[Pages S7691-S7693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3835

  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

[[Page S7692]]

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. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will happily yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Can you tell me, if you are successful and if you hit 
Hollywood hard, how that provides any solace to the 6,700 Hong Kong 
students in America who are facing deportation back to prison in China?
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hawley). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think 
we have gone a little bit far afield from the six pro-democracy 
activists living abroad.
  Mr. CRUZ. If the Senator from Connecticut--I have not yet yielded the 
floor. I am about to ask unanimous consent, so--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object on the 
SCRIPT Act, which I understand is the only measure so far on which the 
Senator from Texas is seeking unanimous consent, very simply, he knows, 
I know, we all know that measure will never reach the President's desk. 
There is simply no way it can pass both Houses of Congress in the next 
few days before the end of this Congress.
  The only way we can do something for the freedom fighters and 
democracy

[[Page S7693]]

advocates in Communist China is to pass this measure that he has 
objected to, which has unanimously passed the House of Representatives. 
Only H.R. 8428 offers that opportunity, and frankly, only this measure 
that he has objected to does anything for the dissidents or the 
democracy advocates or the freedom fighters directly.
  He is talking about movies; we are talking about human lives. He can 
draw all the kinds of hypothetical connections between the so-called 
movie moguls in Hollywood and China, but I think his SCRIPT Act 
actually works against the goal that he is advocating.
  Censorship in China is a legitimate concern, no question about it, 
and I would welcome the opportunity to work with him on a bill that 
does something about it. But actually his bill not only takes away the 
support for the movies that may be made; it takes away support for 
documentaries about the repressive regime in China, and it takes away 
classification and other security screening that are necessary for 
those kinds of movies to be shown in this country. I think that kind of 
obstacle may be inadvertent on his part. But I welcome the chance to 
work with him on a bipartisan bill, a truly bipartisan bill that, in 
fact, in the next Congress could reach the President's desk. This one 
that he is offering, the SCRIPT Act, goes nowhere.
  But I just want to bring us back to the reality that really is at 
issue here. Just last Wednesday afternoon of this week, two of the 
activists among the six pro-democracy fighters living abroad, charged 
under China's new national security law, were before our committee. I 
am wondering what they are thinking when they hear my colleague from 
Texas pounding the table about being tough on China but objecting to a 
bill that guarantees them protection. As I say, I am talking about 
their lives and tens of thousands of others. I am not talking about 
movies. I am not talking about Hollywood moguls.
  Let's stand up for the lives of those Chinese Hong Kong freedom 
fighters now in this country seeking protection through a bill passed 
unanimously by the House of Representatives--the only bill that will go 
to the President's desk if we approve it.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the only ones happy with the outcome 
of today's debate are the Chinese Government. I regret this outcome 
because there probably was a time when we would have cooperated in a 
bipartisan way on both of these matters.
  It may not have been unanimous. There may have been a few contrary 
votes in the House, but clearly it came here with bipartisan support, 
and I regret that the outcome today is not bipartisan agreement to 
protect those freedom fighters who came before the Judiciary Committee 
and who have risked their lives.
  This issue is not going away. We will be back because, fortunately, 
the activists from Hong Kong will persist in their fight, and we ought 
to do everything we can to make sure they have a safe haven in this 
country and that they are protected here.
  So my closing plea to my colleague from Texas is that maybe there 
remains time, even in this setting, but, if not, we need to take a 
stand as a nation against Chinese censorship, against repression by the 
Chinese, and come together and work together. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is 
comment on the discussions we just had.
  I have been up here a little less than 2 years, and the thing that 
surprises me is, invariably, the Democrats won't stand up against the 
Communist Party in China.
  The case that we are dealing with now is they are going to stand up 
for Hollywood rather than rights, rights that we have here that I am 
going to talk about in a second.
  We ought to be standing up against Communist China stealing our jobs, 
our technology. We ought to be attacking the Communist Party for what 
they have done to Uighurs, for organ harvesting, for taking away the 
basic rights of Hong Kong citizens.
  Invariably, I watch my Democratic colleagues; they won't stand up 
against Communist China. I don't understand it. This is a party that 
clearly wants to dominate our society, our way of life. They completely 
disagree with our way of life.
  I want to thank Senator Ted Cruz for his continued fight for rights, 
for all the rights that we have in this country but fighting for those 
rights so people, whether in Hong Kong or in Communist China or in 
Taiwan, have the same freedoms that we have.
  So I want to thank Senator Ted Cruz for showing up today and doing 
this.
  Mr. CRUZ. Thank you.