their propaganda, from buying media outlets so that
they broadcast propaganda into America to coercing Hollywood studios
and sports leagues to self-sensor by threatening to cut off access to
one of the world's largest markets. The Chinese Communist Party spends
billions and billions of dollars to mislead Americans about China and
to try to shape what we see, what we hear and think.
All of these activities are part of China's whole-of-state approach
to amass influence around the world through information warfare, and we
need to stand together to stop it.
That is why I will be momentarily asking for unanimous consent on the
SCRIPT Act, which would cut off Hollywood studios from the assistance
they currently receive from the U.S. Federal Government if those
studios allow the Chinese Communist Government to sensor what they are
producing.
We have seen this pattern over and over and over again--Hollywood
being complicit in China's censorship and propaganda in the name of
bigger profit. ``Bohemian Rhapsody,'' a wonderful biography of Freddie
Mercury and story of the band Queen--well, the Chinese Government was
upset that Freddie Mercury was homosexual and demanded that Hollywood
sensor scenes that showed that Freddie Mercury was homosexual. And
Hollywood--those great, woke social warriors that they are--compliantly
said: We are more interested in the money than in artistic integrity,
than in telling Freddie Mercury's story, so the Chinese Government will
happily edit out those scenes.
``Doctor Strange,'' another movie--comic book movie--in ``Doctor
Strange,'' they changed the Ancient One's character from being from
Tibet, which is how it is portrayed in the comic book, to Celtic
because, you know, the Chinese Communist censors, they don't want to
recognize Tibet--another area that has been subject to persecution and
oppression from China--and Hollywood meekly complied.
In the sequel to ``Top Gun,'' the back of Maverick's jacket--if you
remember the first ``Top Gun,'' maybe the greatest Navy recruiting film
ever made--you find the Taiwanese flag and the Japanese flag. The
Chinese censors didn't like that, and so Hollywood meekly removed the
flags. What does it say to the world when Maverick is scared of the
Chinese Communists?
I would point out, unfortunately, the Chinese censorship is being
carried out by Hollywood billionaires who are getting richer in the
process.
In recent days, it has been reported that one of Joe Biden's top
potential choices to be Ambassador to China is the former CEO of
Disney, who happens
[[Page S7692]]
to be a major Democratic donor. Disney just came out with the movie
``Mulan.'' In the movie ``Mulan,'' which the director described as ``a
love letter to China''--well, this love letter wasn't subtle because
right in the credits at the end of ``Mulan,'' they thanked oppressive
government forces that are running concentration camps right now, with
over 1 million Uighurs imprisoned. Disney gleefully thanked the
jackbooted thugs who are carrying out torture and murder, and
apparently the leader of that effort is one of the top candidates to be
America's Ambassador to China.
The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Connecticut said: ``We
need to stand with people who are oppressed.'' I agree.
Look, Hollywood could say whatever they want, but there is no reason
the Federal Government should facilitate their censorship on behalf of
the Chinese Communists. The SCRIPT Act says: If you are going to let
the Chinese Communists censor your movies, you are not going to get
access to the jet planes and to the ships and all the different
material of the Federal Government that are used in movies.
Moments ago, the Senator from Connecticut said they want to be tough
on China. Well, we are about to see how tough they are on China.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRUZ. I will happily yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Can you tell me, if you are successful and if you hit
Hollywood hard, how that provides any solace to the 6,700 Hong Kong
students in America who are facing deportation back to prison in China?
Mr. CRUZ. The Senator from Illinois asked a question. Let me tell you
how it provides solace--because people who are in hell holes, they
listen to what we are saying. People who are in hell holes, they hear
the voice--you know, some time ago, I had the chance to sit down with
Natan Sharansky, the famed Soviet dissident. He and I sat down and
visited in Jerusalem. Natan told me about how, when he was in a Soviet
gulag, that in the cells, from cell to cell, they would pass notes: Did
you hear what Ronald Reagan said? The Soviet Union is an evil empire.
Marxism-Leninism will end up on the ash heap of history. ``Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
And I will tell you how people here--because if the Senator from
Illinois will remember, I introduced legislation to rename the street
in front of the Chinese Embassy in the United States ``Liu Xiaobo
Plaza,'' after Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace laureate who was--let me
finish answering your question. If you want to propound a second one, I
am happy to answer that one too. Liu Xiaobo was the Nobel Peace
laureate wrongfully imprisoned in China. And the strategy of renaming
the street in front of the Embassy is the strategy Reagan employed
renaming the street in front of the Soviet Embassy ``Sakharov Plaza.''
Twice I stood on this floor seeking unanimous consent, and twice a
Democrat--the senior Senator from California--stood up and objected. At
one point, the senior Senator from California said: Well, if we do
this, it will embarrass the Chinese Government.
I responded: You are understanding correctly. And that is not a bug;
it is a feature. That is the purpose.
Let me tell you what happened to that. Twice, Democrats objected to
the legislation. I then placed a hold on President Obama's nominees to
the State Department.
The Obama administration came to me and said: How could we move these
nominees forward? How could we move them forward?
I said: It is very simple. Pass my legislation, and I will lift the
hold.
The Democratic caucus didn't like that, but they ultimately agreed.
So the legislation I introduced to rename the street in front of the
Chinese Embassy ``Liu Xiaobo Plaza'' passed this body unanimously.
Ultimately, the House didn't take it up and pass it, but I will tell
you how that story ends. That story ends in 2017 when I was sitting
down with Rex Tillerson for breakfast in Foggy Bottom--the new U.S.
Secretary of State. When he spoke to his Chinese counterparts, he said:
They have come back and said that among their top three diplomatic
objectives with us is to stop your bill to rename the street in front
of the Embassy. They are terrified by the sunlight and sunshine on the
dissidents.
At the time, Liu Xiaobo had passed, but his widow, Liu Xia, was still
in China, still wrongfully held back. I told Secretary of State
Tillerson: I will tell you what. You tell the Chinese that if they
release Liu Xia, if they let her get out, I will stop pressing this
particular bill. If they don't, I will keep pressing it, and we will
pass it again because we have already done it.
Within weeks, China released Liu Xia.
So you ask, how does this help the people in prison? By not having
Hollywood media moguls spreading Chinese propaganda.
But let me give you a second choice, very directly. Do you want to
know how people are helped? It is a second bill called the SHAME Act,
which, if our Democratic colleagues want to be tough on China, we could
pass right now.
What does the SHAME Act do? The SHAME Act focuses in particular on
human rights atrocities. It focuses on over 1 million Uighurs in
concentration camps and other religious minorities and the Falun Gong
practitioners who are captured and murdered and whose organs are
harvested. And the Chinese Communist Party engages in yet another
horror.
My Democratic colleagues like to say on the question of abortion that
they are pro-choice. Well, the Chinese Communist government right now
is engaging in forced sterilizations and forced abortions, taking
Uighur mothers and forcing them to abort their children against their
will.
Whatever the Democrats' views on abortion in the United States as a
matter of a woman's choice, surely they must be united in saying that a
government forcing a woman to abort her child, to take the life of her
unborn child, is an unspeakable atrocity.
So the SHAME Act does something very simple: It imposes sanctions on
the Chinese Communist government leaders responsible for implementing
this horrific, 1984-style policy of forced sterilizations and forced
abortions.
I had intended to seek unanimous consent for the SHAME Act as well,
but my Democratic colleagues have said they are not yet able to find a
Democrat to object, although my understanding is they intend to. I hope
they reconsider that.
A terrific ending for today's debate would be passing the SHAME Act
and saying: We are all standing together against forced abortions and
grotesque human rights violations. Maybe that will happen. Maybe it
won't. But let's find out where we are on the question of the SCRIPT
Act.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hawley). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think
we have gone a little bit far afield from the six pro-democracy
activists living abroad.
Mr. CRUZ. If the Senator from Connecticut--I have not yet yielded the
floor. I am about to ask unanimous consent, so--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S.
3835 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further,
that this bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object on the
SCRIPT Act, which I understand is the only measure so far on which the
Senator from Texas is seeking unanimous consent, very simply, he knows,
I know, we all know that measure will never reach the President's desk.
There is simply no way it can pass both Houses of Congress in the next
few days before the end of this Congress.
The only way we can do something for the freedom fighters and
democracy
[[Page S7693]]
advocates in Communist China is to pass this measure that he has
objected to, which has unanimously passed the House of Representatives.
Only H.R. 8428 offers that opportunity, and frankly, only this measure
that he has objected to does anything for the dissidents or the
democracy advocates or the freedom fighters directly.
He is talking about movies; we are talking about human lives. He can
draw all the kinds of hypothetical connections between the so-called
movie moguls in Hollywood and China, but I think his SCRIPT Act
actually works against the goal that he is advocating.
Censorship in China is a legitimate concern, no question about it,
and I would welcome the opportunity to work with him on a bill that
does something about it. But actually his bill not only takes away the
support for the movies that may be made; it takes away support for
documentaries about the repressive regime in China, and it takes away
classification and other security screening that are necessary for
those kinds of movies to be shown in this country. I think that kind of
obstacle may be inadvertent on his part. But I welcome the chance to
work with him on a bipartisan bill, a truly bipartisan bill that, in
fact, in the next Congress could reach the President's desk. This one
that he is offering, the SCRIPT Act, goes nowhere.
But I just want to bring us back to the reality that really is at
issue here. Just last Wednesday afternoon of this week, two of the
activists among the six pro-democracy fighters living abroad, charged
under China's new national security law, were before our committee. I
am wondering what they are thinking when they hear my colleague from
Texas pounding the table about being tough on China but objecting to a
bill that guarantees them protection. As I say, I am talking about
their lives and tens of thousands of others. I am not talking about
movies. I am not talking about Hollywood moguls.
Let's stand up for the lives of those Chinese Hong Kong freedom
fighters now in this country seeking protection through a bill passed
unanimously by the House of Representatives--the only bill that will go
to the President's desk if we approve it.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Three brief observations: No. 1, the Senator from
Connecticut said multiple times that the House bill in question passed
the House unanimously. I am sure this is inadvertent, but what the
Senator from Connecticut said is simply wrong. It passed the House by
voice vote, which is a very different thing from passing unanimously.
It simply means the vote tally was not recorded.
Secondly, the Senator from Connecticut said the SCRIPT Act is not
going to pass this Congress. Well, that appears to be correct, but that
is for one reason and one reason only, which is the final two words
uttered by the Senator from Connecticut: ``I object.''
Quite literally by doing nothing, quite literally by giving the
identical speech he had just given and then closing his mouth before
those final two words--had that occurred, the SCRIPT Act would have
passed this body unanimously.
So the only reason the SCRIPT Act isn't passing is because the Senate
Democrats are objecting. And it should not be lost on anybody that the
Hollywood billionaires who are enriching themselves with this Chinese
propaganda are among the biggest political donors to today's Democratic
Party in the entire country.
The Senator from Connecticut said: Well, the SCRIPT Act might make it
possible to have documentaries on the human rights abuses in China. Oh,
really. That argument staggers the mind. It so defies reality because--
you know what--Hollywood doesn't make movies about the human rights
abuses in China.
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet Richard Gear. Now,
Richard Gear is not someone you would ordinarily imagine palling around
with a conservative Republican from Texas, but Richard Gear was up
here. He was up here actually standing up against Chinese abuses and
urging anyone who would listen--Republican or Democrat--to stand with
him.
Do you know Richard Gear has not made a single major Hollywood movie
in a decade? Why? Because he dared stand with Tibet, and the Hollywood
billionaires blackballed Richard Gear. If you speak out for Tibet, if
you do what the Senator from Connecticut just suggested and discuss the
Chinese human rights abuses--it doesn't matter that Richard Gear used
to be an A-list Hollywood blockbuster actor--boom--his career is dead
because no studio will produce a movie with him because he spoke the
truth.
By the way, my bill presents zero barriers to someone actually making
a documentary on the human rights abuses in China because, presumably,
if you are making that documentary, you wouldn't allow the Chinese
Communist Government to censor it.
I don't know what kind of documentaries the Senator from Connecticut
is familiar with, but I am not familiar with documentaries done on
tyrants and concentration camps where you let the concentration camp
guards edit out the stuff they don't like. That ain't a documentary.
The Senator from Connecticut said perhaps we can work together in a
bipartisan manner to address this. I hope so. Standing together against
the oppression of the Chinese Communists would be a very good thing for
the U.S. Senate. It would be a very good thing for our country.
Unfortunately, at least today, that hasn't yet happened.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the only ones happy with the outcome
of today's debate are the Chinese Government. I regret this outcome
because there probably was a time when we would have cooperated in a
bipartisan way on both of these matters.
It may not have been unanimous. There may have been a few contrary
votes in the House, but clearly it came here with bipartisan support,
and I regret that the outcome today is not bipartisan agreement to
protect those freedom fighters who came before the Judiciary Committee
and who have risked their lives.
This issue is not going away. We will be back because, fortunately,
the activists from Hong Kong will persist in their fight, and we ought
to do everything we can to make sure they have a safe haven in this
country and that they are protected here.
So my closing plea to my colleague from Texas is that maybe there
remains time, even in this setting, but, if not, we need to take a
stand as a nation against Chinese censorship, against repression by the
Chinese, and come together and work together. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is
comment on the discussions we just had.
I have been up here a little less than 2 years, and the thing that
surprises me is, invariably, the Democrats won't stand up against the
Communist Party in China.
The case that we are dealing with now is they are going to stand up
for Hollywood rather than rights, rights that we have here that I am
going to talk about in a second.
We ought to be standing up against Communist China stealing our jobs,
our technology. We ought to be attacking the Communist Party for what
they have done to Uighurs, for organ harvesting, for taking away the
basic rights of Hong Kong citizens.
Invariably, I watch my Democratic colleagues; they won't stand up
against Communist China. I don't understand it. This is a party that
clearly wants to dominate our society, our way of life. They completely
disagree with our way of life.
I want to thank Senator Ted Cruz for his continued fight for rights,
for all the rights that we have in this country but fighting for those
rights so people, whether in Hong Kong or in Communist China or in
Taiwan, have the same freedoms that we have.
So I want to thank Senator Ted Cruz for showing up today and doing
this.
Mr. CRUZ. Thank you.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 806
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, today what I want to talk about
is religious freedom. Religious liberty is our
[[Page S7694]]
first freedom under the Constitution of the United States. Americans
have the right to freely exercise religion, a sacred right that I will
always fight for.
There is no pandemic exception to the First Amendment. Unfortunately,
we have seen liberal Governors and mayors across the country use the
coronavirus pandemic to go after churches, synagogues, mosques, and
other houses of worship. For months, they have argued that houses of
worship should not meet and congregants could not sing. They have
condemned in-person worship services as a threat to public safety, all
while they applaud massive political protests.
We saw it happen right here in the Nation's Capital. Mayor Bowser
refused to grant a waiver to the Capitol Hill Baptist Church for
religious gatherings but supported mass protests that violated her own
orders. The church had to sue the city in Federal court for the right
to gather, and the court ruled in favor of the church.
It is simply hypocritical and unconstitutional to target religious
institutions while letting other businesses operate. We know those on
the left will take every opportunity to infringe on Americans' First
Amendment rights, but we won't let it happen.
This year has been challenging, and for many of us, our faith and our
communities have helped us through it. Government doesn't have the
right to take this away from American citizens.
I am proud to lead a resolution today with 15 of my colleagues to
call out those who have wrongly tried to prevent Americans from
practicing their faith. This is about rights granted to Americans under
our Constitution.
What is the one thing every American believes in and has agreed to
uphold. It is our Constitution, which we have each sworn to uphold as
elected officials also.
We each took the same oath of office:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
There is no reason anyone should object to upholding our
Constitution. I will always fight for the religious liberty of all
Americans, and I look forward to my colleagues passing this important
resolution today.
However, I now am going to wait because I understand one of my
Democratic colleagues is going to come object to upholding the
Constitution and the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights. This is
shocking to me.
As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 806, submitted earlier today;
further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my
colleague Senator Scott has chosen an interesting point in this
pandemic to object to public safety measures intended to protect human
life and ensure scarce resources are not squandered.
Over 17 million Americans--17 million--have contracted COVID, that we
know of, and over 300,000 of our friends and our neighbors and loved
ones are no longer with us. Think about that.
September 11 was a great national tragedy. I know because I lost 700
of those 3,000 citizens, on that fateful day, from New Jersey. This is
100 times more than what happened on September 11.
The people we have lost are not just some nameless numbers but
mothers and fathers and grandparents. Essential parts of our hearts are
gone forever due to a pandemic that has been mishandled and mismanaged
from the start. And now, when this virus is running unchecked through
our communities, we have before us this resolution that is riddled with
misstatements of fact that I find deeply concerning.
No Governor wants to see their constituents cut off from their daily
lives, and I think we can all agree that the administration here in
Washington--their inability to guide us through this crisis--has left
our Governors holding the bag when it comes to securing resources,
providing guidance, and making the difficult calls about the right
public policy to prevent COVID-19 from rampaging like an unchecked bull
in a China shop through our States because they know, the Governors of
our States, that the lives of their residents--our neighbors, brothers,
sisters, children, and parents--rest in their hands and these difficult
decisions they must make.
We are still losing Americans from COVID-19 at an unprecedented rate.
Hospitals throughout the country are providing an amazing level of care
with exhausted providers and continued resource issues. And our economy
is cratering because we cannot fully reopen it until it is safe.
I am deeply troubled to see a false claim about my State and the
Governor banning indoor religious services. Let me be clear, houses of
worship were never ordered closed--never. In fact, today, religious
gatherings are allowed to have substantially higher capacity limits
than most other gatherings.
While New Jersey restricted the capacity of indoor religious
services, as they did with all indoor gatherings, religious gatherings
were never--never--designated as nonessential or essential, as this
resolution suggests. That distinction was only applied to retail
businesses.
Perhaps religion is different in Florida, but our houses of worship
are not retail businesses. Houses of worship and religious
organizations have been subject to neutral restrictions that equally
burden religious and nonreligious entities. They were put in place to
do what? To save lives, not under the guise of doing so and certainly
not for the purpose of targeting religious groups.
I am a man of strong faith and conviction. I have always found deep
solace in the rituals and shared worship of my church. I know many of
us have. But perhaps the most important part of my faith is the duty,
the responsibility to care for my neighbors up and down the State of
New Jersey and all across the Nation. Our faith calls us to ensure the
health and safety of this Nation before all else.
As a matter of fact, I am reminded of a passage in the Bible of James
2:14. It says:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you
have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a
brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of
you says to them, ``Go in peace; keep warm and get your
fill,'' and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is
the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is
dead. But someone will say, ``You have faith and I have
works.'' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by
my works will show you my faith.
As for me, I will continue to work for the people of New Jersey, our
healthcare workers struggling to care for the thousands filling ICU
hospital beds, for the families who don't know how they will pay next
month's rent and keep food on the table, for the small business owner
trying to keep his doors open, and, yes, for the churches that want the
see their parishioners safe. I, however, do not intend to play these
partisan games. For those reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, freedom of religion shouldn't be
controversial. This is a fundamental right of our Nation, as stated in
our Constitution: ``Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
What this resolution says is that the Senate affirms its support for
the rights, liberties, and protections enshrined in the U.S.
Constitution.
There is no pandemic exception to the First Amendment. For months,
across this country, liberal politicians have targeted churches,
synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship. To let this happen
undermines the principle of our Nation and the Constitution we have
each sworn to uphold as elected officials. I don't understand why my
colleague, who swore to uphold the Constitution, would object to a
resolution that simply reaffirms our commitment to upholding the
Constitution.
We are blessed to live in a great nation that respects religious
liberty and
[[Page S7695]]
the right to worship, especially as we see countries around the world
like Communist China and Iran deny their citizens these same rights.
Americans have the right to worship, and government doesn't get to
decide for them.
I am clearly very disappointed that my colleague doesn't want to
protect the First Amendment, but I will continue to stand against these
misguided and hypocritical attempts to target religious institutions. I
am never going to stop fighting for the religious liberty of all
Americans, even during a pandemic.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, I understand,
is going to be the next chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign
Committee, and he has every right to do that, but what he has no right
to do is misrepresent in this resolution what, at least in my State, is
going on.
You cannot say that churches were designated by the State of New
Jersey as nonessential or essential. That simply is not true. It is
simply not true. You cannot suggest that somehow these purposes are to
target religions. They are to save lives.
Now, maybe if my colleague and others here had spoken up when the
administration was asleep at the switch as this pandemic was raging,
maybe if my colleagues had spoken up when we found out that the
President knew back in January, early February of this year, of how
vicious this pandemic could be, how contagious it could be, how it was
transmitted, but said nothing to the American people--and that silence
was echoed in this Chamber--well, maybe then we wouldn't in the
position that we are in. Maybe we wouldn't have lost 300,000 of our
fellow Americans.
So I find it really, really upsetting that, in the midst of a raging
pandemic, one would seek to obtain a political value out of something
that is simply not the case--simply not the case. I think there is a
lot more to be done in this Chamber to stop this pandemic, to stop more
lives from being lost, to save our brothers and sisters, to help those
who have been ravaged by the pandemic, but not to pick a few States
that happen to be Democratic--please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT. So if my colleague from New Jersey's concern is the
paragraph numbered 4 on page 3, I would ask him if he would object if
we just take that paragraph out and then he would be willing to affirm
that the Senate believes in religious freedom.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. The resolution is replete with inaccuracies, and,
therefore, I will continue to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Let's remember, the concern was that he didn't
like the section about New Jersey and said that was inaccurate, but the
idea that the Senate will support religious freedom, he is not willing
to stand behind.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Michigan.