Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today I am introducing the SuperPAC Elimination Act. Another election cycle has come and gone without addressing a glaring issue that remains significant: free speech and transparency in campaign finance. Our current campaign finance system is absurd. Right now, a large percentage--sometimes a majority--of campaign expenditures are made by independent third-party SuperPACs that are prohibited from communicating with candidates. That makes no sense. Candidates should define their own messages, and citizens should be free to support whatever candidates they choose to support. Restrictions to political contributions are always presented under the guise of preventing corruption and holding politicians accountable, when in fact they accomplish exactly the opposite: protecting incumbent politicians. My legislation would put Americans on a level playing field with the media and politicians when it comes to influencing elections and exercising our First Amendment rights. Specifically, it would remove the caps on direct contributions to candidates from individuals and requires donations of more than $200 to be disclosed within 24 hours. Establishing unlimited contributions paired with immediate disclosure is the best way to promote transparency, eliminate the viability of SuperPACs going forward, and ensure that free speech is protected in the electoral process. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to shed light on the political arena and empower individual Americans by passing this important legislation.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to honor the first lady of the conservative movement. On Sunday, surrounded by her loving family, Phyllis Schlafly passed away. Few will ever match Phyllis's conviction and tenacity. She literally stood on the frontlines, fighting against forces that threatened to upend families and sought to undermine the Judeo-Christian values upon which our great Nation was founded. Without question, Phyllis Schlafly loved America. Her contributions to our country went far beyond her work exposing the illogic of liberalism. Phyllis led the charge to make the Republican Party pro- life and defended the sanctity of marriage. She was a passionate defender of U.S. sovereignty and championed Reagan's policy of ``peace through strength'' during a crucial time in American history. The women and men of Eagle Forum, which she founded, are incredible patriots and grassroots activists who today, along with all of us, are mourning Phyllis's passing. Our Nation continues to face many dangers, both foreign and domestic, and we need more individuals, more leaders such as Mrs. Schlafly, who are not afraid to stand and fight for the freedoms so richly bestowed upon us by our Creator. May she rest in peace. The Internet Mr. President, today our country faces a threat to the Internet as we know it. In 22 short days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the Internet to an international body akin to the United Nations. I rise to discuss the significant, irreparable damage this proposed Internet giveaway could wreak not only on our Nation but on free speech across the world. So today I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me, along with Senators Lankford and Lee, along with the Presiding Officer and his leadership, along with Congressman Sean Duffy to stop the Obama administration from relinquishing U.S. control of the Internet. Many have stood with us in both Chambers, and we are very grateful for Senators Thune, Grassley, Burr, Cotton, Sasse, Moran, Sessions, and Rubio, along with a number of our colleagues in the House, including Congresswoman Blackburn and Congressmen Duffy, Barton, Brady, Burgess, Culberson, and Flores. And I urge even more of my colleagues to come together and stand united to stop the Obama administration's Internet giveaway. The Internet has been one of those transformational inventions that has changed how we communicate, how we do commerce, how we live our lives. For many, especially young people, it is hard to even imagine life before the Internet. Look at what the Internet has done. It has created an oasis of freedom for billions around the world. One of the great problems with someone trying to start a business is what is known as the barrier to entry. What the Internet has done is dramatically reduce the barriers to entry for anyone who wants to be an entrepreneur. If you are a man or a woman or even a boy or a girl somewhere across the country or around the world and you have an idea, a service you want to sell or a good you want to make, you can put up a Web site, and instantly you have international marketing capacity. You have a portal to communicate with people. Anyone can go online and order whatever your good or service is. And between that and FedEx or UPS, you can ship it anywhere in the world. That is an extraordinary and transformational ability. That freedom of the Internet--that you don't have to go and get anybody's approval; you don't have to go to a board for business authorization if you want to create a new business--is democratizing in that effect. The Internet empowers those with nothing but hope and a dream to be able to achieve those ambitions. Right now the proposal of the Obama administration to give away control of the Internet poses a significant threat to our freedom, and it is one many Americans don't know about. It is scheduled to go into effect on September 30, 2016--22 days away, just over 3 weeks. What does it mean to give away control of the Internet? From the very first days of the Internet, when it was developed here in America, the U.S. Government has maintained its core functions to ensure equal access to everyone, with no censorship. The government role isn't to monitor what we say or censor what we say; it is simply to ensure that it works--that when you type in a Web site, it actually goes to that Web site and not somewhere else. Yet that can change. The Obama administration is, instead, pushing through a radical proposal to take control of Internet domain names and give it to an international organization--ICANN--which includes 162 foreign countries. If that proposal goes through, it will empower countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the Internet--your speech. Countries like Russia and China and Iran are not our friends, and their interests are not our interests. Imagine searching the Internet and instead of seeing your standard search results, you see a disclaimer that the information you were searching for is censored--that it is not consistent with the standards of this new international body and does not meet their approval. If you are in China, that situation could well come with the threat of arrest for daring to merely search for such a thing that didn't meet the approval of the censors. Thankfully, that doesn't happen in America. But giving control of the Internet to an international body with Russia and China and Iran having power over it could lead to precisely that threat. And it is going to take Congress, acting affirmatively, to stop this. If we look at the influence of foreign governments within ICANN, it should give us greater and greater concern. For example, ICANN's former CEO, Fadi Chehade, left ICANN to lead a high-level working group for China's World Internet Conference. Mr. Chehade's decision to use his insider knowledge of how ICANN operates to help the Chinese Government and their conference is more than a little concerning. This is the person who was leading ICANN--the body we are being told to trust with our freedoms. Yet this man has gone to work for the China Internet conference, which has rightly been criticized for banning members of the press, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Even reporters we may fundamentally disagree with have a right to report and to say what they believe. Yet the World Internet Conference banned them. They said ``We do not want these reporters here,'' presumably because they don't like what they are saying. That led Reporters Without Borders to demand an international boycott of the conference, calling China the ``enemy of the Internet.'' If China is the enemy of the Internet, do we want the enemy of the Internet having power over what we are allowed to say, what we are allowed to search for, what we are allowed to read online? Do we want China and Russia and Iran having the power to determine that if a Web site is unacceptable, it is taken down? I would note that once this transition happens, there are serious indications that ICANN intends to seek to flee U.S. jurisdiction and to flee U.S. laws. Indeed, earlier this summer ICANN held a global conference in Finland in which jurisdiction shopping was part of their agenda--trying to figure out which jurisdiction they should base control of the Internet out of around the globe. A representative of Iran is already on record stating: ``[W]e should not take it [for] granted that jurisdiction is already agreed to be totally based on U.S. law.'' Our enemies are not hiding what they intend to do. Not only is there a concern of censorship and foreign jurisdiction stripping U.S. law from authority over the Internet, there are also real national security concerns. Congress has received no assurances from the Obama administration that the U.S. Government will continue to have exclusive ownership and control of the dot-gov and dot-mil top-level domains in perpetuity, which are vital to our national security. The Department of Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines all use the dot-mil top-level domain. The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security all use dot-gov. The only assurance ICANN has provided the Federal Government regarding dot-gov and dot-mil is that ICANN will notify the government in the future if it decides to give dot-gov or dot-mil to another entity. So if someone is going to the IRS--or what you think is the IRS--and your comfort is that it is on a dot-gov Web site so you know it must be safe, you may instead find yourself victim of a foreign scam, a phishing scam or some other means of fraud, with no basic protections. Congress should not sit by and let this happen. Congress must not sit by and let censorship happen. Some defenders of the Obama proposal say: This is not about censorship; it is about handing control to a multistakeholder unit. They would never dream of censoring content on the Internet. Well, recently, leading technology companies in the United States-- Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft reached an agreement with the European Union to remove ``hate speech'' from their online platforms within 24 hours. Giant U.S. corporations are signing on with the government to say: We are going to help you censor speech that is deemed unacceptable. By the way, we have seen that the definition of ``hate speech'' can be very malleable, depending upon what norms are trying to be enforced. For example, the Human Rights Campaign, which is active within ICANN, has featured the Family Research Institute, the National Corporation for Marriage, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other conservative and religious groups in a report entitled ``The Export of Hate.'' We are facing the real possibility of an international body having the ability to censor political speech if it is contrary to the norms they intend to enforce. In their view it is hate to express a view different from whatever prevailing orthodoxy is being enforced. It is one thing dealing with government organizations that try to stifle speech. That is profoundly inconsistent with who we are as Americans. But to hand over control of the Internet and to potentially muzzle everybody on the Internet is to ensure that what you say is only consistent with whatever is approved by the powers that be, and that ought to frighten everyone. There is something we can do about that. Along with Congressman Sean Duffy in the House, I have introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which, if enacted, will stop the Internet transition and it will also ensure the U.S. Government keeps exclusive ownership and control of the dot-gov and dot-mil top-level domains. Our legislation is supported by 17 key groups around the country--advocacy groups, consumer groups--and it also has the formal endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus. This should be an issue that brings us all together--Republicans, Democrats--all of us coming together. There are partisan issues that divide us. There always will be. We can have Republicans and Democrats argue until the cows come home about the top marginal tax rate, and that is a good and healthy debate to have. But when it comes to the Internet, when it comes to basic principles of freedom--letting people speak online without being censored--that ought to bring every one of us together. As Members of the legislative branch, Congress should stand united to rein in this President, to protect the constitutional authority expressly given to Congress to control disposition of property of the United States. To put the matter very simply: The Obama administration does not have the authorization of Congress, and yet they are endeavoring to give away this valuable, critical property--to give it away with no authorization of law. I would note that the government employees doing so are doing so in violation of Federal law, and they risk personal liability in going forward contrary to law. That ought to trouble all of us. Who in their right mind looks at the Internet and says: You know what we need? We need Russia to have more control over this. What is the thought process behind this, and what does it gain? What does it gain? When you look at the Internet, the Internet is working. The Internet works just fine. It lets us speak, it lets us operate, and it lets us engage in commerce. Why would this administration risk giving it up? Mr. President, when you and I were children, Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal. He gave it away, even though Americans had built it. Americans had died building the Panama Canal, but he nonetheless gave it away. For some reason President Obama seems to want to embody the spirit of Jimmy Carter, and instead of giving away the Panama Canal, he wants to give away the Internet. We shouldn't let him. The U.S. Constitution prohibits transferring government property to anyone without the authorization of Congress. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution explicitly requires congressional authorization. For several years now, Congress has also prohibited the administration from using any funds to ``relinquish'' control of the Internet. Yet, in typical lawless fashion, the Department of Commerce has been racing to prepare to relinquish control by September 30-- directly violating Federal law and using taxpayer funding to do so. The administration's continued contempt for the law and the Constitution, while, sadly, not surprising anymore, is particularly dangerous here, as it is contempt in service of undermining Internet freedom for billions of people across the world. With the Federal Government maintaining supervision over ICANN and domain names, it means the First Amendment is protected. Other countries don't have First Amendment protections. Other countries don't protect free speech the way America does. And America does that for the world, protecting free speech on the Internet by preventing the government from engaging in censorship. We shouldn't muck it up. If the Obama administration jams this through, hands control of the Internet over to this international organization, this United Nations- like unaccountable group, and they take it overseas, it is not like the next President can magically snap his or her fingers and bring it back. Unscrambling those eggs may well not be possible. I suspect that is why the Obama administration is trying to jam it through on September 30-- to get it done in a way that the next President can't undo it, that the Internet is lost for generations to come. To stop the giveaway of our Internet freedom, Congress should act by continuing and by strengthening the appropriations rider in the continuing resolution we will be considering this month and by preventing the Obama administration from giving away control of the Internet. Next week I will be chairing a hearing on the harms to our freedom that come from the Obama administration's proposal to give away the Internet. President Ronald Reagan stated: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free. I don't want us to have to tell our children and our children's children what it was once like when the Internet wasn't censored, wasn't in the control of foreign governments. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together, to stand together and ensure that we protect freedom of the Internet for generations to come. It is not too late to act. And I am encouraged by the leadership of Members of both Houses of Congress who stand up and protect the freedom of the Internet going forward. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to share with my colleagues a remarkable achievement by a very distinguished American citizen, Laurance M. Miller. On October 29, 2016, Mr. Miller will have devoted over 50 years of his life to the service of his country as an officer and civil servant in the U.S. Air Force. His honorable career began when he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force on June 6, 1966, from ROTC at the University of Akron. Miller was stationed at Chanute Air Force Base in Illinois for training as an aircraft maintenance officer and assigned to the 526th TAC Fighter Squadron in 1967. In 1969, Miller received his orders to Vietnam, but the Pueblo Crisis diverted him to Kunsan Air Force Base in Korea, where he served as a maintenance officer for the next year and was promoted to captain. In 1970, Miller was honorably discharged from Active Duty, but remained an Air Force Reservist with the 916th TAC Fighter Squadron in Youngstown, OH, until 1977. On August 11, 1973, Miller made the best decision of his life when he married Patricia Kraus at St. Sebastian's Catholic Church in Akron, OH. They are the proud parents of Kevin, Melissa, and Matthew, and now grandparents of Ethan, Joy, Dylan, and Joshua. Miller resumed Active Duty in 1977 and was assigned to Air Force Reserve Headquarters, AFRH, at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. During his assignment at AFRH, he was promoted to major and honorably discharged from Active Duty in 1982. He and his family then moved to New Orleans, LA, where he was assigned to 526th TAC Fighter Squadron and the New Orleans Naval Air Station as an air reserve technician. There he had the unique distinction of serving simultaneously as a civil servant for the Air Force, as well as an active Air Force Reservist. Miller was assigned to Air Force Materiel Command, AFMC, individual mobilization augmentee at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts in 1984. During this time, he continued to serve as both a civil service employee and an active Reservist for the U.S. Air Force. Mr. Laurance Miller devoted his life to the U.S. Air Force. His patriotic and unselfish commitment to his chosen branch of service and to the United States of America are extraordinary. I am honored to recognize him for a job well done, and I sincerely wish Larry and Pat happy trails as they enjoy a well-earned retirement together.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President: I remember: it happened yesterday, or eternities ago. A young Jewish boy discovered the Kingdom of Night. I remember his bewilderment, I remember his anguish. It all happened so fast. The ghetto. The deportation. The sealed cattle car. The fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed. I remember he asked his father: ``Can this be true? This is the twentieth century, not the Middle Ages. Who would allow such crimes to be committed? How could the world remain silent?'' And now the boy is turning to me. ``Tell me,'' he asks, ``what have you done with my future, what have you done with your life?'' And I tell him that I have tried. That I have tried to keep memory alive, that I have tried to fight those who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices. And then I explained to him how naive we were, that the world did know and remain silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever, wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must--at that moment--become the center of the universe. Elie Wiesel spoke these words as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He was a living testimony to the vow ``Never forget.'' Although he endured the unspeakable darkness of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, his defiant light burned ever brighter as he dedicated his immense talents to providing a voice for not only the Jewish victims of the Holocaust but also for the voiceless, the condemned, and the forsaken around the globe. Elie tirelessly reminded the world that the savage horror of the Third Reich was not an aberration in the past that was defeated in World War II. He knew that the potential for such genocidal evil remains with us in the present, and he warned that we must always be on guard against it. Now, that little boy who was always with him must always be with us. I was blessed to know Elie and his incomparable wife Mary personally. They have been powerful and fearless voices for justice no matter the cost. It is humbling to encounter the true greatness that is embodied by Elie and Mary. When Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress, it was one of the great privileges of my life to host Elie Wiesel and join him on a panel, together discussing the profound threat imposed by a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran, I believe, is the single greatest national security threat facing America. Elie shared that view. ``Never again'' is a critically important phrase. After the victory of World War II, it might seem like a comforting affirmation of fact that humanity had evolved and a horror like the Holocaust could never happen again, but ``never again'' is something more. Elie Wiesel was a living testimony to the fact that ``never again'' is a sacred vow. It is a promise that we will not take this for granted, but we will be ceaselessly vigilant because we know that while the evil of anti-Semitism was defeated once in World War II, it was not eradicated. To assume in our sophisticated modern age that we somehow transcended evil would be a tragic mistake. We have seen the face of evil this year in the savage ISIS terrorists who are targeting Jews, Christians, and Muslims--murdering regardless of faith. We see it even more clearly in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is seeking the world's deadliest weapons and the means to deliver them to make good on the many threats to annihilate not only the nation of Israel but the entire free world. These are not empty words uttered by an ayatollah without consequence. They are not simply words to placate a domestic political audience. These are articles of faith with the Iranian leadership, and they have backed them up with 35 years of violent hostility towards Israel and the United States. Last year, the world marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and we remembered the unspeakable atrocities of the death camps. We cannot afford a nuclear Auschwitz. We all know that Iran's terrorist proxies--Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad--have engaged in vicious terror attacks against our Nation, and already too many of our citizens have been killed and maimed. We know that the danger posed by Iran is not a thing of the past. Their intention is to use these weapons of destruction. This threat should not be a partisan issue. This threat should unite us because that is the only way we will be able to defeat this threat, and defeat it we must because Iran's threat is not only to wipe us off the map but to erase us from the historical record all together. Think about that for a moment. The stated objective of the Ayatollah Khamenei is a world without even the memory of the United States of America, the Great Satan, as they call us--or even a memory of Israel, the Little Satan, as they call Israel. Together we can stop that threat, just as we did in World War II. Together we can stand up and repudiate this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal that sends billions of dollars to Islamic terrorists committed to our murder. Together we can look evil in the eye and call it by its name, and we can do what we must to ensure that the vow of ``never again'' is fulfilled. Elie Wiesel left an extraordinary legacy. His memory is a blessing, an inspiration, but it is also a challenge to keep his legacy burning in our hearts. Our prayers go out to Marion and to all of Elie's loved ones. May he rest in peace, but may every one of us rise to answer the call to truth and justice that Elie Wiesel championed each and every day. Kate's Law Madam President, there is a second topic I wish to address on the floor today. Last week, as many of us were looking forward to Independence Day and vacations with our family, fireworks, hot dogs by the grill, another family was mourning a loss--the loss of a daughter, the loss of a life, and a loss that should never have occurred. Last Friday was the 1-year anniversary of the senseless killing of a vivacious 32-year-old young woman, Kate Steinle. She was shot as she was walking arm in arm with her dad on a San Francisco pier. After the bullet tore through her, she collapsed to the ground, crying out, ``Dad, help me. Help me.'' She died 2 hours later. As the father of two daughters, I cannot imagine the anguish and the heartbreak that was going through Mr. Steinle as he held his dying daughter. Her murderer was an illegal alien, and he wasn't just any illegal alien. He was one who had already been deported five times. On top of that, he had a long rap sheet that included up to seven felonies. What was he doing on that San Francisco pier? He should never have been there, and if he were not there, Kate Steinle would be alive today. Just a few months before killing Kate, this illegal alien was released from the custody of the San Francisco sheriff's office, even though Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal agency responsible for deporting illegal aliens, had requested he remain in custody. The Federal Government said: Keep this criminal illegal alien in custody. And the San Francisco sheriff said: No, we will release him to the public. The San Francisco sheriff's office refused to honor that request because of a so-called sanctuary city policy that prohibits the San Francisco sheriff's deputies from cooperating with Federal immigration enforcement officers. Local cities are putting in place policies that prohibit local law enforcement from working to keep our country safe. The sad truth is, Kate should be alive today, but she isn't because the Federal Government failed her. It has failed to secure the border. It has failed to faithfully and vigorously enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. It has failed to strengthen those laws to deter illegal aliens like Kate's killer from coming back over and over and over again. It has failed to enforce the law against sanctuary jurisdictions--which now number in the hundreds all across America-- that aid and abet illegal aliens evading deportation. The President of the United States is the officer charged by the Constitution with the sole responsibility to faithfully execute the law. When his administration tolerates and encourages lawlessness, is it any surprise that terrible things happen? We must put an end to this administration's lax enforcement of our immigration laws, which threatens the safety and security of the American people, and we should begin by putting a stop to sanctuary cities, which this administration has been unwilling to do on its own. A real President, faithful to the Constitution, would end sanctuary cities by cutting off money to any jurisdiction openly defying Federal immigration law. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Pat Toomey's Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, which would withhold Federal grant money from cities that refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement officers. Cities that flout Federal law should not be rewarded with Federal taxpayer dollars. We must also address the persistent problem of aliens like Kate's killer who illegally reenter this country after deportation. That is why I introduced, exactly 1 year ago, an earlier version of Kate's Law. Unfortunately, no action was taken on that bill until it was incorporated into Senator Vitter's Stop Sanctuary Policies Act. Senate Democrats voted in virtual lockstep to defeat the bill. Last fall, I went again to the Senate floor and asked for unanimous consent to pass Kate's Law as a stand-alone bill, but the senior Senator from California--the very State where Kate's senseless murder occurred-- stood on this floor and objected. Today, I thank the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, for scheduling a vote on Kate's Law and a separate vote on stopping sanctuary cities, for giving this body another chance to address the problem and to listen to the people. The time for politics is over. We should come together and protect the American people. It is a time to confront the sobering issue of illegal aliens, many of whom have serious criminal backgrounds and yet are allowed to illegally reenter this country with impunity. Kate's Law would do three things. First, it would increase the maximum criminal penalty for illegal entry from 2 to 5 years. Second, it would create a new penalty for up to 10 years in prison for any person who has been denied admission and deported three or more times and illegally enters the country. Finally, and most importantly, it would create a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted of illegal reentry who, like Kate's killer, had an aggravated felony prior to deportation or had been convicted of illegal reentry twice before. This class of illegal aliens has a special disregard and disdain for our Nation's laws. Violent criminals keep coming in over and over and over again, and all too often these illegal aliens have criminal records that go back years or even decades. For example, in 2012, just over one-quarter of the illegal aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol had prior deportation orders. That is an astounding 99,420 illegal aliens. In fiscal year 2015, of the illegal reentry offenders who were actually convicted--that is 15,715 offenders--the majority had extensive or recent criminal histories. At least one-third had a prior aggravated felony conviction, but even though the majority of offenders had criminal records, the average prison sentence was just 16 months, down from an average of 22 months in 2008. In fact, more than one-quarter of illegal reentry offenders received a sentence below the guidelines range because the government sponsored the low sentence. Clearly, we are failing to adequately deter deported illegal aliens from illegally reentering the country, especially those with violent criminal records. That is why we need to pass Kate's Law. We must increase the risk and the penalties for those who would contemplate illegally returning to the United States to commit acts of murder. I thank all the leaders in this body. I thank leaders like Bill O'Reilly for shining a light on this vital issue. This vote ought to be an easy decision. Just ask yourself this: With whom do I stand? I hope my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will choose to stand with the American people, the people we should be protecting, rather than convicted felons like Kate Steinle's killer. It is worth noting the city of San Francisco--bright blue Democratic San Francisco--voted out the sheriff after the murder of Kate Steinle. All Americans, regardless of being a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent--all Americans deserve to be protected, and we need a government that stops allowing violent illegal aliens to prey on the innocents. If our Democratic colleagues make the choice to put politics over protecting innocent Americans by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, the consequences of that are a mess. Doing so is quite literally playing with people's lives. This isn't hyperbole. Unfortunately, it is a fact. Tragically, Kate's death was not just an isolated occurrence, as much as we all wish that were the case. Just last week, an illegal alien killed three innocent people and wounded a fourth outside a blueberry farm in Oregon. According to ICE officials, the illegal alien had been deported from the United States an astounding six times since 2003. Enough is enough. Stop letting in violent criminal illegal aliens who are murdering innocent Americans. This should bring us all together. How many more of these terrible acts must we endure until Congress acts? What does it take to break the partisan gridlock and actually come together and protect the American people? The votes this afternoon will help answer that question. I very much hope we will not wait one day longer. I urge my colleagues to stand together united against lawlessness, to stand against dangerous criminal illegal aliens who flout our laws, and I urge each of us to hear the words of Kate Steinle, ``Help me, dad. Help me, dad.'' That was a cry that went not just to a grieving father, but it is a cry that should pierce each and every one of us and move this body out of slumber and into action, to help and stand with the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, our Nation is at war. Five days ago, we saw a horrific terror attack in Orlando, FL. From September 11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to this attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. As the facts have unfolded, they now indicate that the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS in the process of murdering 49 and wounding more than 50 at a nightclub. All of our hearts go out to those who were murdered. To the families of those who were victims and who are grieving, we stand in solidarity, we lift them up in prayer at this horrific act of terrorism. But it is also a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, who will address the enemy we face, who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military on defeating ISIS and defeating radical Islamic terrorists. In the wake of the attack, many of us predicted what would unfold, and it was, sadly, the same political tale we have seen over and over again. Many of us predicted that Democrats would, as a matter of rigid partisan ideology, refuse even to say the words ``radical Islamic terrorist''; that they would suggest this attack was yet another isolated incident, one lone criminal, not connected to any global ideology, not connected to any global jihad; and that, even worse, they would try to use it as an excuse to go after the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I wish, when we predicted that, that we had been proven incorrect. But this week played out all too predictably. Yesterday we saw a political show on the Senate floor, with Democrat after Democrat standing for hours, incensed not at ISIS, incensed not at radical Islamic terrorism, but incensed that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. This is political distraction. This is political gamesmanship. I think the American people find it ridiculous that in response to an ISIS terror attack, the Democrats go on high dudgeon that we have to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. This is not a gun control issue. This is a terrorism issue. And it is nothing less than political gamesmanship for them to try to shift to their favorite hobbyhorse of taking away the Bill of Rights from law-abiding citizens. I have spent years defending the Second Amendment--the right to keep and bear arms--the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and I, along with the Presiding Officer, along with a great many Members of this Chamber, am committed to defending the constitutional rights of every American. You don't defeat terrorism by taking away our guns; you defeat terrorism by using our guns. This body should not be engaged in a political circus trying to restrict the Second Amendment. Instead, we should be focusing on the problem at hand. Why did we see yesterday's series of speeches? Because Senate Democrats have an election coming up in November, and they don't want to talk about the real issue. Let's talk about ISIS. Let's talk about radical Islamic terrorism. Let's talk about the failures of the last 7 years of this administration to keep this country safe. In response to my criticism and that of many others, President Obama gave a press conference where he said, echoing the words of Hillary Clinton: What difference does it make if we call it radical Islamic terrorism? Well, Mr. President, it makes a world of difference because the failure to address the enemy impacts every action taken to fight that enemy. I want to talk in particular about three areas where this administration and the Senate Democrats' refusal to confront radical Islamic terrorism has made America less safe and what we need to do about it. Let's start with prevention. Over and over again we have seen the Obama administration having ample information to stop a terrorist attack. Yet, because of the political correctness, because of the ideology of this administration that will not even say the word ``jihad,'' will not even say the words ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' they look the other way, and the attacks go forward. In my home State of Texas, Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan--the Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had been in communication with the radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had asked al-Awlaki about the permissibility of waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. All of that was known beforehand, yet they did nothing. They did nothing. And on that fateful day, Nidal Hasan murdered 14 innocent souls, yelling ``Allahu Akbar'' as he pulled the trigger. Yet, just to underscore the blindness of this administration even after the terror attack, the administration insisted on characterizing that terror attack as ``workplace violence.'' That is nothing short of delusion, and it is a delusion that cost 14 lives. If we know of a U.S. servicemember who is communicating with a radical Islamic cleric and asking about waging jihad against his fellow soldiers, MPs should show up at that individual's door within minutes. And if we didn't have an administration that plunged its head in the sand like an ostrich and refused to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism, Nidal Hasan would have been stopped before he carried out that horrific act of terrorism. Likewise, with the Boston bombing and the Tsarnaev brothers, Russia had informed the Obama administration they were connected with radical Islamic terrorism. We knew that. The FBI had gone and interviewed them. Yet, once again, they dropped the ball. They stopped monitoring them. They didn't even note when the elder Tsarnaev brother posted on YouTube a public call to jihad. Mind you, this did not require complicated surveillance. This was YouTube. Anyone with a computer who could type in ``Google'' could see this. Yet, because the administration will not acknowledge that we are fighting radical Islamic terrorism, they were not watching and monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers. So they called for public jihad and then carried out that public jihad with pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon--yet another example where we knew about the individual beforehand, and if we had focused prevention on the problem, we could have stopped it. A third example was San Bernardino, that horrific terror attack. Once again, we had ample information about the individuals in question. The female terrorist who came to San Bernardino had given the administration a fake address in Pakistan. Yet the so-called vetting that this administration tells us they do had failed to discover that it was a fake address. She had made calls for jihad; yet the administration failed to discover that. In San Bernardino, we saw yet another horrific terror attack. And how about Orlando? Let's talk about what the facts are in Orlando. Now, we are only 5 days in. The facts will develop further as they are more fully developed, but here is what has been publicly reported. What has been publicly reported is that Omar Mateen was interviewed not once, not twice, but three times by the FBI in 2013 and 2014. One of the reasons he was interviewed by the FBI was that he was talking in his place of employment, which, ironically and shockingly enough, was a contractor to the Department of Homeland Security, and he was talking about being connected to terrorist organizations, including the Boston bombers. To any rational person, that is a big red flag. Yet it has also been reported that his coworkers were so afraid to say anything because they didn't want to be labeled as somehow anti-Muslim by speaking out about someone claiming to be connected to radical Islamic terrorists. We also know that when he was questioned by the FBI in 2004, according to public reports, it was because he was believed to have been connected to and knew Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who traveled to Syria to join the terrorist organization al-Nusra Front and who became the first known American suicide bomber in the Syrian conflict. That is yet another big red flag. If you are palling around with al-Nusra suicide bombers, that ought to be a real flag. If the administration is focused on radical Islamic terrorism, this is an individual we ought to be watching. We know that Mateen, as it has been reported, traveled to Mecca in Saudi Arabia for 10 days on March 2011 and for 8 days in March 2012. And we also have indications that the FBI may have been aware that he was a follower of the Islamist educational Web site run by radical Imams. Not only that, but his father has posted online videos expressing not only sympathy but arguably support for the Taliban. All of that is what the Obama administration knew. Yet by Sunday morning they were no longer watching Omar Mateen. They were no longer watching Omar Mateen. They were not monitoring him, and he was able to go in and commit a horrific act of murder. The question that every Member of this body should be asking is, Why is the ball being dropped over and over and over again? It is not once. It is not twice. It is a pattern. It is a pattern of failing to connect the dots. I would suggest it is directly connected to President Obama and this administration's refusal to acknowledge what it is we are fighting. If you direct the prevention efforts to stopping radical Islamic terrorism--we had all the information we had on Mateen to keep a very close eye on him. Yet if that is not what you are fighting, then you close the investigation and yet another attack goes forward. I would suggest that this willful blindness is one of the reasons we saw the circus yesterday on the Senate floor. Senate Democrats should be asking these questions, yet we don't hear them asking those questions. Instead, they want to shift this to gun control. They want to shift this to putting the Federal Government in charge of approving every firearms transaction between law-abiding citizens in America. Mind you, that would not have prevented this attack. Mind you, it was not directed at the evil of this attack. Mind you, it ignores the global jihad we are facing, but it is a convenient political dodge. We need serious leadership focused on keeping this country safe. A second component of keeping this country safe is defeating ISIS-- utterly and completely defeating ISIS. In yesterday's circus, when calling for taking away your and my constitutional rights, how often did Senate Democrats say: Let's utterly destroy ISIS. Not with the pinprick attacks we are seeing, not with the photo-op foreign policy of this administration--a failed effort that leaves the terrorists laughing at us--but instead, using overwhelming airpower; instead, using the concerted power of the U.S. military, with rules of engagement that allow us to fight and win. Right now, sending our service men and women into combat with rules of engagement tying their hands behind their backs is wrong, it is immoral, and it is not accomplishing the task. Do you want a response to the Orlando attacks? President Obama and Vice President Biden are going down. They will no doubt give a self- righteous speech about gun control, trying to strip away the rights of law-abiding Americans. How about they stand up and have the President pledge that ISIS will be driven from the face of the Earth? Do you want to see a response to murdering innocent Americans? If you declare war on America, you are signing your death warrant. That is the response of a Commander in Chief. That is the seriousness we need. A third component of focusing on the enemy is that we should focus on keeping us safe--in particular, passing two pieces of legislation, both of which I introduced, the first of which is the Expatriate Terrorist Act. This is legislation which provides that if any American citizen goes and takes up arms and joins ISIS, joins a radical Islamic terrorist group, that he or she forfeits their U.S. citizenship. So you do not have American citizens coming back to America with U.S. passports to wage jihad on America. We have seen Americans such as Jose Padilla, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Faisal Shahzad, just to name a few, who have abandoned their country and joined with the terrorists in waging war against us. Just this week, the CIA Director testified to the Senate that more are coming; ISIS intends to send individuals back here to wage jihad. Rather than engaging in political showmanship, trying to gain partisan advantage in the November election, how about we come together and say: If you join ISIS, you are not using a U.S. passport to come back here and murder American citizens. That ought to be a unanimous agreement if we were focused on keeping this country safe. Likewise, let's talk about the problem of refugees. What are the consequences of the willful blindness of this administration that President Obama, in the face of this terror attack, says that he will admit some 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees, despite the fact that the FBI Director has told Congress he cannot possibly vet them to determine if they are terrorists? Here is what FBI Director Comey said: We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing to show up because we have no record of them. This is an FBI Director who was appointed by President Obama who is telling the administration they cannot vet these refugees. Yet what does the administration say? What does Hillary Clinton say? What do the Senate Democrats say? Let the refugees in, even though ISIS is telling us they are going to use those refugees to send terrorists here to come and murder us. This transcends mere partisan disagreement; this is lunacy. We know the Paris attack was carried out in part by people who came in using the refugee program, taking advantage of the refugee program. Indeed, earlier this year, on January 6, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a Palestinian born in Iraq who entered the United States as a refugee in 2009, was charged with attempting to provide support to ISIS. He wanted to set off bombs using cell phone detonators at two malls in my hometown of Houston, TX. This is a refugee who came from Iraq. Yet, do you hear the administration saying: This is a dangerous world. Jihadists are attempting to kill us. We have to keep us safe. They don't say that. The legislation I have introduced, which I would urge this body to take up, would impose a 3-year moratorium on refugees coming from any nation where ISIS or Al Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorists control a substantial portion of the territory. We can help with humanitarian efforts. We can help resettling refugees in majority Muslim countries in the Middle East. America is a compassionate country that has given more than 10 times as much money as any country on Earth to caring for refugees. But being compassionate doesn't mean we are suicidal. It doesn't mean we invite to America, we invite to our homes people who the FBI cannot tell us if they are terrorists or not. What should this Senate be doing? We shouldn't be engaging in a sideshow of gun control. By the way, I will say on behalf of a lot of American citizens, in the wake of this terror attack, it is offensive. I sat in that chair and presided yesterday over some of the show. It was offensive to see Democrat after Democrat prattling on about the NRA. It wasn't the NRA that murdered 49 people in Orlando. It wasn't the NRA that set up pressure cookers in the Boston bombing. It wasn't the NRA that murdered 14 innocent souls at Fort Hood. It is offensive to play political games with the constitutional rights of American citizens instead of getting serious about keeping this country safe. I would urge this body to take up both pieces of legislation--the Expatriate Terrorist Act to prevent terrorists from using U.S. passports to come back to America and TRIPA to prevent refugees from countries with majority control, major control from ISIS or Al Qaeda from coming in, ISIS terrorists as refugees. Those would be commonsense steps. The overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. Yet, in this politicized environment, that is not what our friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about. Until we get serious about defeating radical Islamic terrorists, we will continue to lose innocents. I would note one aspect of the attack on Sunday morning. It was widely reported that it was at a gay bar. There are a great many Democrats who are fond of calling themselves champions of the LGBT community. I would suggest there is no more important issue to champion in that regard than protecting Americans from murder by a vicious ideology that systematically murders homosexuals, that throws them off buildings, that buries them under rocks. The regime in Iran, now supported by billions of dollars of American taxpayer dollars at the behest of President Obama, murders homosexuals regularly. I will confess, some in the press pool were a little bit puzzled: Well, how can a Republican be speaking out against this? Let me be very clear. I am against murder. I am against murder of any American. Nobody has a right to murder anybody because they differ in faith, because they differ in sexual orientation, because they differ in any respect. We are a nation founded on protecting the rights of everyone to live according to their conscience, according to their faith. This murder in Orlando was not random; it was part of a global jihad, an ideology, an Islamist ideology that commands its adherents to murder or forcibly convert the infidel, by whom they mean every one of us. This body should not be engaged in political games. We should be focused on the threat and keeping America safe and defeating radical Islamic terrorists. As we remember the victims of this latest terror attack, the greatest memorial we can give to them is to redouble ourselves to a seriousness of purpose to prevent the next terror attack from taking innocent American lives. I hope that is what this body does. I hope we do so in a bipartisan manner. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, my home State of Texas is strong and resilient. Texans aren't people who tire easily, and we certainly don't give up when the going gets tough, but that doesn't mean the State of Texas hasn't faced its share of adversity. Over the last few weeks, the resolve of our great State has been tested with historic flooding that has taken at least 16 lives across Texas. Among those 16 are 9 young soldiers at Fort Hood, 9 soldiers whose truck was overturned while crossing a flooded creek. Their lives were ended in that flooding. Their families have been torn asunder, not by combat losses far away. When brave young men and women sign up to defend this country, they expect--they understand the threat that enemies abroad might endanger them, but they shouldn't be losing their lives here at home in a sudden and unexpected accident that took the lives of nine soldiers in an instant. Those nine soldiers should be remembered: SPC Yingming Sun, SSG Miguel Angel Colonvazquez, SPC Christine Faith Armstrong, PFC Brandon Austin Banner, PFC Zachery Nathaniel Fuller, Private Isaac Lee Deleon, Private Eddy Raelaurin Gates, Private Tysheena Lynette James, and Cadet Mitchell Alexander Winey. All of us should remember those soldiers and every one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who risk their lives for us daily. Just yesterday on a plane flight from Texas, I had the pleasure of again meeting a young lieutenant whom I had met in the hospital at Fort Hood in 2014. He had been shot in the chest with a .45 in that tragic shooting that occurred. I must say it was so inspirational to see this young lieutenant healed, mobile, proudly serving our country, and energized. That is the spirit of our Armed Forces, and we should never forget their commitment to freedom. Heidi and I right now, along with millions of Americans, are lifting up in prayer those Texans who have lost their lives, who have lost their homes, and the families who are suffering due to this flooding. We are also lifting up the first responders who so bravely risk everything to keep us safe. In particular, I want to take a moment of praise for the Red Cross. I had the privilege yesterday of speaking with the CEO of the Red Cross to thank them directly for their efforts on the ground, helping people who are suffering, helping people who have lost their homes and who are struggling. She and I shared what we have seen in tragedy after tragedy after tragedy, which is that, in the face of disaster and in the face of adversity, Texans and Americans come together. There is a spirit of solidarity, a spirit of unity that the worse the tragedy, the more we come together and help our friend and neighbor, help our sister and brother. During these difficult times, Texans demonstrate that sharing spirit, and we are thankful to Americans across the country who are lifting us up in prayer. As the waters continue to recede and the wreckage is being cleared, my office will continue to work very closely with the local and State government officials, along with the entire Texas delegation, to help ensure a smooth recovery process, including offering--as I already have--my full support and assistance when Governor Abbott requests Federal aid for those afflicted by this disaster. While Texas continues to rebound from these torrential floods, our Nation is also flooded with circumstances that require the very same strength and resolve that we face in the face of tragedy. This week, the Senate continues debating the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation reflects our Nation's military and national security priorities. The decisions we make today will affect not only our lives but those of future generations. We face serious times as a Nation. Our constitutional rights are under assault. We have economic stagnation, young people yearning for employment opportunities only to find none, and government regulations that crush innovations. Abroad and at home, the threat is growing each and every day of radical Islamic terrorists. In order to best ensure the future of our Nation, we must make sure America is secure. The most important constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Federal Government, the one authority that it must--not merely can-- exercise is to provide for the common defense. There is no better example of how egregiously we have strayed from our core function than the way in which our spending on defense has been held hostage year after year to the ever-increasing appetite for domestic spending by President Obama and his political allies. The programs they are forcing on the American people aren't necessary to protect our lives and safety. But funding our Nation's security is necessary, and it is in this spirit that I have approached my work on the National Defense Authorization Act. I look forward to continuing this debate with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. My goal for the NDAA is simple. We need to make sure our military is strong, our homeland is secure, and our interests abroad are protected. The NDAA shouldn't be a vehicle to further an agenda that has nothing to do with actually defending America. On the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was proud to work with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, in introducing and getting adopted 12 amendments--12 amendments that were included in this legislation that cover the range of policy issues from strengthening our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense, to improving our ability to stand with allies such as the nation of Taiwan, to improving our ability to deal with the growing threats from nations like Russia and China, to prohibiting joint military exercises with Cuba, to preventing the transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo to nations that are on the State Department's watch list. All of those were done working closely with colleagues, Republicans and often many Democrats. Yet there are still many issues I believe should be addressed in this legislation, and I want to highlight three of those issues--three amendments that I hope this full body will take up. The first is an amendment to increase spending on Israeli missile defense. This is an amendment on which I have been working very, very closely with the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham. The second is an amendment to stop the Obama administration's plan to give away the Internet, to empower our enemies over the Internet. On this, I have been working closely with Senator Lee from Utah and Senator Lankford from Oklahoma. The third amendment I want to address is an amendment to strip the citizenship from any Americans who take up arms and join ISIS or other terrorist organizations waging jihad against the United States of America. In this, I have worked with a number of Senators, including Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee. Each of these amendments addresses different policy components of our Nation's security. But they all share the ultimate objective of ensuring that America remains the strongest nation the world has ever known. The first amendment I have submitted and that I would urge this body to take up would increase funding for our cooperative missile defense program with Israel to ensure that our ally--our close friend--can procure the necessary vital assets and conduct further mutually beneficial research and development efforts. This has been an ongoing partnership between Israel and the United States of America and yet, unfortunately, the Obama administration, in its request submitted to Congress, zeroed out procurement for David's Sling, Arrow 2, and Arrow 3, vital elements of Israeli missile defense. This is at a time when the threats are growing, and the administration decided that zero was the appropriate level. Respectfully, I disagree. This amendment would fully fund procurement for Israeli missile defense. Now, much of this missile defense is done in partnership working closely with American corporations producing jobs here at home. But it is also vital to our national security, as we see a proliferation of threats across the world. The technology of intersecting incoming threats and intersecting incoming missiles before they can take the lives of innocents is all the more important. Yet we are at a time when the administration has funneled hundreds of millions--and headed to billions--of dollars to Iran and their despotic regime. The administration knows and they acknowledge that substantial portions of those funds will be used to fund radical Islamic terrorists, will be used to fund efforts to murder Israelis and to murder Americans. Yet, nonetheless, it is U.S. taxpayer dollars and dollars under the control of our government--billions--that are going to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who chants and pledges ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel,'' as a result of the fecklessness of our foreign policy. Our closest ally in the Middle East remains in a deeply troubling and precarious position. Israel must be prepared to defend against Hamas and Hezbollah rocket stockpiles that are being rebuilt and improved, while also being forced to counter an increasingly capable adversary in the nation of Iran, which is intent on the destruction of Israel. We must not fail in our obligation to stand with Israel. It is my hope that, if and when this body takes up this amendment, we will stand in bipartisan unity, standing with Israel against the radical Islamic terrorists who seek to destroy both them and us. In doing so, we will further both Israeli national security and the safety and security of the United States of America. In addition to working to provide for our common defense and protect our sovereignty, I have also introduced an amendment that would safeguard our country in a very different way. I have submitted an amendment that would prohibit the Obama administration from giving away the Internet. This issue doesn't just simply threaten our personal liberties. It also has significant national security ramifications. The Obama administration is months away from deciding whether the U.S. Government will continue to provide oversight over the core functions of the Internet and continue to protect it from authoritarian regimes who view the Internet as a way to increase their influence and suppress the freedom of speech. Just weeks ago, the Washington Post--hardly a bastion of conservative thought--published an article entitled: ``China's scary lesson to the world: Censuring the Internet works.'' We shouldn't take our online freedom for granted. If Congress sits idly by and allows the administration to terminate U.S. oversight of the Internet, we can be certain authoritarian regimes will work to undermine the new system of Internet governance and strengthen the position of their governments at the expense of those who stand for liberty and freedom of speech. This prospect is truly concerning, given the proposal submitted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as ICANN. ICANN is a global organization, and its latest proposal unquestionably decreases the position of the United States while it increases the influence of over 160 foreign governments within ICANN in critical ways--foreign governments like China, foreign governments like Russia. Additionally, this proposal has the potential to expand ICANN's historical core mission by creating a potential gateway to content regulation, and it would only further embolden ICANN's leadership, which has a poor track record of acting in an unaccountable manner and a proven unwillingness to respond to specific questions posed by the Senate. Relinquishing our control over the Internet would be an irreversible decision. We must act affirmatively to protect the Internet, as well as the operation and security of the dot-gov and dot-mil top-level domains, which are vital to our national security. For whatever reason, the Obama administration is pursuing the giveaway of the Internet in a dogged and ideological manner. It is the same naive foolishness that decades ago led Jimmy Carter to give away the Panama Canal. It is this utopian view that, even though we built it, we should give it to others whose interests are not our own. We should not have given away the Panama Canal, and we should not be giving away the Internet. If the Obama administration succeeds in giving away the Internet--which is, No. 1, prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, which specifies that property of the United States Government cannot be transferred without the authority of Congress--this administration is ignoring that constitutional limitation and is ignoring the law. But if the Obama administration gives away the Internet, it will impact freedom, it will impact speech for you, for your children, and your children's children. I would note that one of the things this body is good at is inertia-- doing nothing. Right now, that is what this body is doing to stop it. My amendment would say that control of the Internet cannot be transferred to anyone else without the affirmative approval of the United States Congress. If it is a good idea to give away the Internet that we built, that we preserve, that we keep free, that we protect with the First Amendment--and I can't imagine anyone reasonably objective believing it is, but if it is--we ought to debate it on this floor. A decision of that consequence should be decided by Congress and not by unaccountable bureaucrats in the Obama administration. So it is my hope that colleagues in this body will come together, at the very minimum, to say not whether or not the Internet should be given away but simply that Congress should decide that. There was a time when this body was vigorous in protecting its constitutional prerogatives. It is my hope that this body will rediscover the imperative of doing so. The third amendment I have submitted on the NDAA that I want to address is the Expatriate Terrorist Act, a bill I introduced over a year ago and that I have now filed as an amendment to the NDAA. As we all know, radical Islamic terrorists have been waging war against the United States since--and, indeed, well before--9/11, and yet the President cannot bring himself to identify the enemy, preferring instead to use meaningless bureaucratic terms like violent extremists. The President naively believes that refraining from calling the threat what it is--radical Islamic terrorism--will somehow assuage the terrorists and discourage them from making war against us and our allies. But that hasn't stopped ISIS from promising to strike America over and over and over, nor did it dissuade the radical Islamic terrorists here in the United States who have committed attacks against Americans since this President first took office--the terrorist attack in Fort Hood, which the administration inexplicably tried to characterize as ``workplace violence,'' the Boston Marathon bombing, the terrorist attack on military recruiters in Little Rock and Chattanooga, and, most recently, the horrific attack in San Bernardino. The question for us in Congress is whether we have given the government every possible tool, consistent with the Constitution, to defeat this threat. I do not believe we have, which is why I have introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act. Over the years, numerous Americans, like Jose Padilla, Anwar al- Awlaki and Faisal Shahzad, just to name a few, have abandoned their country and their fellow citizens to go abroad and join radical Islamic terrorist groups. Intelligence officials estimate that more than 250 Americans have tried or succeeded in traveling to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS or other terrorist groups in the region. This amendment updates the expatriation statute so that Americans who travel abroad to fight with radical Islamic terrorists can relinquish their citizenship. This will allow us to preempt any attempt to reenter the country and launch attacks on Americans or to otherwise hide behind the privileges of citizenship. In this more and more dangerous world, it would be the height of foolishness for the administration to allow known terrorists--radical Islamic terrorists affiliated with ISIS, Al Qaeda, or other Islamist groups--to travel back to the United States of America using a passport to carry out jihad and murder innocent Americans. This legislation should be bipartisan legislation. This legislation should be legislation that brings all of us together. We might disagree on the questions of marginal tax rates as Democrats and Republicans. We might disagree on a host of policy issues. But when it comes to the simple question of whether an Islamic terrorist intent on killing Americans should be allowed to use a U.S. passport to travel freely and come into America, that answer should be no, and that ought to be an issue of great agreement. Today I call upon my colleagues to join me in supporting these amendments and coming together. Together these amendments strengthen our Nation both at home and abroad. We are stronger than the obstacles we face. And by the grace of God, we will succeed. The stakes are too high to quit, and we will stand together and continue to strengthen this exceptional Nation, this shining city on a hill that each and every one of us loves. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would briefly respond to my friend from Arizona. As he is aware, this NDAA contains one provision that in the history of our country is a radical departure. For the first time ever, this NDAA would subject women to Selective Service and potentially the draft. Was this change done through open debate? Was this change done in front of the American people? Was this change done reflecting their views? No. It was inserted by committee staff in the committee draft. It is a radical change that is attempting to be foisted on the American people. I am the father of two daughters. Women can do anything they set their mind to, and I see that each and every day. But the idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat, in my mind, makes little to no sense. It is, at a minimum, a radical proposition. I could not vote for a bill that did so, particularly that did so without public debate. In addition to that, I would note that in previous years, I have joined with Senator Lee and others in pressing for an amendment that would protect the constitutional rights of all Americans against unlimited detention of American citizens on American soil. The chairman is well aware, because I have told him this now 4 years in a row, that if the Senate would take up and pass the amendment protecting the constitutional due process rights of American citizens--the Bill of Rights actually matters--then I would happily vote for the bill. Yet the Senate has not taken up that amendment, so I have had no choice but to vote no at the end of the day. I can tell you right now that if this bill continues to extend the draft to women--a radical change, much to the astonishment of the voters, being foisted on the American people not just by Democrats but by a lot of Republicans--then I will have no choice but to vote no again this year. But I can say this: I would be thrilled to vote yes if we focused on the vital responsibilities of protecting this country rather than focusing on extraneous issues. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, Antonin Scalia was one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices in the history of our country. A lion of the law, Justice Scalia spent his tenure on the bench championing federalism, the separation of powers, and our fundamental liberties. He was a passionate defender of the Constitution--not the Constitution as it has been contorted and revised by generations of activist Justices, but the Constitution as it was understood by the people who ratified it and made it the law of the land. Scalia understood that if the Constitution's meaning was not grounded in its text, history, and structure, but could instead by revised by judicial fiat, then the people were no longer sovereign. No longer would the Nation be governed by law, which expresses the will of the people; it would be governed by, as Scalia put it, ``an unelected committee of nine.'' This, he believed, ``robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.'' As one of the leading advocates of this restrained judicial philosophy, Justice Scalia became an intellectual force on the Court, where he authored a number of noteworthy majority opinions. In 1997, for example, Scalia wrote the opinion in Printz v. United States, one of the few cases in the last century where the Supreme Court has actually limited the Federal Government's power to coerce the states. In 2001, in Kyllo v. United States, he led the Court in holding that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant before using high-tech equipment to invade the sanctity of the home. And in 2008, he penned the lead opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which finally recognized the people's individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. As important as these majority opinions were, though, Justice Scalia was even better known for his dissents, in which he let his true personality--jovial, acerbic, and witty--fully shine through. Scalia understood that changing the languishing legal culture would take drastic measures, so he wrote his dissents with a specific target in mind: law students. His aim? To delight their senses and engage their brains. To this end, he liberally employed colorful metaphors, pithy phrases, and biting logic; and he mercilessly, yet playfully, exposed the abundant flaws in the writing and reasoning of other Justices. Pure applesauce. Jiggery-pokery. Argle-bargle. If you squinted hard enough, you could almost convince yourself that G.K. Chesterton had taken a seat on the Supreme Court. But perhaps the highest compliment I can pay to Justice Scalia is this: Several of his key opinions went against some of his staunchest supporters--and they still loved him. Why is that? The answer is simple: Even in disagreement, Justice Scalia's supporters had confidence that he did not make up his mind by reading the political tea leaves, by voting lockstep with ideological cohorts, or by working his way backward from a desired end to whatever means was necessary to reach that end. Rather, he actually attempted to interpret the law; that is, he consistently did his best to come to a conclusion based on the only items that make a Supreme Court opinion valid in the first place: text and logic. You don't have to take my word on this, though. Unlike many in our modern society who espouse ``diversity'' yet surround themselves with ideological yes-men, Justice Scalia actively sought out opposing views. His typical practice was to hire at least one ``liberal'' law clerk per term so that he would always have someone calling him out for unexpected mistakes and weaknesses. And in the wake of Scalia's passing, one of those clerks--a self-identified liberal--wrote the following: If there was a true surprise during my year clerking for Scalia, it was how little reference he made to political outcomes. What he cared about was the law, and where the words on the page took him. More than any one opinion, this will be his lasting contribution to legal thought. Whatever our beliefs, he forced lawyers and scholars to engage on his terms--textual analysis and original meaning. He forced us all to acknowledge that words cannot mean anything we want them to mean; that we have to impose a degree of discipline on our thinking. A discipline I value to this day. I first met Justice Scalia in 1996, when I was serving as a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was a judicial gamechanger in his own right. And I had the good fortune of knowing Scalia personally for 20 years. He was brilliant, passionate, and full of humor. He adored his wife, Maureen; his nine children; and his 36 grandchildren. He had a zest for life. He relished anchovy pizzas at A.V. Ristorante Italiano, where he would take his law clerks and the clerks of other Justices. Over the decades, Scalia inspired and mentored a generation of conservatives on the bench and in the legal academy. Any advocate who stood before Justice Scalia, as I was privileged to do nine times, knew to expect withering questions that would cut to the quick of the case. When he was with you--when he believed the law was on your side--he was ferociously with you. And when he was against you, he would relentlessly expose the flaws in your case. President Ronald Reagan could not have picked a better person to exemplify the true, nonpartisan role of a judge. A philosopher-king Justice Scalia was not. Rather, he showed the world, with his trademark wit and impassioned personality, what a legitimate, limited, and principled judiciary would actually look like. An incomparable writer, Scalia's legacy will live on for generations. He wasn't perfect, but he was close. What his supporters--myself included--treasured especially was the rock-solid ground he gave us on which to expect so much more from everyone else. And in doing so, he, along with Chief Justice Rehnquist and others, helped spark a revolution on a Court where politics and power had been the only guideposts for decisionmaking for far too long. That, more than anything else, is Scalia's great contribution to the Nation and will be his steadfast legacy.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware, in July I told Secretary Kerry in a written letter that if the administration sent to the United Nations this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal before submitting it to the U.S. Congress, that the consequence would be that each and every political appointee to the State Department would be held. Secretary Kerry nonetheless decided to disregard the contents of that letter, submitted it to the United Nations in derogation of U.S. sovereignty, and accordingly, I have been blocking those political nominees.

Mr. CRUZ. Well, reserving the right to object to that one, I would simply say we were going to do both. I thought you were doing the first one, but you are doing the other. On that as well, in my view, there is far too much Federal land in the United States that is under the control of the Federal Government. I was just yesterday in the State of Nevada, where some 84 percent of the State of Nevada is controlled by the Federal Government. We do not need the Federal Government becoming the largest landlord in the United States. Therefore, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Yes.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the single greatest national security threat facing the United States today is the threat of a nuclear Iran. The President's catastrophic Iran deal only increases the likelihood the Ayatollah Khamenei will possess nuclear weapons. There are some in this body who suggest we should trust Iran. Well, I do trust Iran. When the Ayatollah Khamenei, with a cheering crowd, burns Israeli flags and American flags and promises ``Death to America,'' I trust the Ayatollah means what he is saying. Therefore, we should not be giving him over $100 billion and facilitating his getting nuclear weapons. Therefore, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. When Secretary Kerry chose to ignore my request that the State Department not submit this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal to the United Nations, Secretary Kerry did so with open eyes. He did so knowing the consequences because I had spelled them out explicitly; that the political nominees he would want to put forward at the Department of State would not proceed if Secretary Kerry chose to undermine the authority of the Congress of the United States, to undermine the sovereignty of this country, and to instead treat the United Nations as the relevant decisionmaking body. He did so nonetheless. As a consequence, the Obama administration is proceeding forward under this Iranian nuclear deal as if it is binding law. The Obama administration is proceeding ultra vires. They are proceeding contrary to law under the explicit terms of the Congressional Review Act. The period of time for congressional review has not begun to commence because the Obama administration has not submitted the entire deal to the U.S. Congress. They have not submitted the side deals. As a consequence, under explicit U.S. law, it is contrary to the law for the Obama administration to lift sanctions on Iran. I wish to note to any bank at home or abroad that is in possession of Iranian assets, any bank that chooses to release those assets to the Ayatollah Khamenei or to other Iranian interests will be acting directly contrary to Federal statutory law. Even though President Obama and Secretary Kerry are choosing to disregard the law, that does not exonerate the private banks from potential civil liability in the billions or even criminal liability. The stakes are too high. I move to lay that motion on the table. As we wrestle with the ravages of radical Islamic terrorism, the idea that the President of the United States is trying to send over $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khameini--a theocratic zealot who promises death to America--makes no sense at all. It means that if and when those billions of dollars are used to fund jihadists who murder Americans, the blood of those murders will be on this administration's hands. If you give billions of dollars to jihadists who have pledged to commit murder, you cannot wash your hands of responsibility for their doing exactly what they have told you they would do. Accordingly, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have not placed a hold on this nomination, because my hold has been limited to political nominees, not to career foreign service officers serving as ambassadors. That being said, Mr. Grassley, the senior Senator from Iowa, has filed a formal notice of intent to object to this nomination, and, therefore, on behalf of the senior Senator from Iowa, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. In light of these terrorist attacks, President Obama's Iranian nuclear deal looks worse and worse and worse. The idea that the United States of America would be sending over $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei--the leading financier of terrorism in the world--is profoundly foolhardy. At the time that deal was being negotiated, I sent a letter to Secretary Kerry informing Secretary Kerry that under no circumstances should the Obama administration attempt to go to the United Nations and circumvent Congress with this foolhardy and catastrophic deal. In that letter to Secretary Kerry I said explicitly: Under no circumstances should the executive branch take such action before the congressional review process is complete. Thus, I ask that you provide written assurances that you will take all necessary steps to block any U.N. Security Council resolution approving the JCPOA until the statutory time line for congressional review has run its course. Until you provide such assurances, I intend to block all nominees for the Department of State and hold any legislation that reauthorizes funds for the Department of State. This was fair warning, given ahead of time, that the State Department should not try to circumvent the Congress, should not try to undermine U.S. sovereignty, and should not go to the United Nations to try to approve a deal--particularly a deal that profoundly endangers the national security of this country. The Obama administration ignored my warnings and went to the United Nations anyway. I would note that under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, the congressional review period has not yet run. The Congressional Review Act says that time does not begin to run until the President submits the entire deal to Congress. That statute defines the entire deal to include any and all side agreements. We know of at least two side agreements governing inspections that have not yet been given to this body. So, accordingly, the congressional review period has not yet begun, much less ceased. When I told Secretary Kerry that if the State Department circumvented Congress and went to the United Nations, I would block State Department nominees, that was not an empty threat. Therefore, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. I didn't hear.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, in the hours that have followed the tragic shooting in San Bernardino, when all our prayers are with the families of those who were murdered and those who were injured, more and more of us are becoming concerned that this reflects a manifestation of radical Islamic terrorism here in America. The facts are still not entirely clear, but in the wake of the Paris attack, it is appearing more and more likely that is what this was. In the wake of these horrific attacks by radical Islamic terrorists, it has become abundantly clear that President Obama's Iranian nuclear deal----

Mr. CRUZ. Sure.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Today the single greatest national security threat facing America is the threat of a nuclear Iran. President Obama's catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal dramatically increases the likelihood that the Ayatollah Khamenei will possess nuclear weapons and will use those nuclear weapons to commit horrific acts of terror. Moreover, Secretary Kerry's decision to go to the United Nations and circumvent the Congress of the United States, disregard the authority of the people of the United States was unacceptable and was profoundly damaging to this country. Accordingly, I object.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2302 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.