Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 became public law on January 1, 2021, and included reforms to the U.S. Agency for Global Media outlined in section 1299Q. The FY21 consolidated appropriations act became public law on December 27, 2020, and included language that would have delayed those reforms had they already been in law, but they were not. Reserving any concerns about the lawfulness of insulating Senate-confirmed officers from removal, I believe it is Congress's intent that these two provisions should not be understood concurrently and that the reforms outlined in section 1299Q shall take effect on the date of enactment of the fiscal year 2021 NDAA.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, we gather together at a moment of great division, at a moment of great passion. We have seen and, no doubt, will continue to see a great deal of moralizing from both sides of the aisle, but I would urge to both sides perhaps a bit less certitude and a bit more recognition that we are gathered at a time when democracy is in crisis. Recent polling shows that 39 percent of Americans believe the election that just occurred ``was rigged.'' You may not agree with that assessment, but it is, nonetheless, a reality for nearly half the country. I would note it is not just Republicans who believe that. Thirty-one percent of Independents agree with that statement. Seventeen percent of Democrats believe the election was rigged. Even if you do not share that conviction, it is the responsibility, I believe, of this office to acknowledge that is a profound threat to this country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future. I want to take a moment to speak to my Democratic colleagues. I understand. Your guy is winning right now. If Democrats vote as a bloc, Joe Biden will almost certainly be certified as the next President of the United States. I want to speak to the Republicans who are considering voting against these objections. I understand your concerns, but I urge you to pause and think: What does it say to the nearly half the country that believes this election was rigged if we vote not even to consider the claims of illegality and fraud in this election? And I believe there is a better way. The leaders just spoke about setting aside the election. Let me be clear. I am not arguing for setting aside the result of this election. All of us are faced with two choices, both of which are lousy. One choice is vote against the objection, and tens of millions of Americans will see a vote against the objection as a statement that voter fraud doesn't matter, isn't real, and shouldn't be taken seriously. And a great many of us don't believe that. On the other hand, most, if not all, of us believe we should not set aside the results of an election just because our candidate may not have prevailed. So I endeavored to look for door No. 3, a third option, and for that I looked to history, to the precedent of the 1876 election, the Hayes-Tilden election, where this Congress appointed an electoral commission to examine claims of voter fraud. Five House Members, five Senators, five Supreme Court Justices examined the evidence and rendered a judgment. What I would urge of this body is that we do the same; that we appoint an electoral commission to conduct a 10-day emergency audit, consider the evidence, and resolve the claims. For those in the Democratic aisle who say there is no evidence, they have been rejected, then you should rest in comfort. If that is the case, an electoral commission would reject those claims. But for those who respect the voters, simply telling the voters, ``Go jump in a lake; the fact that you have deep concerns is of no moment to us,'' that jeopardizes, I believe, the legitimacy of this and subsequent elections. The Constitution gives to Congress the responsibility this day to count the votes. The Framers knew what they were doing when they gave responsibilities to Congress. We have a responsibility, and I would urge that we follow the precedent of 1877. The Electoral Count Act explicitly allows objections such as this one for votes that were not regularly given. Let me be clear. This objection is for the State of Arizona, but it is broader than that. It is an objection for all six of the contested States to have a credible, objective, impartial body hear the evidence and make a conclusive determination. That would benefit both sides. That would improve the legitimacy of this election. So let me urge my colleagues: All of us take our responsibility seriously. I would urge my colleagues: Don't take, perhaps, the easy path, but, instead, act together. Astonish the viewers and act in a bipartisan sense to say we will have a credible and fair tribunal, consider the claims, consider the facts, consider the evidence, and make a conclusive determination whether and to what extent this election complied with the Constitution and with Federal law.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Thank you.

Mr. CRUZ. If the Senator from Connecticut--I have not yet yielded the floor. I am about to ask unanimous consent, so--

Mr. CRUZ. The Senator from Illinois asked a question. Let me tell you how it provides solace--because people who are in hell holes, they listen to what we are saying. People who are in hell holes, they hear the voice--you know, some time ago, I had the chance to sit down with Natan Sharansky, the famed Soviet dissident. He and I sat down and visited in Jerusalem. Natan told me about how, when he was in a Soviet gulag, that in the cells, from cell to cell, they would pass notes: Did you hear what Ronald Reagan said? The Soviet Union is an evil empire. Marxism-Leninism will end up on the ash heap of history. ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' And I will tell you how people here--because if the Senator from Illinois will remember, I introduced legislation to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy in the United States ``Liu Xiaobo Plaza,'' after Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace laureate who was--let me finish answering your question. If you want to propound a second one, I am happy to answer that one too. Liu Xiaobo was the Nobel Peace laureate wrongfully imprisoned in China. And the strategy of renaming the street in front of the Embassy is the strategy Reagan employed renaming the street in front of the Soviet Embassy ``Sakharov Plaza.'' Twice I stood on this floor seeking unanimous consent, and twice a Democrat--the senior Senator from California--stood up and objected. At one point, the senior Senator from California said: Well, if we do this, it will embarrass the Chinese Government. I responded: You are understanding correctly. And that is not a bug; it is a feature. That is the purpose. Let me tell you what happened to that. Twice, Democrats objected to the legislation. I then placed a hold on President Obama's nominees to the State Department. The Obama administration came to me and said: How could we move these nominees forward? How could we move them forward? I said: It is very simple. Pass my legislation, and I will lift the hold. The Democratic caucus didn't like that, but they ultimately agreed. So the legislation I introduced to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy ``Liu Xiaobo Plaza'' passed this body unanimously. Ultimately, the House didn't take it up and pass it, but I will tell you how that story ends. That story ends in 2017 when I was sitting down with Rex Tillerson for breakfast in Foggy Bottom--the new U.S. Secretary of State. When he spoke to his Chinese counterparts, he said: They have come back and said that among their top three diplomatic objectives with us is to stop your bill to rename the street in front of the Embassy. They are terrified by the sunlight and sunshine on the dissidents. At the time, Liu Xiaobo had passed, but his widow, Liu Xia, was still in China, still wrongfully held back. I told Secretary of State Tillerson: I will tell you what. You tell the Chinese that if they release Liu Xia, if they let her get out, I will stop pressing this particular bill. If they don't, I will keep pressing it, and we will pass it again because we have already done it. Within weeks, China released Liu Xia. So you ask, how does this help the people in prison? By not having Hollywood media moguls spreading Chinese propaganda. But let me give you a second choice, very directly. Do you want to know how people are helped? It is a second bill called the SHAME Act, which, if our Democratic colleagues want to be tough on China, we could pass right now. What does the SHAME Act do? The SHAME Act focuses in particular on human rights atrocities. It focuses on over 1 million Uighurs in concentration camps and other religious minorities and the Falun Gong practitioners who are captured and murdered and whose organs are harvested. And the Chinese Communist Party engages in yet another horror. My Democratic colleagues like to say on the question of abortion that they are pro-choice. Well, the Chinese Communist government right now is engaging in forced sterilizations and forced abortions, taking Uighur mothers and forcing them to abort their children against their will. Whatever the Democrats' views on abortion in the United States as a matter of a woman's choice, surely they must be united in saying that a government forcing a woman to abort her child, to take the life of her unborn child, is an unspeakable atrocity. So the SHAME Act does something very simple: It imposes sanctions on the Chinese Communist government leaders responsible for implementing this horrific, 1984-style policy of forced sterilizations and forced abortions. I had intended to seek unanimous consent for the SHAME Act as well, but my Democratic colleagues have said they are not yet able to find a Democrat to object, although my understanding is they intend to. I hope they reconsider that. A terrific ending for today's debate would be passing the SHAME Act and saying: We are all standing together against forced abortions and grotesque human rights violations. Maybe that will happen. Maybe it won't. But let's find out where we are on the question of the SCRIPT Act.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, my colleague from Connecticut just said that they were being tough on China. As I explained, this bill is not being tough on China. But a bit of good news: They will have the opportunity, moments from now, to in fact be tough on China. I have introduced, roughly, a dozen separate pieces of legislation designed to do exactly that, to stand up to the Chinese Communist Government. I am glad also to see my Democratic colleagues discovering the human rights travesties that are playing out in China. Look, my family knows the oppression of Communist governments. My father was imprisoned and tortured in Cuba. My aunt, my Tia Sonia, was imprisoned and tortured by Fidel Castro's thugs. So, when it comes for standing for dissidents, there is a reason why, for 8 years, I have gone to the Senate floor over and over and over again speaking up for dissidents who are being tortured and oppressed by Communists. Here is a chance for the Democrats to join us in that regard. Mr. President, there are two separate bills that I have introduced that I am going to discuss. The first is a bill called the SCRIPT Act. For years, we have known that China's surveillance state and censorship practices are used to maintain its human rights violations. And what this devastating pandemic has shown us is that China's surveillance state and its censorship practices are also profound threats to our national security, to our public health, and to our public debate, as the Chinese Government hid information about the COVID-19 pandemic that began in Wuhan, China, hid it for months on end and allowed millions across the globe to be threatened--their lives and health and safety to be threatened. In addition to their espionage activities, the Chinese Communist Party invests billions into spreading propaganda, even using American media outlets, telecommunication infrastructure, movies, and sports teams to spread their propaganda, from buying media outlets so that they broadcast propaganda into America to coercing Hollywood studios and sports leagues to self-sensor by threatening to cut off access to one of the world's largest markets. The Chinese Communist Party spends billions and billions of dollars to mislead Americans about China and to try to shape what we see, what we hear and think. All of these activities are part of China's whole-of-state approach to amass influence around the world through information warfare, and we need to stand together to stop it. That is why I will be momentarily asking for unanimous consent on the SCRIPT Act, which would cut off Hollywood studios from the assistance they currently receive from the U.S. Federal Government if those studios allow the Chinese Communist Government to sensor what they are producing. We have seen this pattern over and over and over again--Hollywood being complicit in China's censorship and propaganda in the name of bigger profit. ``Bohemian Rhapsody,'' a wonderful biography of Freddie Mercury and story of the band Queen--well, the Chinese Government was upset that Freddie Mercury was homosexual and demanded that Hollywood sensor scenes that showed that Freddie Mercury was homosexual. And Hollywood--those great, woke social warriors that they are--compliantly said: We are more interested in the money than in artistic integrity, than in telling Freddie Mercury's story, so the Chinese Government will happily edit out those scenes. ``Doctor Strange,'' another movie--comic book movie--in ``Doctor Strange,'' they changed the Ancient One's character from being from Tibet, which is how it is portrayed in the comic book, to Celtic because, you know, the Chinese Communist censors, they don't want to recognize Tibet--another area that has been subject to persecution and oppression from China--and Hollywood meekly complied. In the sequel to ``Top Gun,'' the back of Maverick's jacket--if you remember the first ``Top Gun,'' maybe the greatest Navy recruiting film ever made--you find the Taiwanese flag and the Japanese flag. The Chinese censors didn't like that, and so Hollywood meekly removed the flags. What does it say to the world when Maverick is scared of the Chinese Communists? I would point out, unfortunately, the Chinese censorship is being carried out by Hollywood billionaires who are getting richer in the process. In recent days, it has been reported that one of Joe Biden's top potential choices to be Ambassador to China is the former CEO of Disney, who happens to be a major Democratic donor. Disney just came out with the movie ``Mulan.'' In the movie ``Mulan,'' which the director described as ``a love letter to China''--well, this love letter wasn't subtle because right in the credits at the end of ``Mulan,'' they thanked oppressive government forces that are running concentration camps right now, with over 1 million Uighurs imprisoned. Disney gleefully thanked the jackbooted thugs who are carrying out torture and murder, and apparently the leader of that effort is one of the top candidates to be America's Ambassador to China. The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Connecticut said: ``We need to stand with people who are oppressed.'' I agree. Look, Hollywood could say whatever they want, but there is no reason the Federal Government should facilitate their censorship on behalf of the Chinese Communists. The SCRIPT Act says: If you are going to let the Chinese Communists censor your movies, you are not going to get access to the jet planes and to the ships and all the different material of the Federal Government that are used in movies. Moments ago, the Senator from Connecticut said they want to be tough on China. Well, we are about to see how tough they are on China.

Mr. CRUZ. I will happily yield for a question.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3835 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that this bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRUZ. Three brief observations: No. 1, the Senator from Connecticut said multiple times that the House bill in question passed the House unanimously. I am sure this is inadvertent, but what the Senator from Connecticut said is simply wrong. It passed the House by voice vote, which is a very different thing from passing unanimously. It simply means the vote tally was not recorded. Secondly, the Senator from Connecticut said the SCRIPT Act is not going to pass this Congress. Well, that appears to be correct, but that is for one reason and one reason only, which is the final two words uttered by the Senator from Connecticut: ``I object.'' Quite literally by doing nothing, quite literally by giving the identical speech he had just given and then closing his mouth before those final two words--had that occurred, the SCRIPT Act would have passed this body unanimously. So the only reason the SCRIPT Act isn't passing is because the Senate Democrats are objecting. And it should not be lost on anybody that the Hollywood billionaires who are enriching themselves with this Chinese propaganda are among the biggest political donors to today's Democratic Party in the entire country. The Senator from Connecticut said: Well, the SCRIPT Act might make it possible to have documentaries on the human rights abuses in China. Oh, really. That argument staggers the mind. It so defies reality because-- you know what--Hollywood doesn't make movies about the human rights abuses in China. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet Richard Gear. Now, Richard Gear is not someone you would ordinarily imagine palling around with a conservative Republican from Texas, but Richard Gear was up here. He was up here actually standing up against Chinese abuses and urging anyone who would listen--Republican or Democrat--to stand with him. Do you know Richard Gear has not made a single major Hollywood movie in a decade? Why? Because he dared stand with Tibet, and the Hollywood billionaires blackballed Richard Gear. If you speak out for Tibet, if you do what the Senator from Connecticut just suggested and discuss the Chinese human rights abuses--it doesn't matter that Richard Gear used to be an A-list Hollywood blockbuster actor--boom--his career is dead because no studio will produce a movie with him because he spoke the truth. By the way, my bill presents zero barriers to someone actually making a documentary on the human rights abuses in China because, presumably, if you are making that documentary, you wouldn't allow the Chinese Communist Government to censor it. I don't know what kind of documentaries the Senator from Connecticut is familiar with, but I am not familiar with documentaries done on tyrants and concentration camps where you let the concentration camp guards edit out the stuff they don't like. That ain't a documentary. The Senator from Connecticut said perhaps we can work together in a bipartisan manner to address this. I hope so. Standing together against the oppression of the Chinese Communists would be a very good thing for the U.S. Senate. It would be a very good thing for our country. Unfortunately, at least today, that hasn't yet happened. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Therefore, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 525, S. 2800.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn; that the Cruz substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in a few moments, I am going to ask unanimous consent for the Senate to pass S. 2800, which is the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act. Before doing so, I want to make some brief remarks about how important this legislation is to American leadership in space and to our continued space exploration efforts. Well over a year ago, I joined with Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Subcommittee on Aviation and Space Ranking Member Sinema, and we began writing the NASA Authorization Act, using as a foundation the bipartisan bill that I had previously authored with Senators Cornyn, Rubio, Markey, and then-Senator Bill Nelson, from the last Congress, as our starting point. We solicited input from hundreds of stakeholders, from individuals and academics to industry partners and even our international allies. Hundreds of pages of suggestions, proposed edits, and comments were submitted. Over many months, our staffs worked diligently through each and every submission, trying to incorporate the feedback to the greatest extent possible, and what resulted is this bill, which was marked up last year and unanimously reported. What we have achieved together is legislation that enjoys deep and broad bipartisan support and that sets bold goals for NASA and the United States in space. It provides the direction and the infrastructure necessary to meet them. I am very proud of the work we have done together and of this legislation we have assembled, and I want to express particular thanks to Senators Wicker, Cantwell, and Sinema and to their staffs for their hard work. Our bill strengthens U.S. leadership in space, ensuring that we remain the default space exploration partner of the world. It extends the life of the International Space Station through 2030, and it challenges us to be the international leader for lunar and Mars exploration and to reach new horizons. It is not just human exploration, though. By working in a collegial and good-faith manner, we were able to craft a product that strengthens all of NASA's core missions--something which benefits not just States with strong NASA equities but every American. It is amazing what strong, unified leadership can do to bring the Members of this body together, working to pass vitally important legislation that advances science and technology and national security and the interests of our Nation. I want to say again how grateful I am to my colleagues who worked on this bill with me and to state just how proud I am that the Senate is speaking with one, unified voice in passing this legislation. This is following a tradition that we have seen in the past 8 years I have served in this body, where, on the question of space, we have seen over and over again strong bipartisan cooperation. Even at a time when partisan division pulls us apart in so many other areas, on the question of America's leading the world in space, the U.S. Senate speaks with one voice. We have a real opportunity here to boldly shape the Nation's space exploration efforts, to inspire new generations of little boys and little girls gazing up at the stars and wondering what is out there, and to make the United States a true space-faring nation. While this bill is not going to pass the House of Representatives during the remainder of this Congress, I look forward to the beginning of the next Congress, where we can use this unanimously approved legislation as the starting point to move quickly to pass a comprehensive NASA Authorization Act across the finish line and get it signed into law

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, today, we have good news and bad news. The good news is that our Democratic colleagues are finally discovering that the Chinese Communists are not our friends. They are finally acknowledging that the Chinese Communists are murdering, torturing, oppressive tyrants, and our Democratic colleagues are likewise discovering that Hong Kong is a beacon for democracy and a beacon for liberty. That is, indeed, good news. The bad news is, the bill that they have put forth is not designed to do anything about it. This is not a Hong Kong bill. It is, instead, a Democratic messaging bill because House Democrats made, I think, a cynical decision to try to exploit the crisis in Hong Kong to advance their longstanding goals of changing our immigration laws. It is not news to anyone who has been watching the political battles of recent years to discover that our Democratic colleagues embrace open borders; that when it comes to illegal immigration, their preference is to make all immigration legal. This bill advances that longtime partisan political agenda that the Democrats have. When it comes to standing up for Communist China, for 8 years I have led the fight in this Senate to stand up to Communist China. China is, I believe, the single greatest geopolitical threat facing the United States for the next century. In October of last year, I traveled to Hong Kong as part of a friends and allies tour throughout Asia, met with the Hong Kong dissidents-- those brave, young students standing in the streets, standing for freedom, and standing up against Chinese tyrants. I did a satellite interview on an American Sunday show from Hong Kong dressed in all black in solidarity with those protesters because Hong Kong today is, as I have said many times, the new Berlin. It is the frontline in the battle against Communist tyranny. This bill, however, is not designed to fix that problem. Right now, today, under current law, individuals in Hong Kong are already eligible to become refugees under our immigration law. In fact, in July, President Trump explicitly expanded the number of refugee slots available and allocated them to Hong Kong. This bill, instead, is designed and would dramatically lower the standards for both refugee and asylum status to the point where individuals would qualify even if they cannot establish an individualized and credible fear of persecution. The Senator from Connecticut just listed that as a virtue of this bill--that no longer would you have to establish a credible fear of persecution; instead, this bill would dramatically lower that standard. There is no reason to lower that standard, and there is particular risk when doing so, we know, would be used by the Chinese Communists to send even more Chinese spies into the United States. The Senator from Connecticut assured us: Well, don't worry. We will do a background check. Well, the last I checked, when the Chinese Communist Government sends spies into our country, they are quite willing to concoct a bogus background portfolio of materials. Who do you think the Chinese Government would be seeing coming in? We just recently had news of Chinese spies targeting Members of Congress--targeting prominent Democrats. This is an espionage threat America faces of our adversaries taking advantage of our laws and targeting our leadership. The truth also is that China has confiscated passports and, I am told, stopped issuing exit visas to persons deemed problematic. As a result, China is highly unlikely to let actual dissidents leave Hong Kong, so this bill isn't directed to help them. But I will say this: We urgently need to have a real, substantive, bipartisan conversation about countering the Chinese Communist Party, about defending the United States of America, about standing up and winning this battle. This bill doesn't advance that objective, but what I am going to do is I am going to give our Democratic colleagues the opportunity to actually support legislation that would stand up to China. So, momentarily, I am going to ask unanimous consent for one bill and discuss a second bill that I also later intend to ask unanimous consent to pass. But first, I object.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, on September 27, 2019, Harris County lost one of its finest when Deputy Sandeep Dhaliwal's life was taken in the line of duty. Pyara Dhaliwal, Deputy Dhaliwal's father, lost his hero. That is exactly who Deputy Dhaliwal was, a hero. He was deeply committed to his faith, his family, and to serving others with compassion. Moved by his Sikh faith, Deputy Dhaliwal was a trailblazer. When he was first recruited by the sheriff's office, Deputy Dhaliwal petitioned the office to allow him to wear his turban and beard while in uniform, becoming the first to be allowed to do so. Deputy Dhaliwal has left a profound legacy on the law enforcement community. Since his death, the Houston Police Department and all eight county constables have changed their policies to allow officers to wear and carry articles of faith on duty. Deputy Dhaliwal's commitment to his faith will inspire generations of Sikhs and other religious minorities to serve in law enforcement and protect our communities. Deputy Dhaliwal was also a dedicated husband, father, son, and brother. His wife Harwinder Kaur Dhaliwal and their three beautiful children Japdeep, Noordeep, and Pardeep and their family and friends have dedicated their lives to ensuring his legacy endures. We also remember Deputy Dhaliwal's commitment to love and peace, a love and peace he showed not only while on duty, but to each person he served. When Hurricane Harvey decimated the Texas Gulf Coast, Deputy Dhaliwal served meals to Houstonians who were left homeless. In the wake of Hurricane Maria, he traveled to Puerto Rico to assist in the relief efforts there. He also worked to deliver water and supplies to Punjab, India, while the area was suffering from a severe drought. Deputy Dhaliwal leaves behind an unmistakably beautiful legacy of a life marked with faith, devotion, and service to others. I am grateful my colleagues have moved to rename the U.S. Postal Office in Houston the ``Deputy Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal Post Office Building,'' to ensure Deputy Dhaliwal's selfless service and heroism is remembered. This community and the entire State of Texas are better for having known him.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, this endeavor started with a resolution that the majority put forward that was intended to be a bipartisan resolution commemorating the life and service of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That follows the bipartisan tradition this body has followed in commemorating Justices when they have passed. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has put forth an amendment to turn that bipartisan resolution into a partisan resolution. Specifically, the Democratic leader wants to add a statement that Justice Ginsburg's position should not be filled until a new President is installed, purportedly based on a comment made to family members shortly before she passed. That, of course, is not the standard. Under the Constitution, members of the Judiciary do not appoint their own successors. No article III judge has the authority to appoint his or her own successor. Rather, judicial nominations are made by the President of the United States, and confirmations are made by this body, the U.S. Senate. I would note that Justice Ginsburg was someone whom I knew personally. I argued nine times before Justice Ginsburg at the Supreme Court. She led an extraordinary life. She was one of the finest Supreme Court litigators to have ever practiced. She served 27 years on the Court, leaving a profound legacy. Justice Ginsburg understood full well that the position being put forth by the Democratic leader is not the law and is not the Constitution. Indeed, I will quote what Justice Ginsburg said just 4 years ago. Reported in the Washington Post on September 7, 2016, Justice Ginsburg is reported to have said: The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be. Now, of course, when Justice Ginsburg said that, that was when President Obama had made the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and the Senate had declined to consider that nomination. Without even a hint of irony, every Democrat who is now screaming from the ramparts that we cannot consider a vacancy on the Court during this election year was screaming equally as loudly from the ramparts that we must consider a nomination during a Presidential election year just 4 years ago. Joe Biden vociferously called for the Senate to consider that nomination. Barack Obama called for the Senate to consider that nomination. Hillary Clinton called for the Senate to consider that nomination. The Democratic leader said the Senate was not doing its job if we didn't consider that nomination. To my knowledge, every Democratic Member of this body, likewise, decried the decision not to take up that nomination and insisted the Senate was not doing its job. Well, today, obviously, the situation has changed, whereby all of those Democratic Members who demanded the Senate take up a nomination to the Supreme Court are now demanding the Senate not take up a nomination to the Supreme Court. To be sure, the Republican majority that declined to consider that nomination is now going to take up President Trump's nomination to this vacancy, but I would note the circumstances are markedly different, and history and more than two centuries of precedent are on the side of what this Senate will do. The question of whether a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy that occurred during a Presidential election year has occurred 29 times in our Nation's history. This is not new--29 times. Of those 29 times, Presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, have nominated Justices 29 times. Every single time there has been a vacancy during a Presidential year, a President has nominated a Justice to that vacancy. Of the 44 individuals who served as President of the United States, 22 have done so. Fully one half of the Presidents who have ever served this country have made Supreme Court nominations during Presidential election years. So what is the difference? Well, there is a sharp difference in our Nation's history depending upon whether the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President or a different party from the President. So, of the 29 times in history, in 19 of those times, the Senate and the Presidency were controlled by the same party. When that happened, the Senate took up and confirmed those nominees 17 of the 19 times. Do you want to ask what history shows this body does when the President and the Senate are of the same party and a nomination is made during a Presidential election year? This body takes up that nomination and, assuming a qualified nominee, confirms that nominee. On the other hand, what happens when the President and the Senate are of different parties? Well, that has happened 10 times in our Nation's history. In all 10 times, the President has made a nomination, but in those circumstances, the Senate has confirmed those nominees only twice, and 2016 was one of those examples. Now, the Democratic leader gave a passionate speech, which I know he believes, about what kind of Justice he would like to see on the Court. Democratic Members of this body have long championed judicial activists who would embrace a view of the Constitution that, I believe, would do serious damage to the constitutional liberties of the American people. The interesting thing about the Democratic leader's speech is that the argument was presented to the voters, and the voters disagreed. In 2016, Hillary Clinton promised to nominate Justices just like the kind the Democratic leader said he wanted to see, and President Trump promised to nominate Justices ``in the mold of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.'' The American people had that issue squarely before them, and the voters chose that we wanted constitutionalist judges nominated to the Supreme Court. It was not only regarding the Presidential election but the Senate majority. The American people voted for a Republican majority in the Senate in 2014. The American people voted for a Republican majority again in 2016, and, in 2018, the American people grew our majority. In all three of those elections, the question that the Democratic leader has put forward was directly before the voters. What kind of Justices do you want? The voters clearly decided and had given a mandate. The President has said he is going to nominate a Justice this week. That is the right thing to do. This body, I believe, will take up, will consider, that nomination on the merits, and I believe we will confirm that nominee before election day. That is consistent with over 200 years of Senate precedent from both parties. There is, however, something that the Democratic leaders and Democratic Members of this body are threatening that is not consistent with history or precedent or a respect for the Constitution, and that is, namely, a threat to pack the Supreme Court. We have heard multiple Democrats say that, if the Senate confirms this nominee and the Democrats take the majority next year, they will try to add two or four--or who knows how many--Justices to the Supreme Court. Well, you know, there was another Democratic President who tried to do that--FDR. Even though he had a supermajority, the Democratic Congress rejected his efforts as an effort to politicize the Supreme Court. Since the Democratic leader believes we should follow the wishes of Justice Ginsburg, I think it is worth reflecting on what Justice Ginsburg said about this. She was asked about this in an interview with NPR, and her statement was as follows: Nine seems to be a good number. It's been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court. Well, unfortunately, it seems the Democratic leader and Democratic Senators are repeating the partisan mistakes of their predecessors in threatening the Court and threatening to pack the Court, which would be truly a radical and bad idea, as Justice Ginsburg explained. Accordingly, what I am going to do is propose modifying the Democratic leader's resolution to delete his call that we leave this vacancy open, that we leave the Court with just eight Justices, which opens up the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie, not able to resolve a contested election, and leaving this country for weeks and months in chaos if we have a contested election in November. Instead, let's replace in the resolution the quote from Justice Ginsburg that packing the Court is a bad idea and have the Senate agree that packing the Court is a bad idea. I am confident that, when I ask the Democratic leader, he is going to reject this because we are, sadly, seeing one side of the aisle embrace more and more dangerous and radical proposals, including trying to use brute political force to politicize the Court. That is neither consistent with the Constitution nor is it consistent with two centuries of this body's precedent. Accordingly, I ask that the Senator modify his request and, instead, take up my resolution at the desk. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in discussing the single greatest geopolitical threat facing the United States for the next century, and that is the rise of Communist China. We are, right now, months into a deadly global pandemic that has sickened over 14 million people worldwide and has taken the lives of over 600,000 people. Why are we in the midst of a global pandemic? It is because the Chinese Communist Party deliberately lied to the world. It covered up the outbreak and allowed it to spread. The coronavirus pandemic has thrown into high relief the fact that China is our most dangerous threat. For 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I have worked hard to lead the fight to address the threat of Chinese Communist power and aggression and hostility head-on, to make the U.S. economy as free and independent from China as possible, and to thwart the never-ending propaganda and censorship campaign from the Chinese Communists. Last week, the Chinese Communist Government made the decision to sanction me personally, so I am now--I awoke to discover--prohibited from traveling to Communist China. Somehow, I think I will overcome that great burden, and I will tell you I wear China's sanction as a badge of honor. There is a reason they are lashing out. There is a reason it has decided to direct personal sanctions on me--because they are scared; they are terrified. The Chinese Communists are murdering, lying, torturing tyrants. For a long time in Washington, there were politicians in both parties--Democrats and Republicans--who were apologists for China, who denied the threat was there, who insisted that the path forward was getting more and more and more in bed with the Chinese Communists. The most significant long-term foreign policy consequence of this global pandemic is that people's eyes are opening up on both sides of the aisle here in Washington and across the world. One need look no further than the United Kingdom's reversing its decision to allow Huawei to build its telecom infrastructure in order to understand how China's mendacity has been revealed to the world. So how do we hold China accountable? How do we deal with the Chinese Communist Party? First of all, we should sanction Chinese officials involved in the ongoing suppression of medical experts, of journalists, and of political dissidents, all of whom have been ``disappeared'' by the Chinese tyrants. I have introduced legislation to do just that. Over the past several years, I have introduced, roughly, a dozen separate pieces of legislation that have all focused on different aspects of addressing the China threat. Another aspect is Chinese propaganda--Chinese propaganda that is reflected here in the United States. Big Business, giant corporations, the media, Hollywood all are terrified to take on Communist China. All see the billions they can earn from access to the Chinese markets as being more important than free speech. With respect to Hollywood, sadly, too many movie producers here in the United States have been perfectly content to allow the Chinese Communists to censor American movies. For example, later this year, the sequel to ``Top Gun'' is scheduled to come out--``Top Gun,'' one of the greatest military recruiting films ever made. In the sequel, on the back of Maverick's bomber jacket, the flag of Taiwan has been removed and the flag of Japan, both of which the Chinese overlords deemed to be offensive, and our heroic First Amendment champions in Hollywood dutifully complied with censorship. By the way, it needn't just concern geopolitical affairs in Asia. With another Hollywood movie, ``Bohemian Rhapsody''--a fabulous biopic of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer for Queen--the Chinese censors decided it offended their sensibilities to have scenes in the movie that revealed that Freddie Mercury was homosexual. Now, I ask you to pause for a second and ask: How on Earth do you tell Freddie Mercury's life story without including the fact that he was gay? It was integral to who he was. Yet those in Hollywood, which on so many other issues are glad to be woke social justice warriors, dutifully complied when the Chinese censors said to take it out, and they deleted the scenes from ``Bohemian Rhapsody.'' I have introduced legislation in this body called the SCRIPT Act that will impose consequences when American companies allow the Chinese Government to censor our films. The consequences are simple. We don't have the power as the government to impose direct negative consequences, but what we do have the power to do is to use the incentives we have; namely, lots of movies borrow Federal assets. When you go watch a movie and see a plane or a ship or a tank or when you go watch a movie on the border and you see DHS assets, all sorts of Federal agencies allow movies to use equipment that is the property of the Federal Government. The SCRIPT Act is very simple. It says, if you are going to allow the Chinese Communists to censor your movie, the Federal Government is not going to loan you our equipment and materiel. We are not going to facilitate making a movie if you are going to give the Chinese Communists the editing and censoring pen. Not only do the Chinese Communists engage in propaganda in Hollywood, but they also engage in espionage and propaganda on our university campuses--a very deliberate, systematic effort to steal and deceive. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, I was proud to secure a funding prohibition for the Department of Defense from funding universities where the money could go to a Confucius Institute. As a result of that bipartisan legislation, which earned support from Republicans and Democrats, 17 Confucius Institutes have been shut down. When it comes to our supply chain, we have seen, in recent months, the incredible foolishness of allowing the American supply chain to be dependent on China--medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE. In the midst of this pandemic, one Chinese Government state-controlled newspaper explicitly threatened to cut off lifesaving pharmaceuticals to the United States of America as a tool of economic warfare. If it were to do that, that wouldn't just be economic warfare--that would be actual warfare. That is literally threatening the lives of millions of Americans. We need to break our supply chain dependence on China, especially concerning critical infrastructure, and I have introduced hosts of legislation designed to do so with respect to pharmaceuticals, with respect to critical minerals. We have to keep the American people's lives and safety not dependent upon the whims of Communist China. In my final point right now, in China today, there are, roughly, 1 million Uighurs in concentration camps--an Orwellian-style, dystopian government, where the government has all power to monitor what you say, to monitor whom you talk to, to monitor your beliefs. I introduced legislation to impose sanctions on any American technology companies that facilitate the monitoring and oppression of the Chinese people. I am proud to say the Trump administration took major portions of that legislation I introduced and implemented them to increase the pressure to stop facilitating Chinese torture and oppression. The overwhelming challenge for this body and for this country for the next century going forward is how we will stand up to the threat of China. China is waging a 1,000-year war. For the sake not only of Americans but for the sake of the free world, America needs to win this contest. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Kate's Law, which is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object. You know, someone watching this at home might think that Senate Democrats want to actually enact amnesty for the so-called DACA recipients. Of course, they could have done so earlier. President Trump offered Senate Democrats a deal that would have granted permanent amnesty for all the DACA recipients, and the Democrats turned it down. They didn't want the deal. They hoped, instead, to have an issue in November. You know, we are right now in a time of crisis in our country. We have a global pandemic, and we have 44 million Americans out of work. This is, on the economic side, the greatest crisis our country has seen since the Great Depression. Yet what we are seeing in the Senate is a continuation of something we have seen for several years, which is that today's Democratic Party doesn't value working men and women--American working men and women. Last week, we saw a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States on amnesty. It was a particularly disgraceful opinion. Unfortunately, it was authored by Chief Justice Roberts; it was joined by the four liberals; and it concerned President Obama's illegal amnesty. DACA, when it was issued, was illegal. Actually, for years, President Obama admitted that. When activists asked him: Will you decree amnesty unilaterally, as an executive, he told them over and over again: I can't do that. I am bound by Federal immigration laws. I am not a King. I am not an Emperor. That is what President Obama said repeatedly. But then as the election approached, I guess they reassessed and decided that being a King or Emperor sounded pretty good, and so DACA, the day it was issued, was directly contrary to law. Federal immigration law says in the statute books that if you are here illegally, it is illegal for you to stay, to get work permits, and the Obama administration ignored Federal immigration law and simply printed what were called work authorizations. My friend from Illinois has a picture of a lovely young lady whom he has spoken about. What he doesn't have a picture of is what happened after Executive amnesty was granted for those who came illegally as kids, which is that the number of unaccompanied children skyrocketed. In the State of Texas I have been down to the border many, many times. I have visited with the Border Patrol many, many times. You know, when you go online, you see cages with children in them. What many of the people online don't tell you is that it was the Barack Obama administration that built those cages, and it was Executive amnesty that resulted in tens of thousands of little boys and little girls being sent alone with violent drug traffickers, with coyotes. Far too many of those kids were physically assaulted and sexually assaulted. You are not helping children by incentivizing little boys and little girls being in the hands of violent traffickers. That is not humane. I have seen child after child after child abused by this system, and every time the Democrats offer more amnesty, the predictable result is that more children are going to be physically and sexually assaulted. Amnesty is wrong. It is also the wrong priority of today's Democratic Party. Their priority is on people here illegally and not on American workers, not on keeping American workers safe. What we should be doing--and in just a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent for this body to take up and pass Kate's Law. I am the author of Kate's Law in the Senate. Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a beautiful young woman in California who was murdered on a California pier by an illegal immigrant who had come into this country illegally over and over and over again. He had multiple violent criminal convictions over and over and over again, but our revolving- door system kept letting him out. As Kate Steinle died on that California pier, her father held his daughter in his arms, and her last words were ``Daddy, please help me.'' I have had the opportunity to visit with Kate Steinle's family. What happened to her was wrong. It shouldn't happen, and the reason it happens is that our broken system keeps letting go violent criminal illegal aliens. What does Kate's Law provide? Commonsense legislation that says aggravated felons--people with serious felony convictions-- who repeatedly enter the country illegally face a mandatory minimum prison sentence; in other words, we are not going to let them out and allow them out to commit murders, rapes, and assaults. We are not going to let them out to abuse and threaten children. Kate's Law is overwhelmingly bipartisan common sense. If you go into the great State of Illinois and ask the voters of Illinois ``Does Kate's Law make sense?'' overwhelmingly, they say yes. That is true in every State in the country. By the way, it is true of voters who aren't just Republicans. It is true of Democrats, and it is true of Independents. It is true of everyone except the 47 elected Democrats in this Chamber and their colleagues in the House of Representatives because the reason Kate's Law is not the law is that every time I have tried to bring it up, the Democrats have objected to it. If Kate's Law had been on the books, Kate Steinle would still be alive because the violent criminal who kept coming in over and over and over again illegally would have been in jail instead of murdering that young woman. Amnesty is wrong. Illegal Executive amnesty is wrong, and we need to have as our first priority protecting the American workers and keeping the American people safe. I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Yes.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today's decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California is disgraceful. Judging is not a game. It is not supposed to be a game. But, sadly, over recent years, more and more Chief Justice Roberts has been playing games with the Court to achieve the policy outcomes he desires. This case concerned President Obama's Executive amnesty--amnesty that President Obama decreed directly contrary to Federal law. He did so with no legal authority. He did so in open defiance of Federal statutes. Of course, he was celebrated in the press for doing so. Obama's Executive amnesty was illegal the day it was issued and not one single Justice of the nine Supreme Court Justices disputed that-- not a one. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the four liberal Justices on the Court. This is becoming a pattern. The majority assumes that DACA--Obama's Executive amnesty--is illegal, and then bizarrely holds that the Trump administration can't stop implementing a policy that is illegal. Think about that for a second. In fact, it is even worse. The majority explicitly concede, of course, the administration can stop an illegal policy. ``All parties agree''--that is a quote--``all parties agree that DHS may rescind DACA.'' OK. Easy. Everyone agrees. DHS can rescind DACA. Right? Not so fast. A clever little twist. The majority says: Do you know what? The agency's legal explanation wasn't detailed enough. Yes, you have the authority to do it. Everyone agrees. There is no argument that you don't have the authority to do it, but we are checking your homework and, you know, the memo you wrote explaining it just didn't have all the detail we need. Just a touch more, so start over. What is interesting is that is exactly the sleight of hand that Chief Justice Roberts did almost exactly a year ago today in another case where the Chief joined with the four liberals from the Court and struck down another one of the Trump administration's policies. In that case a year ago, the Commerce Department, which is charged by the Constitution with conducting a census every 10 years--the Commerce Department wanted to ask a commonsense question in the course of the census: Are you a citizen of the United States? That is a question that has been asked in nearly every census since 1820. It ain't that complicated, asking someone in the course of a census: Are you a citizen? But in today's politically fraught world, the Democratic Party has decided they are the party of illegal immigration, as is the press. And so what did John Roberts do a year ago? Same thing. He wrote an opinion saying: Of course, the Commerce Department has the authority in the census to ask if you are a citizen. Of course. We have done it since 1820. For those who are math impaired, that is 200 years ago. Steadily since then, every 10 years, over and over and over again, but no, no, no, no--John Roberts, little twist of hand. Do you know what? The Commerce Department didn't explain their reasoning just clearly enough. We looked at their memo announcing it, announcing that they were making a policy decision that they have unquestioned legal authority to do, that the Bill Clinton administration had asked that question, but John Roberts and the four liberals are going to strike it down because they say it wasn't explained clearly enough. This is a charade. Last year, they pretended it was just about the agency could go back and do it again. They knew full well there wasn't time to do it again; that they had to start the census, and so they got the result they wanted. They didn't like, as a policy matter, asking this. There was no legal reason, no legal authority to strike it down, so they played a little game: Go back and start over. Of course, now we are doing the census without asking that question. That is the same game here today in DACA. They don't like the policy so they say: Just go back and do it over. Just give a little more explanation. Just start over. Everyone knows the game they are playing. They are hoping that in November, in the election, that there is a different result in the election; that there is a new administration that comes in that decides amnesty is a good thing, and so this sleight of hand is all about playing policy. Five Justices today held that it was illegal for the Trump administration to stop breaking the law. That is bizarre. The reasoning is because the Obama administration violated Federal immigration laws, for now--wink, wink, let's pretend, because that is what they are doing, is pretending--Trump has to continue violating the law and behaving illegally. Chief Justice Roberts knows exactly what he is doing. We saw earlier this week a decision rewriting title VII of our civil rights laws-- rewriting title VII, the prohibition on sex discrimination, on discrimination against women or against men, rewriting it to add ``sexual orientation or gender identity.'' Now, as a policy matter, there are a lot of people who support that. Indeed, legislation to do that has passed the House of Representatives twice. It has passed this body once. But the Court just rewrote it. The Court just engaged in legislation, plain and simple, as Justice Alito powerfully wrote in dissent. By the way, Chief Justice Roberts, again in the majority, assigned that majority. This is gamesmanship. Chief Justice Roberts knows exactly what he is doing. The fact that elites in Washington don't see a problem with illegal immigration doesn't answer the reality for millions of working men and women who do, and these kinds of games ultimately make a mockery of the rule of law. They make a mockery of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the same legerdemain we saw Chief Justice Roberts do several years ago upholding ObamaCare, where, again, just with a little flip of the wrist, he changed a penalty into a tax. That is not clever; that is lawless. This decision today was lawless; it was gamesmanship; and it was contrary to the judicial oath that each of the nine Justices has taken

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today is the second time in the last 2 years that I have had the opportunity to join the Senator from Alabama, coming together with a bipartisan group of Senators to read Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham jail. I want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his leadership and bringing this group together. I have read that letter many times before, but I had never read it out loud. I had never heard the words spoken, much less heard them spoken in this historic Chamber. I think today is a time when every American should listen to those words. Today is a time that every American should look back at the incredible call to justice that Dr. King gave us. This is a time where our Nation is grieving. This is a time where there is anger, division, rage. This is a time where our country is divided on racial lines in a way it hasn't been in a long, long time. This is a time where we need to hear a call to unity--a call to unity and a call to justice. Dr. King's call was powerful for both, for unity and for justice. I would like to just briefly make three observations about this historic letter. The first is that this was a letter from a pastor written to pastors. We refer to Dr. King as ``Dr. King,'' and it is easy to forget that he was also Reverend King. He was a Christian minister who preached the Gospel. The very first words of this letter are ``My Dear Fellow Clergymen.'' That is to whom this was addressed, the leaders in the church, where he had a message of get off your rear ends and stand for justice. If you are a person of faith, then, justice, defeating racial discrimination, defeating bigotry is not just a matter of truth, but it is a matter of morality. Here is what Dr. King said about it in the opening paragraphs of the letter: ``I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.'' Understand how much this was a call to church leaders. He says: ``Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried''. . . . their message. . . . ``just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town.'' At a time when our Nation is grieving, is in anguish, is in anger, is in division, Dr. King's--Reverend King's--message to church leaders to stand up for justice, to stand up for truth resonates clear as a bell today. As a second observation, Dr. King, in this letter and throughout his ministry, throughout his public leadership, called over and over and over to resist violence. Against the voices of those who agreed with him about the injustices, he was calling out where he said violence is not the way. As we have seen rioting in our cities, as we have seen small businesses burned to the ground, as we have seen police officers assaulted and wounded and murdered in violent and angry protests and riots and looting, the words of Dr. King calling out to resist violence and to speak for justice--those words--should be heard by all of us. A third observation, in calling for justice, Dr. King appealed to our founding principles. There are some, particularly young people, today, who are angry, who are being peddled, I think, what is a bill of goods--a lie--that America is fundamentally unjust, that it is an evil society built upon racism. That is simply not true. Is there evil in the world? Yes. Is there racism in the world? Yes. Is there oppression in the world? Yes. Is all of that present in the United States? Absolutely. But Dr. King, in this letter, didn't endeavor to tear down the foundations of our Nation. Instead, he made an explicit appeal that the promises this Nation was founded upon--the promises of freedom, the promises of equality--we have not yet fully achieved that, but we can. That is the beauty of this American experiment. We are a nation founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, even though our history has been troubled in achieving that objective. So I thank my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, who came today to reread this letter. We need to hear these words. We need to hear this message. We need to stand for justice and stand for unity. I yield the floor.