[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5925-S5928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Michael Jay Newman, of Ohio, to be United States District 
     Judge for the Southern District of Ohio.
         Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, David Perdue, Thom 
           Tillis, Tom Cotton, Mike Rounds, Roger F. Wicker, Kevin 
           Cramer, Martha McSally, Richard Burr, Mike Crapo, Steve 
           Daines, Marsha Blackburn, John Thune, James E. Risch, 
           Mike Braun, Tim Scott.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 526

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, the Communist Party of China is 
committing a genocide against the Uighur people. Let me say that again. 
The Communist Party of China is committing a genocide against the 
Uighur people.
  Under General Secretary of the Communist Party Xi, 1 million Uighurs 
have been placed in concentration camps simply because of their 
religion. The Xi regime is reportedly performing forced abortions and 
forced sterilization of Uighur women.
  The Communist Party of China is harvesting organs from Uighurs and 
members of the Falun Gong. The Communist Party assigns male Han Chinese 
to regularly sleep in the same beds as the wives of Uighur men detained 
in the camps.
  In addition to these disgusting human rights abuses, the Communist 
Party of China is stripping away the freedom and autonomy that the 
people of Hong Kong were guaranteed. They are threatening Taiwan, 
building up their military to compete with us, arresting and detaining 
foreign journalists, and punishing anyone who disagrees with them.
  General Secretary Xi has established a surveillance system in Beijing 
that tracks every movement you make online and in person. The actions 
of Xi and the Chinese Communist Party fly in the face of the 
fundamental values that unite freedom-loving countries around the 
world--values that the Olympic Games are meant to foster and promote. 
Yet, in just 2 years, Communist China is slated to host the 2022 
Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee's Charter states: 
``The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the 
harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a 
peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.''
  The host city contract the IOC adopted in 2017 requires that hosts 
protect and respect human rights. Unfortunately, but not by accident, 
the contract does not take effect until after the 2022 Beijing games. 
Think about that. It was 56 years ago that the International Olympic 
Committee took a historic step and stood up to the Government of South 
Africa and its racist apartheid system and banned the country from 
participation in the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games. South Africa was also 
excluded for the 1968 Mexico City games, and in 1970, the IOC 
indefinitely expelled South Africa from Olympic competition.
  Germany and Japan were banned from participating in the 1948 Olympic 
Games for their roles in World War II. Afghanistan was banned in 2000 
because of the Taliban's discrimination against women, and South Korea 
was pressured by the IOC to enact democratic reforms before it hosted 
the 1988 games.
  Should Communist China, which places no value on human life or 
freedom, be allowed to host the 2022 games? Absolutely not. Doing so 
will threaten the safety of athletes and attendees and financially 
reward the dictatorship responsible for its genocide against its Muslim 
population.
  My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey, and I introduced a 
bipartisan resolution calling on the International Olympic Committee to 
rebid the 2022 games to a country that recognizes and respects human 
rights. This isn't about a boycott. I am absolutely opposed to a 
boycott, and it is not about politics. This is a fight about human 
rights, which transcends politics.
  Moving the Olympic Games out of Communist China doesn't hurt 
athletes. It keeps them safe from Communist China's oppression. Last 
year, the world watched while Communist China pressured the NBA to 
sensor themselves over one tweet supporting Hong Kong citizens who were 
fighting for their freedom. We saw the NBA cower to Communist China's 
wishes. They even prohibited athletes who were in China at the time 
from speaking with reporters.
  If Communist China has the ability to sensor the NBA, an American 
organization, from speaking anything about anything that may offend 
General Secretary Xi, what will they do to athletes around the world? 
Will this regime start censoring or restricting participating athletes? 
What about the press? Will their broadcasts be censored to appease 
General Secretary Xi?
  We have to open our eyes to this threat, and we have to stand against 
the genocide of the Uighurs and the political oppression of 
Hongkongers. We also have to consider the safety of athletes and 
spectators from all over the world. For the hundreds of millions who 
will watch the games, we must again lead by example and refuse to give 
Communist China a platform to whitewash its crimes.
  I stand with the freedom-loving people of Hong Kong, the historically 
persecuted people of Tibet, the peaceful community of Chinese Muslims, 
including Uighurs, Falun Gong, and the journalists and political 
dissidents in China. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in 
demanding that the IOC rebid the 2022 Olympic Games should China fail 
to abandon its indefensible course
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further 
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 526. I further ask 
unanimous consent that 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, reserving the right to object, let me 
first say that I want to be clear that my opposition that I will 
announce briefly to moving this resolution by UC today is not by any 
means because I disagree with the assessment of China's abhorrent human 
rights record or the importance of the Olympics living up to the 
highest standards of upholding human

[[Page S5926]]

dignity. The Olympic Charter states that the goal of Olympism is to 
promote ``a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human 
dignity.'' Beijing has not, by a long shot, earned the honor of hosting 
the 2022 games.
  Now, my record is crystal clear when it comes to calling out and 
condemning China's horrific record on human rights and the threat it 
poses to the United States and the rest of the international community. 
As my colleagues know, during my years in Congress, I have introduced, 
advocated for, and helped pass legislation on behalf of the people of 
Xinjiang, Tibet, Chinese civil society dissidents, a democratic and 
autonomous Hong Kong, and supporting democracy across the Indo-Pacific 
region. Just recently, I introduced a comprehensive bill to strengthen 
the United States across various sectors to best confront and counter 
China's efforts. I also recently released a report about the necessity 
of standing up against China's dangerous new digital authoritarianism.
  There is no question that under Xi Jinping, China has taken a great 
leap backward on human rights, establishing concentration camps in 
Xinjiang, and instituting a surveillance state that not even George 
Orwell could have imagined and crushing any thoughts and ideas that 
deviate from the dictates of the party. China's rise, bringing hundreds 
of millions out of poverty during the last century, is something the 
Chinese people can be justly proud of. But Xi Jinping's dystopian 
totalitarian vision, currently crushing the Chinese people, is one of 
the century's great tragedies.
  So I am very sympathetic to the goals of the resolution and the 
sponsor of the legislation. However, I believe these issues merit 
serious discussion in drafting of the appropriate language before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have been urging Chairman Risch 
to hold a legislative markup for months to discuss the many pressing 
pieces of legislation that Members on both sides of the aisle have had 
pending for many months


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 549

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would, in response to the Senator's 
request, say that there is a human rights crisis much closer to home 
that we have discussed before the committee. We have an opportunity to 
address people suffering from a dictatorship who are right here in the 
United States, many of whom live in Senator Scott's State of Florida.
  For the second time in 2 weeks, I would like to call upon this body 
to take up legislation the House has passed that would designate 
Venezuelans for temporary protected status. I am asking Republicans to 
remember that there was a time before President Trump when our Nation 
stood in solidarity with victims of dictatorship.
  Nicolas Maduro is a dictator, plain and simple. His regime is a 
cruel, criminal cabal that has destroyed Venezuela. Some 200,000 
Venezuelans currently live in the United States without legal status. 
They are unable to safely return to their homeland, and they would 
benefit from temporary protected status. I believe we have to do the 
right thing. We have to uphold American values and offer them 
protection.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 549 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed; and the motion 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 Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have no 
problem with asking unanimous consent at this point to pass the 
legislation with a few amendments. Since this will not be going through 
committee, we ought to, like you say, examine the legislation and think 
about what it involves. I think having a few commonsense amendments 
would make sense.
  It is about 200,000 or 270,000 Venezuelans. I think we can 
accommodate them. We are a big, great country, and America has room for 
them. We should make sure, though, that they don't overburden the 
welfare system, and there should be rules that people, as part of this 
program, do not come to the country to receive welfare. That is my 
first amendment.
  My second amendment would say that at the end of the 18-month period, 
Congress should vote on whether or not to extend the period. In the 
past, we have granted this temporary status, and it has been renewed 
decade after decade and become just sort of this lost zone for people 
for whom we can't figure out a permanent solution.
  My third amendment would actually create an ability to absorb more 
people in our country and would be more of a permanent solution. My 
third amendment is called the BELIEVE Act, and it is a bill that I have 
had out there for several years. What it would do is to take the merit-
based employment in our country, employment-based visas, and double 
these visas. So, if you want to accommodate the 200-some-odd thousand 
Venezuelans, we need more green cards, ultimately, for permanent 
status. This would be increased employment-based visas.
  So, my unanimous consent request would be to pass your bill with 
these three amendments: One, to prohibit welfare; two, to make it 
Congress's prerogative to decide that this term needs to be extended 
and it would have to be a vote by this body; and then the third thing 
would be that we expand our employment-based visas in order to 
accommodate folks like this in our country.
  I would ask unanimous consent that your bill be passed, and, also, 
including my three amendments to the bill, and at this point, I ask 
unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to this 
modification, on these three amendments, I respect my colleague who 
sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. We don't always agree, but I 
always respectfully listen to him.
  This effort that I am trying to bring to the floor, in line with 
Senator Scott's question about human rights in China, is human rights 
right here in our hemisphere. The amendments that the Senator proposes 
seeks to basically gut the existing statute for temporary protected 
status, and it distracts from other issues in our immigration system as 
a price for providing Venezuelans with temporary protection in our 
country. One of these amendments is aimed at making it nearly 
impossible to renew TPS for foreign nationals, no matter the country or 
the conditions in the country.

  I would also note that this is at a time in which we have 131,000 
with temporary protected status from other countries helping to support 
the Nation as essential workers. So I object to the modification, and I 
object to Senator Scott's motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to both requests.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I voice my objection to the original motion 
of Senator Menendez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the request.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, first, as you would expect, I am 
disappointed in two ways.
  No. 1, I am disappointed that we couldn't get a resolution done that 
dealt with what is going on in China.
  I would love the process to work perfectly so that everybody would do 
things in proper order, but the resolution is pretty simple. We know 
all the bad things that are happening in China, and we need to stand 
up. We have a chance now, not in 6 months, not in--I don't know what 
time it would take to go through the Foreign Relations Committee, but 
we ought to be standing up now to say that the IOC needs to move the 
Olympics. So I am very disappointed that my colleague is not willing to 
just go along with a simple resolution to do that.
  No. 2, what my colleague knows is that the bill he is proposing would 
never get done. I have colleagues who want to reform and fix the TPS 
program. I worked with my colleagues--all 53 Republican colleagues--and 
they said that as long as we do a commonsense reform of the TPS 
program, we would go ahead and do TPS for Venezuelans. So that is a 
bill we could do today.

[[Page S5927]]

  We could have done it a couple of times, but my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle--another--blocked it. It doesn't make any sense 
to me why we are not getting this done. We can both talk about all of 
the problems and issues the Venezuelans are dealing with. It is very 
disappointing to me.
  I don't know what the reason is. I have been trying to work with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ask: What is the problem? 
And nobody will say: This is exactly what it is, and this is what you 
need to change to get it done. I don't know how we get things done here 
if people are not willing to sit down and talk to each other to figure 
out how to get it done.
  I have also proposed other things that my colleague has blocked, like 
trying to make sure that Maduro couldn't--there were no revenues that 
could get to the Maduro regime, and that was blocked.
  This just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what the issue 
is. I don't know if it is because it was proposed by Republicans rather 
than Democrats, but we have to figure out how to stand up together 
against human rights violations around the world.
  It should be simple to say that the International Olympic Committee 
should not be hosting the Olympic Games in 2022. It is pretty simple. 
It is disgusting what Xi is doing.
  It should be pretty simple to say: If we want to get TPS taken care 
of, whether it is for Venezuelans or whether it is for El Salvadorans 
or anybody else, we need to have a commonsense reform of the TPS 
system. That is why I proposed this resolution, and all 53 Republican 
Senators agreed with me.
  I hope my colleague will commit to work with me to try to help the 
Venezuelans and also help others by fixing this TPS program. I hope he 
will work hard either to get a resolution that he agrees with me on or 
work through the Foreign Relations Committee to do something. But we 
have to do everything we can to stop the genocide of the Uighurs in 
Communist China and also do everything we can to help the Venezuelans 
who are here and need TPS.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague from Florida.
  Let me just say, first, that we don't even need legislation for 
Venezuelans to get TPS. Let's not lose sight of that.
  President Trump, with a stroke of his pen, could give temporary--
temporary--protected status to the 200,000 Venezuelans who have fled 
the Maduro regime--a regime that President Trump himself has signaled 
out in every possible way as a regime that undermines the human rights 
of its people and that attacks them. So we don't even need legislation.
  The only reason the House of Representatives, with Democratic 
majorities, passed legislation is to try to instigate the President to 
go ahead and give TPS to Venezuelans.
  Unfortunately, every time Senator Scott has come to offer what he 
calls a reform of TPS, it is really basically the death of TPS. I don't 
know why we have to deny those who presently have TPS and whose 
country's status may not have changed--slaying their status in order to 
give it to Venezuelans. I am not that Solomonic. So that is why there 
has been an objection.
  Again, I remind us that we don't even need legislation. President 
Trump, with a stroke of his pen, could declare TPS for Venezuelans. 
That is the first thing.
  The second thing is, I would urge my colleagues and all my Republican 
colleagues--by the way, I know that you all know this, but just to 
remind us, you are in the majority. Chairman Risch is the chairman 
because there is a Republican majority. Chairman Risch gets to call 
when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee goes into a business 
meeting. So as I have said to many of my colleagues, if you want to see 
your legislation considered--and I certainly would agree to an agenda 
that includes Senator Scott's legislation--urge Senator Risch to hold a 
business meeting and a markup on legislation. That is the way this body 
is supposed to work. Otherwise, then, let's just meet here as 100 and 
make it the committee of the whole, where we can all opine and cast 
amendments on Appropriations, Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Energy and 
Commerce--the whole spectrum. But if the committee system is supposed 
to mean anything, which is the concentration of those who have 
dedicated their time to be on that committee and who have insights for 
which legislation passes through, then it has to hold meetings and 
markups to consider legislation. So it is not that you have to urge us; 
you have to urge your colleague, the chairman, to hold markups to 
consider your legislation.
  I am sure that with some modifications, I would be one of those who 
would support your legislation in committee. But we cannot have 
everybody bypass the committee, come to the floor, and think that is 
the way things are going to operate.
  Yes, there are some things we would love to see in a timely fashion. 
From the reading of several motions the majority leader made for 
nominations, it sounds like we are going to be here next week. Well, 
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee could call a business 
markup for next week. We could get your resolution on; we could get it 
passed; and then we could get it to the floor. Why not? Why not?
  Then, the last thing: I don't know what the Senator is referring to 
in terms of stopping moneys going to Maduro. My VERDAD Act, which 
became law--along with Senator Rubio and others--in essence tried to do 
exactly that. But I am certainly happy to join with the Senator in any 
efforts to continue to work on stopping any flow of money to the Maduro 
regime and, more importantly, to reclaim the money that has already--
the national patrimony of Venezuela that has been spent elsewhere.
  But let's be honest. TPS for Venezuelans could have happened already. 
It could have happened yesterday. It could happen today, could happen 
tomorrow if President Trump only wants to declare it so.
  I think he should. I don't think we should have to pass legislation, 
but that is where we are.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague from New Jersey.
  No. 1, I still have not heard what the issue is with a resolution 
that sounds like 99 other Senators are OK with, with regard to holding 
General Secretary Xi accountable. I haven't heard my colleague say what 
the concern is with it.
  It seems to me that we have the opportunity right now, between the 
two of us, if we need to make a change, maybe we can make a change. But 
I would like to get something done today.
  No. 2, as we know, the TPS program is a temporary program. It is not 
operated as a temporary program, and it has to be reformed.
  I agree with my colleague from New Jersey. I would like the President 
to say that the Venezuelans would get TPS right now, but I think the 
White House's position is that we have to fix the program because the 
program doesn't work. It is not a temporary program.
  That is why my fix--because what a lot of Senators keep saying--they 
want to say that we have to take back power we have given to the 
President. My resolution does that.
  The President can still do TPS, but after he does, if he wants to 
extend it, it has to come back to Congress, and we need to make a 
decision. It is pretty common sense. If we did that right now, we could 
get TPS for Venezuelans.
  The Senator from New Jersey has blocked my bill. It is a bill with 
Senator Rubio to hold Maduro accountable by prohibiting Federal 
agencies from doing business with anyone who supports the oppressive 
Maduro regime. I don't understand why he would do that. He has blocked 
a bill that is going to prevent money from going there.
  We have to stand up, whether it is against the Castro regime or 
Maduro. We have to support democracy and freedom in Latin America.
  I hope my colleague will stop blocking that bill also.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Has the Senator yielded the floor?
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I yield the floor.

[[Page S5928]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I won't stay the whole night debating my 
colleague, although I would enjoy that. But let me just say, No. 1, he 
has the power, as a colleague in the majority, to go to the chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee and say: I really think this resolution 
is timely and needs to be done.
  We are going to be in session next week. The chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee can call a markup next week. For his resolution, I 
will give him my word that I will support asking the chairman to put 
his resolution on the business meeting, and, probably, with some 
modifications, I would support it. But he needs to ask the chairman to 
hold a markup, No. 1.
  No. 2, the reality is that the concern about TPS not being 
``temporary''--well, that concern was vitiated. I don't know if it was 
the Ninth or Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that recently held a 
decision that said the President of the United States can give TPS, and 
he can end TPS, in his judgment. I don't necessarily agree with that 
judicial decision, but, nonetheless, that is, right now, the law of the 
land, so that concern is over.
  The suggestion that we have to end TPS as we know it in order to make 
sure that it only remains a temporary protected status--the courts have 
determined that. They have said that the President can give TPS and can 
take it away. So, as far as I learned in my civics lessons, the court 
is the final law of the land in interpreting what it is that the law 
is.
  Lastly, I am going to look at--I would like the gentleman to get in 
contact with--I don't know what legislation he keeps referring to that 
somehow we blocked, but before the gentleman even arrived here, I have 
been pursuing the Castro regime for 20-something years--since I was in 
the House of Representatives, passing the LIBERTAD Act and so many 
others--and, certainly, the Maduro regime as well. So I am happy to 
look at that.
  But let's get the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to hold 
a markup, and I think we can solve a lot of these problems.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I inquire if the Senators are 
concluded with their discussion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have both yielded. It appears they are.