[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2772-S2773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                PROTESTS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, several times now I have praised the 
peaceful demonstrations protesting racial injustice and the killings of 
Black Americans. I am grateful that after several harrowing days of 
looting and riots, law enforcement restored order and helped these 
peaceful protests be heard.
  Notwithstanding the far-left calls to disband the police altogether, 
I believe most Americans are ready to consider how the memories of 
Black Americans like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor can move us to 
continue combating residual racism.
  Today, I need to discuss a different pressing problem that concerns 
Americans' constitutional rights. It is becoming clear to many 
Americans, including many who appreciate and applaud the recent 
protests, that our national life during this pandemic has slid toward a 
double standard.

[[Page S2773]]

  For weeks, State and local leaders put normal American life totally 
on ice and asked citizens to prioritize fighting the virus. For weeks, 
the mainstream media heaped scorn on any small citizen protest, outdoor 
gathering, or even the suggestion that other important values might 
require a reappraisal of certain restrictions.
  Well, the American people did their part. They made necessary 
sacrifices that clearly helped the country, and they are ready to 
continue doing their part as our reopening carefully proceeds. But now, 
many Americans feel they have just seen those fastidious regulations 
and that puritanical zeal disappear in an instant because a new cause 
has emerged that powerful people agree with.
  A month ago, small protest demonstrations were widely condemned as 
reckless and selfish. Now, massive rallies that fill entire cities are 
not just praised but, in fact, are called especially brave because of 
the exact same health risk that brought condemnation when the cause was 
different.
  People just spent the spring watching their small businesses dissolve 
or canceling weddings or missing religious observances for the longest 
spells in their lives or missing the last days of a loved one's life 
and then missing the funeral. Never were the American people told about 
any exemption for things they felt strongly about.
  I have no criticism for the millions of Americans who peacefully 
demonstrated in recent days. Their cause is beyond righteous. It is the 
inconsistency from leaders that has been baffling. The same Governor of 
Michigan who argued that letting people carefully shop for vegetable 
seeds--vegetable seeds--would be too dangerous during the pandemic, now 
poses for photographs with groups of protesters. Here in the District 
of Columbia, the mayor celebrates massive street protests. She actually 
joins them herself. But on her command, churches and houses of worship 
remain shut. I believe even the largest church buildings in the 
District are still subject to the 10-person limit for things the mayor 
deems inessential.
  The rights of free speech, free assembly, and the free exercise of 
religion are all First Amendment rights. They have the same 
constitutional pedigree. Apparently, while protests are now 
permissible, prayer is still too dangerous. Politicians are now picking 
and choosing within the First Amendment itself.
  Last week, one county in California's Bay area seriously attempted to 
issue guidance that allowed protests of 100 people but still--still 
capped all other social gatherings at 12 people and banned outdoor 
religious gatherings altogether--banned outdoor religious gatherings 
altogether. Figure that one out.
  These governments are acting like the coronavirus discriminates based 
on the content of people's speech, but, alas, it is only the leaders 
themselves who are doing that. It is now impossible to avoid the 
conclusion that local and State leaders are using their power to 
encourage constitutionally protected conduct which they personally 
appreciate while continuing to ban constitutionally protected conduct 
which they personally feel is less important.
  In New York City, Mayor de Blasio makes no effort to hide this 
subjectivity. At one point, he recounted our Nation's history with 
racism, compared that to ``a devout religious person who wants to go 
back to religious services'' and concluded, ``Sorry, that is not the 
same question.''
  Well, the American people's constitutional liberties do not turn--do 
not turn on a mayor's intuition. Politicians do not get to play red 
light, green light within the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is 
not some a-la-carte menu that leaders may sample as they please. It is 
hard to see any rational set of rules by which mass protests should 
continue to be applauded, but small, careful religious services should 
continue to be banned.
  These prominent Democrats are free to let social protests outrank 
religion in their own consciences if they choose, but they do not get 
to impose their ranking on everyone else. This is precisely the point 
of freedom of conscience. That is precisely the point of the First 
Amendment.
  Weeks ago, citizens sued the mayor of Louisville, KY, when he tried 
to ban drive-in Easter services while imposing no restrictions on the 
parking lots of secular businesses. A brilliant district judge had to 
remind him and the whole country that in America, faith can never be 
shoved into second class. It seems at least a few local leaders still 
need to learn that lesson. I hope they learn it soon.
  The American people's response to the coronavirus was courageous and 
patriotic.
  On the advice of experts, our Nation sacrificed a great deal to 
protect our medical system. Politicians must not repay that sacrifice 
with constitutionally dubious double standards.

                          ____________________