Josh Hawley

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I now ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 596. I further 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.

Mr. HAWLEY. I do. Is there objection to the request as modified?

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for her tremendous work on this issue. I thank her for her leadership and for her strong stance in favor of the people of Hong Kong and their basic liberties, guaranteed to them by the international treaty commitments that Beijing has ascribed to, that Beijing has signed up for, and that it now seeks to violate with impunity. Let's be clear about what Beijing wants. It says that Hong Kong is its plaything to do with as it chooses. That is not the case. Beijing has undertaken internationally binding commitments, agreements, by which it has agreed to protect and honor the basic liberties of the people of Hong Kong, and it is those commitments that it is seeking to violate today with impunity. It is those commitments Beijing is seeking to wriggle out of just as it has, time and again, violated its agreements with this country, just as it has, time and again, cheated on its obligations to Americans. That is another reason I am calling on the Senate today to pass a resolution that makes it our position that China has gone too far. We must go on record and tell the world that this new national security law--this fiat that has been issued by Beijing--is a violation of what Beijing has committed to. It is a violation of the fundamental liberties of the people of Hong Kong, and nothing less than freedom is at stake. My resolution also calls on this administration to use every diplomatic means available to stay Beijing's hand. The President has already begun the process of downgrading Hong Kong's special trade status. We must build on that effort now by rallying nations--the free nations of the world--to pressure China to back down from their attempt to strip away the basic liberties of the people of Hong Kong because, in the end, Hong Kong's struggle is the struggle of all free people. Do you know what I said when I had the chance to visit the city, see the protests, and be out on the streets myself last fall? That sometimes the fate of one city defines the struggle of a generation. In the 1960s, that city was Berlin. Today, that city is Hong Kong, and it is time for this body to take a stand. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAWLEY

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

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise today to offer a few thoughts about the Bostock case handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday. I have it here. I have now had a chance to read the case, the decision by the majority of the Court, and the two dissenting opinions. I have to say I agree with the news reports that have said that this is truly a seismic decision. It is truly a historic decision. It is truly a historic piece of legislation. This piece of legislation changes the scope of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It changes the meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It changes the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, you might well argue it is one of the most significant and far-reaching updates to that historic piece of legislation since it was adopted all of those years ago. Make no mistake, this decision, this piece of legislation will have effects that range from employment law to sports to churches. There is only one problem with this piece of legislation. It was issued by a court, not by a legislature. It was written by judges, not by the elected representatives of the people. And it did what this Congress has pointedly declined to do for years now, which is to change the text and the meaning and the application and the scope of a historic piece of legislation. I think it is significant for another reason as well. This decision, this Bostock case and the majority who wrote it, represents the end of something. It represents the end of the conservative legal movement or the conservative legal project as we know it. After Bostock, that effort as we know it, as it has existed up to now, is over. I say this because if textualism and originalism give you this decision, if you can invoke textualism and originalism in order to reach a decision, an outcome fundamentally that changes the scope--meaning and application of statutory law--then textualism, originalism, and all of those phrases don't mean much at all. Those are the things we have been fighting for. That is what I thought we had been fighting for. Those who call ourselves legal conservatives, if we have been fighting for legalism and textualism and this is the result of that, then I have to say that it turns out we haven't been fighting for very much, or maybe we have been fighting for quite a lot, but it has been exactly the opposite of what we thought we were fighting for. This is a very significant decision. It marks a turning point for every conservative, and it marks a turning point for the legal conservative movement. The legal conservative project has always depended on one group of people in particular, in order to carry the weight of the votes, to actually support this out in public, to get out there and make it possible electorally, and those are religious conservatives. I am one myself. Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, conservative Jews--they are the ones--let's be honest--they are the ones who have been the core of the legal conservative effort. The reason for that is--it dates back decades now, back to the 1970s. The reason for that is these religious conservatives are from different backgrounds, but what they have consistently sought together was protection for their right to worship, for their right to freely exercise their faith, as the First Amendment guarantees, for their right to gather in their communities, for their right to pursue the way of life that their scriptures variously command and that the Constitution absolutely protects. That is what they have asked for, that is what they have sought all these years. Yet, as to those religious conservatives, how do they fare in yesterday's decision? What will this decision mean, this rewrite of Title VII? What will it mean for churches? What will it mean for religious schools? What will it mean for religious charities? Well, in the many pages of its opinion--33 pages to be exact--the majority does finally get around to say something about religious liberty on one page. What does it say? Here is the substance of the Court's analysis: How ``doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII,'' as reinterpreted now by the Court, ``are questions for future cases.'' Let's have that again. How ``doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases.'' No doubt they are huge questions. We eagerly await what our super-legislators across the street in the Supreme Court building there at One First Street will legislate on this question. What will become of church-hiring liberty? What will become of the policies of religious schools? What will become of the fate of religious charities? Who knows? Who is to say? They are questions for future cases. I will say this in defense of the Court: It is difficult to anticipate in one case all future possible implications. That is why courts are supposed to leave legislating to legislators. That is why article III does not give the U.S. Supreme Court or any Federal court the power to legislate but only the judicial power to decide cases and controversies, not to decide policies. I will also say this: Everybody knows--every honest person knows that the laws in this country today are made almost entirely by unelected bureaucrats and courts; they are not made by this body. Why not? Because this body doesn't want to make law, that is why not. In order to make law, you have to take a vote. In order to vote, you have to be on the record, and to be on the record is to be held accountable, and that is what this body fears above all else. This body is terrified of being held accountable for anything on any subject. So can we be surprised that where the legislature fears to tread, where the article I body--this body that is charged by the Constitution for legislating-- refuses to do its job, courts rush in and bureaucrats too? Are they accountable to the people? No, not at all. Do we have any resource? Not really. What should we do? Now we must wait to see what the super- legislators will say about our rights in future cases. If this case makes anything clear, it is that the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one. It is time to reject it. The bargain has never been necessarily explicitly articulated, but religious conservatives know what it is. The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities--or at least keep your mouth shut about it--and in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional right to freedom of worship and freedom of exercise. That is what we have been told for years now. We were told that we are supposed to shut up while the party establishment focuses more on cutting taxes and handing out favors to corporations--multinational corporations that don't share our values, that will not stand up for American principles, and that are only too happy to ship American jobs overseas. But we are supposed to say nothing about that. We are supposed to keep our mouths shut because maybe we will get a judge out of the deal. That was the implicit bargain. We are supposed to keep our mouths shut while the party establishment opens borders and while the party establishment pursues ruinous trade policies. We are supposed to keep our mouths shut while those at the upper end of the income bracket get all of the attention while working families and college students and those who don't want to go to college but can't get a good job--they get what attention? Workers. Children. What about parents looking for help with the cost of raising children; looking for help with the culture in which they have to raise children; looking for help with the communities, rebuilding the communities in which they must carry out their family life? What about college students trying to find an education that isn't ruinously expensive and then trying to figure out some way to pay back that ruinous debt? What about those who don't have a college degree and don't want one but would like to get a good job? What about them? We are supposed to stay quiet about all of that and more because there will be pro-constitutional religious liberty judges--except that there aren't; except that these judges don't follow the Constitution; except that these judges invoke textualism and originalism in order to reach their preferred outcome. I want to be clear. I am not personally criticizing any Justice who joined the majority opinion or wrote it. I believe 100 percent that the Justice who principally offered this--Justice Gorsuch--and those who joined him are sincere and were writing to the best of their ability, reasoning to the best of their ability. Whatever else you might say about the opinion, it is not sloppily reasoned. I think they were doing what they thought was best and using all of the skills and gifts they have. I question how we got here. I question how judges who hold to this philosophy ended up on that bench. I question the bargain that people of faith have been offered and asked to hold to for all of these years. The truth is, to those who have objected to my own questioning of judicial nominees in this body, to those who said I was wrong to question judges who came before the Judiciary Committee, to those who chided me for asking tough questions even of nominees by a Republican President, to those who said I was slowing down the process and I was out of line, and to the supposedly conservative groups who threatened to buy television time in my own State to punish me for asking questions about conservative judges, I just have this to say: This is why I ask questions. This is why I won't stop. And I wish some more people would ask some harder questions because this outcome is not acceptable, and the bargain religious conservatives have been offered is not tenable. I would just say it is not the time for religious conservatives to shut up. We have done that for too long. It is time for religious conservatives to stand up and to speak out. It is time for religious conservatives to bring forward the best of our ideas on every policy affecting this Nation. We should be out in the forefront leading on economics, on trade, on race, on class, on every subject that matters for what our Founders called the ``general welfare'' because we have a lot to offer, not just to protect our own rights but for the good of all of our fellow citizens. As religious believers, we know that serving our fellow citizens-- whatever their religious faith or whatever their commitments may be--we know that serving them, aiding them, working for them is one of the signature ways we show a love of neighbor. It is time for religious conservatives to do that. It is time for religious conservatives to take the lead rather than being pushed to the back. It is time for religious conservatives to stand up and speak out rather than being told to sit down and shut up. I am confident that people of faith and good will all across this country are ready to do that and want to do that and have something to offer this country and every person in this country, whatever their background or income or race or religion, and because of that, I am confident in the future. I am also confident that the old ways will not do. Let this be a departure. Let this be a new beginning. Let this be the start of something better. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, we have a lot of problems in America today--a pandemic, a recession, a surge of violence in our major cities drowning out a nationwide call for justice and hope. We have work to do in this body and this city to solve these problems and to heed that call. Our voters sent us here to make things better, to rebuild, to heal, but that is not what we are doing. No, for the last several weeks, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their allies in the media and some professional political activists on a payroll have been trying to divide us against each other, to paralyze us, to stoke resentment of our fellow citizens and hatred of this Nation that we call home. It is really remarkable, if you think about it. Just a few short weeks ago, we were united in outrage at the murder of George Floyd. We were united in impatience for justice for his family. And nothing has changed about that. All people of good will still want justice to be done. I do. But the call of the marchers has been weaponized by partisans who want nothing more than to say that only some Americans really support equal justice under the law; only some institutions of government are really committed to that cause; only one party can be trusted to govern in good faith; only one political coalition is righteous enough to rule over the other. You don't hear talk of unity when watching MSNBC or reading the New York Times these days. Instead, those outlets are drawing up a new list of villains--not Floyd's killer. No, not him. We are way past George Floyd now, I guess. No, we are talking about new grievances, structural evils endemic to America itself--the police, the military, the flag, oh, and of course the President. It is always about the President. Actually, what it is really about is the President's voters. It is about the people who elected him. It is about the red States, like mine. It is about the people who live there. The elite media, the woke mob--they don't like these people, and they want the rest of America to dislike them too. This is why they are telling us that it wasn't a homicidal cop who killed George Floyd. No, his death now is the product of systemic racism, we are told, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge their role in his death, anyone who doesn't bend their knee to this extreme ideology, is complicit in violence. It is not enough, apparently, to bring Derrick Chauvin to justice for his crimes. No, now we have to defund all the police. There is no scab they will not pick at, no divide they will not exploit, no controversy they will not gin up to make us hate each other. Well, we cannot take their bait. In the last weeks, we have seen a professor put on leave for quoting the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. Not woke enough. We have seen the New York Times fire its opinion page editor for daring to publish the words of a Republican Senator. He forgot the party line. We have seen a literal insurrection in the streets of Seattle, a breakaway Antifa enclave ruled by a self-described warlord--you cannot make this stuff up--lauded now, in some quarters at least, as an experiment in post- police governance. We have had a bill introduced in the House to bring that experiment in chaos to our cities and towns all across the country and to demonize the fine men and women who put their lives on the line day and night to protect protesters' rights to demand justice. The madness is accelerating this month, but the radical left has been at this for a while. The New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project--a propaganda campaign designed to recast America's founding as an evil event and American democracy as a system of violent racial oppression. It won that prize despite wide criticism by historians who objected to its historical revisionism. Now, with the Pulitzer's seal of approval, the Times is developing a 1619 grade school curriculum so that our children will be indoctrinated to hate this country at taxpayer expense. They want to do to our public schools what they have already done to the universities. What does any of this have to do with healing our Nation? What does it have to do with bringing about that more perfect union, whose achievement is our shared ambition and shared obligation as Americans? The answer is, nothing. And that is the point. As has been widely reported, this week one of my Senate colleagues introduced a measure to strip all military installations and bases in this country of reference to Confederate soldiers or Confederate history. And for what purpose? To achieve justice for George Floyd? To bring our Nation together? No, I don't think so. The purpose was to erase from history--erase every person and name and event not righteous enough--and to cast those who would object as defenders of the cause of slavery, to reenact in our current politics that Civil War that tore brother from brother and divided this Nation against itself. You would think, the way some in the media talk about this country, that they are sad we are still not fighting the Civil War. They would like us to fight a new civil war in our culture day and night, without end. I would suggest to my colleagues that the Civil War not only gave us villains, it also gave us heroes and a more perfect union to love. Maybe we should learn from those heroes. We should learn from Lincoln, who called our Nation to unity at Gettysburg. ``It is for the living,'' he told us, ``to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom and that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' If you visit Gettysburg, you will find monuments to the dead of free States and slave States alike, and you will see children who are brought there by their parents after long car drives from their homes, drawn in by these old symbols and memorials to the lessons those teach about our Nation's new birth of freedom. The Americans who visit these hallowed grounds all across our country want to know why this Nation fought a war against itself, why brothers could not live under one flag together. We teach them there in those places how we became a better nation through the crucible of that terrible war, and we teach them there to be proud that we did so. That hard-fought pride in the shared struggle that unites us is now fading. That story is being erased. A nation united in the cause of justice is dividing, and we are increasingly at war with ourselves. This cannot continue. This great Nation and its good people cannot continue our life of freedom together if we vilify and destroy each other from within. Now, before we vote on this floor on the National Defense Authorization Act, I will offer an amendment to undo this effort at historical revisionism. I will offer it not to celebrate the cause of the Confederacy but to embrace the cause of union--our union, shared together as Americans. It is time for our leaders to stop using their position here to divide us. Let us work together instead to build on the history and the responsibility that we share as Americans to continue that unfinished work of this Nation that we call home. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAWLEY

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

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, it was 1 week ago today that George Floyd died in the streets of Minneapolis at the hands of Minneapolis police officers exercising and employing incredible, illegal, unconstitutional violence ending in the loss of Mr. Floyd's life. This afternoon, we have a medical report from examiners hired by Mr. Floyd's family. The words are just shocking. The report concludes: George Floyd was killed by asphyxia due to neck and back compression and died at the scene. Sustained pressure on the right side of Mr. Floyd's artery impeded blood flow to the brain, and weight on his back impeded his ability to breathe. Then the report concludes: The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired Mr. Floyd's diaphragm to function. From all the evidence, the doctors said it now appears Mr. Floyd died at the scene. Words cannot begin to describe the injustice that this report puts into plain text: the violation of police procedures, the abuse of the law, the appalling, illegal, homicidal misuse of government authority. Words cannot begin to describe the injustice that this has done to Mr. Floyd, to his family, to his community, and to millions of Americans who feel caught up, who feel judged by, endangered by, imperiled by these actions and too many others like them over too many years for too long in this country. I just want to say as the former attorney general of my State--a role in which I had the great privilege to work day in and day out with law enforcement across the State of Missouri, law enforcement who go to work every day to prevent this kind of illegal violence, to prevent this kind of illicit use of power--that the actions by the police officer and officers here in this case cast an incredible aspersion on those valiant and courageous and law-abiding police officers, Black and White and of every color across our country, who go to do their job every day to protect and uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect men and women like George Floyd. The actions of these officers in this case are an incredible betrayal of those standards of those officers and of justice itself. I understand why so many Americans have assembled peacefully to witness to this abuse of power and to protest it and to demand that justice be done. They are right to do so, and they are right to demand that this pattern of violence exercised against African-Americans be acknowledged and it be confronted and it be stopped. This is urgent work for us as a nation and for this Congress as we go forward. I also believe that those who would turn this occasion into an opportunity for rioting and for looting and for more violence and for further attacks and for civil unrest do a great disservice to the memory of Mr. Floyd, to his family, and to this cause of justice that we Americans share together, for this is a cause that is ours together as a nation. This is a cause given to us by our common Constitution. This is a cause that should link us together, American with American, and we must resist the efforts of those--all of those--who would set us against ourselves as we seek to pursue that more perfect union, as we seek to pursue justice in this case and in other cases and in the future to come. So I add my voice to those who call for an end now to the rioting and to the looting, to those who would defame and dishonor and disfigure the memory of Mr. Floyd and his cause. I hope all lawful steps will be taken to protect innocent and law-abiding citizens in our cities and in our communities so that the peaceful assembly and its righteous cause can go forward. I just want to say one more thing on this subject. We cannot ignore that these peaceful protests are taking place amid a backdrop of the 20-percent unemployment in this Nation--perhaps higher in the urban centers of our Nation. I think of a line by a former Senator, who once said that ``to be unemployed is to have nothing to do, and that means having nothing to do with the rest of us.'' I hope that as we as a nation and we as a body in the U.S. Senate turn our attention to what we can do to seek that more perfect union, what we can do to better secure the promise of our Constitution, what we can better do to secure that dream we hold together as Americans, I hope one thing we will discuss is the vitality, the necessity of work-- work that is meaningful and that is rewarding and that is available for all Americans, from our urban core to our small towns. I hope we will have a discussion about the policies that for too long in this country, for too many decades, have sent too much work out of our country, away from our cities--away from our small towns, for that matter. I hope we can discuss what we will do to bring work back so that those who grow up in our cities--young men who grow up in our cities--will have a sense of a future, will have a sense of possibility, will think that ``there is something for me here. I could build a family here. I could start something here. And yes, I could have a say and a share in our society here.'' For that, they have to have work. They have to have meaningful work. This is a task to which we must set ourselves. It is urgent now in this present pandemic crisis that has seen these unemployment numbers rocket to historic, unimaginable levels. It is vital we address the crisis of work, but it is also vital for our future. It is vital for our urban core. It is vital for the young men and women who struggle there. It is vital for our rural towns and our small areas like the one I am from. It is vital for every part of this country, for every member of this Nation, and it is work I hope we will take up urgently together to provide good- paying, meaningful jobs that can support the social fabric that is the foundation of our democracy. There is much to do in the months and the years ahead. I just hope that the loss of Mr. Floyd will serve as a fresh beginning, an opportunity for a new start, for Americans from every corner of this country, from every political background, from every race and ethnicity, to stand together and to say: We commit ourselves anew to this Constitution that we love, to this Nation that we call home, and we are determined now more than ever to seek and to build a more perfect union. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, we have come to the middle hour of our struggle against this epidemic, against a disease unleashed on the world by the failures and falsehoods of a government in Beijing. This epidemic has brought devastation in its wake--lost jobs, lost lives, fear, and isolation. It is shaking old institutions and challenging old ways. The international order, as we have known it for 30 years, is breaking. Now imperialist China seeks to remake the world in its own image and to bend the global economy to its own will, and we face a moment of truth. Will we acquiesce? Are we, in this Nation, willing to witness the slow undoing of the free world? Are we willing to watch our own way of life, our own liberties and livelihoods grow dependent on the policy of Beijing? Already, we hear a chorus of voices telling us that America must accept a narrower future. We must live with slower economic growth. We must expect lower wages. We must accommodate ourselves to the rise of China. Well, I, for one, am not willing to settle for less. I am not willing to see blue collar workers go without work for months or years on end as their jobs are shipped overseas. I am not willing to watch wages flatline and fall. I am not willing to see families struggle for food and middle-class neighborhoods disappear, and neither are the American people. The Nation that sent a man to the Moon and defeated German and Soviet oppression in the space of 50 years will not be content to take second place to the imperialists in Beijing. We will not be content with a small future. Now, as in times past, this Nation must again take control of our own destiny and lead the free world to a better day. The free nations again confront a common threat. The Chinese Communist Party is a menace to all free peoples. It seeks nothing less than domination. It wants nothing less than word power. This is China's policy: to control Asia and to rule the Pacific. From there, the Chinese Government wants to spread its influence to Africa, to Europe, to South America--a master of home and abroad. And they are well on their way. For decades now, China has bent and abused and broken the rules of the international economic system to its own benefit. They have stolen our intellectual property and forced our companies to transfer sensitive trade secrets and technology. They have manipulated their currency and cheated time and again on their trade commitments. They have been complicit in the trafficking of persons and relied on the forced labor of religious minorities. America has suffered. Since Beijing won most favored nation status and joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, we have lost over 3 million jobs to China. During the past two decades, as we fought war after war in the Middle East, the Chinese Government systematically built its military on the backs of the American middle class. Oh, we were promised that things would be different. We were told that giving China access to our markets and allowing them power in the WTO would reform their behavior and it would make them more liberal. We were told it would be good for America and good for the world. Well, the only nation it was good for was China, and we cannot afford inaction any longer. The threat of China to the free world grows by the day. If the coronavirus pandemic doesn't make that clear, nothing will. What should be equally clear is that the United States must now reform the global economy itself to rebuild our strength and prevent China's bid for domination. The economy has become the principal arena for the great power contest in this new century. Economic policy is now security policy, and China understands that. China has integrated its economic and security strategies for the last two decades, systematically weaponizing the institutions and procedures of the global economy for its own benefit. It is the United States that has been slow to respond. Now we must recognize that the economic system designed by Western policymakers at the end of the Cold War does not serve our purposes in this new era, and it does not meet our needs in this new day. And we should admit that multiple of its founding premises were in error. The economic system over the last 30 years--it is nothing sacred. It is not inevitable. It was a choice, and now we have the power to choose again, to choose differently, and for the better. You know, it didn't start out this way. Decades ago, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the United States and its allies created a series of economic partnerships and institutions that aimed to strengthen the free world and check Soviet expansion. These agreements encouraged partnership and trade among free nations as sovereign equals. Trade in commerce did increase and barriers did come down, but nations remained in control of their own economies and their own destinies. Important sectors were protected, capital flows controlled, and workers had a place to rise. But when the Soviet Union fell, ambitious policymakers in this country and other Western nations saw the opportunity to create something new, something in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson, a dream to remake the world. These Western leaders wanted a truly global economy, one that would include all nations, like-minded or not, to be governed by multilateral institutions rather than nation-states, to operate by a single set of rules, to promote the flow of goods and capital across borders. They wanted a single liberal market to support a single liberal international order, one that was supposed to bring peace in our time. Well, that peace never arrived. Instead, these new Wilsonians embroiled the United States in conflict after conflict, war after war for decades, and the new global market they championed flatlined the wages of American workers and shifted American industry overseas, all while multinational corporations reaped the gains. One of the Wilsonians' new institutions particularly typified these trends. I am talking about the World Trade Organization. It was established in 1995 as a successor to the Cold War-era General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The idea was for the WTO to help harmonize trading rules the world over and have the teeth to enforce them. The WTO would have its own court--I was part of the design--a dispute resolution body that would interpret trade agreements and settle the differences between nations over trade. The effect was to take trade disputes out of the hands of elected national leaders and commit them to the control of international lawyers in Geneva. It worked in the sense that the WTO's court increasingly set trade policy for the world. The old system, the GATT, had allowed for national policy needs to come first--our workers and our industries-- but the WTO reversed these priorities. Now global concerns reigned supreme, which meant the priorities of multinational corporations and global capital. Not surprisingly, the WTO lawyers have not been kind to America. The WTO's dispute resolution process has systematically disfavored the United States--a complaint that Presidents of both parties have made for years. The United States has lost 90 percent of the cases brought against it, hurting industries across the Nation, from steelworkers in the Rust Belt to cotton farmers in States like mine. Meanwhile, the WTO dispute resolution body has systematically expanded its own jurisdiction, going beyond the text of the actual trade agreements and citing itself as authority. That is not all. The WTO permitted China to claim special status as a developing country from the moment China entered the organization even though China was already the sixth richest nation in the world by GDP in the year 2000. China jealously guards that sweetheart deal even today, allowing it to defer its obligations, to skirt the rules we follow, and to continue to amass power at our expense. I could go on. The WTO places strict limits on the support we can provide our farmers and ranchers, even as other nations refuse to comply with WTO rulings in favor of our producers. It is clear that the WTO is deeply flawed. The institution's design makes it nearly impossible to reform, as we saw during the failed go- around, and it remains completely ill-equipped to deal with forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft like we have seen from China for decades. The American people get the idea. No trade regime can last when it no longer serves the people of the countries that are part of it. The truth is, our interests and those of the WTO diverged many years ago. The WTO is a symbol of an economic order whose Wilsonian ambitions have cost this country dearly, enabling and empowering the rise of an imperialist China. Now, American leadership is required--it is essential--to chart a new course. This Nation has never been content to linger in the rear while others lead the way, and we will not begin now. We will lead. We will act. I call on this body to do its part by taking a vote to withdraw from the WTO. The agreement by which we joined that organization expressly affords us this right. It commits to Congress--both Houses--the right to debate the WTO's workings and the right to vote to continue in the WTO or to withdraw. This is a right--it is our responsibility, really-- that the Senate has never exercised since 1995, not one time. We are past due. We should take up our responsibility and debate this issue critical to the future of our country, and we should vote to leave. To begin a new era, we must end the old. So let's vote, and let it be a new beginning. Let the work begin in earnest to forge a new way forward. Thinking of that future, I offer two principles to guide our policy. First, as a member of the world economy, we must never privilege the preferences of other nations or multilateral institutions over the needs of our own people and our own workers. As the leader of the free world, we must empower other countries to resist Chinese imperialism at every turn, whether on their own or standing together with us as a coalition. To put these principles into action, we must leave the WTO and construct a new trade system that helps the United States grow strong. This new system should retain and deepen the principle of reciprocity. It should encourage cooperation and market access but without compromising nations' economic sovereignty and their internal control of their own economies. We in America cannot compromise our sovereign right to protect the American people and their livelihoods, so we must replace an empire of lawyers with the confederation of truly mutual trade. Mutual trade will require a new approach to dispute resolution, one that will offer nations flexibility and choice, allow countries to litigate trade disputes like a private contract, through third-party arbitration chosen by the parties on a case-by-case basis, with ground rules agreed upon by both sides and subject to revisions as circumstances warrant, or allow countries to set up enforcement procedures within the trade agreements themselves, like we have done in our recent phase 1 negotiations with China. On either approach, choices over trade will be made and policies will be set, as they should be, by elected leaders who are accountable to the people, not by a court sitting in Geneva But reform should not stop at trade. We must also think seriously about what occurs upstream from trade, and that means global capital. There is a reason why Wall Street loves the status quo. There is a reason why they will object to leaving the WTO and resist major reforms to our global economic order. That is because they are on a gravy train of foreign capital flows that keep their checkbooks fat. But this foreign money pouring into our country has a distorting effect. We get asset bubbles that could spur recessions, and our exporters have trouble selling abroad. Our farmers and producers know this problem all too well. So now we must work for new agreements and better managed capital markets to stop currency manipulators and to protect this Nation's producers. By moderating these flows of foreign money, we can help give a much needed boost to our producers at home and finally reverse our massive trade deficit with China and with the world. Finally, actions at home are only part of the solution. Trade and current policy, after all, are not made in a vacuum. The world is changing, and if we are to halt China's bid for hegemony over the coming decades, we will need to work with our allies and partners to do it. So it is in America's interest to see that other free nations grow strong and that we are able to work together to deter and defeat Chinese economic coercion. We benefit if countries that share our opposition to Chinese imperialism--countries like India, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and Taiwan--are economically independent of China and standing shoulder to shoulder with us. So we should actively pursue new networks of mutual trade with key Asian and European partners, like the economic prosperity network recently mentioned by Secretary Pompeo. We should offer partner nations new incentives to support the purchase of our products made here in America by American workers. A new system of export financing and loan guarantees would serve as a powerful counterweight to China's expanding Belt and Road Initiative, and it would boost demand for our products, raising wages and creating good jobs along the way. Here again, our aim must be to build networks of strong partners able to stand tall against Chinese aggression while strengthening our workers and fostering our industries. A new departure is upon us whether we like it or not. The old order is giving way. The future need not be limited, however, not for this country. This moment is full of promise if we have the courage to lead. We can build a future that looks beyond pandemic to prosperity--a prosperity shared by all Americans, from the rural towns of our country to the urban core. We can build a future that looks past a failed consensus to meet the national security needs of this new century. We can build a future that transcends the narrow thinking of the Washington beltway and that gives confidence to American workers and to the communities they call home. With a global economy that better suits our interests, that better protects our people, we can find the strength and purpose to counter the gravest danger to American workers in a century and to unleash again the promise of our unique and marvelous way of life. To my colleagues in the Senate, I say: It is time to lead. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, it is my privilege to rise and congratulate the Kansas City Chiefs on their victory over the 49ers in Super Bowl LTV last week in Miami, FL. With their victory, the Chiefs earned their second Super Bowl championship and their first since 1970. I would just note, as someone who was born just about 10 years after that first Super Bowl, I have literally been waiting my whole life for this, and, man, it is darn good. This victory was Coach Andy Reid's 222nd career win and, of course, his first Super Bowl title in his Hall of Fame career. The Chiefs were led by quarterback Patrick Mahomes. If you don't know who Patrick Mahomes is, I don't know where you have been for the last couple of years. Mahomes completed 26 of 42 passes for 286 yards and 2 touchdowns. He rushed nine times for 29 yards and another touchdown, and he was named the game's Most Valuable Player. Mahomes is the youngest player in the history of the NFL to win both the NFL MVP award and a Super Bowl title. Mahomes' play in the Super Bowl was the culmination of a historic playoff run, full of memorable moments, none more iconic than the ``scamper down the sideline'' for a touchdown to take the lead against the Tennessee Titans in the AFC championship game. It takes a team to win a Super Bowl, and everyone on this team did his part. Running back Damien Williams had 17 carries for 104 yards and 1 touchdown, plus 4 catches for 29 yards and a touchdown. Tight end Travis Kelce added six receptions for 43 yards and one touchdown. Wide receiver Tyreek Hill had nine receptions for 105 yards, including that crucial 44-yard reception on third down with fewer than 7 minutes remaining in the fourth quarter. And wide receiver Sammy Watkins added another five catches for 98 yards. The defense and special teams did their part, too. Bashaud Breeland led the Chiefs with seven tackles and one interception. Defensive tackle Chris Jones was a disruptive force, batting down three passes from 49ers quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo. Defensive end Frank Clark sacked Garoppolo on fourth and 10 with fewer than 2 minutes remaining to seal the victory--maybe my favorite play of the game. And Harrison Butker was perfect, making one field goal and four extra points. The entire Chiefs roster contributed to this historic victory. I ask unanimous consent that all of their names be listed in the Record.

Mr. HAWLEY. If I could just add a word about the Hunt family, who own the Chiefs and have led the Chiefs for decades now, Lamar Hunt founded the Chiefs more than six decades ago and helped shape the National Football League, including by coining the phrase ``Super Bowl.'' Those were his words. It was his idea. His legacy continues today with Clark and Tavia Hunt, who are remarkable people. The entire Hunt family deserves great credit for their unwavering commitment to Kansas City, the State of Missouri, and the Chiefs organization, which they lead with tremendous poise, tremendous integrity, and tremendous honor. Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs, to their employees, to the hundreds of thousands--maybe millions--of loyal fans out there, to Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Clark Hunt, to President Mark Donovan, General Manager Brett Veach, Coach Reid, and his staff, trainers, and equipment managers, all of whom contributed to this great victory. They have people all over the world asking ``how `bout those Chiefs?'' Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAWLEY

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

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I come here today with the business of impeachment before this Chamber. It should hardly be necessary at this late juncture to outline again the train of abuses and distortions and outright lies that have brought us to today's impeachment vote: the secret meetings in the Capitol basement; the closed hearings without due process or basic fairness; the failure of the House to follow their own rules and authorize an impeachment inquiry and then the bipartisan vote against impeachment; and the attempt to manipulate or even prevent a trial here in the Senate--holding the Articles of Impeachment for 33 days--in brazen defiance of the Constitution's mandates. The House Democrats have given us the first purely partisan impeachment in our history and the first attempt to remove an elected President that does not even allege unlawful conduct. Animating it all has been the bitter resentment of a professional political class that cannot accept the verdict of the people in 2016, that cannot accept the people's priorities, and that now seeks to overturn the election and entrench themselves in power. That is how we arrived at this moment, that is how we got here, and that is what this is really about. Now it is time to bring this fiasco to a close. It is time to end this cycle of retribution and payback and bitterness. It is time to end the abuse of our institutions. It is time to let the verdict of the people stand. So I will vote today to acquit the President of these charges. You know, it has been clear for a long time that impeachment is not a priority of the people--it is not even close. It is a pipe dream of politicians. And as the Democrats have forced it on this country over these many months, it has sapped our energy and diverted our attention from the real issues that press upon our country, the issues the people of this Nation have tried to get this town to care about for years. I mean the crisis of surging suicides and drug addiction that is driving down life expectancy in my State and across this Nation. I mean the crisis at the border, where those drugs are pouring across. I mean the crisis of skyrocketing healthcare costs, which burden families, young and old, with bills they cannot pay. I mean the crisis of affordable housing, which robs parents of a safe place to raise their children and build a life. I mean the crisis of trafficking and exploitation, which robs our young girls and boys of a future and our society of their innocence. I mean the crisis of the family farm and the crisis of education costs for those who go to college and the lack of good-paying jobs for those who don't. I mean the crisis of connectivity in our heartland, where too many schoolchildren can't access the internet even to do their homework at night. I mean the crisis of unfair trade and lost jobs and broken homes. And I could go on. My point is this: When I listen to the people of my State, I don't hear about impeachment. No, I hear about the problems of home and neighborhood, of family and community, about the loss of faith in our government and about the struggle to find hope for the future. This town owes it to these Americans--the ones who sent us here--finally to listen, finally to act, and finally to do something that really matters to them. We must leave this impeachment circus behind us and ensure that our Constitution is never again abused in this way. It is time to turn the page. It is time to turn to a new politics of the people and to a politics of home. It is time to turn to the future--a future where this town finally accepts the people's judgment and the people's verdict and where this town finally delivers for the people who elected them; a future where the middle of our society gets a fair shake and a level playing field; a future where maybe--maybe--this town will finally listen. When I think of all the energy and all the effort that has been expended on this impeachment crusade over almost 3 years now, I wonder what might have been. Today is a sad day, but it does not have to remain that way. Imagine what we might achieve for the good of this Nation if we turn our energy and our effort to the work of the American people. Imagine what we could do to keep families in their homes and to bring new possibility to the Nation's heartland and to care for our children in every part of this society. Imagine what we could do to lift up the most vulnerable among us who have been exploited and trafficked and give them new hope and new life. Imagine what we could do for those who have been forgotten, from our rural towns to our inner cities. Imagine what we could do to give them control over their own destinies. We can find the common good. We can push the boundaries of the possible. We can rebuild this Nation if we will listen to the American people. Let us begin. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, it is my privilege to honor the sesquicentennial of Missouri University of Science and Technology, as Missourians know it, S&T. Founded in 1870, Missouri S&T was the first technological institution west of the Mississippi. Originally named the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy, the school was primary focused on educating and training those who would mine the mineral rich area on the eastern side of the State. By the 1920s, S&T had expanded into chemical, electrical, and civil engineering, as well as physics, chemistry, mathematics, and geometry. After World War II, as the United States was becoming the global leader in technological innovation, S&T stepped up to do its part by adding graduate-level training and research. The school was home to Missouri's first operational nuclear reactor. Across the years, S&T has established itself as one of the premier technical institutions in the Nation, excelling at teaching and research. For 150 years, Missouri S&T has been providing the sons and daughters of Missouri a close-to-home option for world-class technical education. Congratulations on 150 years and here is to the next 150.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and on behalf of Senator Lee.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chief Justice, I send to the desk a question for both counsel for the President and the House managers on my own behalf and on behalf of Senator Cruz, Senator Daines, and Senator Braun.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, it has been 19 days today--19 days--since the House of Representatives impeached the President of the United States. It has been 19 days since we were told that it was urgent that President Trump be impeached and removed from office. It was urgent for the safety of the country. It was urgent for national security. It was urgent to protect the Constitution of the United States. It was urgent; it had to be done now. The articles had to be rushed through. The rules had to be violated. There couldn't be due process. It was urgent. Where are we now? Nineteen days later, the Speaker of the House has still not transmitted the articles to this body for a trial, has still not appointed managers for a trial, has still not exhibited the articles before this body for a trial. We now have the longest delay in American history in providing notice to this body and actually moving forward with a trial, and now I think we have a better sense of what was urgent. What was urgent was fulfilling the partisan vendetta that the Speaker of the House and the Democrats have against this President. What was urgent was overturning the results of an election that they have never accepted. That is what was urgent. But now--now that it is time to actually try the case--well, now the Speaker and the Democrats aren't so sure. In fact, now they don't seem to want a trial. Now, when it is time to put up or shut up, actually put the evidence forward to be judged, Speaker Pelosi is saying that she may withhold the articles indefinitely and prevent this body indefinitely from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities-- after, of course, a bipartisan coalition in the House of Representatives voted against impeachment. I think we can probably see, the longer we wait, why the Speaker is so reluctant now to have a trial. It was a purely partisan process in the House. She had Democrats abandon her and vote with Republicans in a bipartisan coalition against impeachment. The articles don't even allege a crime. This was the first time in American history in the impeachment of a President in which no crime was even alleged in the articles, no evidence of a crime even presented. No wonder she doesn't want to have a trial. No wonder she is now sitting on the articles and will not permit a Senate trial to begin. Well, here is the problem with that: The Constitution of the United States is really clear. The House has the power to impeach. They have done that. But the Senate--and the Senate alone--has the power to try. The Constitution, article I, says that the Senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases, to adjudicate what has happened in the House, to examine the facts, and to render a judgment of some sort. Now the House Speaker is attempting to prevent the Senate from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, its constitutional prerogative. All of this division and rancor--all of this bitterness that she has put the country through now for months on end--she apparently wants to continue indefinitely and deny this body its constitutional responsibility to conduct a trial. It has been 19 days. It could be 90 days. It could be 190 days. There is nothing that will stop the Speaker from sitting on these articles indefinitely. They could persist into the President's second term, if and when he is reelected. That is the situation we are now facing. If Americans are sick of this impeachment saga, this partisan circus now, just wait until we are still sitting here in October or January of next year or January of the year following or who knows when without a trial, without adjudication, without any resolution. That is why it is time for this body to act. It is time for the Senate to act to preserve the Constitution's separation of powers, to preserve the Constitution's guarantees--the right to due process, the right for the President to be heard, the right for the American people to have these Articles of Impeachment adjudicated, resolved, as the Constitution commits to and provides for. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to update the Senate's rules to account for this unprecedented attempt by the Speaker of the House to delay, to deny, to obstruct a trial in the U.S. Senate. Let's be clear. This has never been done before. It has not even been thought of before. Nobody had thought, before Speaker Pelosi launched this gambit 19 days ago, that the House could sit on Articles of Impeachment indefinitely in order to stop a Senate trial. If the Constitution is going to remain in effect, if the Senate is going to have the power, as the Constitution provides, to try cases, if the President is going to get his day in court, if the American people are going to have the ability to have this issue resolved, to see the facts, to get a verdict, the Senate has to act. Today I am proposing new rules in the U.S. Senate that will set a time limit on the actions of the House. It will give the House Speaker 25 days from the date that the articles are adopted and published to transmit those articles here to the Senate, to exhibit them as the House rules and Senate rules currently speak of and anticipate, and if that is not done, if in 25 days the House Speaker has not acted so that the Senate is able to move forward with a trial, then, under my resolution and the change in the rules that I propose today, the Senate would be able to introduce a motion to dismiss these articles for lack of prosecution. In the real world, when a prosecutor brings a case but refuses to try it, the court has the ability and the defendant has the right--a constitutional right, I might add--to have those indictments, those charges, dismissed. That is precisely the action that I am proposing today. It is time to update the Senate's rules to account for this unprecedented attempt at obstruction, at denial, at delay. It is time for the Senate to act. The House has a simple choice in front of it--or it should. That choice is to send the Articles of Impeachment to this body to be tried before this body, to exhibit the evidence that it has to make the case that it can, however poor that case may be, but to make the case that it can and to allow the American people the right to have this resolution achieved, the right to have the evidence tried, the right to have the verdict rendered. It is time for the Senate to act to ensure that the constitutional balance of power, the constitutional separation of powers, and the basic functioning of this government of our Republic are able to go forward. This is a matter of great urgency. There is nothing more serious than an attempt to overturn the results of a democratic election and to remove from office a sitting President, and that is exactly what is happening now. It is imperative that we act. The country deserves it. It is imperative for future Congresses and for the future of the country that the Constitution not be subverted in this rush by Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats to remove this President from office without evidence, on no basis, and solely for political purposes. We must defend the Constitution, and we must act now to do so.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, just two brief points this evening--the first is that I am proud to join not only as a supporter of this measure but as original cosponsor, and I want to thank the other Senators--Senator Rubio, especially Senator Cardin, and Senator Risch-- for their leadership on this issue, but I want to be clear that we are here today in this Chamber, and what we are doing is possible tonight because of the bravery and the courage of the protesters in Hong Kong. Many of them are very young people who are risking their very lives, taking to the streets, standing for democracy, standing for the promises that were made to them by Beijing many years ago and fighting for them now, putting everything on the line. And I just want to say to those protesters that you are making a difference, that your lives have made a difference, and to those who even now are trapped inside PolyU in this siege that the Hong Kong police force has created--this humanitarian crisis that the Hong Kong police force has fostered--what you are doing is inspiring the world. What you are doing has moved this body. What you are doing is changing the world. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for your bravery. Thank you for believing in your city, and thank you for believing in Hong Kong. The other thing I would say is that, while today is a good day in the struggle to preserve the freedoms of this city and the struggle against a totalitarian regime in Beijing, it is not the last day. Although this step is an important step that this Chamber takes, it is not the last step that this Nation may need to take in order to hold China to its commitments made in 1984, in order to protect the autonomy and the liberty of the city of Hong Kong because, make no mistake, we are in for a long struggle with Communist China. We are in for a long struggle with Beijing. We know what their ambitions are: to dominate Hong Kong, to dominate Taiwan, to dominate the region and, ultimately, to impose their will on the entire international system. We are going to have to stand against that for freedom, for liberty, for our security and our prosperity. So there is much to do. There is a long road ahead of us, but today is a good day, and I hope the people of Hong Kong will see that the people of the free world are awake, that they are with you, and we are ready to stand together. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, as we gather today here in peace and safety in this quiet Chamber, we must remember that there is a city half a world away that is struggling to survive--a city that is fighting for human rights and human liberty and a city that is a solitary pinpoint of light on a continent of authoritarianism, a city called Hong Kong. The need there is urgent, and the hour there is late, and it is time for America to act. I know this because I have been there. I have been there myself. I have seen it. I have been to Hong Kong. I have been to the streets of Hong Kong. I have seen the protesters marching in support of and in defense of their basic human rights. I have seen them demonstrating for their basic human liberties. I have seen them confronting the police with their tactics of brutality and oppression. It makes me think that sometimes, in the course of history, the fate of one city defines the challenge of an entire generation. Fifty years ago, that city was Berlin. Today, that city is Hong Kong. The situation there is critical. Hong Kong is sliding toward becoming a police state. Have no doubt and make no mistake that Beijing wants to impose its will on Hong Kong. It wants to silence dissent in Hong Kong. It wants to steamroll Hong Kong, just as it wants to steamroll all of its neighbors in the region, just as it wants to control the region, and just as it wants ultimately to control the entire international system. We know what is at stake in this country because we have gotten all too familiar with Beijing's tactics. We have seen what Beijing has tried to do to this country for decades now. They have stolen our jobs. They have stolen our technologies. They have tried to build and are building their military on the backs of our middle class. Their aims are expansionist, and their aims are domination, and their aims are not compatible with the security or the prosperity of this country. That is why what is happening in Hong Kong today is so important and the fight there is so significant. Will a totalitarian China and totalitarian Beijing be allowed to dominate the city of Hong Kong, to silence it, and then to turn to the region as a whole? You know, let's review what is actually happening there in the streets of Hong Kong. This didn't start with the people of Hong Kong; this started with Beijing. This started with Beijing and its puppet government and its puppet chief executive in Hong Kong attempting to revoke the rights of Hongkongers--the rights, by the way, that Beijing promised to the people of that city in 1984 and again in 1997. They are trying to revoke those rights by bringing in a bill for extradition of Hong Kong citizens and Hong Kong residents to mainland China to be tried in China's courts, where there is no due process, where there are no basic guaranteed liberties, and where there is no recourse. That was Beijing's plan, and that would have affected not just the citizens of Hong Kong but the residents there, including over 80,000 Americans who are currently residents in the city. And the people of Hong Kong said no. On the 12th of July, just a few days after Beijing put forward this extradition bill, 2 million Hong Kong residents--2 million took to the streets in peaceful protest. This is a city of 7\1/2\ million. There were 2 million on the streets on the 12th of July. When the Hong Kong Government--the Beijing-controlled government refused to back down, the people of Hong Kong refused to be silenced. For months now, months on end, 20 weeks and more, the people of Hong Kong have been taking to the streets protesting, seeking to vindicate their rights, and they have been doing it in the face of escalating opposition. The Hong Kong Government--on orders, no doubt, from Beijing--has sought to deny the protesters permits to gather peacefully. They have sought to deny them the right to cover their faces because, let's not forget, China is a surveillance state, and the persecution and retribution against protesters is real, and it is constant. Now they are talking about a potential curfew. They are shutting down subway stations early so protesters can't get from one place to another. They have used violent tactics to put down the protests--tear gas and beatings and dye blasted at protesters. China continues to escalate--Beijing continues to escalate the situation, turning the screws on Hong Kong and taking away the rights and liberties of the people there. Hong Kong's demands are not outlandish; they are asking for what they were promised. They were promised in 1984, by the Government of Beijing--in a duly ratified international treaty, they were promised the right to assemble and the right to peacefully gather and protest. They were promised the right to vote and to be able to choose their own government. They were promised the right to speak openly. They were promised the right to worship. Those are the rights the people of Hong Kong seek to vindicate today, and those are the rights Beijing is attempting to strip from this city as we stand here today in this Chamber. The people of Hong Kong--they have an expression. The protesters say they are going to be like water. They say ``Be water.'' Some have actually referred to this as a water movement. They mean ``Be fluid. Be reactive. Adjust to the situation.'' I just have to say, having been there myself, having been to the streets, having seen the protesters, having met with them and talked with them, their courage and their bravery under pressure is really something to behold. It is an inspiration to me, and I think it should be an inspiration to all of us. Their love of liberty--you never love something more than when it is threatened--their love of liberty is really extraordinary. I want to say something the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming said about liberty and democracy. He said it so beautifully. These are his words: We strive for democracy, because democracy strives for freedom, equality and universal love. Political freedom is more than loyalty to a state. [Political freedom] professes human dignity. Every single person living in a community possesses unique potentials and unique powers, capable of making a [unique] contribution to society. That is extraordinary, and he is exactly right. Hongkongers know it, and that is what they are standing for, and that is what they are fighting for. The people of Hong Kong need our support, they deserve our support, and they are depending on our support. That is why it is time for this body to act. It is time to take up and pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The time for debate is over. The time for delay has passed. It is now time to stand with the people of Hong Kong and to send a signal to the world that the United States will stand with freedom-loving people, that the United States will stand up to Beijing, and that the United States will not permit China to dominate its neighbors and its region and the world. It is time for this body to act and to act now, and it is time to do more. That is why I will soon be introducing further measures to help support the people of Hong Kong. I will be calling for the imposition of Global Magnitsky sanctions on individuals and business entities that abet Beijing in its suppression of the freedoms of speech and assembly that rightfully belong to the people of Hong Kong. I would just say to those corporations doing business in China and to those multinational corporate entities and organizations like the NBA that it is time for you to take a stand as well. It is time for you to show a little backbone. It is time for you to show some independence. You may be multinational corporations that do business everywhere in the world, but remember that you are based here in this country. Remember--the NBA should--that you are an American organization. These companies need to remember that they are American entities, and it is time to show a little American independence. When Beijing tries to use threats of coercion and threats of market access to get the NBA to censure and to get corporations like Apple to censure, it is time for these corporations to stand up and say: We are not going to participate, and we are not going to become part of the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda arm. It is time for these companies to remember where their loyalties actually lie. I have to say, for too long now and for too many years now, we have seen too many of these companies and these same corporate executives-- who make money hand over fist in China--we have seen them happily send our jobs to China. We have seen them happily outsource our work to China. Now they want to import censorship into this country from China. Well, no thank you. It is time that they are open about what it is they are doing, and it is time they stand up to Beijing and say: No further. I want to say again that the situation in Hong Kong is urgent, and the people of Hong Kong are looking to the United States and to other freedom-loving peoples around the world for support and for strength. It is time that we send them the message--and call on our allies to do the same--that we must stand with Hong Kong because our own security and our own prosperity and our own ideals are at stake there. I think, finally, of the words of John Quincy Adams, whom I will paraphrase. He said: Wherever the standard of freedom is unfurled, there will be America's prayers, there will be America's benedictions, there will be America's heart, and today, there needs to be America's voice. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley's intern, Thomas Sipp, have privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Missouri Department of Health issued a new report that shows that life expectancy actually declined in the State of Missouri last year. Worse than that, the report shows that life expectancy has been falling in my State for almost a decade. Death rates for Missourians between 15 and 34 years old rose by almost 30 percent between 2012 and 2018. The death rate for Missourians who are between 25 and 34 is at its highest levels since the 1950s. We know what is causing it. It is an epidemic of drug overdoses and suicides, along with a spike in crime, in our cities. Here are the facts. Opioid-related deaths in Missouri have more than doubled in the last decade. The number of suicides is up by over 50 percent, and there is no end in sight. And it is not just Missouri. New data shows that deaths from suicides and drug overdoses are exploding nationwide. Suicides in this country haven't been so common since 1938. Alcohol-related deaths haven't been so high since the 1910s. Meanwhile, the surge in deaths from drug overdoses in this country is completely unprecedented. These numbers are tragic, but they are more than that--they are the signs of a crisis. We are witnessing the slow-motion collapse of the working class in America. All Americans suffer from the depths of despair, but we know from the evidence that it is working people and working families who are hit the hardest. So now the working middle of this Nation is facing a struggle to survive. You don't have to look far to see it. I have seen it in the small towns of my State, in the places where TV cameras never go, where town squares sit half empty, where businesses stand shuttered, where you can buy fentanyl with the snap of a finger on any street corner. I have seen it in country places where meth is so common, they tell me that dealers hang bags of drugs from tree branches for their buyers to retrieve--a literal landscape of despair and addiction. I have seen it in the faces of young farmers who put a crop in and pray for rain and pray for Sun and pray for fair prices and then wonder if generations of family farming are going to end with them. I have seen it from young mothers raising kids alone, working a job and trying to go to school at night, trying to shield their children from drugs and from the pathologies online. I have heard it in the words of young men who graduated high school only to find no jobs, no place to learn a trade, and no hope for anything that is better. This is the struggle of working life today. In my State, it is a struggle shared by White and Black alike, by everybody of every race, because of the breakdown of family and neighborhood, the loss of good work, and the epidemic of addictive drugs, which don't know racial boundaries. This is a struggle we are in together. It is a struggle that brings us together. It is a struggle for the things we love together--for home, family, and country--and the future of this country will be defined by how we meet this challenge. You can see all of this if you will look. The problem is this town will not look. This town is obsessed with partisan theatrics. This town is obsessed with money and influence and status. This town wants to keep its own good times going. The political elite here live in a world where the struggle of working Americans is just a human interest story that you read about right along with the gossip page. But it is time for this town to take some responsibility. It is time for the governing class to admit that the policies it has pursued for decades on trade, on immigration, and on finance have helped to drive working people to this crisis. And it is time to acknowledge that a crisis for working America is a crisis for all of America. It is not enough for wealthy people in Silicon Valley to do well. By the way, those people don't need any more advocates in this city. They have lots of them already. It is working people who need advocates here, and it is working families who need a voice. You know, working folks don't ask for much. They work hard. They love their families, they love God, they love the place where they live, and they want the opportunity to build a home there and a way of life that is prosperous and that is secure and that is meaningful and that they can pass on to their children. That is not too much to ask. In the America of the 21st century, that is not too much to expect. It is not too much to stand for and to fight for because it is the working people of this country who built this Nation. They are the ones who keep it going now, and they are the ones where this country's strength is found. It is the working people of this country--their future and their families--who are going to define the future of our country. I would just say that this is what we should be debating. This challenge is what we should be confronting. This crisis is what we should be looking to and addressing because this is what is going to define our time. I yield the floor.