[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 140 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5243-S5245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. RES. 458

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, thousands of radical Islamists rallied 
on Friday in Northwestern Pakistan in support of a man who earlier this 
week walked into a courtroom in the city of Peshawar and gunned down a 
U.S. citizen on trial for blasphemy. That is how the New York Times 
started its article on this issue last week. The American, Tahir 
Naseem, died of his wounds before he could be taken to the hospital 
while the gunman was taken into custody.
  The U.S. State Department said Naseem was standing trial after being 
lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois. He was entrapped by the 
country's controversial blasphemy law, which international rights 
groups have sought to have repealed. The blasphemy law calls for the 
death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam, but, in 
Pakistan, the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and 
vigilantes to kill those who have been accused. Pakistani officials 
said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself to be 
Islam's prophet. That was the accusation that was laid against him.
  At the rally in Peshawar, which was in support of the person who 
murdered the American citizen, the demonstrators carried signs that 
praised the murderer for the killing and called for his immediate 
release from jail. They said he killed Naseem because the government 
was too slow in prosecuting blasphemy cases.
  Last December--8 months ago--I filed a resolution to speak with a 
unified voice on what I considered to be a nonpartisan issue--a simple 
statement from this Congress condemning blasphemy laws across the world 
wherever they exist. We are a nation that stands for the ability of 
every individual to choose any faith, to change one's faith, or for one 
to have no faith at all. That is a basic human right. Yet, according to 
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 84 countries--
more than one-third of the world's countries--have a blasphemy law on 
the books, including in Pakistan, where an American citizen was 
murdered last week under an accusation of blasphemy.
  This resolution that I filed 8 months ago with the Foreign Affairs 
Committee has already moved in the House. The House Foreign Affairs 
Committee worked through the process of this resolution in March of 
this year and passed it unanimously. It was sponsored by Democrat Jamie 
Raskin and had the support of multiple Democrats on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee. It was overwhelmingly moved while this resolution--a mere 
eight pages--has sat, unmoved, for 8 months.
  The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious 
Freedom, who was appointed by Speaker Pelosi, has said that USCIRF--
that is this organization--has noted countless times that Pakistan's 
blasphemy law inflames interreligious tensions and too often leads to 
violence. He urges the State Department to enter into a binding 
agreement with the Pakistani Government that includes the repeal of 
blasphemy provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. I could not agree 
more.
  The Trump administration has spoken out on this, and the House of 
Representatives has spoken out on this. The U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, a nonpartisan group, has spoken out on 
this. We in the Senate should also speak out on it, and the time to 
speak out on it is when we have just had an American citizen murdered 
overseas because of these laws. It is prime time to move this. This is 
something that, I believe, should be passed by unanimous consent. How 
could we oppose the movement of something like this?
  Now, I have heard that, possibly, we should slow this whole thing 
down because resolutions like this should have a fulsome committee 
process. They should be heard and marked up and read and reread, and 8 
months is not enough time to review them. The problem with that is 
that, last week, a Democratic resolution on elections in Belarus was 
filed. It was never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations here in 
the Senate. Yet it was discharged, placed on the hotline yesterday 
morning, and cleared last night.
  So, for Democratic bills, they don't have to go through the committee 
process, apparently. They can just move through on their own because 
the Republicans have not opposed those. The Republicans take the time 
to read these on their own--to go through the resolutions and make 
decisions on them. That resolution had a majority of Democratic 
sponsors, but it also had Republican sponsors.
  This resolution is sponsored by Chris Coons and me. We also consider 
it to be a nonpartisan issue. Something that has sat in the committee 
for 8 months, waiting, surely can move when something that was filed 
last week and never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations could 
move on the hotline in a single day.
  So I bring this resolution because I think we should speak out on 
this as the House has already spoken out on it, as the State Department 
has already spoken out on it, as the Trump administration has already 
spoken out on it, and as USCIRF has already spoken out on it. Why 
wouldn't 100 Senators speak out on this blasphemy resolution today
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign 
Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate 
now proceed to S. Res. 458. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, 
the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, first 
of all, I note that the customary path for bills and resolutions is for 
them to be considered by their committees of jurisdiction, marked up 
through regular process, and reported out to the Senate floor.
  I understand that many Members of this body have noble causes and 
good ideas that fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations. Unfortunately, the chairman has only held one real 
legislative markup this entire year--in May. That one meeting, which 
included multiple pieces of substantive, bipartisan efforts, was ended 
prematurely before many pieces of vital legislation could be acted upon 
and without having a vote on even a single amendment. While the 
minority was strongly supportive of more legislative activity, the 
chairman pulled down another legislative markup, without any 
explanation, in the first week of July and yet another one, just this 
week, without any explanation.
  Regardless of those facts, I can tell you that I don't believe the 
majority, which has the convening power--and, lately, when it does list 
a committee

[[Page S5244]]

hearing or a markup unilaterally decides to do so--has ever sought 
committee activity for Senator Lankford's resolution. This is the first 
time--and I would assume for others--that many are seeing it.
  He mentions the 8 months. I am sure that he could speak to the 
chairman of the committee by virtue of his being of the majority party, 
the Republican Party, but the chairman hasn't brought his resolution 
forward. If he is chagrined that for 8 months it has been languishing 
in the committee, it is because Chairman Risch has neither asked for it 
to be included when there was a business markup nor asked for it now.
  It is true that, on occasion, a resolution gets released. I did one 
for Rob Portman regarding Otto Warmbier--it was the anniversary of the 
tragic moment--and it was released to the Senate floor. Yet there are 
many other critically important legislative items that have been marked 
up and are ready for action on the floor.
  Last December, the Defending American Security from Kremlin 
Aggression Act, or what we know as DASKA, passed out of the Committee 
on Foreign Relations, through regular order, with a strong bipartisan 
vote. It has been pending on the floor for nearly 8 months. Over the 
course of that time, Russian aggression has manifested itself in Syria, 
Libya, and on the streets of Europe, where opponents of the Putin 
regime have been assassinated.
  This past week, all Senators were briefed on the broader question of 
foreign interference in our elections, and we know it is a threat and 
that it is real and growing. If the Senate should dedicate any time to 
a foreign policy issue, it seems to me that this should be it. Our 
election is in 88 days. Yet the Senate trudges along, blind to the 
threat before our very eyes.
  DASKA should be the business of the Senate floor, and it should be 
passed. Similarly, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed a 
Saudi Arabia bill more than a year ago, and it has been waiting for 
floor action. I could go on and on.
  Now, I don't want to undermine the importance of the issue that 
Senator Lankford is trying to address. Around the world, we see 
autocratic rulers imposing blasphemy laws as a way of targeting the 
freedom of religion and speech of those who enjoy that or should enjoy 
that freedom of religion and speech. His resolution rightly condemns 
blasphemy laws for violating international human rights standards, and 
it raises serious concerns.
  Yet I would just say that we need to have a moment of self-
reflection. This resolution doesn't say anything about this 
administration's disparaging attitudes and comments about certain 
religions and ethnicities. How can we have this conversation without 
addressing President Trump's reported expression of approval of 
concentration camps for Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang?
  Under the leadership of the President and Secretary Pompeo, the 
administration has downplayed human rights abuses in countries from 
North Korea to the Persian Gulf; has coddled a dictator who ordered the 
horrific murder of journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi; 
verbally attacked the principle of freedom of the press; instituted the 
Muslim ban that sent chills around the world about the U.S. commitment 
to freedom of religion; and slashed the admission of refugees, many of 
whom were persecuted religious minorities. Certainly, the Committee on 
Foreign Relations in the Senate should be saying something about that 
record as well.
  As a matter of fact, between fiscal year 2017 and 2018, the 
administration reduced the admission to the United States of Christian 
refugees by 36 percent and of Muslim refugees by 85 percent. We should 
also be discussing how the U.S. Envoy to the Organization of Islamic 
Cooperation has been left vacant for over 3 years.
  In closing, I believe addressing blasphemy laws and standing up for 
the freedom of religion and the protection of religious minorities is 
urgent and warrants much further attention from both the Committee on 
Foreign Relations and of this body as a whole.
  I urge Senator Lankford to work with Chairman Risch to schedule a 
legislative markup so that this resolution, as well as other important 
initiatives, can be considered under regular order because, when his 
resolution or others are before it, there is an opportunity to amend 
them, to augment them, and to include other issues, even within the 
context of the issue of religious freedom.
  That is not provided here, and for those reasons I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I want to ask my colleague if there is 
a difference between this resolution and the resolution on elections in 
Belarus that was filed last week, was discharged, and then passed on 
the hotline yesterday.
  Obviously there are lots of other issues about elections. There has 
been a lot of conversation that we have had about elections worldwide 
and about security of elections, but that particular resolution wasn't 
held up to go through the Foreign Relations Committee to discuss 
international elections more. It was discharged, and it was sent to the 
floor on a hotline, and Republicans and Democrats alike agreed on that 
resolution and passed it through.
  Is there a substantive difference between this resolution and that 
one?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. The issues that were expressed in Senator Durbin's 
resolution had been issues before the committee on the issue of 
Belarus. As a matter of fact, even today, the nominee to be the U.S. 
Ambassador has been discussed. So that issue has been discussed.
  Unfortunately, although I think it has merit, the issue of religious 
freedom, as you have defined in your resolution, has not. So at least 
the substance of the issue has been the possibility of the debate.
  I would simply say that I know you are highlighting that one 
resolution. Yes, our colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, brought to 
my attention the anniversary of Otto Warmbier, and it was happening 
before--and he said: I did not ask for it to come before the committee. 
I thought that it should, and it fell between the cracks. So we agreed. 
But that doesn't mean that everybody is going to come to the floor and 
not give the committee members the chance to work on resolutions and to 
have their views cast on that resolution for the full body to consider.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Reclaiming my time, it is a lesson learned because the 
challenge of the Foreign Relations Committee is that almost nothing has 
been able to get through--no Ambassadors, no resolutions. Everything is 
not good enough. Everything is not big enough. Quite frankly, 
everything doesn't attack the Trump Presidency and the Trump State 
Department, which really becomes the issue.
  So even things that are nonpartisan, that we all have wide agreement 
on--that the House of Representatives was 100 percent in agreement on--
can't even get a hearing here, can't even move through. And when an 
American citizen is killed over a blasphemy law issue, we still can't 
speak as the Senate. It is unfortunate.
  There are things that we disagree on strongly as a body, but 
protecting the lives of American citizens who are being murdered 
because of a blasphemy law in Pakistan should not be an area of 
disagreement for us.
  Standing up for religious liberty, speaking out with this one bill--
if there are other issues, do 10 more. It is a basic American freedom. 
We should do multiple resolutions on freedom of the press, freedom of 
speech, freedom for people to live their faith worldwide. That is who 
we are as Americans. So do a bunch of them. Speak out on them, but 
don't stop us from speaking at all on issues where we should speak with 
a common, unified voice.
  We can do better, and we should do better, and we will in time. But 
right now, we are still not speaking with a clear voice on blasphemy 
and the death of Americans worldwide, and that is something we should 
all look at and say is one more example of our not getting the job done 
in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I take offense at the suggestion that 
nothing is good enough for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that 
nothing gets done. There are 160 ambassadorial employees--and of that

[[Page S5245]]

rank--who have passed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support.
  Every year, we get the State Department's budget. Every year, we have 
a budget that is decimated, including for the issues that my colleague 
cares about. It is because those of us on the committee who believe in 
the power of diplomacy in the State Department work feverishly to 
restore and enhance the budget of the State Department that it has been 
able to carry out its mission. But the budget that the Secretary of 
State comes before the committee to defend and advocate for is a huge, 
huge consequence.
  Look, we are constantly doing things to protect the lives of American 
citizens in the committee. I could enumerate a number both of 
resolutions as well as legislative language that would have far-
reaching--I mean, I am in favor of resolutions. They are an expression 
of sentiment. But legislation that puts into action within our laws the 
ability of countries that conduct blasphemy and other types of crimes 
against people who simply want to pursue their religious views--that 
would be far more consequential.
  So there is a lot that goes on in the committee, and a lot of it has 
actually been bipartisan. By the same token, if our colleague is 
chagrined that not enough is moving through the committee, talk to the 
chairman because you can't move anything through the committee if you 
don't have committee business markups, and we haven't had one--I think 
except for one--and we are in August.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________