Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to give tribute to the spirit of the Cuban people--the people of my forefathers, who still live under a corrupt and violent Communist regime--and to honor the memory of Oswaldo Paya. Oswaldo was a champion for freedom. He died 6 years ago this Sunday, on July 22, 2012, in a car crash that is widely believed to have been orchestrated by the Castro regime. The plight of the brave people of Cuba has been marked by terrible suffering under both the Castro regime and the brutal dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista before it. The Castros and their revolutionary terrorist lackeys, like Che Guevara, are responsible for the suffering and murder of countless innocent Cubans. It is because of these oppressors that my family fled their beloved home in Cuba for a better life in the United States. My father, born and raised in Cuba, fought in the revolution, initially believing that the principles of freedom were what the revolution was all about. He fought against Batista, a cruel dictator, and he was imprisoned and tortured by Batista's thugs. Then my aunt, his younger sister, my tia Sonia--who was there after the revolution succeeded, who discovered along with the rest of the world that Fidel Castro was a Communist, who saw the torture and the murder--my aunt fought in the counterrevolution against Fidel Castro, and she, too, like her brother, was imprisoned and tortured, except this time by Castro's thugs. Both my father and my aunt were kids. They were kids who believed they were fighting for freedom, and they discovered they went from one tyrant to an even worse tyrant, a Communist dictator who would line up dissidents and shoot them. The betrayal, the brutality, and the violence experienced by my father and by my aunt were all too typical of the millions of Cubans who have suffered under the Castro regime of the last six decades. Fidel may be dead, Raul may be retired, but the evil of the Castros persists. It still molds the Cuban regime's fundamental opposition to truth, to freedom, and to human rights. But the malice and menace of communism cannot break down the will of the Cuban people. Instead, it has strengthened their resolve. It has further united them to fight for freedom and build a better future for their country, to establish a free Cuba--a Cuba not streaked by the ashes of dissident literature or littered with the corpses of defenseless teenagers; a Cuba built on human decency and individual liberty, where citizens are heard, not murdered, and speech is protected, not silenced. It is the Cuba envisioned by Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, his Christian Liberation Movement, and their fellow activists who continue to stand against the Castro regime. It is the Cuba of the young bloggers who expose the regime's crimes and corruption at the risk of arrest, deportation, torture, or worse. With time, the oppressions of the Castro regime gave rise to remarkable leaders like Oswaldo Paya, whose life's work was the peaceful overthrow of communism and whose legacy we honor today. Oswaldo dedicated his life to promoting democratic freedoms and human rights in Cuba. His memory continues to inspire dissidents in Cuba and in other countries under tyrannical rule, countries like Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro routinely imprisons and murders those who dare speak out against him, or Nicaragua, where the corrupt Ortega regime desperately clings to power by persecuting journalists and violently putting down protesters. Last year, I introduced legislation to commemorate Oswaldo's legacy by naming the street in front of the Embassy of Cuba, located right here in Washington, as ``Oswaldo Paya Way.'' It would send a powerful statement that here in the United States of America, we stand with freedom fighters like Oswaldo Paya who are working to bring hope and liberty to oppressed nations, who are working to make a better Cuba, free of the horrors of Communist rule. I have never been to my father's homeland. I have never been to Cuba. My father has not returned to Cuba in over 60 years. I look forward to one day visiting Cuba, hopefully with my dad, with my tia Sonia, my cousin Bibi, with my whole family, my two girls, and seeing a free Cuba--where people can live according to their beliefs without fear of imprisonment, violence, or oppression, but today is not that day. There are many, like Oswaldo, who have fought for this vision for a free Cuba, who are no longer with us, but their struggle will endure, and their spirits will shine a light through the darkest nights. We will never forget them, nor cease fighting to bring about the free Cuba they died for. Today, and on July 22, and each day thereafter, they will be remembered, ``Viva Cuba libre.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise to speak to the integrity of the character and the career of Andy Oldham, the President's nominee to be a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Andy represents the best of what Texas's legal community has to offer to our Federal courts. Andy Oldham was born to high school sweethearts. His parents, like his grandparents before them, knew struggles and knew hard work. Andy's father was raised in a trailer with four other siblings, and Andy's grandfather spent years away from his family, first fighting in World War II and then in Korea. His mother was raised by her divorced mother, and Andy's mother helped manage the household starting at age 8. Growing up in these humble beginnings taught both of Andy's parents the value of hard work. His father drove a cement truck and cleaned deep fryers in restaurants to pay his way through college. His mother was one of the first women to attend the University of Virginia. Together, both enrolled in the Medical College of Virginia, where his father became a doctor and his mother became a dentist. Andy's parents had enormous student debts to pay, and so Andy learned what it was like to grow up with little as well, but he likewise learned the value of an education from his parents. Andy went to the University of Virginia on a full academic scholarship, graduating with a perfect 4.0 GPA and at the top of his class. He then became a Truman Scholar and went on to attend Harvard Law School. Andy graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude and clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the DC Circuit, one of the most respected Federal appellate judges in the country, and then clerked for Justice Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court of the United States. He then worked as an attorney advisor for 2 years in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice under the George W. Bush administration. Andy then went into private practice at Kellogg Hansen here in Washington, DC. From there, Andy went to the Texas solicitor general's office to serve as the deputy solicitor general of Texas. I can state that office is usually a pretty tight ship. After that, he joined Governor Abbott to serve as his legal counsel. He is now the general counsel for the Governor and has spent all but 3 years of his career in public service. If I may say, it shows a depth of character and a devotion to his country that Andy would stay in public service for so long, so dutifully, while forgoing the great rewards that come with private practice. He is devoted to the practice of law, and over the years, Andy has displayed a keen understanding of the Constitution and how it applies and guides us to this very day. I am confident Andy will not substitute his own policy preferences, his own opinions for the rule of law, but he will instead serve the people of Texas and the American people by respecting the law as written--as written in the Constitution and as written in Federal law-- passed by this Congress and signed by the President. Our courts and our country are well-served by judges with this dedication, wisdom, and forbearance. In his career, Andy has argued across the country in State and Federal courts. He has appeared and argued numerous times before the Fifth Circuit, and he has argued twice before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has earned widespread praise from both Democrats and Republicans, and he was recommended to the Judiciary Committee by esteemed legal voices from both the left and right. Andy is respected across the political spectrum. I know my colleagues in the Senate will return the same respect when they vote today to confirm Andy Oldham as a circuit judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Andy will be the fifth judge we have confirmed for the Fifth Circuit, one of the finest courts in the country--a court I have been privileged to argue before many times. Andy will be the third Texan and fifth circuit judge in the last year and a half, and that, I think, is one of the greatest legacies of President Trump and this Republican Senate; namely, the confirmation of principled constitutionalists to the Federal court; judges who will be faithful to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, who will stand steadfastly to protect our fundamental liberties, to protect free speech and religious liberty, to protect the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, to protect the Tenth Amendment, the fundamental liberties of the people against ever- expanding Federal power. This is a legacy that was front and center as to why the American people elected this majority, and it is a legacy that will benefit Texans and Americans for generations to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the brave men and women of our Immigration Customs Enforcement agency. These are law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day to keep this country safe. Rising in support of law enforcement used to be a bipartisan issue. It used to be an issue that brought us together, that unified us. Sadly, as we have seen in the preceding minutes, that is no longer the case. I rise today to urge my Democratic colleagues to say no to the reckless and radical voices within their party that are pulling their party so far out of the mainstream and so far out of touch with the American people that it is barely recognizable. For a long time, when Democrats were debating immigration issues, they used to say ``Well, of course, we support enforcing the laws,'' almost as an obligatory throwaway. Instead, we are here today, debating the abolishing of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the exact antithesis of where most congressional Democrats claimed they were. All of this started because a few weeks ago, a longtime Democratic incumbent, a Member of the House, found himself beaten in a primary in New York State by an avowed socialist. As a result, many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are suddenly terrified of their left flank. Because her campaign focused on abolishing ICE--abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, more incumbent Democrats have said that they, too, are open to abolishing ICE. I call on this body to pull back from the abyss. On immigration there are areas of good-faith disagreement that this body has debated and will continue to debate. I have long characterized my views on immigration as being able to be summed up in four words: legal, good; illegal, bad. I think the vast majority of Texans and the vast majority of Americans agree with that. There are a host of immigration policies that ought to be commonsense bipartisan policies. The Presiding Officer has shown great leadership in fighting against sanctuary cities, fighting against jurisdictions that defy Federal immigration law and that release violent criminals without being willing to turn them over to immigration officials. Those violent criminals, in turn, go on far too often to commit even more violent crimes. I am the author of Kate's Law, a commonsense proposal which says that aggravated felons who repeatedly enter the country illegally should face a mandatory minimum prison sentence. It was named for Kate Steinle, a beautiful young woman, 28 years old, murdered on a California pier by an illegal immigrant who had been deported over and over and over again and had been in and out of jail over and over and over again and had multiple felony convictions. Yet, because San Francisco is a sanctuary city, they released him yet again, and he committed murder. Kate Steinle would be alive if we could come together on Kate's Law, if we could come together on ending sanctuary cities. Yet it turns out that in today's hyperpolarized world, even that is not extreme enough for the modern Democratic Party. Multiple leaders of their party are advocating abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. What does ICE do? ICE men and women--I have met with a great many of them in my home State of Texas. I have met with a great many Border Patrol agents. I have joined them on their midnight muster. I have gone out on patrol with them as they risk their lives securing our border and risk their lives keeping us safe in the interior. Criminal aliens arrested by ICE in fiscal year 2017 were responsible for more than 76,000 dangerous drug offenses; yet many Democrats are saying: Abolish their role. They were responsible for over 48,000 assault offenses. They were responsible for over 11,000 weapons offenses. They were responsible for over 5,000 sexual assault offenses. They were responsible for over 2,000 kidnapping offenses, and they were responsible for over 1,800 homicide offenses. Yet the approach of the modern Democratic Party is not to find a reasonable, commonsense common ground. It is, instead, to say: Abolish the agency that has arrested criminals responsible for over 1,800 murders. When it comes to drugs--the volume they are dealing with in fighting the narcotics traffickers--ICE in fiscal year 2017 seized more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics. ICE seized approximately 2,370 pounds of fentanyl, approximately 6,967 pounds of heroin. Yet, today, too many elected Democrats are afraid that they, too, might face a socialist primary and that their far left is so angry, hates President Trump so much, that their position is not that we should enforce the immigration laws; their position is not that they will stand with law enforcement. Their position has become to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the agency charged with enforcing our immigration laws. This is not a reasonable position and a public policy debate upon which reasonable minds might differ. There are many of those in the immigration world. This is not one of them. This is a radical and reckless position. Yet, this resolution--by the way, this resolution says not a word about the issue of family separation. We have heard some of the speeches from my Democratic colleagues focused on family separation. I can state that every Member of this body, Democrat and Republican, agrees that families should not be separated. Indeed, I have introduced legislation to prohibit family separation, to ensure that children stay with their parents--the best place for a kid is with his or her mom or dad--but to do so in a way that also respects the rule of law, that doesn't return to the failed policy of catch-and-release that only encourages more and more illegal immigration, that only puts more and more children--little boys and girls--in a position of being physically and sexually assaulted by human traffickers. No one who cares about humanity, no one who cares about compassion should want to incentivize putting little children in the control of global, transnational drug cartels and human traffickers. For the past several weeks, I have been negotiating with Democratic Members of this body, trying to see if we could reach common ground to unite and say that we will not separate families, but at the same time, we will respect the rule of law and not return to catch-and-release in a way that incentivizes illegal immigration. We will find out if any Democrats are willing to find common ground. All 100 could join together on ending family release and ending it today, but too many on the Democratic side want to condition ending family release on essentially mandating the release of every illegal alien in custody--those apprehended with children, mandating their release. That is not a reasonable position. That is not a position the American people support, and, critically, this resolution before the Senate says not a word about it. This resolution does not address that question. Instead, this resolution says that those ICE agents--the ICE agents who right now may be kicking down the door on a meth house and facing violent drug lords, firing weapons at them, risking their lives to keep us safe--we stand with those law enforcement agencies, even if we may disagree on the parameters of illegal immigration. I am one who believes we should welcome and embrace legal immigrants--those who follow the rules and wait in line like my father in 1957, when he came as an immigrant from Cuba seeking freedom. Those are debates we can have. We ought to be coming together in the spirit of bipartisan agreement to stand with law enforcement. I call upon the responsible members of the Democratic Party--and, surely, there must be some left. Surely, in the Democratic Party, there are some voices that are willing to stand up to the reckless and radical left and say: No, we should not abolish the agency charged with enforcing our immigration laws, charged with protecting us from vicious and violent criminals. The fact that Senate Democrats are today objecting to this resolution shows just how captive they are to the fury that rages against President Trump. Everyone in this Chamber has, at one time or another, had something the President has said or done that we all disagreed with. That is part of the political process, but the rage and fury on the far left is a qualitatively different matter. It is a rage that is demanding Democrats to go after, to undercut, to attack law enforcement agents who keep us safe. That is a mistake. It is a disservice to this institution. It is a disservice to the legacy of many distinguished Senators and a disservice to the American people and the Constitution that we are sworn to protect. I urge this body to pass this commonsense resolution, standing with law enforcement, enforcing our borders, and stopping violent criminals, murderers, kidnappers, and rapists that ICE arrests every year. Abolishing law enforcement puts all of us at peril. I call upon my Democratic colleagues to reject that radical and reckless position. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I have 2 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 10, 2018, during votes, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Robert L. Wilkie, of North Carolina, to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Kennedy and Senator Lee in offering this amendment. The farm bill has many good and important elements in it that benefit our farmers and ranchers, who are a critical part of our economy in my home State of Texas and all across this country. A major component of this bill is, of course, the food stamp program. The food stamp program provides important support for people who are in need, but at the same time, we should not be trapping people into dependency. The amendment that I have joined with Senator Kennedy and Senator Lee in offering strengthens the work requirements for food stamps for able- bodied adults. Right now, more than a third of the country lives in areas with no work requirements. Thirty-three States have some kind of waiver on the work requirements. Twenty-eight States have partial waivers. Five States and the District of Columbia have total waivers on work requirements. That is not right, and it has led to a troubling development. In recent years, a rapidly growing group of food stamp recipients has been able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 to 49, in prime working ages, who are not disabled and have no dependents or children to support. This population has quintupled, rising from 1 million recipients in 2008 to about 5 million recipients in 2015. As a Senate, this should be a bipartisan proposal. We should come together to include work requirements to get people who are on food stamps back into the workplace, providing for their families. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 10:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Andrew S. Oldham, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, Alan D. Albright, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, Thomas S. Kleeh, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, Peter J. Phipps, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Michael J. Truncale, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Wendy Vitter, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and Erica H. MacDonald, to be United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, Department of Justice. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing. Joint Select Committee on Solvency and Multi-employer Pension Plans The Joint Select Committee on Solvency and Multi-employer Pension Plans is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Structure and Financial Outlook of the Pension Outlook of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.''

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I will.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to give thanks and celebration for the United States' Embassy established in the city of Jerusalem and for the continued safety and security of the Jewish people in Israel and across the world. Almost exactly 70 years ago, Israel's founding father, David Ben- Gurion, brought together members of the Jewish People's Council in a Tel Aviv museum to declare the founding of the modern State of Israel. Eleven minutes later, President Harry S. Truman courageously recognized the State of Israel over the objection of many of his advisers and the State Department, and the fates of our two countries have been intertwined ever since, until this week, when the U.S. Embassy was finally moved to Jerusalem, recognizing that it is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the undivided capital of Israel. I was proud to have traveled to Jerusalem along with my fellow Senators for the official opening of the new Embassy. It was an incredible honor to witness history unfolding. It was a joyous moment for Israelis, for Americans, and a moment of history. I had the opportunity to visit with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the incredible significance of ending the 70 years of discrimination that Israel had faced. In no other country on Earth did America have our Embassy in a city other than its capital city. It was only Israel where our Embassy was not in the capital. I would note that for many years Presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, have campaigned promising that they would move the Embassy to Jerusalem, which is the capital of the nation. Yet Presidents of both parties have failed to do so. I commend President Trump for honoring that campaign commitment and for delivering on that campaign commitment. Moving our Embassy to Jerusalem is an acknowledgement of undeniable truth that Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of the nation of Israel. It is where we find the supreme court. It is where we find the Prime Minister, and it is where we find the President of Israel. It is the capital city, and now our Embassy reflects that fact. But moving the Embassy and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has significance beyond that. It has significance because it sends an unmistakable message to our friends and to our enemies that the United States stands with our friends and unshakably stands alongside the nation of Israel. There was considerable debate within the administration about whether and when to move the Embassy. That has been true in prior administrations as well--considerable debate. The principal argument against moving the Embassy has always been that the enemies of Israel will not like it. I believe that is yet another reason this was the right thing to do. There were some who made the case that moving the Embassy would diminish the chances of peace in the Middle East. I will confess, I am skeptical that peace will be attained anytime soon. I don't believe the impediment to peace in the Middle East is the nation of Israel. Israel wants peace. It is Israeli babies who are being murdered by the terrorists. I don't believe we will see peace in the Middle East unless and until, No. 1, the Palestinian leadership acknowledges Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and No. 2, they renounce terrorists. As long as the Palestinian leaders are engaging in a unity government with Hamas--an avowed terrorist organization seeking to destroy the nation of Israel and murder innocent Israelis--peace will not be had. But what I urge President Trump and the administration is that moving the Embassy increases, I believe, the chance for peace. Why is that? Because it demonstrates that America stands strong, stands by our friends, and is not shaken, is not buffeted by global media opinion. I suggested to the administration that our Arab allies in the region would publicly denounce the move. They would have to for domestic political concerns. However, I believe that privately, those allies-- the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Saudis--would be relieved that America moved our Embassy. Why is that? Because an American President and an administration strong enough to move the Embassy and stand up to the nattering nabobs and the press might well also be a President and an administration strong enough to stand up to Iran to end the catastrophic Obama Iranian nuclear deal and to do whatever is necessary to prevent the Ayatollah Khamenei from getting nuclear weapons. Indeed, we saw that assessment was true. I think it is quite fitting that the opening of the new Embassy occurred just days apart from the President making the historic decision to pull out of the disastrous Obama Iran nuclear deal. We are seeing the difference between strength and weakness. If history teaches anything, it is that weakness and appeasement do not work. Instead, I think America is far better when we pursue policies of peace through strength. We all recognize there are those who rage against the existence of the State of Israel. There are the Ayatollahs of Iran who swear ``death to Israel and death to America,'' indeed who refer to Israel as the ``Little Satan'' and America as the ``Great Satan'' and who finance terrorism at Israel's doorstep and across the world. There are the terrorists of Hamas who seized control of the Gaza Strip over a decade ago, after Israel had already fully withdrawn from the territory. For the last several months, Hamas has been organizing civilian mobs with terrorist cells embedded throughout to attack Israel's border and the soldiers stationed there. They call the riots the march of return in reference to what they call their right of return, which is a euphemism for having millions of descendents of Palestinians flood into Israel and destroy the modern State of Israel and its existence as a Jewish state. Hamas timed their weeks of riots to culminate this week during what they call Nakba Day. ``Nakba'' means ``catastrophe.'' It is the word they use to reference the creation of Israel. We should understand that. Every year, they denounce what Israel celebrates--the creation of the modern State of Israel. Hamas mourns the catastrophe--to use their word--that Israel even exists. But inevitably, in these battles for survival that Israel faces daily, we can count on global media elite acting as little more than propaganda arms for Hamas and other terrorists, and no week has that been more evident than this week. I direct you to the front page of the New York Times from this week. The New York Times's headline is ``Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border as U.S. Embassy Opens in Jerusalem.'' Anyone reading this headline would say: Goodness gracious. Why are the Israelis murdering people? That is what the New York Times says. One takes from the coverage, apparently, that poor, innocent, unarmed people are being shot for no reason by Israel. That is certainly what the global media elite are portraying. What are the actual facts? You remember facts--the things that used to be reported when journalists were actually being journalists and not propagandists. Let's talk about the facts. For several weeks, we have seen riots and violent attacks at Israel's border, terrorist attacks that culminated in the attacks that led to these shootings in self- defense. The rioters used massive tire fires to create smoke to cover their attacks. They used guns. They used pipe bombs. They used Molotov cocktails. They used grenades. They used mechanical catapults to attack the border and to attack Israeli troops. They tie petrol bombs to kites, and they launched them to set fire to Israeli fields and livestock. Let's take a look at the kites. The kites that they used are painted with swastikas. Just so you are not confused about their motivation, there were pictures taken a couple of weeks ago of kites, of images of swastikas by the Hamas terrorists, with gasoline bombs designed to commit murder and mayhem. The Palestinians in the riots don't hide their motives or intentions. It is not that the New York Times can't figure it out; it is that they don't care. One 23-year-old rioter said: ``We are excited to storm and get inside'' and that if he got across the border, he would do ``whatever is possible, to kill, throw stones.'' I would note that a violent terrorist attacking the border, seeking to murder people, is not a peaceful protester, as the useful idiots in the media falsely portrayed it. Another Hamas terrorist, who was flying a swastika kite, told NPR: This is a kite that's going to go to the Jews. . . . The Jews go crazy for Hitler when they see it. . . . This is actually what we want them to know, that we want to burn them. Let me remind you again of the New York Times headline. The New York Times headline says ``Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border.'' Kills dozens of what, of whom? Do they say terrorists? Do they say Hamas terrorists who are flying swastika kites filled with gasoline, seeking to murder Israelis, and who say: ``This is actually what we want them to know, that we want to burn them''? When hearing about brave soldiers protecting innocent civilians from terrorists seeking to murder them, a rational person would say that it is a good thing when terrorists are stopped before they can carry out their acts of terror. But the New York Times can't be bothered to include those facts. There is a message to be conveyed. For anyone lacking nuance or subtly, their message is simple: Israel, bad. Israel, bad. That is their whole subtly. Mind you, the bodies of those poor, helpless, little terrorists--well, you know, when a terrorist seeks to commit murder, we do everything possible to prevent them from doing so. So when you read the headline, understand that this is who the New York Times is celebrating. I ask you, why wasn't the swastika on the cover of the New York Times? Might people understand it differently if they actually showed photographs of what was happening? One of Hamas's Facebook pages posted maps with directions to nearby Israeli communities where thousands of Israelis live within 2 miles of the border. If you look at this map--this map is posted. So you need to understand that these protesters are not just there saying: Make love, man, not war. The New York Times wants to paint them as some happy little hippies with daisies in their ears. Just give peace a chance. You know, John and Yoko were among them. Well, why is Hamas posting this map saying: If you cross the border, here is where the Israeli communities are to go and murder Israelis. Here is the map. They say: If you make it across the border, here is where you can find victims and kill as many of them as possible. They are not hiding their intentions. This is not subtle. If you get across the border, your target is wherever you can find Jews to kill. These are the terrorists the New York Times celebrates--``Kills Dozens.'' Why is it that the New York Times doesn't mention the maps that they have to Israeli homes to murder innocent women and children, to kill as many Jews as possible? Here is a partial list of what happened on the border over just a few hours on Monday: At 12:53 p.m., there were five pipe-bomb detonations. At 12:58, another explosive device was detonated. At 1:15, a terror cell opened fire at Israeli soldiers who caught them trying to plant bombs. At 1:30, there was another shooting attack on Israeli soldiers. At 1:45, there was yet another shooting attack, this time by a terrorist cell of eight using the rioters as cover, as human shields. At 2:09, there were three more bomb detonations. At 2:13, there was a Molotov cocktail attack. At 2:49, another one. At 3:10, there was yet another bomb attack, and so on and so on and so on. That is just 2 hours. Where in the New York Times headline--and, sadly, this is emblematic of much of the global media elite who are unified in their antagonism to the State of Israel--where is any acknowledgment of pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, shootings? How would this headline read differently if it read: ``Violent Hamas Terrorists Opened Fire on Israelis Who Defend Innocent Civilians Taking the Lives of the Terrorists?'' That would actually be news. That would actually be factual. That would actually be describing what happened, instead of becoming a propagandist for the terrorists. The strategy for these riots, for these terror attacks is a win-win for Hamas. If they breach Israel's fence, then their terrorists can rush into Israeli towns and try to kidnap and kill Israeli civilians. If they fail to reach the fence; if they attack the fence and Israeli soldiers defend Israel and if they are shot, then they know the media-- the useful idiots--will provide endless photographs and stories denouncing Israel: How dare you kill terrorists before they are able to murder innocent civilians. The media has been more than happy to oblige Hamas's propaganda needs. Reporters, celebrity talking heads, and members of our political establishment have faithfully and enthusiastically parroted the Hamas line. They say the riots are the fault of the United States for moving our Embassy and that the rioters are peaceful and unarmed protesters. There is a word for that; it is called a ``lie.'' When so-called journalists repeatedly and deliberately lie in the name of propaganda, well, they shouldn't be surprised to have earned the moniker ``fake news.'' The Hamas talking points, which are printed by our media, are aimed at whitewashing the terrorists' genocidal hatred of Israel. In fact, these attacks are waged because Hamas refuses to accept the existence of Israel. Mind you, Gaza, they control. Israel doesn't govern Gaza; Hamas governs Gaza. This is an attack on the border of Israel seeking to murder innocent civilians. The New York Times has been unremitted in its dishonesty. They told their tens of thousands of Facebook followers that Israel ``used tear gas and gunfire to keep Palestinian protesters from crossing the border fence with Gaza, killing at least 52, according to Palestinian officials. Forty miles away, officials celebrated the U.S. Embassy's relocation to Jerusalem.'' Once again, this is the New York Times pretending to report: Israel ``used tear gas and gunfire to keep Palestinian protesters from crossing the border fence with Gaza, killing at least 52.'' These are not protesters; these are terrorists seeking to murder people. When you call a terrorist a peaceful and unarmed protester, directly contrary to the facts, you are not engaged in journalism; you are pursuing a political agenda on the pages of the ``Old Gray Lady.'' Their website's headline on Monday blared: ``Israel kills 58 and Injures Over 1,300 by Gunfire at Gaza border. . . . A mass attempt by Palestinians to cross the border fence quickly turned violent, as Israeli soldiers responded with rifle fire.'' Gosh, where in their headlines, where in their coverage is there any mention that these are terrorists with bombs and guns and Molotov cocktails and kites carrying gasoline? Oh, no, these were just protesters who, for no reason whatsoever, those bad, bad Israelis decided to shoot. They just got up and said: Let's just shoot a bunch of people. That is what the New York Times tells us. For no reason whatsoever, they just began firing into the crowd. By the way, if you go into the fever swamps of social media and you see the left--the New York Times knows what its propaganda does. It is not hard to find people on Twitter suggesting that for no reason, Israel just began shooting people because it is fun. Remember, their message is not complicated: Israel, bad. So if Israel is bad, then you just start shooting people because that is how you approach a Monday morning. That is the message, and it is heard by social media. It is heard by anti-Semites across the globe. It plays into vicious blood libels that go back a millennium. It just happens to be a lie. It is not an accidental misstatement; it is a deliberate, calculated, repeated lie. Undoubtedly, tragically, some of those killed have been Palestinian civilian human shields. This is by design. Part of what Hamas does is it uses terrorists to commit acts of terror, and then it eyes innocent Palestinians as human shields trying to get them killed because that serves their propaganda purposes. Although I will say that consistently during these riots, it has turned out that the great many of the deaths are of the actual Hamas terrorists picked off while planting bombs and attacking Israeli soldiers. If the American military had been able to shoot the terrorists on 9/11--the terrorists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and who flew an airplane into the Pentagon--if the military had been able to stop those terrorists and shoot those terrorists, the New York Times headline would read: ``American Military Shoots Peaceful Flying Passengers.'' When you stop a terrorist seeking to commit murder, it is not shooting a peaceful protester. During past riots, Hamas has acknowledged that up to 80 percent of those killed were terrorists. This time around, already, between one-third and one-half of those killed have been identified as terrorists. Look, this is Hamas telling us this. The people being shot are avowed terrorists. There is no dispute that Hamas is a terrorist organization. There is no dispute. This photograph depicts their wall of martyrs. These are the terrorists we have sent who were killed. Where was the word ``terrorist'' in the coverage? We saw on TV images of violence on the border juxtaposed with the image of the embassy unveiling, no doubt intended to put the blame for the attempted terrorism on the United States: How dare the United States of America actually stand with Israel. How dare America open an embassy in the capital of Israel. The blame for the violence lies with the terrorists, not America for standing with our friend. These terrorists hated Israel, they hated Jews, and they hated America before we moved our Embassy, and their compatriots hate America, hate Israel, and hate Jews after we have moved our Embassy. Their hatred--their murderous, religious zealotry--is the cause of the murder and of the violence. A Hamas spokesman went further on TV and said that in the last round of confrontations, if 62 people were martyred, 50 of them were Hamas, but the New York Times just said a bunch of unarmed protesters were standing there when, for no reason, Israeli soldiers began shooting them. What complete mendacity. Hamas admits these are Hamas terrorists. Yet the media does all they can to hide that. Imagine the outrage if, when the American Embassy in Benghazi was attacked by Ansar al-Sharia in 2012, a newspaper had printed: Americans kill dozens of Libyans. By the way, that is the exact same headline the New York Times used. Yes, protesters coming to commit murder; soldiers fight back to stop them from committing murder. Fortunately, even the New York Times didn't quite have the gall to say that, but the facts are comparable. The blame for all of the deaths, whether terrorists or human shields, is on Hamas and Hamas alone. Any implication otherwise is nothing less than shameful support for genocidal terrorism. In 2014, I introduced in this body bipartisan legislation, along with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, supporting Israel's right to self-defense and condemning Hamas's barbaric tactics, specifically condemning the use of human shields as a war crime. That resolution passed the U.S. Senate unanimously, and it passed the House of Representatives unanimously. Yet we see the tactic yet again, these terrorists using human shields, using innocent Palestinians as human shields, precisely because they want them to die, because they can trust the global media to carry their message. A few years back, when Israel faced rocket attacks from Hamas, one after the other after the other, Hamas had its headquarters in the basement of a hospital. Indeed, some years ago, I wrote an op-ed entitled ``A Tale of Two Hospitals.'' It says that you can tell a lot about a society about how they treat their most vulnerable, and it compared two hospitals, one, the Ziv Hospital in northern Israel, which I visited. At the time, the Ziv Hospital had provided over $8 million in free medical care to Syrians badly wounded in the horrific civil war playing out in Syria, freely caring for their neighbors being murdered by their own head of government. The op-ed contrasted that hospital to the hospital in Gaza in whose basement Hamas had their headquarters. Now, for Hamas, it was a win-win scenario. Option A is that Israel refrains from hitting the headquarters because it is in the basement of a hospital. That is obviously a win because then the terrorist headquarters doesn't get targeted in a military conflict. That ultimately is what happened, and the Israeli forces did not hit Hamas's headquarters. Option 2, from Hamas's perspective, is also a win. If Israel did strike at their headquarters--a military target that was launching military attacks trying to murder Israelis--then the result would be pictures of dead bodies on CNN and in the New York Times, pictures of patients at that hospital being used as human shields. It is Hamas desiring the death of little Palestinian babies--newborns in the maternity ward--because they knew if Israel actually took out Hamas's headquarters, they could take those babies, whom Hamas had used as human shields, and they could count on the New York Times. Can you imagine the headline in the New York Times? ``Israel Bombs Babies.'' It is not markedly different from their headline, ``Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border.'' It is propaganda. As long as Hamas has leaders who manipulate them, who lie to the Palestinian people, who lie to the world, and who use human shields in their bloody terrorist campaign against Israel, there can never be hope for peace or prosperity. Israel has the right to defend itself, and Israel is defending itself. I only wish that our global media had some tiny passing qualm of guilt to at least pretend to report the news, to at least pretend to tell the truth, to not function as Hamas's propaganda agents, but instead to tell the truth when Hamas terrorists say, with their Nazi swastika kite bombs: We want the Israelis to know we want them to burn. These are the facts they need to report, even if it happens to disagree with their political agenda of undermining the State of Israel. Fortunately, regardless of the partisan bias, regardless of the propaganda that the New York Times and other global media outlets put out, America--the American people--stand and will continue to stand unshakably--unshakably--alongside our friends and allies, the people of Israel, and we have reason to celebrate. When I was in Jerusalem just a couple of days ago, I visited with person after person--Israeli and American--who were reduced to tears. Some were Holocaust survivors. The phrase I heard more often than anything else was this: ``I thought I would never live to see the day.'' Well, we did live to see the day. America's Embassy should have been in Jerusalem 70 years ago. It should have been there 60 years ago. It should have been there 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 1 year ago. But, fortunately, America's Embassy is where it belongs today--in Jerusalem, the once and eternal undivided capital of Israel. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel today, and the United States Government recognizes that, and just as Harry Truman did 70 years ago, is leading the rest of the world to follow suit. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to support the upcoming confirmation this week of my friend Jim Bridenstine to be Administrator of NASA. We are now in our second year without a Senate-confirmed Administrator of NASA. Not only has that been bad for the United States, but it is also bad for the commercial space industry, NASA, and all of us who prioritize restoring and strengthening America's leadership in space. NASA needs a strong leader, and it will have that strong leader in Jim Bridenstine. I serve as the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Space Subcommittee, and I am proud and deeply gratified that President Trump chose to nominate Representative Jim Bridenstine to lead NASA. I can think of very few people I know who are more inspirational than Jim. Unfortunately, throughout Representative Bridenstine's confirmation process, we have seen cynical politicians attempting to malign his character, despite the fact that he has spent his entire adult life in public service. Jim Bridenstine is a veteran and a war hero. He is a man of deep character and deep integrity. Having served our Nation in combat as a fighter pilot, he earned the respect of the men and women who served under his command. Representative Bridenstine's combat missions included airborne battlefield command and control and tactical air control flights in support of the liberation of Iraq, controlling over 180 kill box interdiction and close-air support missions, resulting in the destruction of countless tanks, armored vehicles, and time-sensitive fixed targets. Representative Bridenstine later transitioned to the F/A-18 Hornet while on Active Duty, serving at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, TOPGUN command, where he flew both the E-2 and F28. There, he received fitness reports from his commanding officers, which rated him as ``the number one Hawkeye pilot and weapons and tactic instructor'' and ``the most tactically skilled pilot in the E-2 community.'' That is a remarkable record, and it is one that has been followed by honorable and distinguished service in the U.S. Congress. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been blessed to meet with a number of astronauts. It is worth noting that quite a number of those astronauts at NASA have backgrounds very similar to that of Representative Bridenstine. He will be able to lead them as one who has served in missions similar to the ones they have served in and are serving now. I have no doubt he will be an effective leader of NASA and will work to ensure the safety of the men and women who step forward to save our country; that he will work to lead NASA in a way to ensure that America continues to lead in space, and, in particular, that NASA and the commercial space sector, working hand in hand, will move forward to implement the bipartisan commitment this Congress has made that man will go back to space and go to Mars and that, in particular, the first foot that sets on the soil of Mars will be an American astronaut landing to explore that next frontier. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics. If this vote were on the merits, Representative Bridenstine should be confirmed 100 to 0 on the merits. I urge my colleagues to come together so we can have a strong leader of NASA, an honorable war hero, and a leader who will lead space exploration going forward.

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, in the late 1980s, Congress debated and adopted amnesty legislation for 3 million people who were here illegally. It did so promising the American people that in exchange for amnesty, the Federal Government would finally, finally, finally secure the border. We all know what happened. That amnesty occurred, and the border never got secured. At the time, there were 3 million people living here illegally. Today, estimates are that there are in excess of 12 million people living here illegally. Five years ago, in 2013, this body again debated amnesty. The so- called Gang of 8 again failed to secure the border but once again made the same promise of amnesty for millions here illegally in exchange for an ephemeral, never-to-come promise to secure the border. The Senate ultimately passed the Gang of 8 bill. As it was being voted on, Senate Democrats bragged on television that they believed they had north of 70 votes--that now was the time, again, to pass amnesty. Yet the American people rose up and said: Amnesty is not what we want. It is inconsistent with the rule of law. We saw Senators at the last minute jumping ship. At the end of the day, it passed this body by 68 votes and then went nowhere in the House of Representatives. So again, today, we are here having the same debate. I feel like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog Day,'' waking up and reliving the same day over and over and over, and the result is the same. Listen, I don't know how these votes will occur this afternoon. It may be that nothing gets 60 votes. That is possible. But it may also be that the Senate embraces one of the various amnesty plans that is put on the table. If that is the case, it will be every bit as big a mistake as the Gang of 8 was a mistake and as the amnesty in the 1980s was a mistake. I must say that I find myself flabbergasted at where my own party is in this debate, because every proposal that has Republican support that has been submitted begins from a place markedly to the left of that of President Obama. President Obama, as we all know, issued DACA, which was otherwise known as Executive amnesty. Executive amnesty was illegal and unconstitutional. The President has no authority to refuse to enforce the law. Yet President Obama decreed that he would not enforce Federal immigration laws, and that is exactly what he did. At the time, virtually every Republican denounced Executive amnesty as unconstitutional, as lawless, as wrong. Yet today, far too many Senate Republicans are staking out a place well to the left of President Obama on DACA on numerous axes. No. 1, DACA itself covered 690,000 people. Yet what is the proposal being considered by this body? Under the mildest of the proposals, we are considering a path to citizenship for 1.8 million people. Why on Earth would we more than double--nearly triple--the DACA population? If there are 690,000 people who received illegal and unconstitutional Executive amnesty, then, it seems to me that, at the very most, the population we should consider is those 690,000. The argument is made that they have relied on this promise, even though the promise was illegal and even though it was unconstitutional. The people who relied on this promise are the 690,000, not the 1.1 million who never even applied. So I would ask why Republicans--and, indeed, why Democrats--are nearly tripling what President Obama did in DACA. But that is not the only regard. DACA never included citizenship. Nothing in President Obama's DACA allowed citizenship. Nothing in it allowed a path to citizenship. DACA was a work permit, nothing more than a work permit-- an illegal work permit, mind you--but it did not allow citizenship. Yet today far too many Republicans are eager to embrace the Democrats' demands that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 million people here illegally should be granted a path to citizenship. That is wrong. That is plain and simple wrong. It is unfair to the millions of working men and women. It is unfair to the steelworkers, the truckdrivers, and the mechanics. It is unfair to millions of American citizens, working men and women, who faced stagnant wages under President Obama. It is unfair to millions of legal immigrants whose wages are driven down by those here illegally. It is inconsistent with the promises made by virtually every Republican in this body. Every Republican who went out and campaigned against Executive amnesty said: We will not have amnesty. Well, now is the time to choose. If this body chooses to grant citizenship to 2, 3, 4 million people here illegally, those promises will have been directly broken. That is a mistake. It is wrong. Not only that, but the legislation this body is preparing to consider not only would grant citizenship, but it would make those here illegally eligible for Federal welfare--Federal welfare benefits. Not only do people come here illegally, but it drives up the cost. Every one of us has been asked by American citizens: Why are we spending vast sums of money providing welfare benefits? Why would we want to do that to those here illegally? We are a nation of immigrants. My father came as an immigrant in 1957 with nothing--$100 in his underwear and not speaking English--but he came legally. We should be embracing legal immigrants rather than excusing and condoning illegal immigration. I do not believe we should be granting citizenship to anyone here illegally, nor should we be providing Federal welfare benefits to anyone here illegally, nor should we be expanding the pool of DACA recipients beyond that in the Obama program. Yet Republicans seem eager to do so. It is possible that our Democratic friends will save us from this foolishness--that even though Republicans are proposing a profoundly foolhardy immigration proposal, the Democrats will decide they want even more. There is not enough amnesty that the Democrats could take. If they do that, that will save the day for now. But if not, if this body gets 60 votes for one of these amnesty proposals, then it is incumbent on the House to stop it, much like with the Gang of 8. In the Gang of 8, the Senate couldn't stop it. The Senate has always, unfortunately, been very liberal on immigration. It has been very willing to make promises to the voters and promptly come down here and vote very differently from those promises. But the House of Representatives--the People's House--is designed to be responsive to the people. So it is my hope that House conservatives, facing the people and listening to the people, will recognize that we had an election in 2014 in response to the Gang of 8. The American people said: We don't want the Gang of 8. They elected the largest House majority of Republicans in 70 years. They elected 9 new Republicans in the Senate and retired Harry Reid as majority leader. Yet, somehow, Republicans in this body didn't hear the voters in 2014. We had an election in 2016 that the media was ready to call for Hillary Clinton. Yet, front and center in the 2016 election, was the American people saying: We don't want amnesty. My call to our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, is listen to the people. There are many things we can and should be doing. We should be passing Kate's Law. I authored and introduced Kate's Law in this body. Kate's Law provides that for an aggravated felon who has been repeatedly entering this country illegally and who has been deported repeatedly, that that aggravated felon have a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Kate's Law is known for Kate Steinle, that beautiful woman in California murdered on a pier by an illegal alien deported over and over with multiple felony convictions. Had Kate's Law been on the books, I believe it is very likely that Kate Steinle would still be alive. That is the sort of commonsense legislation on which we ought to be coming together and passing. Yet there is the old adage: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This body made a grievous mistake in passing the Gang of 8 bill. Thankfully, the House saved us from our error. We may be on the verge of making the same grievous mistake. It is almost as if elections don't penetrate. We need to be listening to the voters. I do not know a single Republican--not one in this body, not one in the House of Representatives--who was elected on a promise: I will go to the left of Barack Obama on immigration. If one of us campaigned promising that, knock yourself out. Vote for this. But if you didn't say that Obama's Executive amnesty didn't go far enough, that we need to double or triple the pool, that we need to grant citizenship because Obama was too much of a conservative on immigration--if you didn't say that--then the only vote consistent with what we told the voters is to vote no today. We can come together and find commonsense solutions on immigration. We can secure the border. We can triple the Border Patrol. We can end catch and release. We can implement a strong E-verify. We can use strong tools and technology. We can continue to embrace and celebrate legal immigrants, and we can do all of that while respecting the rule of law. What I would urge my colleagues to do is very simple. Ask yourself what you told the voters before election, and let your conduct after election day match what you told the voters. As for the Democrats, the Democrats campaigned as the party of amnesty. They are at least being true to their promises. They promised amnesty. That is their priority. They are being true. But for Republicans, we promised something different. We promised to stand with the working men and women, the union members, the steelworkers, the men and women with calluses on their hands. I urge every one of us to listen to the working men and women, to respect the rule of law, and to vote against these misguided proposals. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, a few observations about the colloquy that has occurred. No. 1, we had two friends of ours from the Democratic side of the aisle who spoke energetically in support of this nomination, but I found it striking that our Democratic friends had nothing to say to the union members who are faced with the risk of losing their jobs. Senate Democrats often portray themselves as friends of organized labor, friends of union members. Yet it was striking that when they came to the floor, they had no answer to union members in Philadelphia being told they are at risk of being unemployed because of a broken regulatory system. Instead, it is a conservative Republican Texan who is fighting for the jobs of those union members. I would also note that my efforts in this are not alone. Indeed, in December, I brought 12 Senators--12 Members of this body--to the White House to meet with the President, working to find a solution to this problem. Those Senators included Senator Cornyn, Senator Cassidy, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, Senator Barrasso, Senator Lee, Senator Toomey, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Lankford. Those are Senators from a wide geographic array, all facing significant job losses, potentially, and all interested in a positive solution to this problem. In the remarks we just heard on the Senate floor, none of the Senators proposed any relief to the potentially hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers being driven out of work by a broken regulatory system--no relief whatsoever. Indeed, none of the Senators disputed the fact that the RFS worked and worked just fine when RINs were selling for a penny. This debate is not about the RFS--should we continue it or not. When I was a candidate for President, I campaigned on ending it. I didn't win. I lost that election. This is not a fight about ending the RFS. The current administration is committed to continuing the RFS. That is the prerogative of this administration. This is instead a search for a solution that would save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. The senior Senator from Iowa said: Gosh, it is not a free-market solution to cap the price of RINs. Well, if RINs were an actual commodity that existed in the real world, I would agree with that. I wouldn't support capping the price of corn or the price of gasoline or the price of widgets or anything else that people were making. But RINs are an artificial, made-up government fix. They don't exist. No one manufactures a RIN. It is a government ID number. And it worked initially when they were trading at 1 and 2 cents apiece. But when it skyrocketed, going all the way up to $1.40 each--it is now threatening thousands upon thousands of blue-collar jobs. The Senator from Iowa suggested that RINs are not the cause of the bankruptcy of the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery. Well, I would note that the explicit text of the bankruptcy filing is to the contrary. Indeed, this is a quote from their bankruptcy filing: ``The effect of the RFS Program on the Debtor's business is the primary driver behind the Debtor's decision to seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.'' It does not say ``is a factor'' or ``is a problem'' but ``is the primary driver.'' That is what they wrote in their bankruptcy papers. None of the Senators who spoke disputed that for that refinery, the price of RINs went from $10 million in 2012 to $300 million in 2017. That is unreasonable. That is broken. The junior Senator from Iowa talked about the need to pull back job- killing regulations. Well, there is a job-killing regulation that we need to pull back. This is a very important thing for those following this debate to understand: That $300 million--do you know how much of it goes to Iowa farmers? Zero. They are not getting that money. Instead, it is going to speculators and large--many foreign--integrated oil companies. It is an odd thing to see lobbyists for ethanol companies fighting for the profits of giant overseas oil companies. That doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, the position of the ethanol lobbyists has been: We are unwilling to speak. We are unwilling to talk. We are unwilling to meet with anyone on the refinery side. We are unwilling to defend our position. We will not attend the meeting. We have repeatedly extended that invitation to them, and they have said no. That is blatantly unreasonable. Do you know whom the ethanol lobbyists are serving the least? Corn farmers. Repeatedly in the course of this negotiation, I have sought to put on the table policy options that would be a win for corn farmers, that would result in more corn being sold, more Iowa corn being sold, more ethanol being sold. The ethanol lobbyists are so unreasonable, they don't want to win and they don't want to provide any relief for thousands of blue-collar workers being thrown out of work. That is not a reasonable solution. I hope Mr. Northey will be confirmed. Indeed, I hope he is confirmed soon. He could be confirmed as soon as next week. In November, I laid out a very clear path to Mr. Northey being confirmed. In December, I laid out a very clear path to Mr. Northey being confirmed. The people blocking Mr. Northey's confirmation are the ethanol lobbyists who have said: We are unwilling to have a win/win solution. The answer is, let thousands of people lose their jobs even though doing so doesn't benefit Iowa corn farmers at all. That doesn't make any sense. Here is a ray of sunshine, a ray of hope. I believe the administration is going to do the right thing. I believe the President wants to see a win/win solution--a solution that is good for Iowa corn farmers. I want to see Iowa corn farmers sell more corn, a solution that results in Mr. Northey being confirmed, and a solution that doesn't bankrupt refineries and cost a bunch of blue-collar union members their jobs. That is a win for everybody. I believe that is where the President and the administration want to go, and I think that is where we will end up. I am hopeful we will arrive on that solution, which is consistent with the responsibilities of all of us. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank my friend from Iowa for his continued efforts both on behalf of Mr. Northey and working to find a commonsense solution to the issue that has thus far delayed Northey's confirmation. The phrase ``my friend'' is used often in this body. Sometimes it is used in a hollow manner, but in this instance, Senator Grassley is my friend. He and I have worked together closely on a great many matters, especially on the Judiciary Committee, and I have every confidence that we will continue to work together closely for many years to come. On this issue, Mr. Northey could have been confirmed in November. He could have been confirmed in January. He could have been confirmed this month. But that has not happened yet. It is my hope that Mr. Northey will be confirmed. It is my hope that he will be confirmed swiftly and expeditiously, but the critical element for that to happen is for us to find a solution to a problem that is threatening tens of thousands of jobs across this country. That problem arises from what is known as the Renewable Fuel Standard. The Renewable Fuel Standard established through the EPA is a system called RINs. Now, most people don't know what a RIN is. A RIN is a renewable identification number. It was something made up by the EPA. It didn't used to exist. They created RINs, and they sell RINs to refineries. RINs are designed to be an enforcement mechanism for the Renewable Fuel Standard, but there is a problem. When they were first introduced, RINs sold for a penny or two pennies each. The EPA assured everyone they would continue to sell for 1 cent or 2 cents each, but since then, we have seen the market for RINs break. RINs have skyrocketed in price to as high as $1.40 each. What does that mean? What does it mean for this fiat, governmentally created, artificial license to be selling at $1.40 a piece, which they hit at their high point? Well, it means thousands upon thousands of blue-collar union jobs are at risk. This is not a hypothetical threat. Just last month, Philadelphia Energy Solutions, owner of the largest refinery on the east coast, announced that it was going into bankruptcy, and they pointed the finger squarely at the broken RIN system. In their bankruptcy filing, they explained that ``the effect of the RFS Program on the Debtors' business is the primary driver behind the Debtors' decision to seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.'' That is not a surprising statement given what has happened in the artificial and broken RINs market. In 2012, Philadelphia Energy Solutions paid roughly $10 million for the RINs for the licenses they needed to run their company. By 2017, the Wall Street Journal was estimating that they would pay $300 million--that is $10 million to $300 million. Mr. President, $300 million is more than double their total payroll. You have spent many years in business. Can you imagine running a business where you spend more than double your payroll to write a check--not to buy anything, not to pay anybody, not to buy any supplies, but simply to purchase a government license, so to speak? That is crushing, and it is destroying jobs. With respect to Philadelphia Energy Solutions, now in bankruptcy, we are talking about 1,100 jobs. These are blue-collar, working class jobs, the kind that are the backbone of our economy, the kind that keep refineries going. Ryan O'Callaghan, who heads the Steelworkers local that represents 650 refinery workers, said that the RFS is ``a lead weight around the company.'' He also said that a great many of the union members supported President Trump in the 2016 election because of his promise to reform harmful regulations. Indeed, the president of that union demonstrated great courage in supporting President Trump because he believed the President and the administration would stand for working- class voters, would stand for the working man, and would pull back regulations that are killing jobs. The American people will be rightfully angry if we don't fix this problem because it is not just one refinery. Nationwide, experts have estimated that anywhere from 75,000 to 150,000 American jobs are potentially at risk if U.S. independent refineries go out of business-- 75,000 to 150,000 jobs. My own State of Texas will be deeply affected if we don't take action immediately. Texas's oil and gas sector employs 315,000 people, 100,000 of whom are in refining and petrochemical production. We have 29 refineries that produce over 5.1 million barrels daily, and 22 of these 29 refineries are hurt directly by the artificially high RINs prices. That is why this past December, Texas Governor Greg Abbott wrote to the EPA asking for relief from this Federal mandate. He explained that ``current implementation of this dated federal mandate severely impacts Texas' otherwise strong economy and jeopardizes the employment of hundreds of thousands of Texans.'' Mr. President, let me underscore that. It ``jeopardizes the employment of hundreds of thousands of Texans.'' If you want to know why I am fighting so hard to reach a good solution, you need look no further than that statement. I am elected, like each of the Members of this body, to represent my constituents--in this case, 28 million Texans--and seeing hundreds of thousands of blue- collar workers driven out of business because of a broken regulatory system makes no sense. Well, perhaps one might think this is simply an instance of parochial differences, of the battles between one State and another or one industry and another. Well, that is not the case because, on substance, there is a win-win solution here. I want a win for blue-collar refinery workers, and I want a win for Iowa corn farmers. I believe there is a win for both. I believe there is a policy solution that will result in Iowa corn farmers selling more corn and also more blue-collar jobs. That should be a solution that makes everybody happy. However, there is a third player in this equation which consists of Wall Street speculators who are betting on this artificial, government- created market and driving up the prices. The important thing to realize is that when I talk about Philadelphia Energy Solutions paying $300 million, that $300 million did not go to Iowa farmers. It didn't go to ethanol producers. It went to speculators and large companies outside of Iowa. We can reach a solution that ends the speculating, ends the gamesmanship in this artificial government market, and saves jobs. With respect to Mr. Northey, I will say that I don't know Mr. Northey personally, but I have heard from a number of people who do. By all accounts, Mr. Northey has a good and strong reputation in the State of Iowa. He is a fourth-generation farmer. He has impressed many people with the job he has done as the secretary of agricultural in the State of Iowa. I made clear from the beginning that I would have been happy to have seen Mr. Northey confirmed in November, in December, in January, in February, and indeed I have laid out how to make that happen. On November 14, 2017, I wrote a letter to Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds laying out how Mr. Northey could be confirmed, which is namely to have the stakeholders sit down collaboratively together and solve this problem in a win-win solution that helps Iowa corn farmers and also doesn't bankrupt refineries and drive blue-collar workers out of business. Indeed, in December, I met with both of the Senators from Iowa, along with Senator Toomey, to discuss exactly how we could move forward with Mr. Northey's confirmation promptly, efficiently, and also solve this problem. At that time, it was suggested that we bring the stakeholders together, that we actually have the players in the ethanol industry actually talk with the refiners and find a solution that results in more corn being sold and refiners not going out of business. We left that meeting on December 21 with a plan to have that meeting of stakeholders. Well, I am sorry to tell you that 48 days have passed, and that meeting still hasn't taken place because unfortunately a handful of lobbyists representing the ethanol industry have taken the position that they are unwilling to meet, they are unwilling to speak, they are unwilling to discuss anything with anybody, and apparently, if thousands of people lose their jobs in refineries, that is not their problem. Quite frankly, that is not a reasonable position. That is not a reasonable or rational position. Mr. Northey would have been confirmed long ago had the lobbyists for the ethanol industry been willing to come to the table and reach a commonsense solution that would have resulted in more money for their industry, more ethanol, more corn. But their position is that they are not interested in a win, because their position has been that they are not willing to talk. Well, I think that is unfortunate, but it is also unacceptable. So indeed I continue to have productive conversations with the President, with the EPA, with the Department of Agriculture, with the administration about finding a win-win solution, a solution that is good for everyone. And if a handful of lobbyists refuse to come to the table, then they should not be surprised to see the solution proceed without them. We can find a good, positive solution that benefits the farmers of Iowa, that sells more corn. In 2015 and 2016, I spent a lot of time in the great State of Iowa. Indeed, I had the great privilege and blessing of completing what is affectionately known in that State as the Full Grassley. Now, what is the Full Grassley? There are 99 counties in that beautiful State, and every year, the senior Senator goes to all 99. Now, I can tell you that the Full Grassley is a Herculean accomplishment, rendered all the more remarkable by the fact that the senior Senator does it not once but every year. Well, on election day, I completed the Full Grassley, having visited every county in the State of Iowa. I visited with many wonderful people, including many wonderful corn farmers whom I want to see selling more and more corn. We can have a solution that is a win for those corn farmers but also doesn't bankrupt refineries and drive a bunch of blue-collar workers out of work. It is important to understand, by the way, that these high RINs prices don't benefit corn farmers at all. In fact, if you look at RINs prices, they are not remotely correlated to the price of corn; if anything, they are inversely correlated. What does that mean? It means that when RINs were selling for 1 cent and 2 cents each, corn was way up here, and when RINs skyrocketed to $1.40 each, the price of corn plummeted. So not only is this not benefiting Iowa corn farmers, you could argue that it may even be hurting them. The money that is bankrupting refineries and costing people their jobs is not going to the farmers. So my hope is that we reach a solution that lifts regulatory barriers at the EPA so that the Iowa corn farmers can sell more corn in the market in response to real demand, not a government mandate, but there are EPA barriers that stand in the way that cap the sales of ethanol. I see no reason to artificially cap it. If there is demand in the marketplace, they should be able to sell more and more and more corn, expand their market. But they are not benefiting from crushing regulatory costs that are driving people out of business. We can reach a solution to do both. With respect to Mr. Northey, if and when we see the players come together in a positive way to solve this problem, I will more than readily lift my objection, and I hope Mr. Northey is confirmed and confirmed quickly. I look forward to working with Mr. Northey in the Department of Agriculture, but first, we need to stop this regulatory failure that is threatening thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs. Therefore, looking to find a cooperative win-win solution for everyone, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Yes.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as the jet fumes swirl around the Halls of Congress and Members get ready to head to the airport to get home for the holidays, I rise to remind my colleagues that there are still hundreds of thousands of people in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico who are still hurting from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. They will be spending Christmas not in their homes but in a hotel or with family and friends or in temporary housing. All across these regions, there are houses, businesses, schools, churches, and community establishments that still need to be rebuilt. They are waiting, counting on our help. It is wrong. Indeed, it is maddening to those in the affected regions that the Senate is not taking up legislation today to give them what they need to continue to rebuild and recover. In my home State, there is no doubting that Texas's gulf coast communities suffered tremendous losses in Hurricane Harvey, but the hurricane also brought out the best in Texas. We saw Texans standing together and lifting up each other, first through rescue and response and now as we come together and rebuild our communities. The Nation witnessed our iconic moments, from the thousands of Texans who went out on boats to save their neighbors, to Houstonians of all ages lining up to volunteer at disaster recovery centers, embodying the Texas can-do spirit. Texas has worked diligently since August on cleanup and recovery efforts from Hurricane Harvey, but I am sorry to say that the U.S. Senate is now leaving town without delivering on its commitment to help Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico recover. Congress has already passed two disaster relief bills in the wake of these hurricanes. In addition, Congress passed a bipartisan disaster relief tax bill that I was proud to offer. But there is still much more that needs to be done. Just hours ago, our colleagues in the House passed a bill to further provide for emergency rebuilding efforts. This bill represents progress, but much more work needs to be done to make sure that it does enough, especially for Texas, which was promised by both this Congress and by the administration that Texas would be given everything we need to rebuild. Early estimates from the supplemental bill that passed the House are that Texas would be eligible for only a small percentage of the $81 billion in that legislation. That is unacceptable, and the Senate needs to fix it. Texas experienced the worst flood event in U.S. history. Hurricane Harvey was unlike any other storm we have seen before in Texas--the number of people impacted, the scope. It brought 250 miles of devastation to our Texas gulf coast as winds obliterated whole communities and rain flooded out parts of Texas that have never flooded before. Due to the level of damage the storm caused to homes, businesses, and infrastructure, Hurricane Harvey was the costliest disaster this year and may well prove the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. According to the Governor of Texas, the damage to our State from the hurricane is well over $120 billion and could prove to be closer to $180 billion. Any bill to provide disaster funding brought to this floor should recognize the unprecedented level of damage wreaked upon the State and should provide the level of assistance necessary to help Texas rebuild. I spoke this afternoon with Governor Greg Abbott, and he expressed serious concerns that the supplemental bill coming out of the House does not direct nearly enough resources to the State of Texas given the magnitude of the damage, the magnitude of the suffering. Disaster relief needs to focus where the suffering occurred and where the disaster occurred. I am hopeful that when this body returns in 2 weeks, we will work together in a bipartisan way to ensure that the promises made to the State of Texas are fulfilled and that the resources are there to help our State rebuild. The emergency response is over, but recovery and rebuilding efforts go on. As we keep working to keep our promises, I remain determined to keep fighting to ensure that Texas has the Federal resources to which the State is entitled under Federal law. The spirit of Texas is strong. Some weeks ago, I tweeted out a picture that I think captured some of that spirit. It was a picture of a man in his living room. The Sheetrock was torn down from all the walls--nothing but studs on the walls and no carpet. The flooring was taken up. There was no furniture. He had a lawn chair. He had an Igloo ice chest as a coffee table and a TV screen, and he was wearing a Houston Astros jersey and cheering as the Astros won the World Series. The tweet simply said: ``This is why it matters.'' That is the spirit of Texas. We need to remember that spirit, and we need to make sure the disaster relief responds to the real damage and real suffering that Hurricane Harvey visited upon the State of Texas. I look forward to working with my colleagues, hopefully from both sides of the aisle, to deliver on that commitment that Texans are owed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, tonight is a momentous evening, but it is also a sad evening. It is a momentous evening because the Senate is on the verge of passing historic tax cuts that are designed to bring back jobs and economic growth, to create millions of new jobs, to raise wages, and to cut the taxes on working families, but it is a sad day because it is a day of a demonstration of Democratic partisanship that is ill-befitting for the institution that is the U.S. Senate. For two centuries, tax reform has been a bipartisan endeavor. For two centuries, Democrats have been willing to work with Republicans on cutting taxes. In 1981 and in 1986, when Ronald Reagan enacted historic tax reforms and tax cuts, Democrats participated. Indeed, a Democrat, Tip O'Neill, was Speaker of the House. In the House, then a conservative Democrat, Bill Graham, carried the Ronald Reagan tax cuts. In the Senate, in 1986, one of the leaders was then a liberal Democrat, Bill Bradley, from New Jersey. Those Democrats, the so-called conservative Democrats, the Democrats interested in cutting taxes on working men and women have disappeared from this institution. When the House first passed tax cuts, zero Democrats voted for it-- zero--not a single Democrat in the entire body. When the Senate passed tax cuts, zero Democrats passed it. We can expect tonight not a single Democrat will break from party discipline. Why? Because they are so united in their rage at President Trump that they are willing to tell middle-class voters in their State: We don't care. Tonight every Democrat is going to vote against doubling the child tax credit. If you are a single mom at home and you have three kids, right now the child tax credit is $1,000. In just a couple of weeks, it is going to double to $2,000 per kid, which means $6,000 in tax credit in your pocket, and every single Democrat in this body is going to say to the single moms: Tough luck. We aren't cutting your taxes. What a sad statement. We have seen floor speech after floor speech after floor speech where Democrats claim this tax cut is going to raise your taxes. There used to be a standard for veracity in this body, but the beautiful thing is, when one political party makes representations to the American people that aren't just a little bit wrong but are wildly outright falsehoods, that tends to become public. The beautiful thing is in January the American people are going to see. So I am going to encourage the American people, in January, take a look at your pay stubs. The Democrats are claiming wildly, falsely that somehow your taxes are going to go up. Let me tell you, for virtually every American taxpayer in this country, your taxes will go down. In the Old Testament, when someone came forward and claimed he was a prophet, the test the Old Testament provided is, if you claimed you were a prophet, the people were to demand, make a short-term prediction, and let's see if it comes true. Well, the Democrats have made a short-term prediction. They told the American people: Your taxes are going to go up. In January, take a look at it. I guarantee you, for that single mom, when you look at the child tax credit, your taxes are going down. Every single income tax bracket is going down. Not only that, the standard deduction that you could take is doubling for a couple from $12,000 to $24,000. The first $24,000 you make, you pay zero, nothing, nada. Yet the Democrats, with their friends, their compliant friends in the media, have succeeded in scaring people to think a historic tax cut is somehow a tax increase. The beauty of it is, for every voter at home, determine if they are telling the truth or if they are misleading you because they are so filled with partisan animosity for the President that they can't vote for a tax cut. It is a sad state of affairs. Despite that, this bill is going to pass. Despite that, we are going to see job creators, we are going to see farmers, we are going to see ranchers, and we are going to see small businesses growing because the taxes on each of them are going to go down. We are going to see the taxes for working families go down. By the way, there is one subset of people whose taxes will go up under this, the rich people in high-tax Democratic States. The irony of all the high dudgeon from our Democratic friends pounding the table about this is a tax cut for the rich, the only people whose taxes are going up are the really rich. The middle class, their taxes are all going down. The working class, their taxes are going down. Every taxpayer, their taxes are going down, except rich people in Manhattan and San Francisco. Some of them, their taxes may go up. You see this Kabuki theater of Senators on the Democratic aisle pretending: We won't defend the rich people by claiming we are defending the working class. Well, the facts are the facts are the facts, and the facts are the taxes for the working class are going down. Those are the facts, and you will see that. I ask everyone watching at home, go look at your pay stub in January. If they weren't telling the truth, if you see in your pay stub you are paying less taxes, you ought to stop and ask: Gosh. Why did 48 Democrats in the Senate all tell me something that was false? Why did they say something that is not true in my family? It is even sadder than that. One of the most important elements of this tax reform bill that we are getting ready to pass is an expansion of educational opportunities for parents. It is an amendment I introduced and this body passed. It was divided 50-50, and the Vice President cast a tie-breaking vote. It expanded 529 college savings plans. Right now, 529 plans are immensely popular. Parents and grandparents can save for college education for their kids and grandkids in a tax- advantaged way. The amendment I introduced that this body adopted expands 529 college savings plans to also include K-12 education, to also include letting parents spend up to $10,000 per child per year from a 529 plan on public school, on private school, on parochial school, or on religious school, and as the amendment was passed, on homeschools. It puts the parents in charge; it puts the grandparents in charge, saving their own money--not taxpayer money--their own money. It is the most significant Federal school choice legislation that has ever passed the U.S. Congress. You know what we are in the middle of, right? The Democrats have raised an objection. They raised an objection to all of it. They were horrified that a benefit could go to 50 million schoolkids, that parents would be able to save for those schoolkids. They raised an objection under the Byrd rule, which is an obscure procedure rule that nobody at home knows what it is, but they objected to it. They said: You can't benefit 50 million schoolkids. Indeed, as we argued in front of the Senate Parliamentarian, one of the arguments the Democrats said is: This is really popular with the American people. We don't want to do something that is really popular with the American people. This is a big policy change. They love 529 plans, and now the parents of 50 million schoolkids--schoolkids in Texas and every other State--will be able to save for the education of their kids, and that has the Democrats horrified because every single Democrat voted against the parents in their State saving in a 529 system for K-12 education. Well, the Senate Parliamentarian issued a ruling earlier tonight rejecting most of the Democratic claims but, sadly, adopted one small portion of it. I think that claim was an error. I think the Parliamentarian's ruling is contrary to Federal rule. Let me tell you what the Democrats are objecting to because there was a moment for conscience to strike them. The Democrats' position--they have raised a point of order. The Senator from Vermont stood up and raised a point of order and said they want to exclude homeschoolers from 529 plans. There are 1.8 million kids who are homeschooled right now. To every kid who is being homeschooled right now, to every parent, to every mom who puts in the time--some dads but a lot of moms who put in the time day after day after day homeschooling their kids, what every Democrat is standing up to do right now is saying: We are going to discriminate against homeschoolers. We are going to cut you out. Why? Because the Democratic Party can't stand the audacity of a parent who would take it upon himself or herself to educate their child free of centralized control. So their point of order is to carve homeschoolers out of this. Now, one of the provisions they want to carve out is a provision that says homeschooled students can pay from a 529 college savings account for tutoring. Every Senate Democrat is getting ready to vote against tutors for children at home. Another provision they are objecting to that is going to be carved out says that parents can pay for 529 plans for books, for additional materials, can pay for a student in high school who is duly enrolled in community college, can pay for that out of their own money in a tax advantage plan. Do you know what the Democrats are saying? If you are a student signed up in a community college, we, the Democratic Party, object to you paying for that out of the tax advantage plan. Let me tell you what is most striking, a provision the Democrats are arguing to strike provides that parents with a child with disabilities can pay for educational therapy from a 529 plan that is their own savings that they put together, and the Democrats are saying to the parents with kids with disabilities, no, you can't. Let me ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, are you prepared to look into the eyes of a kid with disability and explain why you said you are cut out? Every other child in America has the ability to have their tuition paid for from these 529 plans, but children with disabilities being homeschooled, the Democrats--and not one, not two, every single Democrat--stand united. Why? Because they can't stand the President. They are angry at the President. That is fine. If they are angry at the President, stand up and yell at the President, but don't take it out on kids who are homeschooled. Don't take it out on kids with disabilities. The Democrats have an opportunity to demonstrate they are not going to punish children with disabilities because of their partisan anger. We have right now a motion to waive this mean-spirited, vindictive point of order that discriminates against homeschoolers and carves out kids with disabilities. I would ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle--there are going to be issues we disagree on, but the vote to allow parents of children with disabilities to spend their own funds in a tax-advantaged fund to provide for educational therapy for those kids with disabilities--that ought to be 100 to nothing. All of us should agree on that. We might disagree on other things, fine. The death tax, or as Democrats like to call it, the estate tax--we can disagree on that. But educating kids with disabilities--you are really standing up raising that objection? I would ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle: Don't do that. Don't discriminate against the homeschoolers. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this week is a great week for the State of Texas and for the Federal judiciary because this week we will be confirming two exemplary judges from the State of Texas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett and former Texas Solicitor General Jim Ho. These will be the 11th and 12th court of appeals nominees who we will have confirmed this year--a modern-day record. Indeed, I looked up just the other day the number of assigned slots on the Federal courts of appeals. It is 179. This means the 12 that have been nominated and confirmed this year represent roughly 7 percent of the appellate bench. That is a powerful accomplishment for the first year of this Presidency, a powerful accomplishment for this Republican majority in the Senate, and a powerful legacy that will extend decades into the future, protecting our constitutional rights, protecting the Bill of Rights, protecting the First Amendment, free speech, religious liberty, protecting the Second Amendment, and protecting all the fundamental liberties we enjoy as Americans. With respect to Don Willett and Jim Ho, I have known both of them for decades. Both are close friends. Both are brilliant lawyers. Both have spent decades earning a reputation as principled constitutionalists who will remain faithful to the law and will not impose their own policy preferences from the bench. Beyond that, both Don and Jim are testaments to the American dream. They have both taken different paths to the Fifth Circuit, but both of their stories encapsulate what is so incredible about this great Nation. Justice Willett was born Donny Ray Willett--his birth certificate doesn't say Donald; it says Donny Ray--in July of 1966, to an unwed teenage mother. He was a sickly and frail newborn who was not even expected to survive until Christmas. But he was nursed back to health and then adopted by an incredible couple who were unable to have their own children. Justice Willett grew up in a double-wide trailer in a small town of just 32 people, surrounded by cotton and cattle. His town had a cotton gin and a Catholic church. That is about it. Justice Willett suffered heartbreak early in life. His father passed away at age 40, just 2 weeks after Justice Willett turned 6 years old. He was raised by his widowed mother, who waited tables at the local truck stop. She would leave the trailer for her 6 a.m. shift before Justice Willett even woke up in the morning. He would wake himself up, get fed, dressed, and then catch the bus to a neighboring town to go to school. Justice Willett was the first person in his family to even finish high school, let alone go to college and then to law school. He has four degrees. He got his bachelor's from Baylor with a triple major in economics, finance, and public administration. He then received a master's degree in political science, a law degree, and an LLM degree from Duke. After law school, he clerked on the Fifth Circuit--the court on which he will soon be serving--for Judge Jerre Williams. Then, after 2\1/2\ years at a large law firm, he decided to dedicate his career to public service. He worked for Gov. George W. Bush in Texas and then for President Bush in DC. He and I worked closely together in that regard. After his time in DC, he happily returned to the great State of Texas to serve as the deputy attorney general for legal counsel. Don served alongside me, working under Greg Abbott, then the attorney general. We had offices just down the hall from each other. In 2005, he was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to serve as an associate justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and he was reelected by the people of Texas to that court in 2006 and again in 2012. I can't tell you how proud I am to see Justice Willett confirmed as a judge on the Fifth Circuit and to see his lifetime of service continue in this new arena. Jim Ho took a different path to the Fifth Circuit, but his story is just as powerful as an example of the American dream. Jim was born in Taipei, Taiwan. He immigrated to the United States with his family when he was just 1 year old. For the first few years of his life, his family lived with relatives in Queens, NY. Jim learned English watching Sesame Street. His family then moved to Southern California, where he attended high school and then went on to college at Stanford University. In 1996, Jim enrolled at the University of Chicago Law School, where he graduated with high honors in 1999. He then moved to Texas for the first time in his life, accepting a clerkship in Houston with Judge Jerry Smith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit--again, the same court on which he is preparing to serve. It was during the end of his clerkship in Houston that he started dating his law school classmate, now his wife Allyson, a Houston native and another dear friend of mine. In 2000, Jim moved to Washington, DC, to join the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. In 2001, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice as a Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, working under now-U.S. Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. Later that year, he joined the Department's Office of Legal Counsel. After 2 years at OLC, he came here to the Senate, where he served as the first chief counsel of my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, John Cornyn. After 2 years as Senator Cornyn's chief counsel, Jim went to clerk at the Supreme Court for Justice Clarence Thomas. At the end of the clerkship, Jim and Allyson finally fulfilled their dream of going back to Texas, where Jim rejoined the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in Dallas. Then, in 2008, my tenure as solicitor general of Texas was coming to a close. Attorney General Abbott had told me that if I were going to leave, I would have to find my successor. I picked up the phone and called my longtime friend, Jim Ho. I talked to Jim about coming to succeed me as solicitor general. Jim agreed to take on the job and did a remarkable job as the chief appellate lawyer for the State of Texas, representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court and all the State and Federal appellate courts. Jim served as solicitor general from April 2008 until December 2010, when he returned to Dallas and once again rejoined Gibson Dunn as a partner. A few years later, he became cochair of the firm's appellate and constitutional law practice group. Jim has done many extraordinary things, but nothing more so than marrying his wife Allyson, who is, like Jim, a Supreme Court advocate and one of the most talented constitutional lawyers in the country. Allyson is my former law partner. When I left the job of solicitor general and went to the Morgan Lewis law firm, I promptly recruited Allyson to come lead the Supreme Court practice with me. I am proud to say that over the past 5 years, Jim's wife Allyson has argued more business cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than any lawyer in Texas. Jim has become a pillar of the legal community in Texas, and the outpouring of support he has received demonstrates that. To take just one example, I have a letter from Ron Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas and a former member of President Obama's Cabinet and, incidentally, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate who Senator Cornyn defeated in 2002. By any measure, he is a strong and prominent Democrat in the State of Texas. Mr. Kirk writes: The last time Texans got to fill a seat on the Fifth Circuit, it was Judge Gregg Costa, who this body confirmed by a well-deserved unanimous vote. As a lifelong Democrat and devoted member of the Obama cabinet, I ask you to give Jim Ho the same unanimous consent. I agree, and I hope our Democratic friends in this body will set aside the partisan rancor that has so characterized this year and will listen to the words of one of their own, a member of Obama's Cabinet, and a prominent Democrat from Texas, urging that Jim Ho be confirmed unanimously. Sadly, Senate Democrats insisted on and provided a party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee. It is my hope that this full body will demonstrate more wisdom and less partisan animosity than the Judiciary Committee Democrats demonstrated. Both Jim and Don, I am convinced, will make excellent judges on the Fifth Circuit. They are brilliant. They are principled. They are humble men of deep character. They love their families. They are wonderful fathers. I am confident that not only will they faithfully follow the law in the court of appeals, but I predict Jim Ho and Don Willett will become judicial superstars. They will become jurists to which other Federal judges across the country look. Their opinions will be cited heavily. They will be followed in other courts of appeals. Their careful and meticulous analysis and their fidelity to the law will be held up as exemplars for judges across the country to follow. That is a great accomplishment for the Federal judiciary, a great accomplishment for the Senate, and a great week for the State of Texas. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, tonight I ask your support for this commonsense amendment, which will expand the already immensely popular 529 college savings plan so that parents can also save for K-12 elementary and secondary school tuition, including educational expenses for homeschool students. This change will have real and significant effects. Your vote will expand options for parents and children spending their own money and will prioritize the education of the next generation of Americans. By expanding 529s, which Americans already value greatly, we will help ensure that each child can receive an education that meets his or her individualized needs, and this reasonable expansion will enable hard- working parents to better save for the educational future of their kids. This amendment was in the House bill, and it is fully paid for, and I urge your support.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 463, Mark T. Esper, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Army, due to having to chair a Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial nominations for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky, and the District of Kansas. Had I been present, I would have voted yea. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today at a time of extraordinary opportunity. The American people have entrusted us with something that, historically, is quite rare: a Republican President, Republican control of every executive agency, and Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. Now it is incumbent on us to stand up and lead, to deliver on the promises we made to do what we told the American people we would do. We have before us right now an opportunity for historic tax cuts. Just last week, this body voted out a budget resolution that is the vehicle for adopting tax cuts. I urge every Member of this body to come together in support of a strong, bold tax plan that cuts taxes on every working man and women and that brings back jobs and economic growth. Growth is really fundamental to every other challenge we have in this country. If you look historically, since World War II, our economy has grown on average about 3.3 percent a year. Yet, from 2008 to today, we have grown only 1.2 percent a year--about a third of the historic rate of growth. If we don't turn that around, none of our other problems are solvable. If you care about the national debt, if you care about the deficit, if you care about rebuilding and strengthening our military, if you care about strengthening and improving Social Security and Medicare so that they are there for the next generations, we have to have growth. With economic growth, every one of those is possible. Without growth--if we stay mired in the stagnant Obama 1- and 2-percent GDP growth, none of those problems are solvable. Growth is foundational. I would like to lay out three principles and then seven key elements that I think should guide this body in tax reform. No. 1 is growth. When we are adopting tax cuts, we should focus directly on jobs and economic growth and focus on the reforms that produce jobs, that expand economic growth, that grow our economy, that create more opportunity, and that raise wages. Working men and women in this country are hurting. We need wages going up. We need more jobs. We need young people coming out of school with two, three, four, or five job opportunities. That is what tax cuts are all about. No. 1, we start with growth. I will point out that we can do this. From 2008 to 2012, the economy grew 0.9 percent a year--less than 1 percent a year on average. If you look back in history to the previous 4-year period when growth averaged less than 1 percent a year, it was 1978 to 1982. It was coming out of the Jimmy Carter administration. It was the same failed economic policies--high taxes, high regulation, high spending, and high debt. In 1981 Ronald Reagan came into the White House. The Reagan Presidency focused front and center on tax cuts, with major tax cuts in 1981, and then following it up in 1986 with major tax reform. And what happened? When Reagan came in 1981 with across-the-board tax cuts and tax cuts for everybody, Democrats screamed, the media screamed, and yet the economy took off. The fourth year of the Reagan Presidency, GDP growth wasn't 3 percent. It wasn't 4 percent. It wasn't 5 percent. It wasn't even 6 percent. It was 7.2 percent in 1984--7.2 percent, those are numbers you hear in the developing world. Those are numbers you hear in China and India. All of our learned economists who are so world weary and all of our media reporters who are so world weary tell us: No, no, no, that kind of growth is not possible in America anymore. Accept the new normal of 1 and 2 percent of stagnancy, of young people buried in student loans, of people hurting. Accept that as the new normal. That is nonsense. If we want to see Reagan-style growth, we need a Reagan-style tax cut--an unapologetic, unabashed tax cut that focuses on jobs. The second big principle is simplicity. There is an old rule, KISS, or ``keep it simple, stupid,'' which is particularly powerful when it comes to tax reform. Bold simplicity has enormous power and, in particular, allowing every American to fill out their taxes on a postcard. I believe that should be an integral element of what we pass. It is what I have been pressing for many years, and what I would continue to urge my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House to do, which is to simplify the Tax Code so that we don't spend millions and millions of hours and paperwork wasted on compliance. Make it a postcard. Make it simple. Then the third objective is fairness. We want a tax system that is fair, that isn't arbitrary, that isn't Washington picking winners and losers and deciding: OK, this industry we like; so you can do OK. This industry we don't like; so you are going to hurt. We are going to pick between them. We need to cut everybody's taxes. Last week, I debated Bernie Sanders on CNN on tax reform. Bernie, to his credit, was very candid. He said he wanted to raise your taxes. If you are a taxpayer, your taxes are going up under Bernie and the Democrats' vision. My vision is every bit as simple on the other side. If you are a taxpayer, I want to cut your taxes. That is what we need to do--to cut taxes fairly, across the board for every American, to reduce the burden from Washington, and to create jobs and economic opportunity. I would note that, in that debate with Bernie, there was one exchange that I thought was particularly notable. Bernie, as you know, when he ran in Vermont did not run as a Democrat. Rather, he ran telling the voters he was a socialist. I asked a simple question: What is the difference between a socialist and a Democrat on taxes? He sat there for several seconds in silence and said: I don't know the answer to that. My response was: Neither do I. One side of this Chamber wants to raise your taxes if you are a taxpayer. The other side of this Chamber wants to cut your taxes if you are a taxpayer. That is a simple choice for the American people. What are the elements that should reflect those principles? There are seven critical elements: No. 1, I believe we should create a simple, low, flat rate. Currently, there are seven individual rates with the top rate at nearly 40 percent. Ideally, what I believe we should have is one simple, low, flat tax. When I was campaigning for President, I campaigned on a simple, flat tax of 10 percent for every individual and every family in this country, 16 percent as a business flat tax, and to abolish every other Federal tax, to abolish the corporate income tax, to abolish the death tax, to abolish the alternative minimum tax, and to abolish the payroll tax. Everyone pays a simple, flat 10 percent for individuals and 16 percent for businesses. Simplicity has power. It may be the case that we don't have the votes to go to a simple, flat tax today. If that is where we are, if we don't have the votes to do it today, then the closer we get to that the better. If we can't get to a simple, flat tax, then going from seven brackets to three is an improvement, and going from three to two is even better, and going from two to one would be even better than that. We need to press consistently for a low, simple, flat rate that is fair for everyone. The second element, which we talked about just a minute ago, is filing your taxes on a postcard. Let me tell you the most wonderful aspect of that simplicity. It is not the billions of hours, it is not the billions of dollars that are saved. The best aspects of filing your taxes on a postcard are actually the physical dimensions of the postcard. It means that Congress can't add a bunch of new things. Even if we tried to put it in four-point font, eventually you will run out of space on the postcard. The reason a postcard is so important is it imposes a discipline on the Federal Government that it can't carve out a special loophole for every favored or disfavored group because it is simple and flat and fair for everybody. No. 3, allow immediate expensing. What does expensing mean? It means that if a business makes a capital expenditure, right now, they physically have to amortize it over a number of years. Instead, what we should do is allow full and immediate expensing. If a farmer in the Presiding Officer's home State of Iowa buys a new tractor, that farmer should be able to expense it immediately, that year. If a steel factory buys new equipment and hires new workers to operate that equipment, that steel factory should be able to expense that new equipment immediately. If a diner buys new kitchen equipment and hires new cooks and waiters and waitresses, the owner of that small business should be able to expense that capital expenditure. And why is that? The reason is the first principle I started with--growth. If you care about jobs and economic growth, expensing is a powerful engine for jobs and economic growth. It creates millions of new jobs because that capital has to be spent in the United States. It has to be spent here. That tractor is in the United States; that steel equipment is in the United States; that diner with the cooking equipment is in the United States, which means those jobs are in the United States. I would note, by the way, the people who particularly benefit from immediate expensing are the working men and women of this country--the men and women with callouses on their hands, the men and women, frankly, who gave Donald Trump the victory in November of 2016 or the union workers whom, sadly, the Democratic Party has abandoned. There was a time when the Democratic Party styled themselves as the party of the working man and woman. That time has been long since forgotten. The Democratic Party now listens to California environmentalist billionaires and ignores the plight of steelworkers, oilfield workers, farmers, ranchers, taxicab drivers, truckdrivers, waiters, and waitresses--the men and women who are working hard for their families. That is who the Republican Party should be fighting for--the working men and women of this country. Immediate expensing impacts working men and women, particularly in heavy manufacturing. The fourth element is a lower corporate rate. We are seeing, and we have seen over the last 8 years, companies leaving America and moving their headquarters, moving their legal domicile to other countries. Why is that? Because the United States has the highest corporate tax rate of any developed country in the world. We have created a tax environment that tells American businesses: If you simply get the heck out of Dodge, if you simply move somewhere other than America, immediately your profitability will jump because our corporate tax rate is higher and, in some instances, more than twice as high as our competitors. Look at Ireland. Ireland used to have high corporate taxes. They cut their corporate tax rate. Then they cut it again, and they are seeing businesses flood into Ireland because of the low corporate tax rate, and they bring with them jobs. Our focus should be jobs. If we cut the corporate rate so that it is low--so that it is at least as low as our competitors and ideally even lower--we will create an environment where more businesses want to do business in America where there are more jobs. I am reminded of Hillary Clinton, who said during the Presidential campaign season: Don't let anybody tell you that corporations or businesses create jobs. Even in the world of politics, that was a particularly asinine statement. The last time I checked, you get a job from going to work for a business--unless you start your own business. You either start your own business or you go to work for another business. That is what gives you jobs. We need to create that environment. In recent years, we have talked about corporate inversions, companies fleeing America. Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have all these ideas to punish the companies that flee America. Their approach is: We are going to tax you so high that you can't do business in this country, and then, when you try to survive, we are going to punish you on top of that with fines and penalties. It is actually reminiscent of their approach to ObamaCare, where they fine people who can't afford insurance after driving premiums through the roof. It is a much better idea to cut our corporate tax rate. Let's create a tax and regulatory environment in America so that businesses want to be here and create jobs. It is my hope that 3, 5, 10 years from now, other countries--European countries and Asian countries--are complaining about corporate inversions because their companies are fleeing their countries and coming to American, because there is no place on Earth better to do business than America, because we will have honored our commitment on tax reform and cut taxes and created an environment where businesses can thrive. No. 5, encourage repatriation. Right now, Federal tax law subjects American businesses to punitive double taxation at the highest rates in the developed world if they bring capital back here from overseas. U.S. companies have roughly $2.7 trillion in capital overseas, and our tax system inextricably incentivizes them to keep the money overseas, which means--what do they do with the money overseas? It means they build factories in China, in Mexico, in India, and countries overseas that aren't America, and then they hire people overseas. Why? Because if they bring the capital back here and hire Americans, our tax punishes them. That doesn't make any sense. I want to see that $2.7 trillion come back to America. I want to see that money back in this country. I want to see new factories, I want to see new stores, I want to see new businesses, and I want to see new jobs. We need to encourage repatriation, not put a punitive tax on the money coming back. Do you want to talk about patriotism? There is a reason it is called repatriation. It is patriotic to use that money to hire Americans. Our Democratic friends just want to yell and scream and insult them. That is not the right answer. People are going to respond to rational incentives. If you punish companies for bringing money back to America, they are going to respond rationally by not doing that. Let's change our tax system so we don't punish them for bringing jobs back to America. The sixth element, end the death tax. The death tax is one of the most unfair aspects of the Federal tax system. The death tax also happens to be the very favorite tax our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle love to demagogue. I have heard over past weeks attack after attack after attack on the death tax--that it is about the superrich. Here is a secret that the Democrats will never tell you. The superrich don't pay the death tax. By and large, they manage to avoid the tax with remarkable success rates. They hire armies of accountants and lawyers. Do you think George Soros will pay the death tax? Hold your breath, and let me know how that works out. It doesn't impact the superrich. The death tax actually generates very little revenue for the Federal Government. Who gets hit by the death tax? It is the farmers, it is the ranchers, and it is the small business owners. In the debate last week with Bernie Sanders, Bernie said that this doesn't affect farmers at all. The Presiding Officer and I have both spoken with an awful lot of farmers in Iowa and in Texas. I have heard farmer after farmer after farmer lament the death tax because of what happens when the patriarch, when the farmer, passes away and passes the farm on to the next generation. Over and over again, the next generation is forced to sell the farm just to pay Uncle Sam. They have already paid taxes once; they pay taxes when they earn their money. The death tax says that for having the temerity to die, we are going to tax you again at a punitive rate. Death should not be a taxable event. That is not fair. It shouldn't be the case that when you die, the two people you get to see are the undertaker and the taxman. We see farms that are sold, that are broken up; we see ranches that are sold, that are broken up; we see small businesses that are sold, that are broken up because the next generation that wants to run the small business, wants to keep the jobs, suddenly has a massive Federal tax bill. They don't have the fancy lawyers and accountants who, like the superrich, help them avoid the tax. So they get hit with the full force of the death tax. If you care about jobs and economic growth, why do you want a small business owner to be forced to sell the factory just to pay the tax bill? This means the employees all get laid off; they lose their jobs. It is much better to have those small businesses growing, to have those farmers prospering, and to have those ranchers prospering. The final element is that we need to end the alternative minimum tax. The AMT is a totally second set of taxation. Every year, it is growing the number of people who are hit by it, and it just adds complexity to the code. We should focus on growth, simplicity, and fairness. If we do that, if we focus on bringing back jobs, we have the ability to have a tremendous impact on our country. Finally, I want to make a plea to the Members of our conference, to the Republicans. We may get some Democrats to support us on tax reform. It is possible. We may get one or two. Sadly, we are in a different world than we used to be. In 1981 and 1986, Democrats actually used to be willing to work with Republicans on taxes. Tip O'Neill, a Democrat, was Speaker of the House when Reagan passed massive tax cuts. Bill Bradley in this body, a liberal New Jersey Democrat, helped lead the effort for tax reform. There are no Tip O'Neills or Bill Bradleys left. There is not a single Democrat leading the fight for tax reform--not a one. You may get one or two Democrats at the end of the day who cast a vote after everything is done because they are afraid of the electoral consequences in November. But I will make a prediction right now that if we don't have 50 votes on this side of the aisle, not a single Democrat will provide the 50th vote. They might be the 52nd or 53rd vote, but we ain't getting vote No. 50 from that side of the aisle, which means that for tax reform to happen, our conference has to get our act together. We have 52 Republicans, and we have to get 50 on the same page. Listen, we are at a time when we are seeing personality battles, and we are seeing nastiness. This is a strange time in politics. Any three Republicans can torpedo tax reform. I am making a plea to all 52: Don't be selfish and petulant. Don't put personal animosities above the good of the country. We were elected by the voters to do a job. Let's do the job. Let's honor the promises we made. Let's cut taxes, bring back jobs, bring back economic growth, and demonstrate to the voters there is a reason they elected Republican majorities. If we don't, if we can't get our act together, then I fear the consequences will be catastrophic, both as a policy matter and a political matter. I urge my colleagues: Let's do what we said we would do. Let's cut taxes. Let's bring back jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffrey Buck, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the year.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining the Fintech Landscape.'' committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Care: Issues Impacting Cost and Coverage.'' committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' committee on health, education, labor, and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Stabilizing Premiums and Helping Individuals in the Individual Insurance Market for 2018: State Flexibility'' on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. committee on homeland security and governmental affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 10:15 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Daniel J. Kaniewski to be Deputy Administrator for Protection and National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Jonathan H. Pittman to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia. committee on intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, from 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a Closed Member Roundtable. subcommittee on energy oversight The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold Subcommittee Hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Oversight of Fisheries Management Successes and Challenges.'' committee on energy and natural resources subcommittee on energy The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 3 p.m., in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.