[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 122 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4181-S4183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 645
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, before we break for the Fourth of July
recess, I think it is important for the Senate to go on record
condemning the rising tide of mob violence that we see across the
country and the increasingly prevalent mob mentality that is fueling
it. The violence struck home for me this week when one of my
constituents was shot after an armed mob surrounded his vehicle in
Provo, UT.
This resolution is not controversial. Even in these divisive times,
it is something, I think, we can all agree on, and I want to read
through some highlights right now so you get a feel for it.
The United States of America was founded in 1776 on
universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality.
Throughout our nation's history, Americans have struggled
to realize those ideals . . . but nonetheless [have made]
greater progress toward them than any [other] nation on
earth.
[The United States is a diverse nation] committed to
cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such
differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all
Americans under the law.
America's law enforcement officers do an extremely
difficult job extremely well, and despite the inexcusable
misconduct of some, the overwhelming majority of such
officers are honest, courageous, patriotic, and rightfully
honored public servants.
In recent weeks, people across the United States have
organized legitimate, peaceful, constitutionally protected
demonstrations against instances of police brutality and
racial inequality.
[Some of these Americans have organized these peaceful
protests, asking for investigations into serious problems
meriting investigation and reform.]
Some Americans, unsatisfied with peaceful and positive
demonstrations, have instigated and indulged in mob violence
and criminal property destruction, not in service of any . .
. coherent cause, but simply as an arrogant, bullying tantrum
of self-righteous illiberalism and rage.
These mobs have demonstrated not only contempt for public
safety (as evidenced, among other crimes, by an unprovoked
physical assault on a Wisconsin State Senator and the [more
recent] shooting of a motorist in Provo, Utah) and common
decency (as evidenced by their . . . obscene berating of law
enforcement officers standing their posts to protect their
communities), but also their manifest ignorance and
historical illiteracy (as evidenced by their destruction of
public memorials to historical heroes like Ulysses S. Grant,
St. Junipero Serra, Miguel Cervantes, George Washington, Hans
Christian Heg, and a reported plan to target a statue of
Abraham Lincoln financed in 1876 entirely by private
donations from freed African-American slaves).
It is the sense of the Senate that the rising tide of
vandalism, mob violence, and the mob mentality that feeds
it--including its cruel and intolerant ``cancel culture''--
should be condemned by all Americans; [that] peaceful
demonstrations and mob violence are different in kind; [that]
physical assault and
[[Page S4182]]
property destruction are not forms of political speech but
violent crimes whose perpetrators should be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law; and [that] the innocent law
enforcement officers, public officials, and private citizens
who suffer the mob's violence and endure its scorn while
protecting our communities from them deserve [every
American's thanks and appreciation].
As I say, it is very straightforward.
As we saw in Seattle this week, these mobs are not going to stop
until they are stopped. A nonbinding resolution is the tiniest first
step of a response--the merest exercise of the Senate's atrophied
institutional muscles. We need to do much, much more, and I look
forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
develop the legislation to do it.
Yet, in this divided political moment, heading into the 244th
birthday of the greatest, freest, most tolerant, and prosperous nation
the world has ever known, I think showing that Senate Republicans and
showing that Senate Democrats can work together and speak with one
voice against woke mob violence and in defense of equal justice and
civic peace would be a welcomed step.
Therefore, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S.
Res. 645, submitted earlier today. I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with
no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, look,
there are nuggets in the Senator's resolution--certainly recognizing
that, overwhelmingly, law enforcement does an honorable and valuable
job in our society. It is a tough job. The bad ones make it difficult
for all the good ones. I would agree with that. But I have to be honest
with you. There are also elements of this resolution that are not as
straightforward as the gentleman would have you believe.
First of all, the very first paragraph says that we were founded on
universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality. Of
course, slavery existed at the time. There is no mention of America's
original sin, which is slavery. Certainly we cannot think of slavery as
human equality.
Then, to go on to suggest in his third paragraph that we are morally
committed to justice ``across all such differences, and protecting the
God-given rights of all Americans under the law,'' well, I can tell
you, in my home State of New Jersey and across the Nation, there are
many Americans who clearly do not believe that we are morally committed
to justice across all such differences. As a matter of fact, we saw
that in how the majority responded to the George Floyd death and others
across the Nation--a lot of rhetoric; very little reform. So we would
be hard-pressed to believe that paragraph has legitimacy as well.
Then the resolution reeks of supremacy, self-righteous illiberalism,
manifest ignorance, and historical illiteracy. It reeks of a
supremacist view: We know better.
Even with all of those problems and even with the fact that it has
come at the last moment, there was no effort to work with anybody to
offer maybe a bipartisan resolution that would capture all of this.
Even though it seeks to mischaracterize overwhelmingly what has been
the peaceful protests of people in the Nation, I would consider not
objecting to the Senator's request if he also recognized and added to
his resolution the fact that we have a President of the United States
who ultimately provokes inciteful language and inciteful violence.
I mean, we have a President who retweets a video of people saying
``White power. White power.''
We have a President who retweets a video of White citizens with arms,
pointing them at peaceful protesters who--at the end of the day, it is
their right to peacefully protest.
We have a President who said that there were good people on all
sides, including the White supremacists, in Charleston.
We have a President who used violence--the armed force of the State
and violence against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park, who were
doing none of what the Senator suggests in his resolution.
Despite all of that, if the Senator would modify his request to
include the following language: Insert at the end of his last line,
line 15, section--make a new section (5): ``Our elected officials,
especially the President of the United States, should not incite
violence or legitimize those who engage in hate-fueled acts,'' I would
consider allowing the Senator's resolution to move forward and not
objecting to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Does the Senator so modify his
request?
Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, as I look at the language
proposed by my colleague from New Jersey, I would accept the rest of it
except for the words ``especially the President of the United States.''
The rest of it is unobjectionable.
The point here is that without pointing to any one specific
individual, we should all be able to acknowledge, as a sense of the
Senate, that we do hold these truths as self-evident; that our country
was founded on these very strong ideals. Even if, as the resolution
itself acknowledges, we have failed at times to live up to them, we
have still done it.
So I would accept the modification but only with the removal of the
words ``especially the President of the United States.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is especially the President of the
United States--the person who leads our Nation--who should be a
unifying force, not one who incites violence; therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, what is happening here? This is the U.S.
Senate. Just so everyone is clear about the bat guano-inspired insanity
we just witnessed, I just proposed a nonbinding resolution condemning
mob violence, and Senate Democrats objected. I don't know whether to be
outraged or embarrassed for them. This isn't even a bill; it is just a
statement that says mob violence is bad. Democrats can't say mob
violence is bad without simultaneously taking a jab at the President of
the United States?
By the way, what about the mayor of Seattle? What about the city
council of Minnesota? What about the countless other people who have
perpetuated or enabled or facilitated or coddled mob violence across
the country?
It is one of the reasons why we are not going to engage in this task
of making it a political tit-for-tat. It is not that. People are being
shot. Businesses are being looted. Innocent Americans are being
attacked and threatened. Lives are being ruined. Communities are
burning--literally burning.
So whose side are you on? This resolution was designed to be
unifying. It avoided controversial subjects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, may I ask the Presiding Officer to remind
us of rule XIX.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will remind Senators of both parties
that rule XIX provides that no Senator in debate shall directly or
indirectly, by any form of words, impute to another Senator or to other
Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the resolution was designed to be unifying.
It avoided controversial subjects. All it asks of us is basic dignity
and respect.
As long as we are on the topic of rule XIX, it is unbecoming to
accuse a colleague of using language that is supremacy simply by
reflecting on language in the Declaration of Independence, simply by
reflecting on language that acknowledges the incivility and
intolerability of mob violence. But apparently that is too much to ask
today. I guess we should be thankful for clarity. And now we know. We
don't have to ask. They told us how they feel about this resolution.
You can't really oppose this, it seems to me, without being on the
side of the mobs, of mob violence, of mob mentality, of cruelty and
intolerance and terror. Now we understand what this resolution is
about. I don't think one can oppose this without being comfortable with
those things. These mobs
[[Page S4183]]
are not progressive. These mobs are not enlightened. These mobs are not
edgy. They are not hip. They are frauds. They are dim-witted, phony,
drama addicts----
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is this line not
in direct violation of rule XIX?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair concludes that pointing out that mob
violence is dangerous to our Nation is not contrary to rule XIX or any
other rule of the Senate.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry. There is
not a question of mob violence. The question is that imputing to
Members who did not agree with the framework and language of this
resolution that they are supporting mob violence--that must be in
violation of rule XIX if this is going to be a deliberative body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is more than entitled to express
his views in the course of debate, but other Senators will likewise
express their views in the course of debate
Mr. LEE. Failed by an education system and addled by a social media
culture that taught them to be victims instead of citizens. A
privileged, self-absorbed crime syndicate with participation-trophy
graduate degrees, trying to find meaning in empty lives by destroying
things that other Americans have spent honest, productive lives
building.
Today we learned--today we learned--that there are those who are
comfortable with this. There are those who are at least not inclined to
vote for this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence. Now we
know. Now we know.
I want all my colleagues to know that when we return from recess, we
are coming back to the Senate floor and we are not just going to be
debating nonbinding resolutions. It is long past time to expose the
shiftless idiocy of the anti-American, anti-science, anti-
establishment, anti-Constitution mob and remove their snouts from the
Federal trough.
Colleges and universities that punish free speech and discriminate
against conservative and religious students; city councils that defund
their police departments and refuse to protect public safety; States
that force doctors to mutilate confused children without their parents'
consent; school districts that embrace the ahistorical nonsense of the
1619 Project; the smug, sneering privilege of all of the above and much
more--the whole garbage fire that is the so-called ``woke'' ideology--
depends on Federal money.
The mob hates America on America's dime. It is time to cut off their
allowance. I think the American people would be very interested to know
who stands for them and who stands for subsidizing the mob. I intend to
show them.
Mr. President, this debate is not ending today; it is only the
beginning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we have learned something today. We have
learned that my colleagues are unwilling to call out the President of
the United States when the President of the United States uses language
that incites violence; says that White supremacists in Charleston are
as good as everybody else; retweets a video of White Americans saying
``White power;'' retweets a video of two individuals with guns pointed
at peaceful protesters; uses the force of the State to clear out
peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park; goes and says, in fact, ``when
the looting starts, the shooting starts.'' That has a historical
context to it, and the ``liberate Virginia. It is under siege,'' and
so, so much more.
So, yes, I look forward to that debate because I have legislation to
deal with the rising tide of White supremacists' actions that, at the
end of the day, have even been recognized by some of our law
enforcement entities as a growing national threat. So I look forward to
having that debate, look forward to having that legislation on the
floor, and we will see how our colleagues act then.
But it is totally unacceptable to cast aspersions that do not equal
those of the person who leads our country, and we should recognize
that. What it shows me is that I guess President Trump is right--he
could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, and certainly
my colleagues here would not hold him responsible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, all I asked in my counter was that we remove
the words ``especially the President of the United States.'' Why?
Because it is different than the entire approach taken by the
resolution.
As long as we are calling each other out on casting aspersions on
each other's intentions, no one's intention here is to shield anyone
from anything, as evidenced by the fact that, as my proposed
modification would have provided, it would have said that ``our elected
officials should not incite violence or legitimize those who engage in
hate-fueled acts.'' Last I checked, the President of the United States
was and is an elected official. This would apply to him. My counter in
no way insulated--not him, not any elected official, not any of us from
this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I will be very quick. I understand we have
work to do on the Defense authorization and the vote coming up, but I
am glad the majority leader is on the floor, and I am glad so many
Members are on the floor.
We have a problem in this institution of the uneven enforcement of
rule XIX, and it is hurting this body.
I have just by happenstance been on the floor for various violations
being called by the Presiding Officer, usually with the advice of the
Parliamentarian. It is very clear to me that the rules are not being
applied equally to each party, and I think that is something we are
going to have to wrestle with if we are going to continue to be worthy
of the moniker ``the world's greatest deliberative body.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, could I ask my colleagues to yield
momentarily?
I would request that Senator Inhofe be able to lock in an agreement
on the NDAA, and then the discussion could resume.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________