Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise at a time of crisis. For several months now, our Nation been dealing with two simultaneous crises--a global health pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 115,000 Americans and over 400,000 people across the globe--and an economic crisis that has cost over 40 million Americans their jobs. We are also now dealing with a crisis of racial division and anger over the killing of George Floyd on Memorial Day. As our Nation reels from the difficulties of the past few months, it's time to focus on what we can do to recover. One challenge that we've faced this year is the closures of schools all across the Country. Suddenly, because of the coronavirus pandemic, over 76 million American students of all ages were faced with finishing the school year at home--including over five million students in my home State of Texas--away from many of the resources that school provides. To say that has been a staggering shift for many students and families is an understatement. That is why today, I'm introducing a bill to temporarily expand 529 accounts so that parents of children who are now learning from home as a result of the coronavirus pandemic can cover educational expenses such as tuition, books and other instructional materials, online educational materials, tutoring, standardized test fees, and educational therapies for students with disabilities. This bill, the Helping Parents Educate Children During the Coronavirus Pandemic Act, is a version of a bill I introduced last year, the Student Empowerment Act, which would allow 100 percent of American students to use 529 accounts to help pay for K-12 education. The Helping Parents Educate Children During the Coronavirus Pandemic Act has the benefits of the Student Empowerment Act, but is tailored to navigate the educational challenges the coronavirus pandemic poses to students nationwide. These bills would extend 529 accounts to cover educational expenses of all sorts, allowing public school families (who do not pay tuition) to participate. Around 90 percent of America's students attend public school, so this change would help many Americans afford all the associated costs of an education. These bills would also make 529 accounts more accessible to low- income and middle-income families, public school families, families who send their children to religious schools, and homeschool families who need help paying for their child's K-12 education. We've come a long way in making a quality education attainable for American students, but we have more to do. That is why I'm working to help parents, guardians, and students across the country access the tools they need to continue school at home as long as we have a public health emergency because of the coronavirus pandemic. In closing, I want to thank the educators and parents who over the past three months have made education a priority for millions of American students. Your hard work and dedication to ensuring your students continue to learn despite the challenges of a global pandemic is a good example for us all that we must keep going, we must move forward, and that one day, we will emerge from these challenges stronger than before. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise at a time of crisis. For several months now, our Nation has been dealing with two simultaneous crises: a global health pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 100,000 Americans, over 300,000 people across the globe, and an economic crisis that has cost over 40 million Americans their jobs. And in the midst of these two crises, we are now faced with yet another crisis: a crisis of anger, a crisis of racial division, flames that are pulling this country apart. This crisis was precipitated by the wrongful death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN. At this point, most, if not all, of us have seen that horrifying video: Mr. Floyd, in handcuffs, facedown on the pavement, incapacitated, not posing a threat to anyone, and a police officer with his knee on the neck of Mr. Floyd, pressing down hard on the neck of Mr. Floyd and keeping that knee there for 8 long minutes. Mr. Floyd begs the officer, pleads with the officer, says he can't breathe. He is in obvious and serious physical distress. Other officers are standing there, watching a defenseless, handcuffed man, pinned to the ground for 8 long minutes, with a knee pressing down on his neck. As we all know, those actions took the life of Mr. Floyd, and, rightly, following what happened, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a civil rights investigation into the police officers' conduct. Also rightly, I believe, the local prosecutor opened--began--a criminal prosecution, a homicide prosecution, against the officer for his conduct. Now, anytime you have an officer-involved shooting, it is easy for people to let rhetoric get carried away. It is easy to jump to conclusions. And too many players in the political world, I think, quickly move to demonize the police officer and assume the officer is wrong in every circumstance. That is not how responsible leaders, that is not how responsible Americans should behave. We should wait to see what the facts and circumstances are. But here we have a video, and we can see what the facts and circumstances are, and there are zero legitimate law enforcement justifications for what happened to George Floyd--none. We witnessed police brutality and abuse of power, and that is why the officers are being prosecuted. Those should be propositions that bring all of us together. Watching the death of Mr. Floyd, for so many Americans, brought forth the long history in this country of racial discrimination, a history that began with centuries of slavery in America, a history that has seen Jim Crow laws, that has seen the Ku Klux Klan, that has seen overt and also implicit discrimination. Young African Americans too often fear interactions with law enforcement, fear that their rights will not be protected. Our Nation's journey toward civil rights has had many troubled stops along the way, but I, for one, agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that the arc of history bends toward justice. I also agree with the vision that Dr. King put forth standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, to an assembled crowd and an assembled protest, that he wanted to live in a nation where we would be judged--all of us would be judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. That is a vision that has animated America on our journey toward justice, and outrage at what happened to George Floyd prompted Americans across this country to speak out, to exercise their First Amendment right to speak out for racial justice, to speak out against police brutality, to speak out against abuse of power. All of that is legitimate. All of that is protected by the Constitution. But then we saw things take an ominous turn, a dangerous turn. What, for some, was legitimate First Amendment speech, speaking out for justice, became co-opted, became taken over by violent criminal radicals. Now, let's be clear because so much of the news media does not like clarity in this regard. When I say that, I am not saying that everybody speaking is a violent criminal radical. Indeed, there are a great many people speaking out whose heart cries for justice, cries for the justice that has been the many-centuries-long journey of this country. But there are radicals who cynically took advantage of these protests to sow division, to sow fear, to engage in murder, to engage in violent assaults, to engage in looting, to engage in theft, to engage in intimidation, to engage in fear. The First Amendment protects your right to speak; the First Amendment protects your right to peaceably protest; but none of us has a right to violently assault another person. None of us has a right to murder another person. None of us has a right to burn the cars of police officers, to shatter the shop windows of shops throughout this country, to engage in acts of terror, threatening the lives of our fellow Americans. To those radicals who cynically tried to co-opt these protests, I will say their actions were profoundly racist because they were making a decision to take what should have been a unifying moment to say this will not stand in our Nation. Our law protects everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. Every American--African American, Hispanic, White, Asian American--it doesn't matter; our laws protect everyone. That should have been a unifying moment, and the cynical, violent, radical criminals decided to co-opt these protests to turn them into, in far too many instances, riots--violent riots, terrorizing their fellow citizens. George Floyd was a native Houstonian--my hometown. I love the city of Houston. George Floyd was active in his church in Houston. Next week, Mr. Floyd will be coming back to Houston for the last time to be buried in Houston. I am proud that last night, in the city of Houston, thousands came out to protest, and there wasn't violence last night; that the people of Houston demonstrated that you can speak, you can speak for racial justice, you can speak out against brutality without engaging in violence. But there has been too much violence across the country and, sadly, too many politicians who are complicit in violence, who have made the political judgment to turn a blind eye to rioters, to thugs, to murderers, to those terrorizing communities. The riots must stop. The violence must stop. The first responsibility of government is to keep people safe. Right now, in too many of our cities, government is failing in that task. Across the country, we see the lives which have been taken. To date, 6 U.S. States and 13 U.S. cities have declared a state of emergency because of the riots they are facing. Chicago police superintendent David Brown said that over the weekend, 132 police officers were injured, there were 48 shootings, and 699 arrests. In Las Vegas on Monday night, rioters shot a police officer who is right now on life support. Over the past 3 days, Las Vegas police officers have arrested 338 rioters. In St. Louis, four police officers were shot on Monday night. Fortunately, their wounds appear not to be life-threatening, but a beloved retired police captain, David Dorn, was shot and killed by looters at a pawn shop that same night. Mr. Dorn joined the St. Louis police force in 1969. He was a dedicated law enforcement officer for nearly 40 years. His wife and the St. Louis community are grieving his loss. Mr. Dorn was also African American. The phrase ``Black lives matter'' has become fraught with politics. It is absolutely true that Black lives matter. We should be horrified at what happened to George Floyd, but we should also be horrified at what happened to David Dorn. To those with political agendas seeking demagogue that tear this country apart, somehow David Dorn--another Black man, a different Black man--who doesn't fit the political story they are trying to tell, disappears from their narrative. It has become politically controversial to make a statement that every life matters. How far have we gone? Our country was founded on that proposition. The Declaration of Independence tells us we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men--not some men, not just White men or White women, but all men--of every race, of every creed, of every religion--are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that, among them, are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, our country has not always delivered on that promise for every American, but that is the journey we have traveled toward that vision. David Dorn's life matters. For every reporter fanning up division who doesn't stop to honor David Dorn, shame on you. His life mattered, and he didn't need to be murdered by violent looters exploiting the tensions and division. In protests Monday night in Buffalo, NY, three police officers were run over by a car, breaking a leg and shattering the pelvis of one of the officers. In New York City, almost 2,000 people have been arrested since the rioting started, and 700 people were arrested just on Monday night. At least two New York City police officers were hit by cars on Monday and nearly 50 New York Police Department officers have been injured since the protests began. In Salt Lake City, 21 police officers were injured over the weekend, including an officer who was hit in the head with a bat. On Sunday, during the riot that took place outside the White House when the historic St. John's Church was burned, when arsonists burned the church, 14 Secret Service agents were injured. In San Francisco over the weekend, at least 20 fires were set, 33 people were arrested for looting, and 2 police officers were attacked. On Friday night, David Patrick Underwood, an officer in the Department of Homeland Security, was shot and killed during protests in Oakland, CA. David Patrick Underwood, like David Dorn, was African American. George Floyd's life matters. So does David Dorn's. So does David Patrick Underwood's. No elected leader should sit idly by while David Patrick Underwood or David Dorn or George Floyd is murdered. If Black lives matter, then all Black lives matter, not just those which are politically convenient for politicians. It has been reported that at least 25 cities in the United States have seen deadly, destructive riots in the last week. According to the Claims Journal, which reports and analyzes the property claims industry, 75 businesses in Madison, WI, have been looted; 50 businesses in Seattle; 50 businesses in Pittsburgh; and 45 properties in Chicago have suffered damages. In New York City, iconic stores up and down Broadway and Fifth Avenue have been vandalized and looted. In Atlanta, everything from big-box stores to small businesses have been destroyed, looted, and damaged. In Atlanta, a Black-owned small business, a clothing store, was completely looted in the wee hours of a Saturday morning. To store owner Kris Shelby, the loss was devastating. Mr. Shelby told the New York Times that ``as a black man, and this is a black-owned business, it's just sad.'' Looting and destroying Mr. Shelby's business does not further the cause of racial justice. It is the act of a cynical, violent thief and a thief willing to be a bigoted racist on top of it. In Philadelphia over the weekend, nearly 250 businesses were burglarized, over 375 fires set ablaze. Pause and think about that number. One city, Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love--370 fires. This is wrong. This is shocking. This is horrifying. You are not exercising your First Amendment rights when you are lighting a police car on fire. You are not exercising any constitutional rights when you are burning and terrorizing and assaulting your fellow citizens. Eighteen law enforcement officers were injured in Philadelphia--some hit by Molotov cocktails, others by rocks and bricks. Ross Martinson, the owner of a small business called the Philadelphia Runner, told the Philadelphia Enquirer: ``What is left is mush'' after rioters attempted to light three fires in his store, stole clothes, stole shoes, smashed the windows, and left the store flooding from the sprinklers. In Los Angeles, the rioting and looting has brought back painful memories of the 1992 Rodney King riots that resulted in 50 deaths, thousands of arrests, and the destruction of over 1,000 businesses and buildings. One Santa Monica furniture store, the owner named Roman, told the L.A. Times that over the weekend, ``we lost everything in 10 minutes.'' Roman said that 10 minutes of looting resulted in $6 million in damages. Mind you, all of this is happening after months of small businesses being on the verge of bankruptcy from the coronavirus pandemic and the economic catastrophe we are facing. Now we have local politicians saying: We are not going to let police officers protect your store. We are not going to let police officers protect your livelihood. Everything you own can be taken and destroyed by violent criminals. In New York, according to ABC7 New York, businesses, such as delis, pharmacies, beauty supply stores, were destroyed and multiple fires set in Fordham in the Bronx on Monday, while the flagship Macy's store and scores of other retail stories were burglarized, looted, damaged, in downtown Manhattan over the weekend and Monday. And throughout it all, New York police department officers are calling for the politicians to take the handcuffs off them, to let them actually protect their city and protect their fellow citizens. But too many politicians have a different agenda. If you are not willing to say that what happened to George Floyd was wrong, it was unacceptable, it was criminal, then you should get the hell out of public office. But if you are also not willing to say that what has happened to these store owners, what has happened to these police officers--the stores that have been looted, the officers who have been murdered and assaulted--if you are not willing to say that is wrong, it is criminal, it is unacceptable, and it must stop, then you need to get the hell out of public office. This ain't complicated. Protect people's lives. Protect their rights. In Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed, Tiwana Jackson, an African-American small business owner with an eyelash extension studio, told a Business of Fashion reporter that her store had been looted and vandalized during the riots. Tiwana said: ``Burning stores down, stealing things--how is that going to get justice for George Floyd?'' She continued: ``It almost took my focus away on why this whole thing started in the first place, which was racism.'' In Richmond, VA, David Waller saw the jewelry store that he runs-- that his grandfather founded in the year 1900--ransacked by rioters over the weekend. Waller and Company is one of the oldest Black-owned businesses in Richmond. How is that justice? In Washington, DC, not only was the historic St. John's Church burned--where every President we have had has worshipped--but the Lincoln Memorial was vandalized, as well as the World War II Memorial was vandalized, and the Victims of Communism Memorial was vandalized. That is not standing up for justice. The Lincoln Memorial--Abraham Lincoln led this Nation during the bloodiest war we have ever encountered, the Civil War. Six hundred thousand Americans died in the Civil War. And Abraham Lincoln's vision, restoring this country and ending the abomination of slavery--I have to say, the Lincoln Memorial is my favorite place in all of Washington to go and stand and read the words etched in stone, to read the Gettysburg Address, to read the second inaugural of the President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, the President whose leadership through that Civil War, whose leadership to end slavery cost him his life at the hands of an assassin. Yet vandals defaced it. The U.S. Park Police reported that the protests on the National Mall and at Lafayette Park across the street from the White House resulted in 51 injured U.S. Park Police officers. Eleven of those injured officers had to go to the hospital for treatment, and three had to be admitted because of their injuries. In my home State of Texas, we have seen riots in Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston, my hometown--the hometown of George Floyd. In Austin, over the weekend, protesters tried to block a highway and destroyed multiple businesses, including a gas station, a Food Mart, a hotel, a Target, a Foot Locker, and other stores and businesses. In Houston, another group of protesters closed down Highway 59, and rioters destroyed businesses and injured police officers. This must stop. There are a host of tools that can be used to stop it. The first lines of defense when it comes to violent crime are the brave men and women of our police departments who are risking their lives every night as they engage with rioters and violent criminals. Just as it is a slander to say that every protester is a violent rioter, it is also a slander--an absolute vicious lie--to paint every police officer as a racist, to paint every police officer as someone who commits abuse of power and police brutality, as we saw with George Floyd. Yes, there are some who break the law, and that is why the officers are being prosecuted. The rule of law extends to everyone. If a police officer breaks the law, he or she should be prosecuted. But when we are looking to protect our own families, when we are looking to protect our spouse, when we are looking to protect our children--the people we call on to be our first line of defense are the men and women in blue. Local officials who have decided politically that they are not going to let the police officers arrest the rioters, but they are going to release the rioters; the media that turn a blind eye and don't report on the police officers being murdered; the Hollywood celebrities who virtue signal and raise money to pay the bail for the people being arrested for violent looting--every one of them is contributing to this problem. We also have Federal resources. I have spoken with U.S. attorneys in the State of Texas who are directing Federal resources. There are Federal laws on the books against rioting: 18 USC, section 2101, makes it a crime to travel in or use interstate commerce to incite a riot or participate in a riot; 18 USC, section 231, makes it a crime to ``obstruct, impede, or interfere'' with a law enforcement officer performing his or her duties ``in any way'' that affects commerce; 18 USC, section 844, makes it a crime to ``maliciously [damage] or [destroy], or [attempt] to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce''; 18 USC, section 1962, the RICO statute, makes it a crime for anyone associated with an enterprise to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity where racketeering activity includes arson and robbery; 26 USC, section 5861(d) makes it a crime to possess a destructive device, which is defined in a way that includes a Molotov cocktail; and 18 USC, section 2314, makes it a crime to transport interstate or sell goods that are stolen. All of those are Federal laws that are available for Federal prosecutors, that are available to the FBI. The message that needs to come clear--loud and clear--from every elected official is if you engage in violence, if you engage in looting, if you destroy shops, if you shatter windows, if you light police cars on fire, if you commit acts of violence, if you physically assault your fellow citizens, if you physically assault police officers, if you kill your fellow citizens, if you kill police officers, you will be prosecuted. You will be prosecuted, and you will go away to jail for a very long time. There are organizations that are promoting this, that are funding this, that are coordinating this--organizations like antifa. For 2 years, I have been calling on the administration to designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. They have engaged in acts of violence all across this country. But this past week has been antifa's most shameful act. This week, the President rightly announced that antifa would be designated as a terrorist organization. That means we can use law enforcement resources to track down--if you are providing funding and organizing, you will be prosecuted. We will use the RICO laws against you, the same laws that take down drug dealers. If you are handing out bricks to young African-American men, trying to incite them to commit acts of violence, that is a criminal activity. It is also a cynical, bigoted activity. This must stop. Our first responsibility is to protect our fellow citizens, to protect their lives, to protect their safety, to protect their rights. The President has that responsibility. The Attorney General has that responsibility. Every U.S. attorney in the country has that responsibility. The FBI has that responsibility. The Governors of all 50 States have that responsibility. Mayors have that responsibility. Police chiefs have that responsibility. It is time for this to stop. It is time for us to come together. And it is time for the demagogues who peddle the vision, who seek personal benefit in fanning the flames of racial animosity, to stop playing games with people's lives. If you are a Hollywood celebrity and want to make a contribution, make a contribution to a fund rebuilding the small businesses, the African-American businesses, the Hispanic businesses that have been looted and burned and destroyed. Make a contribution to a fund to the families of the police officers murdered. Don't pay to bail out the criminals assaulting those police officers, burning those African- American small businesses, looting those African-American small businesses. You are not a social justice warrior. If you are lining up, seeking accolades for your support of violent criminals who are deliberately targeting the African-American community, I will tell you right now, you are not advancing racial equality if you are supporting violent criminals who are destroying far too many African-American communities and Hispanic communities. That is not helping the problem. We need to keep America safe. We need to protect every American, regardless of race, regardless of skin color. We need to come together and keep America safe I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the single most dangerous geopolitical threat that America faces now and through the next century--China. We are in the midst of a pandemic that has infected over 5 million people and has claimed the lives of over 300,000 people worldwide. In the United States alone, the pandemic has infected over 1.5 million people and has claimed over 93,000 lives. The coronavirus pandemic has shattered the lives of husbands and wives, daughters, sons, granddaughters, grandsons, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews who have lost loved ones to COVID-19. It has also shattered the lives of those who have lost their jobs, their livelihoods, because of this disease. Thirty-eight million Americans are now out of work. The unemployment rate is at the highest it has ever been since the Great Depression, and entire industries are on the brink of collapse. Just 4 months ago, when the economy was booming, that was unthinkable. Where did this pandemic start? In China. Whether it began at the Huanan wet market, a barbaric breeding ground for disease, where snakes and turtles and puppies and kittens and bats and other wildlife and farm animals are killed and sold, or whether it began due to substandard safety protocols at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where research into coronavirus was being conducted and specifically coronavirus from bats, we don't yet know. Here is what we do know: Not only did the coronavirus outbreak start in China, the Chinese Communist Government did everything it could to cover up the severity of the outbreak, from lying about the origin of the virus to how it is transmitted, to destroying evidence, to silencing the brave whistleblower doctors and scientists and journalists and activists who tried to warn the world and prevent a global pandemic. It has been reported recently that between January 1 and April 4, the Chinese Government charged 484 people with crimes because of comments they made about the coronavirus pandemic. In Wuhan, eight doctors who sounded the alarm about coronavirus in December were accused of spreading lies, arrested, and forced to sign documents claiming that they had made false statements that ``disturbed the public order.'' In reality, they were telling the truth. They were warning us. One of those doctors, Dr. Ai Fen, has been missing since late March. Another, Dr. Li Wenliang, has since died from the coronavirus. Dr. Li Wenliang's wife was pregnant with the couple's second child when he died. And it is not just Chinese doctors who are paying the price for telling the truth; journalists and activists who courageously spoke up are disappearing too. Xu Zhangrun, a Chinese law professor who spoke out about the Chinese Government's handling of the coronavirus outbreak and criticized Chinese President Xi, has been missing since February. Chen Qiushi, a Chinese lawyer and journalist who went to Wuhan to report on what was happening there, has been missing since February 6. Fang Bin, a Wuhan businessman and journalist who reported on the number of bodies piling up outside a Wuhan hospital has been missing since February 9. Li Zehua, a journalist who quit his job as a broadcaster for the Chinese Communist Party's TV station so he could report on what was happening in Wuhan, went missing for 28 days and then was allowed to reappear in public only after he praised the government's policy. Ren Zhiqiang, a real estate tycoon, who had been publicly critical of President Xi's handling of the coronavirus crisis, has been missing since March 12. And Xu Zhiyong, a civil rights lawyer and a legal scholar who criticized President Xi on social media for his handling of the coronavirus crisis, has been on house arrest since February 13. If the Chinese Government had acted responsibly and sought the advice of public health professionals instead of silencing them, there is a very real possibility the coronavirus could have been contained as a regional outbreak. Instead, we are now dealing with a deadly global pandemic. These brave men and women are just the latest targets of the Chinese Communist Government's relentless attacks on truth-tellers, on freedom fighters, and on religious and ethnic minorities. The Chinese Government is a 1984-style dystopian state, and it has tracked and imprisoned millions of Uyghurs and other religious minorities. The Chinese Government is constantly tracking the movements of millions of people using cutting-edge biotechnology and artificial intelligence, and it has put 1 million Uyghurs, right now, into concentration camps. In 2017, I led a bipartisan resolution in this body condemning the Chinese Communist Party's persecution of religious minorities, particularly Buddhist Tibetans. Last year, I introduced legislation and urged the Trump administration to blacklist Chinese companies that are aiding the Chinese Government in its persecution of the Uyghurs. The administration implemented the recommendations in my legislation, and as a result those companies are now banned from acquiring American goods. That is a step in the right direction. We have known that China's surveillance state and censorship practices are a great threat to human rights, but what the pandemic has shown us is that China's surveillance state and censorship is also a great threat to our national security and to public health. Had those doctors, journalists, and activists who were trying to tell the truth--desperately trying to warn the world--had they been allowed to speak, the coronavirus outbreak might have been stopped in its tracks. We may not have had to deal with this devastating pandemic that has claimed the lives and the livelihoods of men and women all over the world. That is why, today, I am introducing legislation to sanction Chinese officials who helped censor political speech or suppress the dissemination of medical information by citizens of China. This legislation would impose visa bans and asset blocks on those who punish or censor Chinese citizens for reporting accurate information about a disease or a pathogen and hopefully will help prevent something like this from ever happening again in China. We need to be vigilant and to act where we can to thwart the Chinese Government's attempts to twist the truth, to censor, and to silence within China, but we also need to be vigilant about the Chinese Government's attempts to censor and silence elsewhere, including in our own Nation. In the United States, the Chinese Government attempts to spread propaganda by two ways: by leveraging their enormous market access to coerce Americans into self-censorship, especially to Hollywood and sports teams that stand to make billions of dollars in China, and by simply purchasing access to our cultural and educational centers. With both levers, Chinese officials have one objective: to shape what Americans see, hear, and ultimately think. China has the world's second largest film market, second only the United States, and it does around $8 billion in box office revenues per year. The Chinese film market is comprised of Chinese films, but they also make sure to allow a few dozen American films into their market every year. The number is deliberately kept low, and in exchange for access, American film companies submit their films to China's censors who often force them to change those films. American companies have learned this fact, and they will often change the films even in advance of submitting. As a result, they control not just what audiences see in China but also what Americans see. The Chinese Government's censorship office seeks to edit anything to do with Tibet, with Taiwan, with Tiananmen Square, with human rights, with democracy, with religion, or with any criticism of communism, particularly the Chinese Communist Party. Recently, the Chinese Government has succeeded in forcing changes to movies such as ``Top Gun,'' the sequel; such as ``Doctor Strange''; such as ``Skyfall''; such as the remake of ``Red Dawn.'' ``Pixels,'' ``Looper,'' ``Bohemian Rhapsody'' all were movies that were changed. In ``Bohemian Rhapsody,'' the Chinese Communist Party edited out references to the fact that Freddy Mercury was gay. In ``Doctor Strange,'' they changed the Ancient One's character from Tibetan, as portrayed in the comic book, to Celtic. And in the ``Top Gun'' sequel that is set to come out later this year, the Taiwanese and Japanese flag on the back of Maverick's jacket were removed to appease the Chinese Communist Party. Think about that for a second. What message does it send that ``Maverick,'' an American icon, is apparently afraid of Chinese Communists. That is ridiculous. That is why, today, I am introducing the SCRIPT Act, which would cut off Hollywood studios from the assistance they receive from the U.S. Government if those films censor their films for screening in China. It is common practice for major Hollywood films to contract with the Pentagon to use jets and tanks and to film on bases and aircraft carriers. The SCRIPT Act should be a wake-up call for Hollywood. Studios would be forced to choose between the assistance from the Federal Government or the money they want from China. The second way the Chinese Government attempts to spread propaganda is by purchasing access to our cultural and educational centers. The Chinese Government spends billions of dollars to shape what the next generation of Americans know and think about China. They have a pervasive presence in our K-12 education and in our colleges and universities, especially through Confucius Institutes and by directly financing departments and centers. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, I authored bipartisan legislation prohibiting the Department of Defense from funding universities when the money could go to Confucius Institutes. As a result, over a dozen Confucius Institutes have closed. We need to stand up and deal directly with the threat China poses. China bears direct responsibility and direct culpability for the over 300,000 people who have died worldwide and for the trillions in economic livelihoods that have been destroyed. Today, I introduce three pieces of legislation to directly address Chinese censorship and their responsibility for this pandemic, and we, as a body, as a bipartisan body, need to stand and stand strong protecting U.S. national security, protecting the lives of Americans, and ensuring accountability; that the Chinese Communist Party has accountability for their censorship, their hiding of the facts of this pandemic, and the lives that have been lost as a result of their coverup.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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, I rise today to discuss the single most dangerous geopolitical threat that America faces now and through the next century--China. We are in the midst of a pandemic that has infected over 5 million people and has claimed the lives of over 300,000 people worldwide. In the United States alone, the pandemic has infected over 1.5 million people and has claimed over 93,000 lives. The coronavirus pandemic has shattered the lives of husbands and wives, daughters, sons, granddaughters, grandsons, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews who have lost loved ones to COVID-19. It has also shattered the lives of those who have lost their jobs, their livelihoods, because of this disease. Thirty-eight million Americans are now out of work. The unemployment rate is at the highest it has ever been since the Great Depression, and entire industries are on the brink of collapse. Just 4 months ago, when the economy was booming, that was unthinkable. Where did this pandemic start? In China. Whether it began at the Huanan wet market, a barbaric breeding ground for disease, where snakes and turtles and puppies and kittens and bats and other wildlife and farm animals are killed and sold, or whether it began due to substandard safety protocols at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where research into coronavirus was being conducted and specifically coronavirus from bats, we don't yet know. Here is what we do know: Not only did the coronavirus outbreak start in China, the Chinese Communist Government did everything it could to cover up the severity of the outbreak, from lying about the origin of the virus to how it is transmitted, to destroying evidence, to silencing the brave whistleblower doctors and scientists and journalists and activists who tried to warn the world and prevent a global pandemic. It has been reported recently that between January 1 and April 4, the Chinese Government charged 484 people with crimes because of comments they made about the coronavirus pandemic. In Wuhan, eight doctors who sounded the alarm about coronavirus in December were accused of spreading lies, arrested, and forced to sign documents claiming that they had made false statements that ``disturbed the public order.'' In reality, they were telling the truth. They were warning us. One of those doctors, Dr. Ai Fen, has been missing since late March. Another, Dr. Li Wenliang, has since died from the coronavirus. Dr. Li Wenliang's wife was pregnant with the couple's second child when he died. And it is not just Chinese doctors who are paying the price for telling the truth; journalists and activists who courageously spoke up are disappearing too. Xu Zhangrun, a Chinese law professor who spoke out about the Chinese Government's handling of the coronavirus outbreak and criticized Chinese President Xi, has been missing since February. Chen Qiushi, a Chinese lawyer and journalist who went to Wuhan to report on what was happening there, has been missing since February 6. Fang Bin, a Wuhan businessman and journalist who reported on the number of bodies piling up outside a Wuhan hospital has been missing since February 9. Li Zehua, a journalist who quit his job as a broadcaster for the Chinese Communist Party's TV station so he could report on what was happening in Wuhan, went missing for 28 days and then was allowed to reappear in public only after he praised the government's policy. Ren Zhiqiang, a real estate tycoon, who had been publicly critical of President Xi's handling of the coronavirus crisis, has been missing since March 12. And Xu Zhiyong, a civil rights lawyer and a legal scholar who criticized President Xi on social media for his handling of the coronavirus crisis, has been on house arrest since February 13. If the Chinese Government had acted responsibly and sought the advice of public health professionals instead of silencing them, there is a very real possibility the coronavirus could have been contained as a regional outbreak. Instead, we are now dealing with a deadly global pandemic. These brave men and women are just the latest targets of the Chinese Communist Government's relentless attacks on truth-tellers, on freedom fighters, and on religious and ethnic minorities. The Chinese Government is a 1984-style dystopian state, and it has tracked and imprisoned millions of Uyghurs and other religious minorities. The Chinese Government is constantly tracking the movements of millions of people using cutting-edge biotechnology and artificial intelligence, and it has put 1 million Uyghurs, right now, into concentration camps. In 2017, I led a bipartisan resolution in this body condemning the Chinese Communist Party's persecution of religious minorities, particularly Buddhist Tibetans. Last year, I introduced legislation and urged the Trump administration to blacklist Chinese companies that are aiding the Chinese Government in its persecution of the Uyghurs. The administration implemented the recommendations in my legislation, and as a result those companies are now banned from acquiring American goods. That is a step in the right direction. We have known that China's surveillance state and censorship practices are a great threat to human rights, but what the pandemic has shown us is that China's surveillance state and censorship is also a great threat to our national security and to public health. Had those doctors, journalists, and activists who were trying to tell the truth--desperately trying to warn the world--had they been allowed to speak, the coronavirus outbreak might have been stopped in its tracks. We may not have had to deal with this devastating pandemic that has claimed the lives and the livelihoods of men and women all over the world. That is why, today, I am introducing legislation to sanction Chinese officials who helped censor political speech or suppress the dissemination of medical information by citizens of China. This legislation would impose visa bans and asset blocks on those who punish or censor Chinese citizens for reporting accurate information about a disease or a pathogen and hopefully will help prevent something like this from ever happening again in China. We need to be vigilant and to act where we can to thwart the Chinese Government's attempts to twist the truth, to censor, and to silence within China, but we also need to be vigilant about the Chinese Government's attempts to censor and silence elsewhere, including in our own Nation. In the United States, the Chinese Government attempts to spread propaganda by two ways: by leveraging their enormous market access to coerce Americans into self-censorship, especially to Hollywood and sports teams that stand to make billions of dollars in China, and by simply purchasing access to our cultural and educational centers. With both levers, Chinese officials have one objective: to shape what Americans see, hear, and ultimately think. China has the world's second largest film market, second only the United States, and it does around $8 billion in box office revenues per year. The Chinese film market is comprised of Chinese films, but they also make sure to allow a few dozen American films into their market every year. The number is deliberately kept low, and in exchange for access, American film companies submit their films to China's censors who often force them to change those films. American companies have learned this fact, and they will often change the films even in advance of submitting. As a result, they control not just what audiences see in China but also what Americans see. The Chinese Government's censorship office seeks to edit anything to do with Tibet, with Taiwan, with Tiananmen Square, with human rights, with democracy, with religion, or with any criticism of communism, particularly the Chinese Communist Party. Recently, the Chinese Government has succeeded in forcing changes to movies such as ``Top Gun,'' the sequel; such as ``Doctor Strange''; such as ``Skyfall''; such as the remake of ``Red Dawn.'' ``Pixels,'' ``Looper,'' ``Bohemian Rhapsody'' all were movies that were changed. In ``Bohemian Rhapsody,'' the Chinese Communist Party edited out references to the fact that Freddy Mercury was gay. In ``Doctor Strange,'' they changed the Ancient One's character from Tibetan, as portrayed in the comic book, to Celtic. And in the ``Top Gun'' sequel that is set to come out later this year, the Taiwanese and Japanese flag on the back of Maverick's jacket were removed to appease the Chinese Communist Party. Think about that for a second. What message does it send that ``Maverick,'' an American icon, is apparently afraid of Chinese Communists. That is ridiculous. That is why, today, I am introducing the SCRIPT Act, which would cut off Hollywood studios from the assistance they receive from the U.S. Government if those films censor their films for screening in China. It is common practice for major Hollywood films to contract with the Pentagon to use jets and tanks and to film on bases and aircraft carriers. The SCRIPT Act should be a wake-up call for Hollywood. Studios would be forced to choose between the assistance from the Federal Government or the money they want from China. The second way the Chinese Government attempts to spread propaganda is by purchasing access to our cultural and educational centers. The Chinese Government spends billions of dollars to shape what the next generation of Americans know and think about China. They have a pervasive presence in our K-12 education and in our colleges and universities, especially through Confucius Institutes and by directly financing departments and centers. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, I authored bipartisan legislation prohibiting the Department of Defense from funding universities when the money could go to Confucius Institutes. As a result, over a dozen Confucius Institutes have closed. We need to stand up and deal directly with the threat China poses. China bears direct responsibility and direct culpability for the over 300,000 people who have died worldwide and for the trillions in economic livelihoods that have been destroyed. Today, I introduce three pieces of legislation to directly address Chinese censorship and their responsibility for this pandemic, and we, as a body, as a bipartisan body, need to stand and stand strong protecting U.S. national security, protecting the lives of Americans, and ensuring accountability; that the Chinese Communist Party has accountability for their censorship, their hiding of the facts of this pandemic, and the lives that have been lost as a result of their coverup.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this bill is going to pass overwhelmingly. It may pass unanimously tonight, but I think this amendment would make it substantially better. I expect we will see a party-line vote on this amendment, and I think that is unfortunate because the consequence of the system--the unemployment insurance system--in this bill right now is that we are going to substantially disincentivize work, and it is going to hurt workers. It is going to hurt small businesses. Let me give you a concrete example. In Texas right now, the maximum unemployment insurance is $521 a week. After this bill passes, that will rise from $521 a week to $1,121 a week. That is nearly just over $58,000 a year. That means that, in the State of Texas, we are going to be paying people, offering them, basically, 28 bucks an hour not to work. Now, listen, every one of us recognizes that people are hurting. The problem is the incentive. We are creating an incentive that will hurt small businesses. If you have a waiter or a waitress who has lost their job for a few weeks, they are on unemployment, and they are making $25, $26, $28 an hour, suddenly, the prospect of going back to that job and seeing the money they are making going down substantially doesn't seem too attractive. And, suddenly, the restaurant owner who is trying to make the small business work can't attract those workers back. That is bad for everyone. Incentives matter. We want people to work. So I would ask the Senator from Illinois: You said the problem with implementing this principle--that we shouldn't pay people more not to work than they make working--was administrative, that the Department of Labor and the States couldn't do it. Would the Senator agree with this amendment, and would the Democratic Party agree with this amendment if it simply had language inserted ``to the best extent practicable''? So acknowledging that it may not be practicable, would you agree with the principle that in implementing this, the States and the Department of Labor should try to make sure we are not paying people more not to work than they would make if they were working?

Mr. CRUZ. I will yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. CRUZ. A question to the Senator. The Senator said that you were concerned about implementation and that it may not be timely at the State level to implement this. I think, just prior to when you came to the floor, I suggested a possible amendment to the Senator from Nebraska's amendment that would add a qualifier, something like, ``to the best extent practical.'' So it doesn't slow the program down, but it acknowledges that both the Department of Labor and the States should endeavor to implement this in a way that ensures people don't get paid more not to work than to work. So it adds a qualifier. You just suggested there might be bipartisan agreement. Would the Senator from Delaware be amenable to such a change?

Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CRUZ. So, with respect, the Senator from Illinois is suggesting this is somehow some negative moral judgment that it makes them lazy. It is exactly the contrary. I am saying people behave according to rational incentives. Look, our girls are 11 and 8 at home. We have incentives all the time: positive incentives and negative incentives. Incentives work. We don't want to create a system where someone, being perfectly rational and reasonable, says: Well, gosh, I can make a lot more money for my family staying home than I can going to work. If I go to work, my family makes less money. That is not a question of being lazy. That is a question of the government is putting me in a position where, if I want to care for my kids, I can do a better job of that by staying home. That is really foolish, and that, unfortunately, is the position right now of what I expect to be the Democratic Senators who will vote no on this. That is a bad policy for workers. It is a bad policy for small businesses. It is a bad policy for the economy. We should support jobs, not paying people not to work. Give them a safety net, yes. Give them relief, yes. But don't create incentives that make the problem worse, and that is what this Democratic policy will do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. I do. I am going to vote for it, but it doesn't create an incentive. This is where too many in the Democratic Party don't understand the incentives of trapping people out of work. Incentives are future looking. In sending these checks right now, if you make $75,000 or less, you are going to get a check in the mail in the next couple of weeks. That is helping relief, but it doesn't create an incentive for conduct tomorrow. What I don't want is for people to be sitting there making a choice--making a very rational choice. Look, if you are sitting there and saying, Well, gosh, I can make a lot more money staying at home with my kids and not working than if I go back to the job, that is not an irrational decision if you are making 28 bucks an hour to stay home. We are causing that problem if we are incentivizing people not to work, and that is not, ultimately, in their interest or in the economy's interest. This is hurting workers-- to pay them more not to work than they would make if they were working.

Mr. CRUZ. Absolutely.

Mr. CRUZ. The incentives matter. We don't want to delay a recovery from this crisis by 4 months. Hopefully, we stop this global pandemic, and we stop it soon. You don't know how soon that will be. I don't know. One of the benefits of this bill is that we are flooding more resources--and we should be--into testing, into preventive gear, and into ventilators. There is a lot we need to do to stop this pandemic, but when it ends--and it will end, and we will get through this--we want people to go back to work--not 4 months from now. We want them to go back to work as soon as they are able to go back to work, and that is what our economy needs to be strong. I would note, again, that I posed a question to the Senator from Illinois: Would he take a modification that acknowledges the administrative problems but said that this is the principle we should follow--that you shouldn't be paid more not to work than you are paid to work. And the Senator from Illinois didn't answer that.

Mr. CRUZ. Of course.

Mr. CRUZ. These quarantines are going to end. The period of staying at home is going to end. But under the policy favored by the Democratic Senators, there is going to be an incentive that is going to end up with more people being unemployed. Let's say you are a restaurant. And if you keep your employees on, maybe through a small business loan, you can pay them, say, 10 bucks or 11 bucks or 15 bucks an hour, whatever you are paying. But if you let them go, they can go on unemployment and make a whole lot more money. You don't think there are going to be a lot of small business owners who have their employees saying: Wait a second, I can make more money? That is a bad incentive. We want to create incentives. I agree that people want to work, but government can mess that up if we make it more profitable. Look, the checks we are sending, the $1,200 a person, don't create an incentive. It is not $1,200 if you do x conduct. We want incentives that bring people back to work so that these small businesses that are closing their doors every day don't stay closed--so that they open up again, and that they have opportunity again. It is a perverse incentive to pay people more not to work than to work. Yes, we should help them, but we shouldn't trap them. That is what this policy does.

Mr. CRUZ. If I could reclaim my time?

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this is a time of extraordinary crisis for our Nation. In this time of crisis, I call upon each of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above--rise above paid partisanship, rise above the bickering that so often consumes Washington, rise above and put first the priorities of the millions of Americans who are hurt. Look, there is a time for political disagreements. There is a time for policy disagreements. I am no stranger to robust political and policy disagreements. But we are in this midst of a global pandemic. People are dying. People are suffering. Last night, when this Senate voted on whether to move forward with emergency relief legislation for the millions of people being devastated by the economic disaster we are seeing as a result of the coronavirus epidemic, every single Democrat in this body voted to block consideration of this bill Now, for those of you at home who are not poring over a Senate procedural matter, what does it mean to vote to block consideration? It doesn't mean they voted against the bill. It means they voted against even starting to take it up. The New York Times headline, moments afterward, said: Democrats block $1.7 trillion stimulus bill. Of course, that headline had the fault of being accurate, and so within minutes, the New York Times changed it to: Democrats block $1.7 trillion stimulus bill citing worker concerns. That was headline No. 2. But then apparently the partisan leanings of the New York Times were too strong for that, and so they revised it a third time to say: Partisan division halts discussion of the bill. No, it wasn't partisan division. It was one party--the Democratic Party--saying to this Chamber and the American people: Hell, no. We will not even take this up and discuss it. At a time of crisis, at a time when people are dying, that is wrong. That is shameful. When we awakened this morning, following the Democrats' obstruction, worldwide there were 372,563 reported cases of the coronavirus. In the hours since then, just today, there have been an additional 23,352 cases reported today. While the Democrats are blocking the bill, 23,000 new cases today. In the United States, when we started this morning, there were 35,224 cases--this morning. Right now, as of the latest numbers, there are 41,708 cases in the United States today. That means we have had an additional 6,484 cases today while the Democrats are blockading--and by the way, where are the Democrats? C-SPAN doesn't show this whole Chamber often, but it would be nice if they did because that entire side of the Chamber is empty. They are not showing up for work. They are not doing their job. In Texas this morning, there had been 668 cases. As of right now, there are 722--54 more cases today while the Democrats are blocking consideration of this bill. How about deaths? Look, as we look at this crisis, there are people right now gasping for breath. You and I, we have friends who have been diagnosed with this disease. We have read stories. We have talked to people who have struggled under it. I heard from one individual who is hospitalized right now that breathing felt like a belt strapped across his chest; that he could barely breathe. As of this morning, worldwide, there had been 16,381 deaths. I am sorry--that is the number now. This morning it was only 15,308. That means today, while the Democrats have been blocking this bill, 1,073 additional people died. In the United States, as of this morning, there were 471 deaths reported due to coronavirus. As of right now, it is 573. That means today 102 Americans died while the Democrats were blocking consideration of this bill. In Texas as of this morning, there had been eight deaths. Now there are nine. One Texan died while half this Chamber refused to show up and do their job. Now, this morning when we voted again, we saw the first signs of cracks. There was one Democrat, a Senator from Alabama, who had voted no yesterday, decided this morning, well, maybe we should take up the bill. One. One Democrat. Where are the rest? There are a lot of Democrats who like to hold themselves out as moderate Democrats. Where are they? Right now, what the Democratic leadership is doing is they are playing games. They are playing games in a way that is irresponsible. Listen, this bill has a lot of important elements for a lot of people who are hurting. You have not only the people who are hospitalized, the people who are suffering, but you also have economic devastation, as much of this country has ground to a halt. We have people who work in restaurants, waiters, waitresses, bellboys who haven't gone to work in over a week. We have people in hotels. I have spoken to business owner after business owner after business owner for the last week. One hotel owner described how he currently had 6 percent occupancy rates. You can't keep a hotel running with 6 percent occupancy rates. I talked to one hotel owner who described how he had made 5,000 layoffs in the last week. Another hotel owner had made 6,000 layoffs in the past week. I talked to an oil and gas business owner who had laid off 5,000 workers in the past week. I talked to another oil and gas business owner who had laid off 5,000 workers in the last week. You know, today I am thinking about people like my friends, the Republic Country Club. Now, Republic Country Club is a bit of a misnomer. It is a barbecue joint outside of Houston. It is owned by my friend Michael Berry. It is often the venue of country-western concerts. The venue is sometimes for comedy shows. I went and took my dad to Larry the Cable Guy at Republic Country Club. I have had multiple election night parties at Republic Country Club. It is a big old honky-tonk. You have never seen so many confused national reporters as they walked in and looked around and didn't know what to make of the place. Father's Day a year ago, I did a Father's Day party at Republic Country Club. My dad--we roasted up two whole pigs. The cook staff at the barbecue place, they made them up and had a big party. We invited people there. It is a Cuban tradition to roast a whole pig. Now, why am I telling you about Republic Country Club? Because yesterday, which happened to be my father's 81st birthday--yesterday Republic Country Club announced they are closing their doors. Yesterday Michael Berry sent out a tweet telling first responders, telling police officers and firefighters and everyone on the frontline, he said: Drive by Republic Country Club today--March 23--drive by during the day, and we will give you free barbecue. We are going to cook everything we have, and we are just going to give it away and to go. You can't come in, but we are going to give you to-go boxes. And he went on to say they are emptying out all of the liquor from the storeroom and from behind the bar, and they are giving it to the employees because the employees are all being laid off. And he said he doesn't know if he will open again. Now, I will tell you, those employees--the bartenders, the bouncers-- many of them are veterans. Many of them are big guys, covered with tats. They are salt of the earth, and right now they don't know where the rent check is coming from next week. That is happening all across this country. That is happening not just at one barbecue place in Houston. That is happening at bars. That is happening at nail salons. It is happening at movie theaters. You know, I love Sunday night to go with a buddy of mine and go watch a movie. Movie theaters are shut down all over this country. Retail stores--people laid off. Nobody is going to the mall right now, and for the people who are hurting, they are scared. They don't know, No. 1, if they are going to get sick, but No. 2, they don't know how they are going to make ends meet. This is a time of crisis, and we ought to be coming together. Now, listen, this bill that we were moving to, I don't necessarily agree with every word of it, but there are a number of elements in this bill that are designed to provide real help to people who are hurting. One element of this bill is to give cash--an immediate check for $1,200--to every person in this country, every adult in this country earning under $75,000 a year, $2,400 for every couple earning under $150,000 a year, plus $500 for every child they have. Now, you want to talk about real relief for people who are scared and they say: What do I do next? Those are checks that are coming in the mail. And what have the Democrats said? No. Halt the checks. Right now, those checks aren't coming, and they aren't coming for one reason: because the Senate Democrats are blocking taking up that bill. In many circumstances, that would not be the right policy outcome, to just send checks to people, but at a time of crisis, where you need people just to be able to make it to tomorrow, putting some resources in their hands makes a big difference. Another element of this bill that is being blocked by Senate Democrats is $350 billion in emergency loans to small businesses--to small businesses like Republic Country Club, to small businesses like restaurants and bars, and small businesses like nail salons and barber shops and movie theaters and dress shops and hardware stores, small businesses that are right now putting up the signs saying: ``Closed for coronavirus.'' Those emergency loans are designed to be given with the condition that they keep their employees on payroll. A lot of these small business owners want to keep their employees on payroll, but they don't have the cash. Under the terms of this bill, those loans are forgiven if--if--if they keep their employees on payroll. By the way, the Democratic talking point is, oh, this is just cash to businesses. Tell that to the owner of the barber shop who takes an emergency loan to not fire all of her employees. That loan, under the terms, is forgiven if the employees stay on the payroll. The Democrats are blocking that right now. What about unemployment insurance? The job numbers coming out shortly I expect to be massive in terms of the job losses. I think we will see north of 2 or 3 million people who lost their jobs, and the numbers are getting worse. Every phone call I have is with more people who are losing their jobs. It is bad. It will come back, but it is bad right now. We need emergency support to get people through this dark time. This bill has $250 billion for additional unemployment insurance. What does that mean? That is an additional $600 per week for an additional 13 weeks. If you are one of the waitresses right now who have just been told their jobs have gone away and you applied for unemployment insurance, if this bill passes, you get an extra $600 immediately. But you know what--you don't right now because Senate Democrats are blocking this. If they have reasonable concerns, they are welcome to raise them. By the way, this bill was drafted with the participation of nearly a dozen Senate Democrats who were actively part of the task force's submitting suggestions. One of the suggestions the Democrats submitted during the drafting was to plus-up those unemployment insurance numbers, and they got agreement. This was drafted in a bipartisan manner. What happened? I will tell you. Yesterday, Sunday, most of us thought we were going to move with this, but then Nancy Pelosi decided it is time to play politics, decided to throw a grenade into this whole process. She had a list of demands--an over 1,000-page bill she drops out of nowhere--and the demands she is pushing, I ask you, do these have anything to do with the coronavirus epidemic? A number of people have cited the famed quote of Rahm Emanuel: ``Never let a good crisis go to waste.'' Sadly, we are seeing the embodiment of that cynical approach right now because all of the people out of jobs, the Democrats are using to push--what are they pushing for? Changing the emissions standards for airplanes. What the hell do the emissions standards for airplanes have to do with millions of people out of work during the coronavirus epidemic? Don't treat this bill like a partisan Christmas. Republicans have things we would like to advance, too, things I believe in deeply. You want to talk about what I would like to do? I would like to abolish the IRS. I campaigned all over the country for that. I will continue fighting for that, but I am not standing here with an amendment, saying: As part of this emergency relief, let's abolish the IRS. There is a place for that political and policy discussion. The Democrats are pushing wind and solar tax credits. What in the hell does a windmill have to do with this crisis, other than some Democratic lobbyists getting fat and rich, and they are willing to extort a crisis to try to advance their political agenda? There are mandates on corporate board diversity. So these are Democrats who want to social-engineer. Listen, I actually have a lot of problems with corporate boards. We have far too many corporate boards that are docile and do what management wants. That is a serious problem. There is a lot of discussion about stock buybacks. I tell you, what I am concerned about with stock buybacks is when you have compensation agreements in place that the executives get rich if they get a short-term boost in share price, and it ends up hurting the shareholders. I would love to see more vigorous boards of directors that make sure you are not creating incentives to gain a stock price. That is a reasonable question. But they want to mandate, effectively, quotas on boards of directors. What in the hell does that have to do with this crisis? The Pelosi wish list wants to restructure the debt of the post office. Last time I checked, our postal workers go through wind and rain and snow, but they haven't been laid off. I call upon both sides--don't play games with this. This crisis isn't going to end tomorrow. It is not going to end the next day. It is going to last for a considerable time. It is going to require adults to step up and lead. On the pandemic, we need to follow the science. We need to listen to the doctors. We need to listen to the physicians. We need to take the steps we are taking to keep people safe. On the economy, we need to give people who are hurting immediate relief, and we need to make sure a liquidity crisis doesn't become a solvency crisis. It is interesting--many Democrats are saying they don't want corporate bailouts. I agree. I am passionately opposed to corporate bailouts. One of the things I was gratefully relieved about as far as how this bill was structured is that it is structured as loans and not condition-free grants. It is structured primarily so that it is not picking favored companies that happen to have a big lobbying presence in Washington. What does it mean to not have a liquidity crisis become a solvency crisis? Let's take, for example, the airlines. I have spoken with every major airline CEO in the past 2 weeks. The airlines are losing billions of dollars every month. They didn't cause this problem. Unlike the financial crisis in 2008, this crisis was not caused by misconduct of one industry or another. It is not the airlines' fault that the Federal Government has shut down flights to Asia and to Europe. That is not their fault. It is not the fault of the owner of a restaurant in downtown Houston that the city of Houston has shut down the restaurant. It is not the small business owner's fault. What we don't want is, when the bills come due for all of those businesses, for them to have to sell their assets in a fire sale. We don't want the restaurant owner who has a pizzeria, who has saved to buy this fantastic pizza oven, to have to sell the pizza oven for pennies on the dollar because a liquidity crisis has become a solvency crisis. We don't want our U.S. airlines to put up a garage sale effectively to sell all their airplanes because they are going bankrupt in the midst of a crisis. We want to come out of this with a strong, robust commercial airlines sector. We want to come out of this with small businesses thriving. We want to come out of this with a thriving energy sector. We want to come out of this with jobs. I will close this the way I started--by calling on Democrats and calling on Republicans to rise above petty partisan games. The Democratic leaders are playing these games to every one of you Democrats. Listen to the men and women in your States. Don't give in to the games. Most of the Democratic Senators say they don't even know what their side wants. But it is just their leadership that is willing to hold the American people hostage for unrelated, political, partisan objectives. By the way, one of the reasons I think Senate Democrats are so willing to engage in this is they expect the media to be utterly complicit in their cynical gamesmanship. So we stand here this afternoon--and it is not only the Democratic side of the Chamber that is empty, but as I look up to the press, nobody is there. There is not a single reporter sitting in the Chamber. I have seen the New York Times--actually, nobody is sitting in the Chamber, so they may have closed the Chamber, in which case that may have been an unfair assault. But it is not an unfair assault to say that the New York Times is changing its headline to give political cover to Senate Democrats This is a time of crisis, not a time to play games. It is time to rise above. It is a time to stand for the American men and women. It is a time to stand for jobs. It is a time to help protect people's lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, today is Texas Independence Day. One hundred eighty-four years ago today, Texans declared our independence-- declared our independence from Mexico and fired a shot for liberty that was heard around the world. As I have a number of years in the past, I am going to read the letter from the Alamo that LTC William Barret Travis wrote calling for help. It is a letter that energized the Texans across our great State, that energized lovers of liberty. It is also a letter that I read the very first time I spoke on this Senate floor, and these are words to inspire everyone. Commandancy of the Alamo Bejar, Feby. 24th, 1836 To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World-- Fellow Citizens & compatriots-- I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death. William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Comdt. P.S. The Lord is on our side--When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn--We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels & got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves. Travis The brave men and women of the Alamo gave their lives for liberty. But shortly thereafter, in the Battle of San Jacinto, the Texans were victorious, and the Republic of Texas was formed, an independent nation from 1836 to 1845. For 9 years, we were our own nation. Then Texas joined the United States of America. We are proud Americans, but we are proud of the history of the brave Texans. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today for every child who has been denied the chance to live; the little boys and the little girls who never got the chance to breathe a breath of air, to live life; never got the chance to grow up to be athletes, doctors, poets, or inventors; never got the chance to live their own unique lives. This year marks the 47th tragic anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that forced on all 50 States abortion on demand and has tragically led to the loss of life of over 60 million unborn children. Since that decision, so much life has been lost. So many unborn and even newborn babies have suffered. In recent years, we have seen the Democratic Party not listening to the concerns of a great many people of good will on both sides of the party but, rather, radicalize. We have seen leading contenders for the Presidential nomination in the Democratic field declare that pro-life Democrats are no longer welcome in the party. We have seen far too many Democrats embrace extreme positions on abortion--abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that. I think the radicalization of today's Democratic Party was made crystal clear for a great many Americans with the radio interview that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam did on January 30 of last year. In that interview, Governor Northam was speaking in favor of a bill that would allow abortion when a mother was already in labor. Stop and think about this for a moment. There have been debates about abortion for a long, long time. A mother in labor, in the process of delivering a child, this bill would allow a doctor to kill that child instead of delivering the child in the midst of labor. For a great many people, even Americans who identify as pro-choice, the idea of killing a child while the mother is in labor delivering the infant is horrifying beyond words. But Governor Northam didn't end there. He wasn't content simply with saying that abortion should be allowed even in the midst of birth. He went further. He said on that radio interview: The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. Now, so nobody is lost on what Governor Northam was saying, he was describing something that has euphemistically been called post-birth abortion. He was describing his view of the right way to approach delivering a child, which is a child who is delivered, who is outside the womb, who is breathing and crying and living. That is an infant. And Governor Northam calmly, with virtually no emotion whatsoever, described comforting that infant and then having a conversation about whether to deny that child the necessary care to live or simply to callously let a newborn infant die. For virtually every American, that is a concept that is so extreme, that is so radical, that--other than elected Democrats who have decided to embrace a radical view of abortion in all circumstances--almost every other American would be, rightly, horrified by the notion of a doctor allowing a newborn infant outside the womb to die. That was Governor Northam's position. Well, tomorrow the Senate has an opportunity to speak out against those extreme, radical positions, to say this isn't OK, to draw a line, to find what should be some degree of common ground. We are going to be voting on two bills in the Senate tomorrow: the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of both pieces of legislation. Those are both commonsense pieces of legislation that would work to restore fundamental rights for the unborn and for newborn babies. They are simple pieces of legislation. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires doctors to provide medical care to infants who survive attempted abortion procedures. It would help make sure that, when an infant has already been born, when the infant is alive, is breathing, is crying, is outside the womb, that that child receives the medical attention he or she needs. The second bill is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would ban late-term abortions that result in pain and suffering and agony for an unborn child. What you will not hear from congressional Democrats is that after 5 months, an unborn child's toes and eyelids and fingers and eyelashes have already formed. He or she has a heartbeat and can feel pain, and science confirms this. We know that these late-term abortions, embraced by more and more radical partisans, produce pain and suffering and agony. We should not be a part of allowing the deliberate infliction of pain on a little girl or a little boy. These two proposals, in any sane and rational world, would be agreed to unanimously. If you look at the last 3 years, we have seen enormous victories when it has come to defending life, when it has come to confirming 192 new Federal judges committed to following the law in the Constitution; when it has come to restricting taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in this country; when it has come to defending the religious liberties of Americans all across this country, including the Little Sisters of the Poor. We are making major steps in the right direction, but we can go further. We can agree on these commonsense provisions. We can also test whether Senate Democrats agree with their colleagues running for President, whether Senate Democrats agree with the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who has said: If you are a pro-life Democrat, get out of the party; you are not welcome. I can tell you in Texas, I certainly welcome pro-life Democrats to speak up for their values and defend their values, and we should come together behind commonsense propositions that say we should not be committing procedures that result in pain and agony and suffering, that science demonstrates causes that suffering, and we should not be allowing newborn infants to die because medical care is denied to those children. This should bring us together. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand together for life--every life, as a precious, unique gift from God. Every life, whether the child has a disability, whether the child is valued or not, that child should be valued, should be protected because that child is precious. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, tomorrow afternoon, the Senate will vote to acquit President Trump in these impeachment proceedings. That is the right thing to do. That is the decision that comports with both the facts and the law. These impeachment proceedings began in the House of Representatives in a thoroughly partisan affair, driven by House Democrats, without allowing the President to participate in cross-examining witnesses and calling defense witnesses. When the matter came to the Senate, the Senate was obligated to do much better. We had an obligation under the Constitution to conduct a fair trial, and that is what the Senate has done. Over the course of the last 2 weeks, we have heard hour upon hour upon hour of argument. The House proceeding heard testimony from 18 different witnesses. The Senate saw 193 video clips of witness testimony presented here on the Senate floor. The Senate posed 180 separate questions from Senators to the House managers or the White House defense team. Within the record were over 28,000 pages of documents, including the single most important evidence in this case, which is the actual transcript of the conversation at issue between President Trump and the President of Ukraine. The Trump administration, to the astonishment of everyone, declassified that transcript and released it to the world so that we can read precisely what was said in that conversation. The reason acquittal is the right decision is that the House managers failed to prove their case. They failed to demonstrate that they satisfied the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. The text of the Constitution provides that a President may be impeached for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The House managers fell woefully short of that standard. Indeed, in the Articles of Impeachment they sent over here, they don't allege any crime whatsoever. They don't even allege a single Federal law that the President violated. An awful lot of Americans looking at these proceedings have heard a lot of noise, have heard a lot of screaming, but are left wondering, What was this all about? If you examine the substance, there are two things that the House managers allege the President did wrong. One, they allege that the President wrongfully delayed aid to Ukraine, and, two, they allege that the President wrongfully asked for an investigation into a political rival. Both of those are legitimate ends. Let me address them one at a time because there is a deep irony in the argument of the House managers. Both of those objectives are consistent with law, are permissible and legal, and both of those objectives have been done, by any measure, substantially worse by the preceding administration, by the Obama administration. Let's take delaying aid to Ukraine. I am a big believer in America standing with Ukraine. Indeed, I traveled to Ukraine. I went to the Maidan Square and stood with protesters who had been shot down by their government as the protesters stood for freedom. I believe military aid to Ukraine is a good thing, and it is true that the Trump administration temporarily delayed aid to Ukraine. That is their right to do so. Presidents have delayed foreign aid before. The Trump administration has done so with regard to a number of countries. The Obama administration did so before that. Previous administrations have done so. But we heard hour upon hour of the House managers trying to establish the proposition that aid to Ukraine was delayed when President Trump admits aid to Ukraine was delayed. There is no dispute about it. We heard testimony about how Ukrainians died because aid was delayed. Here is the irony: If you support aid to Ukraine, as I do, military aid to Ukraine as they stand up to Russia, there is no dispute whatsoever that, for the entirety of his Presidency, President Obama refused to give lethal military aid, defensive aid, to Ukraine, despite the fact that I and other Members of this body called on President Obama to give aid to Ukraine. I remember when we all went to the floor of the House of Representatives to hear a speech to a joint session of Congress from President Poroshenko, then the President of Ukraine, where the President of Ukraine called out the Obama administration because they were sending blankets and MREs--meals. And President Poroshenko rightly said that you can't fight a Russian tank with a blanket. So if the House managers are right that there is something improper about delaying military aid, the Obama administration did so for the entirety of the administration. What did President Trump do? He did something Obama never did: He provided lethal defensive military aid-- Javelin missiles that can take out Russian tanks. The first ground they allege, of delaying aid, is legal and permissible, and by any measure, the Trump administration's record on it is much, much better than the Obama administration's. How about the second ground: directing an investigation into your political rival. The most important legal question in this proceeding, the question that resolves this proceeding, is this: Does the President have the constitutional authority to investigate credible allegations of corruption? The House managers built their case on the proposition that seeking an investigation into Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian natural gas company, and Joe Biden and Hunter Biden--seeking any investigation into whether there was corruption was, in the words of the House managers, ``baseless,'' ``a sham,'' and utterly ``without merit.'' In their opening arguments, the House managers spent over 2 hours trying to make that case, and Madam President, I will say, on the face of it, that proposition is objectively absurd. The White House legal defense team laid out, in considerable detail, that there was very substantial evidence of corruption. Burisma is a company that was built on corruption. The oligarch who started Burisma, Mr. Zlochevsky, was the sitting energy minister in Ukraine, and he amassed his billions by, as the sitting energy minister, giving gas licenses to his own company that he was head of. That is where Burisma made their money. It was a company built on corruption from day one. Now, I think it is worth pausing and examining the timeline of what occurred because, remember, the House managers' case is that it is baseless and a sham to even investigate corruption. In early 2014, Vice President Joe Biden was named the point person for the Obama administration on Ukraine. In April--on April 13 of 2014--Devon Archer, business partner of Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, joined the board of Burisma and began being paid a million dollars a year. On April 28, Britain's securities fraud bureau freezes $23 million in accounts controlled by Zlochevsky, the oligarch who owned Burisma. Then, just 2 weeks later, on May 12, Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, is named to the board and paid a million dollars a year, despite having no background in oil and gas and no discernible background in Ukraine. Hunter Biden gets paid a million dollars a year, and Joe Biden actively, aggressively, vigorously leads the Obama administration's policies on Ukraine. Now, the House managers were asked in questioning: What exactly did Hunter Biden do for his million dollars a year? They refused to answer that. That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask if you are investigating corruption. Joe Biden is seen on video not just admitting but bragging that he told the President of Ukraine he would personally block a billion dollars in foreign aid loan guarantees unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the company paying his son a million dollars a year. As Joe Biden bragged on that video, ``Well, son of a bitch,'' they fired him. Now, that, on its face, raises significant issues of potential corruption. We don't know for sure if there was, in fact, corruption, but when President Trump asked that it be investigated to get to the bottom of what happened, the President has the authority to investigate corruption, and there was more than sufficient basis to do so. Of course, the House managers are right that it is somehow illegitimate, it is somehow inappropriate--it is, in fact, impeachable--to seek the investigation of your political rival. We know for a fact that the Obama administration not only sought the investigation but aggressively led an investigation marred by abuse of power, going after then-Candidate Trump, including wiretaps, including fraudulently obtained court documents and court warrants from the FISA Court. Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy. It is not designed for when you disagree. It is not designed for when you have political differences or policy differences. It is designed for when a President crosses the constitutional threshold. On February 6, 1974, the Democratic Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, Democrat from New Jersey who led the impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon, told his colleagues: Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed, with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, will say: This was the right course. There was no other way. That was the standard that led to an overwhelming bipartisan vote to open the impeachment proceeding against Richard Nixon. That standard was not remotely followed by the House managers. This was a partisan impeachment, and we are right now in an election year. The voters are voting, and it is up to the voters to decide which policies they want to continue. The House managers have abused the constitutional process by trying to use impeachment to settle a partisan score. That is divisive to the country, and I am proud that this body will vote--and I hope in a bipartisan way--to reject these Articles of Impeachment, to acquit the President, and to find President Trump not guilty of the articles the House has sent over. I yield the floor.

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