Josh Hawley

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address the growing crisis in our country, in our cities and towns across our country: a crisis of law and order, yes, a crisis of the rule of law, a crisis of confidence, a crisis of solidarity. As our cities and towns come under siege, as so many of them descend into violence and lawlessness night after night, we witness before our eyes the fraying of the American fabric, the breaking of American bonds. The violence that we are witnessing is not just about the individual lives harmed or lost, neighborhoods destroyed, businesses burned and looted, families living in fear, whole neighborhoods cowering behind locked doors. No. The devastation that we are seeing, the crisis that we are facing is about the confidence in our society itself, in our ability to come together, to live together, to find common ground, to build this common community and pursue that more perfect union. All of that is under threat in this current crisis of lawlessness, of lack of respect for the rule of law, of the decline of due process and law and order. Let's just be clear. These are not peaceful protests that we are seeing across the country. They are violent and increasingly violent riots and attacks and looting, and I am sorry to say that too many in the media and my colleagues across the aisle are appeasing the mobs and the Marxists whose desire is to burn our cities down, to burn our neighborhoods to the ground. These attacks are occurring because they are increasingly enabled by the mainstream press and local and national politicians who are pushing a historically fraudulent version of American history, one where America is a fundamentally racist nation, one where America is systemically evil, one where police officers are cast as agents of oppression. What our leaders fail to recognize is that our police officers, the brave men and women in blue, those who choose day in and day out, of their own volition, of their own accord, to go out to the streets, to put their lives on the line to serve and protect their neighborhoods, their fellow citizens, and to stand for our values--those police officers are an example and exemplars of our deepest held and most cherished beliefs because, without those police officers--let's just be clear--the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, those things are just words on a page. Without law enforcement officers giving their lives, risking their lives to enforce and make available the fair and equal rule of law, well, our Constitution is just a parchment barrier. It may as well not exist. Now, our police officers are the best among us. They are the guardians of our neighborhoods. They are the sentries on the streets. But too often now, in the press, right here in this body, we hear attacks on police officers, we hear rushes to judgment. These voices of criticism don't see police as human beings, as working men and women whose experience and lives mirror our own, and too often these critics don't see the suffering, the suicides, the low morale that police officers across this Nation face. The consequences of this mistreatment that law enforcement are facing in this country are becoming ever clearer. Police departments are facing increasing retirements. They are struggling to retain the officers they have and struggling to hire new ones. Local law enforcement report plummeting morale as officers face increasing violence and police departments struggle to pay their officers a salary that is commensurate with the work that they do, work that is more challenging today with the riots and looting sweeping across our cities. What our officers need is not less funding. What they need is not defunding. What they need is not disrespect. What they need is support. What they need is for the leaders of this country and the good men and women of this country to say: We are with you; we support you; we will stand with you in the important and vital job that you do. They need more funding, not less; more recognition, not less. Our Federal Government exists to provide for the general welfare. Well, I believe it is time that Congress lived up to that promise. So let's make it simple. Let's give our officers a pay raise. Let's give a pay raise to every cop in America, and let's do it right now. Let's provide new funding for police departments across this Nation to hire more cops and to put them out on the beat. Let's put our money where our mouth is and stand by our law enforcement in this vital time for them and this vital time for our Nation. That is why, today, I am introducing legislation to back our police. My bill would authorize new funding through the Department of Justice to permit State and local police to raise the salaries of officers up to 110 percent of local median earnings. That is a real wage boost, and it would be available under my bill right now. It would provide funding to hire new officers to boost manpower, and it would withhold this funding from any city or jurisdiction that defunds their police and tries to cut officer pay. I can tell you, for law enforcement in States like mine, in Missouri, this could mean a raise of thousands of dollars a year, and our law enforcement deserve it. Not only would this legislation help officers; it would help all Americans by working to build a safer nation for our families to thrive and our communities to grow as one people together. Through safety, we can have solidarity. This bill is named in honor of David Dorn, the retired St. Louis police captain who was killed in June trying to protect his neighbors and his friends and his own neighborhood from violent looters. It is dedicated to all of those officers who have been a victim of violence this year. It is time that we rejected the false narrative that the police are inherently oppressive; that America is inherently evil; that structural racism and structural oppression define this country, its past, its present, and its future; and that the police are instruments of this oppression, of this history, of this evil. It simply isn't true. Instead, it is time to stand, again, with our law enforcement, to affirm the vital work that they do, to affirm the vital role that they play in making available the rule of law for every American, in making available and protecting the vital rights of every American. And it is time--by recommitting ourselves to safe streets, to the rule of law, to due process--to work on reforging those bonds of community, of solidarity, and of togetherness that are being torn apart night after night after night with the burning and the rioting in our streets. It is a fundamental choice we face. No nation can long endure lawlessness. No nation can long endure the breakdown of the basic operation of law. That is why the job that our law enforcement officers do night after night on that thin blue line is so vital. It is time that we stood up and thanked them for it. It is time that we stood up and supported them in it. May God bless our men and women who go to stand on that line every night

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address the growing crisis in our country, in our cities and towns across our country: a crisis of law and order, yes, a crisis of the rule of law, a crisis of confidence, a crisis of solidarity. As our cities and towns come under siege, as so many of them descend into violence and lawlessness night after night, we witness before our eyes the fraying of the American fabric, the breaking of American bonds. The violence that we are witnessing is not just about the individual lives harmed or lost, neighborhoods destroyed, businesses burned and looted, families living in fear, whole neighborhoods cowering behind locked doors. No. The devastation that we are seeing, the crisis that we are facing is about the confidence in our society itself, in our ability to come together, to live together, to find common ground, to build this common community and pursue that more perfect union. All of that is under threat in this current crisis of lawlessness, of lack of respect for the rule of law, of the decline of due process and law and order. Let's just be clear. These are not peaceful protests that we are seeing across the country. They are violent and increasingly violent riots and attacks and looting, and I am sorry to say that too many in the media and my colleagues across the aisle are appeasing the mobs and the Marxists whose desire is to burn our cities down, to burn our neighborhoods to the ground. These attacks are occurring because they are increasingly enabled by the mainstream press and local and national politicians who are pushing a historically fraudulent version of American history, one where America is a fundamentally racist nation, one where America is systemically evil, one where police officers are cast as agents of oppression. What our leaders fail to recognize is that our police officers, the brave men and women in blue, those who choose day in and day out, of their own volition, of their own accord, to go out to the streets, to put their lives on the line to serve and protect their neighborhoods, their fellow citizens, and to stand for our values--those police officers are an example and exemplars of our deepest held and most cherished beliefs because, without those police officers--let's just be clear--the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, those things are just words on a page. Without law enforcement officers giving their lives, risking their lives to enforce and make available the fair and equal rule of law, well, our Constitution is just a parchment barrier. It may as well not exist. Now, our police officers are the best among us. They are the guardians of our neighborhoods. They are the sentries on the streets. But too often now, in the press, right here in this body, we hear attacks on police officers, we hear rushes to judgment. These voices of criticism don't see police as human beings, as working men and women whose experience and lives mirror our own, and too often these critics don't see the suffering, the suicides, the low morale that police officers across this Nation face. The consequences of this mistreatment that law enforcement are facing in this country are becoming ever clearer. Police departments are facing increasing retirements. They are struggling to retain the officers they have and struggling to hire new ones. Local law enforcement report plummeting morale as officers face increasing violence and police departments struggle to pay their officers a salary that is commensurate with the work that they do, work that is more challenging today with the riots and looting sweeping across our cities. What our officers need is not less funding. What they need is not defunding. What they need is not disrespect. What they need is support. What they need is for the leaders of this country and the good men and women of this country to say: We are with you; we support you; we will stand with you in the important and vital job that you do. They need more funding, not less; more recognition, not less. Our Federal Government exists to provide for the general welfare. Well, I believe it is time that Congress lived up to that promise. So let's make it simple. Let's give our officers a pay raise. Let's give a pay raise to every cop in America, and let's do it right now. Let's provide new funding for police departments across this Nation to hire more cops and to put them out on the beat. Let's put our money where our mouth is and stand by our law enforcement in this vital time for them and this vital time for our Nation. That is why, today, I am introducing legislation to back our police. My bill would authorize new funding through the Department of Justice to permit State and local police to raise the salaries of officers up to 110 percent of local median earnings. That is a real wage boost, and it would be available under my bill right now. It would provide funding to hire new officers to boost manpower, and it would withhold this funding from any city or jurisdiction that defunds their police and tries to cut officer pay. I can tell you, for law enforcement in States like mine, in Missouri, this could mean a raise of thousands of dollars a year, and our law enforcement deserve it. Not only would this legislation help officers; it would help all Americans by working to build a safer nation for our families to thrive and our communities to grow as one people together. Through safety, we can have solidarity. This bill is named in honor of David Dorn, the retired St. Louis police captain who was killed in June trying to protect his neighbors and his friends and his own neighborhood from violent looters. It is dedicated to all of those officers who have been a victim of violence this year. It is time that we rejected the false narrative that the police are inherently oppressive; that America is inherently evil; that structural racism and structural oppression define this country, its past, its present, and its future; and that the police are instruments of this oppression, of this history, of this evil. It simply isn't true. Instead, it is time to stand, again, with our law enforcement, to affirm the vital work that they do, to affirm the vital role that they play in making available the rule of law for every American, in making available and protecting the vital rights of every American. And it is time--by recommitting ourselves to safe streets, to the rule of law, to due process--to work on reforging those bonds of community, of solidarity, and of togetherness that are being torn apart night after night after night with the burning and the rioting in our streets. It is a fundamental choice we face. No nation can long endure lawlessness. No nation can long endure the breakdown of the basic operation of law. That is why the job that our law enforcement officers do night after night on that thin blue line is so vital. It is time that we stood up and thanked them for it. It is time that we stood up and supported them in it. May God bless our men and women who go to stand on that line every night

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I would like to make a few brief remarks today about TikTok, an app that has dominated the news in recent weeks and has dominated the internet in recent years. As most of you know, TikTok is used to create short music videos, and it has grown to be one of the most popular apps in America. More than 80 million Americans now have TikTok on their personal phones. It might be easy just to assume that this app is harmless--music videos, diverting fun--but, let me assure you, the security concerns surrounding TikTok are real and not lighthearted in the least. TikTok is currently a major security risk, both to our data security and to our national security. ByteDance, which is TikTok's parent corporation, is based in Beijing, and we all know that Chinese corporations and the Chinese Communist Party are, in many ways, the same thing. In fact, China's national intelligence law requires it to be so. ByteDance, as a Chinese company, is obligated to collaborate with Chinese intelligence services, including by sharing data. In fact, all of the data that TikTok and ByteDance collect--and they collect a lot of data--can be routed at a moment's notice to the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok is a uniquely intrusive application. The company openly admits that it tracks users' locations, it tracks users' keystroke patterns, it tracks the filenames on users' devices. TikTok essentially claims the right to peer straight through our phones into our lives. I could go on. TikTok has censored content critical of China's treatment of Uighur Muslims and has violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Now, in light of all this, in light of all we know, it is unthinkable to me that we should continue to permit Federal employees--those workers entrusted with sensitive government data--to access this app on their work phones and computers. Not only is it inappropriate; it is irresponsible. This app represents a clear and present security risk at a time when we need to be clear-eyed about the threat from the Chinese Communist Party. That is why I introduced legislation to remove TikTok from government-owned phones and devices. Now, this is just common sense, and it follows steps that the Pentagon has started to take on its own, but we badly need a uniform standard that can apply across all Federal agencies and government organizations. Now, over the last few days we have heard a lot about a potential acquisition or sale of TikTok in the United States, but no one can say yet what will come of those talks. Deals fall through all the time, and TikTok is a threat to the security of Federal devices right now. Every day we wait is a day ByteDance can collect more information on and about Americans. Today is the day to take action. Even if TikTok ends up being sold eventually, it will be the responsibility of this body, the responsibility of all of us, to make sure that no trace of Beijing's influence remains--none at all. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support, and I particularly want to thank Senator Rick Scott, who has been my partner on this effort from the very beginning. It is always a privilege to work with and collaborate with Senator Scott, as we have on so many areas, and he has been, as I said, at the forefront of this effort from the very beginning. He is here today, and I would like to yield to him now to make a few remarks.

Mr. HAWLEY. Again, I thank Senator Scott for his work on this effort, his leadership on this effort, and his leadership across the board when it comes to standing up to Communist China--the Chinese Communist Party. I also want to thank my friends Senator Cotton, Senator Ernst, Senator Kennedy, Senator McSally, and all other Senators who have backed this legislation, along with Congressman Ken Buck, who has led this effort in the House. Just 2 weeks ago, this legislation passed unanimously out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I also want to thank my colleagues there, especially Chairman Johnson, who has been a champion on this effort and has worked hard in the last couple of weeks to make sure we can bring this bill to the floor. I am encouraged by the bipartisan support we have seen in this body to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable, and that includes, by the way, holding accountable those corporations that would just do China's bidding. If I have anything to say about it, we will not be stopping here. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 507, S. 3455.

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

Mr. HAWLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I came to this floor 3 weeks ago to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court. I come today to revise and extend my remarks. There are now five Republican-appointed Justices on the Court. Actually, Republicans have appointed 11 out of the last 15 Justices to the bench, but is this the conservative Court we have worked for? More to the point, is this a constitutionalist Court? The only thing I can say for certain when looking at the results of this last term, that in the words of the late Justice Scalia: ``The Imperial Judiciary lives.'' This is a Court that freely rewrites congressional statutes, that has protected the worst leftwing Presidents of earlier years, that in the final week of its term, gave away half of the State of Oklahoma. For those who consider themselves constitutional conservatives, these decisions are a clarion call to wake up and to acknowledge what is staring us in the face: Judicial imperialism is alive and well. It is marching on undaunted. For religious conservatives, these decisions are a call to action. Now is the time for us to be heard, and we can begin with what we expect of our nominees to the High Court, what we expect them to understand, what we expect them to affirm. That brings me to the case that propelled religious conservatives into activism and politics in a new way over four decades ago--the case that, for religious conservatives, made the Supreme Court the great issue of the day: Roe v. Wade. I know that when it comes to the Supreme Court, we are not supposed to talk about Roe. That is the open secret on the right. It is certainly what religious conservatives have been told for years: Don't mess up the Supreme Court nomination process by raising Roe. It is imprudent. It is in poor taste. It will divide our coalition. No, we are supposed to stick to talking about process, about methods, maybe throw in some talk about umpires, but do not talk about Roe. Well, the truth is, Roe is the reason we have a legal conservative movement to begin with. Roe is what propelled generations of religious conservatives to vote for Republican Presidents and Republican Senators and Republican politicians of every rank and station--all on the promise to reverse this travesty of a decision, this moral and social injustice that in 47 years has taken the lives of 61 million unborn--61 million. Republicans have said: Vote for us. Vote for us, and we will undo this wrong. We will return this issue to the people. Yet all these years later--11 Republican-appointed Justices later--here we are. The Nation is apparently no closer to the day when the Supreme Court will renounce this outrage, renounce its imperial pretensions, and allow the good and decent people of this Nation to debate and decide this matter for ourselves. So I say to my Republican colleagues: How long must this go on? How many more elections must there be? How many more promises must be made? How many more Justices must be appointed before we will expect of our nominees what the voters already expect of us? How long before we ask our nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States to recognize Roe as the outrage that it is? Let's just be frank. Roe is an illegitimate decision. It has no basis in the Constitution--none. It has no basis in the law. None of the Constitution's specific and enumerated guarantees of privacy even begin to legitimize the taking of innocent human life; none are remotely on point. Even liberal scholars recognize this. Whole books are written about what Roe v. Wade should have said. Roe marks the point at which the modern Supreme Court decided that they would just impose their own views--their own social and moral and legal views--on the Nation, despite what the people want, despite what the Constitution says, no matter how the laws are written. In the words of the late constitutional scholar, John Hart Ely--who was, I would point out, a political liberal--``Roe is not constitutional law and it gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.'' Roe is the very essence of judicial imperialism. It is a brazen power grab by unelected Justices imposing their moral and social views on the Nation, just like another group of Justices did in a case called Plessy v. Ferguson, just like another group of Justices did before that in a case called Dred Scott. Yes, I do mean to compare Roe to those earlier cases because Dred Scott and Plessy and Roe belong together. They are the worst miscarriages of justice in our history--the worst judicial opinions of all time. Dred Scott and Plessy and Roe are abusive, morally repugnant decisions that wounded the soul of this Nation. They dishonored this Nation's fundamental face in the dignity and worth of every person. For these reasons, Roe is no secondary issue, something to be pushed to the side in the nomination process. Roe is central. Roe is a window into the constitutional world view of a would-be Justice. It is a measure of their sense of what a Justice should be. Because if you believe that Roe was rightly decided, then there just is no two ways about it, you are a judicial imperialist. If you believe Roe was rightly decided, you believe that unelected judges should have the power to enact their social views, to promote their own social agenda, regardless of what the Constitution says or what we the people have expressed preference for, voted for, and enacted into law. I would just add that it seems to be the case, inevitably, that when Justices enact their views, they enact the views of a certain social class. Oh, yes. The highly educated, managerial front row of American society, the class of the faculty lounge and the C-suite, that is what you get when judges govern America. That is not what the Constitution calls for. That is not what the Constitution specifies. The Constitution says that sovereignty rests with ``We the People''; that it should be the people who are in charge. It is what the American people want and have written in their fundamental law and in their statutes that should carry the day. The people have a right to run their own government. They have a right to expect their views to prevail, to have their Constitution be obeyed, and to expect that the Justices appointed to their Supreme Court will abide by the Constitution's terms as we the people wrote them. That is why I say today: I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided the day it was decided. I say again: I will vote for those nominees only and for those nominees alone. When I say ``explicitly acknowledge,'' I mean on the record before they are nominated. I do not want private assurances; I do not seek them. I do not want forecasts about future votes or future behavior because, frankly, I wouldn't believe them. I don't want promises of any sort. I want evidence that Supreme Court nominees will obey the Constitution and the law. I want to see in the record clear acknowledgement that any nominee understands Roe to be the travesty that it is. If that record is not there, then I will not support the nomination. I don't care who does the nominating. Some will say that this is yesterday's battle; that we should just accept Roe and move on; that today's Supreme Court is the best we could possibly hope for, to which I say that every single life is worth fighting for. I will not accept failure, and I will not accept defeat. I take this stand because I believe it is what justice and fidelity to the law requires in our time of me and of those who would exercise the awesome power of judicial review entrusted to Justices in article III of our Constitution. I also believe it is what the Republican Party owes the millions of Americans who have made this cause the reason for their vote for many years-- these men and women of good will and faith who labor still day in and day out, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, working for that time when justice will be done. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add my amendment No. 2352 to the list of amendments to be voted on under the previous agreement.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, my colleagues across the aisle tried to pull a fast one on the American people. Behind closed doors, with no public hearings and no public debate, they decided that some of the names of our Nation's military bases must be removed, stripped, replaced, erased, and they decided that war memorials of fallen soldiers should come down. I objected to that effort then, and I object to it now. The national defense legislation that we are considering, the legislation that funds our military and protects our citizens, should not be turned into a vehicle for the cancel culture. The cancel culture that I think you know what I mean--the cancel culture that is tearing down statues of George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt now, for heaven's sake--this cancel movement seeks to divide us, not unite; to erase our history, rather than to reckon with it; to turn away from our long and shared struggle to forge a more perfect Union, and, instead, to build an entirely different America of a kind of woke fundamentalism. I am here to advocate for a better way. All I ask for is a vote on an amendment to have this discussion in public, to have the discussion about renaming our military bases and about the future of these war memorials in public, to conduct open hearings where military families and veterans and the local community can be heard and where we can seek and find common ground together. That is all I am asking for. And all I am asking for is a vote on this. Yet, here today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I have been told that we cannot even have a vote. We can't even call the roll on this. No, we just have to swallow it and move on as the woke cancel culture moves on, steamrolling our history and our traditions, and, yes, our best traditions as Americans. You know, our military bases are more than walls and fences. They are more than lines on a piece of paper in a 1,000-page bill. Our bases are full of life and history. They are hallowed ground for the soldiers and veterans who have trained and served at them. They enrich local communities with their legacy. They form fond memories, and they help relationships endure. They have meaning that transcends any one person or even a place, and that history belongs to all of us. So all of us should debate this together and move forward together. I am sorry that we have been denied an opportunity to do so today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

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

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2163 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

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

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

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, this is a good moment for the Senate. I think this is a moment when we have been able to come together to speak with one voice and to send a clear message to Beijing that its attempts to steamroll and destroy the liberties of the people of Hong Kong will not go unnoticed and will not go unaddressed. I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Pennsylvania for their work with their bill, which will give the administration important new tools to address and to counter the actions of Beijing. I just want to say to the people of Hong Kong, whom I have had the privilege to meet and to be with on the streets as they protest, as they stand up to this violent and authoritarian regime, I hope that today's actions will give you an added measure of hope that the free people of this Nation and the free people of the world are with you and that we will not sit idly by; that we will stand up; that we will take action; and that your cause for your basic rights, your cause for your basic liberties, is our cause as well. It is a privilege to stand with you as an American and as a Missourian, and it is a privilege to see this work accomplished today on the floor of the Senate. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, a week ago, I stood in this Chamber and spoke about the death of democracy. I spoke about how free people are slowly losing their basic liberties right in front of our eyes. I spoke about how deeply oppressive regimes are defiling laws and tearing up treaties that offer protections and peace. I spoke about how the bright light of a great city is descending into darkness and chaos. I spoke about the plight of the people of Hong Kong. I take this opportunity to remind everyone, both at home and those listening abroad, about the urgent and existential crisis that plagues this outpost of liberty in the Indo-Pacific. On May 28, the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing adopted a resolution and began drafting a new national security law in Hong Kong. That is what they call it, anyway. But the more we learn about this impending legislation, the more concerned we should be. That is because we know that this is no legitimate law. I will tell you what this is. It is a dictate from a dictatorship, and its passage will deal a mortal blow to the freedoms and liberties that Hongkongers have enjoyed for decades now. It is a permanent break from the one country-two systems principle that has governed that city since 1997, the principle to which Beijing committed in the 1984 Sino- British Treaty, when they also committed to upholding the basic rights and liberties of the people of Hong Kong. Beijing wants to violate all of that now. They want to sweep it aside, and they want to do it through so-called legislation adopted through their fake legislature that would roll back the commitments they have made, roll back the protections and rights of the people of Hong Kong, and snuff out this light in the Indo-Pacific. Imagine this great city with new restrictions on speech, assembly, and religion, because that is what the Chinese Communist Party wants. They call it a national security law. It doesn't have anything to do with national security. It has everything to do with ending liberty. It has to do with banning the freedom of assembly. It has to do with squelching the freedom of speech. It has to do with denying the freedom of religion. That is the agenda. That is the substance. That is what Beijing wants, and it is what they are going to do unless the free world, beginning with the Members of this body, stand up and say no. This body must take action today to support the people of Hong Kong. It must speak with one voice. It must tell the world that this is not acceptable and that it must not stand, and free peoples the world over must not silently acquiesce Now, a week ago, I tried to do just that. I asked this body for consent, unanimously, to pass a resolution that would condemn this new dictate from Beijing and emphasize its clear violation of both Hong Kong basic law and the Sino-British joint declaration. This resolution that I am here again today to offer, sponsored and supported by Senators of both parties, would make it clear to everyone that the United States stands with the people of Hong Kong in this their hour of need. It would encourage the administration to take all necessary diplomatic action to stop this new law, to stop this advance against freedom, and it would rally the free nations of the world to support a free city. That resolution was blocked last week. You know, here in this body, we often have the luxury of time. It seems like that is all we have sometimes. We debate and we wait, and we debate and discuss, but the fact is, the people of Hong Kong do not have time, not anymore, and that means the U.S. Senate does not have time. We must act, and we must act today. This new so-called law that Beijing is intent on forcing through is set to pass now on June 30. That is just 5 days from today. The Senate needs to act now to send a clear signal now that we will stand up to this aggression, to rally free peoples now in defense of the rights and liberties of Hong Kong, and to stand up now to protect our own interests and to protect our own needs in the Indo-Pacific, because there is nothing more dangerous to the people of the United States abroad than an imperialist China intent on imposing its will and imposing its way on the entire globe, beginning in the Asia-Pacific and beginning with the free people of Hong Kong. A chorus of voices from Hong Kong and around the world are calling for the passage of this resolution. They are calling for it because they know it will inspire hope in Hong Kong. They are calling for it because they know it will give pause to the tyrants in Beijing. Our friends in Hong Kong know that Beijing is watching closely. Beijing is finalizing its national security law even as we speak, and Hongkongers know, as we must, that this could be our last opportunity to stay Beijing's hand before it destroys what is left of freedom in this city. Beijing must know that its actions have consequences. This resolution today makes clear that that will be the case, and that is why so many in Hong Kong are so eager to see it pass and why Beijing is so hopeful that it will fail. As I said a week ago, the struggle of the free people of Hong Kong is the struggle of all free people everywhere. It is a struggle to stay free from domination. It is a struggle to ensure that Beijing does not extend its imperial power around the globe and its influence to free countries and societies across the globe. Hong Kong is the vanguard, and it is vital that we stand up for it now. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 596.

Mr. HAWLEY. I will.

Mr. HAWLEY

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

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would just like to observe that it was just over 20 years ago that this Chamber and the analog Chamber across the way in the House of Representatives passed almost unanimously a statute called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was sponsored in the House by then-Representative Schumer, and it was sponsored in this Chamber by Senator Edward Kennedy, and signed by President Bill Clinton into law, who, upon its signing, referred to religious liberty as our first freedom--those are his words--and he later pointed to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as one of his proudest accomplishments as President of the United States. Its cosponsors in this body included Senators Feinstein and Murray and Leahy. It was bipartisan is my point, to put it mildly. Yet, today, this short time on the legislation that is offered on this floor now, that has not gone through the normal process of committee referral, debate on the floor but would be passed now, without any further discussion, guts key provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is coming on the heels of a Supreme Court decision just 2 days ago that rewrites entire statutes in American law and in its 33 pages has nearly nothing to say about religious liberty or religious believers in this country. In fact, the only thing that the opinion does say of any consequence is this: How [the courts'] . . . doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII [as rewritten by the court] are questions for future cases. Now, I respect, very much, my colleagues across the aisle and their passion for this issue and their sincerity in this cause. I would only ask that the rights of well-meaning, sincere religious believers not be steamrolled and overlooked and shifted to the side as part of this process. We should be able to come together and stand together in the effort to see all people be given their constitutional rights and have their constitutional rights protected. The effects of this bill is forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, forcing doctors and nurses to perform abortions against their will, and forcing faith-based hospitals and clinics to perform abortions. H.R. 5, this bill here, would supersede existing restrictions on abortion, including funding, including health and safety standards, and other regulations that the States have passed. It would force faith-based adoption agencies, some of which have been helping birth mothers find a safe and loving and permanent home for more than 100 years--it would force them out of business. It would coerce those who don't want to speak or who hold different beliefs into adopting this set of practices and principles and beliefs at work-- these doctors, these nurses, and these faith-based agencies. I submit to you that this is not the way to find consensus in America. This shunting aside of the constitutional rights of sincere, well-meaning people of faith is not the way to proceed. This gutting of the Religious Freedom Act--and I say that because H.R. 5 explicitly carves out of the Religious Freedom Act, it explicitly carves out of its safety provisions all of those requirements I just mentioned. It rolls back the liberties afforded to people of faith--all faiths, by the way. One of the beauties of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is that it covers people of all faiths, any faith, and this bill would roll those protections back. It would do it without the chance for debate. It would do it outside of our normal procedures. For those reasons, I express these reservations. Again, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work on this issue, their passion for this cause, and their sincerity in what they believe. I hope that we might find a better way to go forward together, but I do not object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the death of democracy, and I am here today to talk about how we can stand with those who are fighting to preserve it. In the United States, the death of democracy might seem like a distant and unfamiliar thing. We study examples in the history books. We read of nations and peoples who are forced, through no choice of their own, to surrender their basic liberties. We remind ourselves of the need always to stay vigilant, to stay aware, but we are seeing today the death of democracy unfold in realtime, right before our eyes, in the city of Hong Kong. A diverse and global city, rich in culture and arts and commerce and people, Hong Kong is an outpost of liberty. For decades, under a special set of laws and protections, it has stood as a haven of liberty--a beacon, a light--but I fear that light is fast dimming, nearly overcome by darkness and by tyranny. This body, along with all free peoples, has a special responsibility to take a stand for the freedom-loving people of Hong Kong. We must take a stand to ensure that the light of Hong Kong does not go out forever. We must take a stand to ensure that this outpost of liberty lives on. We must take a stand so that the flame of freedom is not extinguished forever by the Chinese Communist Party. On May 28, Beijing announced that it would adopt legislation that will essentially jettison the basic law under which Hong Kong has been governed for decades. It is legislation that will trample upon Beijing's own treaty commitments in the 1984 Sino-British Treaty, legislation--they call it legislation, but, of course, what it really is is just fiat, fiat by the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing--that will strip Hong Kong of its basic liberties, strip Hongkongers of the right to freedom of speech, strip Hongkongers of the right to peacefully assemble, strip Hongkongers of their rights to redress in fair and open courts with some process of law. Beijing wants to deny the people of Hong Kong all of these things because liberty is a threat to the authoritarian Communist regime in Beijing. Oh, it fears that more than anything else. It fears the people. It fears the will of the people, and it fears the liberty of the people. It is trying to destroy the last outpost of liberty in its nation--the great city of Hong Kong. Now, we were promised that it would not come to this. We were told, when China joined the World Trade Organization, when China was given permanent normal trade relations, when China was ushered into this so- called community of nations, that it would liberalize China and that it would make the Chinese Communist Party more moderate. Well, I think we know how that has turned out. After decades now of stealing our jobs, decades of ripping us off in trade, decades of impoverishing our own workers here in this country while stealing our intellectual property, decades of building its military on the backs of our middle class and our working people, now Beijing wants to dominate its region, snuff out Hong Kong, and then turn to the rest of the world. We have to send a clear message that we will not stand idly by. We will not allow Beijing to erase the history of its misdeeds. We will not allow it to erase the history of Tiananmen. We will not allow it to erase the history of the concentration camps it is running at this very moment, and we will not stand by while it destroys the liberties and the rights of the people of Hong Kong. It is time now for this body to stand and send a clear message that will call the other free nations to stand in support of the values we hold dear, in support of all that this country stands for, in support of the liberty of the people of Hong Kong. I yield to my colleague Senator Blackburn of Tennessee.

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