Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the Gaza pier is a perfect example of the Biden administration's foreign policy incoherence. This was a nearly half-billion-dollar stunt trying to buy a few votes in Michigan. It has been an unconscionable waste of American taxpayer dollars, and, simultaneously, it has undermined America's geopolitical credibility with our allies. The pier is unnecessary. We can debate whether sufficient aid is getting to the Gaza Strip, but I believe that our Israeli allies have taken unprecedented steps to ensure that indeed there is. I understand that many Democrats disagree. What is undeniable, however, is that whatever aid is coming in, it has not, will not, and, indeed, could not have come through this God- forsaken pier. The operation was simply too insignificant and too convoluted. Moreover, we know that Hamas diverts aid delivered through this pier. The pier has also been reportedly attacked by Palestinian terrorists, and three U.S. servicemembers have been injured because of pier operations. Further, the pier has cost American taxpayers a minimum of $320 million to construct. And that was an estimate from April, so it is surely higher now. Meanwhile, we have required our Israeli allies to provide a ``security bubble'' around the pier. We are pressuring them to protect this operation, which is bringing supplies hijacked by Hamas. Joe Biden is asking Israel to protect the Gaza pier from Hamas while denying Israel the weapons to counter Hamas. And as we just saw, Senate Democrats are endorsing that policy. I find it difficult to think of a more ridiculous policy. Let's be clear. American policy should be unequivocal: We need to ensure that Israel has the military and diplomatic support to utterly eradicate Hamas. That is good for Israel, and it is good for America. Unfortunately, we have seen a recurring theme from the Biden administration and from Senate Democrats: Undermine Israel at every step of the way and aid terrorists at every step of the way. In fact, this administration has been the greatest friend to Hamas and Hezbollah and the greatest ally to Ayatollah Khamenei on the entire planet. Under the Biden Presidency, over $100 billion has flowed to Iran, and $6 billion of it was in ransom for five Americans--a policy which I warned at the time would lead to more Americans being taken hostage. Tragically, on October 7, we saw that come to pass. Where we are now is the Biden administration is sending money to Gaza, and they are combining it with blocking weapons to Israel. The policy is utterly backward. If you were to ask anyone on the street ``What should we do on foreign policy?'' they would say that we should support our friends and stand up to our enemies. Unfortunately, Joe Biden and the Democrats--their policy--has blocked weapons to our friends, blocked weapons to Israel, and sent billions of dollars to our enemies who are actively trying to kill Israelis and actively trying to kill Americans. It is Alice in Wonderland through the looking glass. What the Senate should be doing is voting on the legislation the House has already passed to provide the weapons Israel needs now. Just a minute ago, I tried to pass that here on the floor of the Senate, and you saw Senate Democrats object to that. Why is it that we are not voting right now on providing the weapons to Israel that Joe Biden has blocked? Because Senate Democrats do not want to vote on it. The only reason it didn't pass a minute ago is that a Senate Democrat objected and did so on behalf of all of the Democrats, and we know that it is all of the Democrats because Chuck Schumer is the majority leader of this body. Senator Schumer could schedule the House bill for a vote anytime he wants, and he said he will not allow it to come to a vote. So understand, if you support Israel, the reason the Biden administration is able to block weapons from going to Israel is because every Senate Democrat is standing in solidarity with this White House in blocking weapons from going to Israel in a time of war. The reason you heard the words ``I object'' is some Senate Democrats don't want to go on the record for that. They don't want to actually cast the vote. The Senator who objected is from the State of Vermont. Vermont is a bright-blue State--a State that they comfortably believe is safe to make an objection. Senators who are on the ballot in red or purple States are not eager to go on record on this question. Procedurally, I do not have the ability to force a vote on passing the already passed House bill that would provide immediate weapons to Israel. There is not a procedural vehicle to do that, but there is a procedural vehicle to vote on the mirror image of that policy. If we can't vote in saying America should provide weapons to our friend the State of Israel, what we can vote on is if we should stop giving money to our enemies--to Hamas. The Gaza pier is flowing money to Gaza that is benefiting Hamas. Under the War Powers Act, I have the ability procedurally to force a vote, which we are about to have, on whether to cut off that money. Everyone at home, I want you to understand this is a vote, yes, on the Gaza pier and, yes, on cutting off money to Hamas, but it is also a vote on the other half of the policy: Should we provide weapons to Israel? I would have more than happily withdrawn this war powers resolution if--if--if the Democrat majority would have allowed a vote on the legislation that has already passed the House providing immediate weapons to Israel, but Democrat leadership doesn't want that vote. So I am going to force the only vote we can get. Understand, when you see Democrat after Democrat after Democrat walk down to the well of the Senate and vote--I am going to make a prediction--they are going to vote quietly. You may see a couple--a couple--who have been among the loudest opponents of Israel. A couple may vote loudly, but most Democrats are going to walk in very quietly and go to the clerk and go ``no'' or maybe point down quietly, but it is not going to be a vote they are proud of. It is going to be a vote that they hope their constituents don't know about, that they hope the men and women they represent don't hear about, and it is going to be a vote, sadly, that simply reflects party loyalty in that the Biden White House has cracked the whip and has said: We support our enemies; we oppose our friends. Now fall in line and vote accordingly. I am hoping that Senate Democrats will rediscover that the Senate is an independent body; that the Senate doesn't work for the White House even if your own party is in charge; that the Senate was designed to provide checks and balances on the President, especially concerning foreign policy; that the Senate was given by the Framers of the Constitution unique responsibilities concerning foreign policy: the responsibility to declare war, the responsibility to ratify treaties, the responsibility to confirm Ambassadors, to confirm the Secretary of State, to confirm military officers. The Framers designed the Senate to check an Executive, whether from your own party or the opposing party. There is a long history of Senate Democrats who were willing to stand up to Democrat Presidents. You know, there was a Senate Democrat named Scoop Jackson. Scoop Jackson actually had the courage to stand up, even if it was a Democrat President, and fight for American national security. I wish we had even one Scoop Jackson Democrat left in the Senate, even one Democrat who would stand up and say: Look, I am with the Biden White House most of the time, but on cutting off weapons to Israel, on funding Gaza, on sending money to Iran and Hamas, enough is enough. I can't do that. It is within the prerogative of every Senator to do just that, and I would note it is possible. You know, we just had a Senate Judiciary markup where, going into the markup, everyone assumed that a judicial nominee from New York was going to be voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee. Now, this was a particularly radical nominee. This was a nominee who as a magistrate judge had ordered a 6-foot-2-inch biological man who was a serial--repeat--rapist to be housed in a women's prison, putting every woman in that prison at risk of sexual assault or rape. It was an extreme and radical nominee. I and others led the opposition to it. I will tell you, we just had the markup. We walked into the markup, and everyone assumed, as has happened for 3\1/2\ years, that the Democrats would vote like the politburo--``da''--and vote for whatever extreme nominee was in front of us. Something shocking happened. When the vote happened, one of the Democrat Senators, the Democrat Senator from Georgia, voted no, and the nominee was defeated. I am going to point to that as an example to the Democrats in this Chamber. I understand that the White House expects you to fall in line, that President Biden is coming to join you for lunch today, but every Senator has the prerogative to make their own choice: Do you agree with undermining Israel? Do you agree with flowing money to Gaza and Hamas and Iran and terrorists who want to kill us? If you don't, the people of your State have elected you and given you the prerogative and given you the voice to stand up and say no to this policy that is endangering America and endangering our allies. I urge every Member, Republican and Democrat, to stand together, united. It would be powerful if we saw a bipartisan vote saying: We stand with our friends, and we stand against our enemies, and enough with this nonsense of funding people who want to kill us. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland said that he intends to raise a point of order objecting to this war powers resolution because we do not have servicemembers in harm's way; we do not have active hostilities, which is what is required by the War Powers Act. That is a creative procedural argument. It just has the inconvenient fact of not being true. Not only is it not true, but what the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is arguing to this body is directly contrary to the explicit position of the Biden Department of Defense. I want to read to you from a press briefing from the Biden Department of Defense on May 16. A reporter asked the official spokesperson for the Department of Defense: The USAID spokesperson said yesterday that he wasn't satisfied yet with the deconfliction arrangement yet, and then he added that the maritime corridors exposed to--we do not think the JLOTS of the maritime corridor is exposed to any additional risk above and beyond that which is already present in Gaza. That's pretty frightening now, isn't it, given how many people have been killed . . . Answer--and this is from the Biden Department of Defense: I don't think we've come up here with rose-colored glasses and said this is not a risk. This is an active war zone. The Biden Department of Defense has explicitly stated: ``This is an active war zone''--that they are putting U.S. personnel at risk. And that is precisely why the War Powers Act gives this body the ability to act. I would note, as well, my friend from West Virginia said he wanted a sense of the Senate but not to use the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act is a way for Congress to exercise its prerogative. Over recent decades, we have seen the Senate hand away much of our responsibility on foreign policy and national security to the executives. That is contrary to the design of our Constitution, and it is, frankly, harmful to the Senate and harmful to this country. We are not merely a body that has a sense of the Senate. Look, I assume I will join with whatever the sense of the Senate is. If it says this is a dumb idea, I will join that. But while we are at it, we ought to rename a post office. The Senate exists to do more important things than make general musings into the ether. The Senate has the constitutional power and, under the War Powers Act, the legal and statutory power to say: Stop spending money to send U.S. service men and women into harm's way. Now, far too often, the Senate has stepped out of our historic role in foreign policy and has said: Whatever the President wants, we, the Senate, aren't going to say anything about it. When there is a Republican President, Democrat Senators suddenly discover their voice and say: Hey, the Senate ought to say something. But when it is a Democrat President, it seems no matter how incoherent and disastrous the foreign policy from the Democrat President, Democrat Senators don't want the Senate to exercise its authority. I will reiterate the offer that I made just moments ago to the staff of the Senate majority leader: I will withdraw this war powers resolution if the Senate votes on the legislation that has already passed the House to provide the weapons that the Biden White House is blocking to Israel. The Democrats don't want to do that because they don't want their Members on record. And because they don't want their Members on record, this is the only vehicle I have, because, procedurally, under the statute, I have a right to force a vote on this. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said there are not active hostilities. The Biden Department of Defense has explicitly disagreed. To quote again: I don't think we've come up here with rose-colored glasses and said that this is not a risk. This is an active war zone. That means the War Powers Act fully applies. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. It will be momentarily.

Mr. CRUZ. A very brief response to what my friend from Maryland said: The pier was fired upon twice. It is difficult to say that we are not in active hostilities when we are being fired upon, and so it clearly falls under the statute. With that, I yield all further time.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on an issue that is incredibly personal and vital to millions of Americans--the protection of in vitro fertilization. IVF is a medical miracle that has brought the joy of parenthood to millions of families who might otherwise have never experienced it. I am a strong supporter of IVF, and I am incredibly grateful for the technology that has enabled parents, moms and dads desperate to bring into the world little boys and little girls, to finally hold a child in their arms. It is astounding to note that over 2 percent of all births in America each and every year come from IVF. That translates to millions of parents who have been given the chance to bring new life into the world. To date, more than 8 million babies have been born through IVF. However, recent developments have caused some confusion and concern among parents and among those who wish to be parents. The Alabama Supreme Court's decision to recognize embryos created through IVF as children under the law has left many prospective parents worried-- understandably worried--about the future legality of IVF. Now, the Alabama Legislature acted quickly to make clear that IVF is fully protected in the State of Alabama, but nonetheless confusion persists. To the best of my knowledge, all 100 Senators in this body support IVF. Seeing this confusion--confusion that, unfortunately, has been fueled by Democrat partisans--I reached out to Senator Katie Britt from Alabama, and I asked Senator Britt if she would join together in drafting legislation, Federal legislation, that would be a clear, straightforward, ironclad protection for IVF. I believe we should put into Federal law a clear and unambiguous protection to make clear that no State in the Union can ban IVF, that no local government in this country can ban IVF. Senator Britt and I drafted this together. This bill is simple. It is straightforward. It is clear. IVF is profoundly pro-family. It is an avenue of hope for millions struggling with infertility. To every mom and every dad at home and to every woman and man desperately hoping to be a parent, know that our bill will ensure that IVF remains 100 percent protected by law. And this should not just be a policy or a general affirmation; this should be a clear and unmistakable Federal law. We invite our colleagues in the Senate from both sides of the aisle to join together in supporting this crucial legislation. This should be a measure that transcends political divides. A recent poll showed that 86 percent of Americans believe IVF should be legal and protected. This is an opportunity for us to put partisan divisions aside and to come together and unite on a shared commitment to protecting IVF. That is why in just a moment I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass this legislation, but before I do so, I want to yield to the Senator from Alabama, Senator Britt.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, sometimes the folks at home can find what happens in parliamentary procedure on this floor confusing, so I want to explain what is about to happen. In just a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass the IVF protection bill into law. One of two things will happen in response: One, the Democrats in this Chamber can decide that IVF should be protected by Federal law, in which case this bill will pass the Senate 100 to nothing; the other thing that might happen is Senate Democrats will utter two words, ``I object.'' So I want you to listen very carefully to the Senate Democrats. And whatever else is included in the speech, understand if the remarks end with the words ``I object,'' then Senate Democrats will have made the cynical political decision that Democrats don't want IVF protected in Federal law. They don't want to provide reassurance and comfort to millions of parents in America because, instead, they want to spend millions of dollars running campaign ads suggesting the big bad Republicans want to take away IVF. I get why that could be good politics, but I hope Senate Democrats are not that cynical. Understand, again, if you hear the words ``I object,'' Senate Democrats are saying: No, we will not protect IVF in Federal law because we want to play politics. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4368 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington suggested that this bill does not protect IVF. Let me read you the clear statutory language that unambiguously protects IVF: A State shall not prohibit in vitro fertilization as defined in section 4(B) of the IVF Protection Act services and shall ensure that no unit of local government in the State prohibits such services. That is clear. That is unambiguous. That is explicit. And that is ironclad. Had the Democrats not cynically said ``I object,'' that language would have just passed the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing, a strong Federal protection of IVF. Now, Democrats know that out of 50 States, not a single State is seeking to ban IVF. They know that the threat that they plan to spend millions of dollars trying to convince the voters is real, no State is currently pursuing. They know that Alabama--whose Supreme Court started this issue--the legislature promptly came into session and acted to make clear that IVF is protected. And the Senator from Washington asked a question. I do find it interesting. She asked a question and wanted me to answer it, but she is no longer on the Senate floor to hear my answer to the question, but I will answer it anyway. The Senator from Washington suggests that those States that pursue personhood amendments, that that is somehow inconsistent with IVF. The one problem she has is facts and reality because there are three States--Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri--all of which have adopted personhood amendments, and all of which protect IVF. So IVF is legal in Alabama. It is legal in Georgia. It is legal in Missouri. So the Democrats maintain that IVF is in jeopardy, and yet the facts are precisely contrary. Understand why the Democrats just did what they did. Every Democrat on the ballot is going to tell the voters: If you don't vote for me, a Democrat, mean Republicans are going to come take away IVF. And I will tell you the reason they are going to say that is because the Democrats' record on abortion is extreme and out of the mainstream. Every Democrat Senator in this body has voted for legislation that would legalize abortion literally up until the moment of birth, up to and including the 39th and 40th week of pregnancy. That is radical. Only 9 percent of Americans support the extreme policy position of Senate Democrats on abortion. Ninety-one percent of Americans look at that and say: That goes too far. Even among those Americans who call themselves pro-choice, a majority of pro-choice Americans look at the position of the Democrats, and they say: Wow. Abortion up until the moment of delivery in the ninth month of pregnancy, that is too much. So what is the Democrats' political strategy? Don't talk about their actual record on abortion; instead, try to change the topic to, last week, contraception and this week IVF. And they know that no State in the Union is trying to ban contraception and that no State in the Union is trying to ban IVF. Every single Senator in this body supports the right to contraception. Every single Senator in this body supports IVF being protected. But the Democrats are counting on docile media to pick up their message and carry their message. They know that the bills we are voting on tomorrow will fail. That is not a bug; it is a feature. They want the bills tomorrow to fail. Why? Because this is all about running TV ads claiming Republicans are opposed to IVF. They know it is false. And, by the way, one of the reasons the bills will fail tomorrow is they deliberately trample on religious liberty. You know there used be a time when there was a bipartisan commitment to religious liberty but no longer. The Democrats have decided that the First Amendment to the Constitution no longer matters. And so the Democrats' bill would, among other things, force a Catholic hospital to provide IVF procedures, even if it was contrary to the faith of Catholic doctors performing the procedure. Now, our bill does not seek to force anyone to do anything. We all have a right to live according to our faith. So if your faith teaches you not to use IVF, as a doctor, you should have the right not to say: I am not going to participate in that. But understand the Cruz-Britt legislation that the Democrats just cynically objected to would protect IVF for every parent in the country, and it would become Federal law, except for one thing: The Democrats do not want it to because if we pass clear, strong Federal protections for IVF, the issue that they are planning to campaign on would go away. What we have just seen is one of the most cynical displays of partisan politics to ever occur on the Senate floor. It is designed deliberately to deceive the American voters. It is unfortunate that Democrats put politics above protecting parents and above protecting IVF. But just remember the next time you hear a Democrat saying--and they are going to spend millions of dollars saying it--we are the ones who want to protect IVF, understand we could have passed strong Federal legislation today, but Senate Democrats don't want a protection of IVF. They want a campaign issue. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a dear friend, Alice Stewart. Her sudden passing last month was a profound loss to all who knew her. Alice was far too young with so much more to give in the world. Alice began her career as a reporter in Georgia and eventually moved to Little Rock, AR, where she was an anchor for the NBC affiliate there. In 2008, she served as Mike Huckabee's communications director during his Presidential run. Then she later advised Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum during their Presidential runs. In 2016, Alice came to work for me during my run for President. I was very lucky to have her on my team. Alice fought passionately for me on the campaign trail. She was a joy to be around, always smiling, both personally and professionally. Politics can be a harsh arena, but Alice engaged with a light touch. She never lost her southern charm, her class, or her respect for others. She was one of the last few old- school political operators who believed you can get along with anyone, regardless of political differences. It is telling that many, many former colleagues and friends of Alice's have echoed the very same sentiment about her, that she was unfailingly kind and a rare gem in the tumultuous world of politics. Alice and I remained friends after the Presidential run. This is a photo of the two of us when she came to my second swearing in here in the Senate in 2019. Not only was Alice a talented communicator, she also served as Deputy Secretary of State in Arkansas and became a resident fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics, where she became a mentor for many students. In 2016, Alice became a CNN commentator. Now, CNN isn't always known as a friendly place for conservatives, to put it mildly. But Alice never backed down from what she believed in. Instead, she navigated disagreements with kindness, whether it was at CNN or in her role as a political contributor on NPR. If you knew Alice, you knew she was an avid runner. Another former communications director of mine and good friend, Cat Frazier, remembers the day that she met Alice on my Presidential campaign. Alice and my friend David Polyansky pulled her out into the freezing Iowa snow to go on a run with the two of them. That is how Cat got to know Alice, on a run in the bitter Iowa cold and snow. They also asked me to come on a run with them that morning. But it will not surprise you, Mr. President, I turned down that invitation. Alice and I had a lot in common, but running marathons was not one of them. As a runner, it was fitting that Alice also loved Hebrews 12, especially the verse: Let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. Alice showed what it means to run the race well as a good and faithful servant. She has now finished her race, and she is today in the loving arms of her Creator. I was immensely proud to have Alice on my team. She was wonderful and talented and a good friend. She loved America fiercely. She lived every day to the fullest, and she will be deeply, deeply missed. Her absence is deeply felt by me, by Heidi, and by the entire Cruz team. I pray for God's comfort and His peace on her loved ones. May God bless the memory of Alice Stewart. She will be missed. I will miss her. God bless you, Alice. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for her legislation, important legislation, protecting the right to birth control and making it easier for women to have access to birth control pills over the counter. This is something we all agree on. This is something Americans across this Nation agree upon. This is a right that is protected in all 50 States. In just a few minutes, we are going to see Democrats engage in a show vote. And there is a reason for that show vote: because Democrats in the Senate--every one of them--their views on abortion are extreme and radical. Every Democrat in this body has voted repeatedly in favor of unlimited abortion on demand, literally up until the moment of birth-- partial-birth abortion in the 39th and 40th week of pregnancy. That is an extreme position. I will tell you nationally, 9 percent of Americans agree with that position. Madam President, 91 percent of Americans look at that extreme position and say: That is too far. And, indeed, even among those Americans who call themselves pro- choice and a majority of pro-choice Americans say, Late-term abortions up until the moment of birth, that is extreme. So what do the Democrats do? They recognize that 91 percent of Americans disagree with their extreme position, so they try to change the topic. And in particular, they are trying to change the topic to birth control. Now, all 100 Senators--every single Senator--agrees that birth control should be protected as a matter of law. And yet what did we just see? We saw Senator Ernst introducing her legislation, legislation of which I am a cosponsor. Together, we are leading the fight to protect the right to birth control, and what happened? The Democrats objected. Why did they object? Understand why they objected. Because they want to use this as an issue in November to scare people, and they don't want to talk about their own radical record. Instead, they want to falsely claim somebody is coming to take contraception. That is deliberately false. And so when you see millions of dollars of TV ads paid for by Democrats, ask yourself one question: Why did the Democrats just block Senator Ernst's and my legislation protecting the right to birth control? Because this is not about protecting this right; it is about politics for the Democrats hiding their own radical view. I wish we would come together. By the way, next week I predict the Democrats are going to do the same thing. I have legislation protecting in vitro fertilization, another incredible medical miracle that, again, to the best of my knowledge, all 100 Senators support. Katie Britt and I together have introduced that legislation, and, yet, I fully expect next week the Democrats to do what they just did today, which is object to it because they are playing politics and they are unwilling to actually put in Federal law a real and strong protection. I know it is campaign season, but it is unfortunate that Democrats are not willing to work together. Had they not uttered two words, ``I object,'' Senator Ernst and my legislation protecting the right to birth control would have passed out of this body. But Senate Democrats didn't want it to. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this week, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is bringing up the failed border bill that the Senate already rejected in February, all on a political ploy to give vulnerable Democrat Senators up for reelection camouflage to hide their real views on the border. That failed border bill is nothing but a fig leaf that pretends to do something about border security but wouldn't actually secure the border. In fact, if it became law, it would make the problem worse. This Democrat bill would codify catch-and-release. It would put into Federal law Joe Biden's policy of releasing illegal aliens into this country. That is the cause of the open border crisis we have right now. It would normalize 5,000 illegal immigrants a day. That works out to 1.8 million illegal immigrants a year every year, year after year, forever. It would provide immediate work permits to illegal aliens when they cross the border illegally, and it would provide many of them with taxpayer-funded lawyers. Not only is the bill by design utterly ineffective at securing the border, it is designed to fail. In fact, we can quantify mathematically the chances this bill has of passing the House of Representatives, and those chances are 0.00 percent. There is, however, a bill that we know would actually secure the border and would do so right now. It would put real penalties in place to end catch-and-release and to defund the NGOs that are a critical part of the human trafficking network. That bill is H.R. 2. H.R. 2 has already passed the House of Representatives. I am proud to lead H.R. 2 here in the Senate. If the Democrats want to do the responsible thing that would actually secure the border, we would pass H.R. 2, but instead the Democrats deliberately want this border crisis to continue--every single Democrat Member of this body. We know this because every one of them has voted over and over and over again against policies to actually secure the border. When Joe Biden came into office, he inherited the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. All President Biden had to do was nothing--just don't screw it up--but instead he deliberately broke the system. He made three decisions his first week in office that caused this crisis: No. 1, he immediately halted construction of the border wall. No. 2, he reinstated the disastrous policy of catch-and-release--the policy the Democrats now want to put into Federal law. No. 3, he pulled out of the incredibly successful ``Remain in Mexico'' agreement. The ``Remain in Mexico'' agreement is what had produced the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. And what happened? We went from incredible success of securing the border to immediately the worst illegal immigration in our Nation's history. Over 11 million illegal immigrants have come into this country under Joe Biden and the Democrats. It is an invasion. It is larger than the population of more than half of our States. Now, why on Earth would the Democrats turn a blind eye to the people who are suffering and dying? Why would they turn a blind eye to the body bags, to the 853 migrants who died last year crossing illegally? Why would they turn a blind eye to the children being brutalized by human traffickers? Why would they turn a blind eye to the women being sexually assaulted by human traffickers? Why would they turn a blind eye to the more than 100,000 Americans who died last year of drug overdoses? Why would the Democrats turn a blind eye to the families, to the children being murdered by illegal immigrants whom Joe Biden is releasing? The answer, sadly, is that they see every one of these 11 million illegal immigrants as future Democrat voters. It is a cynical decision that in order to stay in power, it is fine for people to suffer and die. In just a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass H.R. 2. When I do so, we will have a moment of decision. All the Democrats have to do for this to pass is nothing-- just like Joe Biden. All Joe Biden had to do at the beginning of his Presidency to not break the border was nothing, just keep in place the policies that were working. When I ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill, if the Democrats do nothing, it will pass the Senate and go immediately to President Biden's desk, and he can sign it into law. I am going to predict right now we are going to hear two magic words from the Democrats. We are going to hear the words ``I object'' because they object to securing the border. They object to stopping this invasion. They object to standing up to the cartels. They object to protecting the American people. But before I do that, I want to yield to my colleague from Kansas, Senator Marshall.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, now is the moment when we will discover whether or not the Senate will pass real and strong legislation to secure the border. Again, all the Democrats have to do to send H.R. 2 to the President's desk to be able to be signed today is nothing. And so let's listen for those magic words. The two magic words that would kill this bill are ``I object.'' Let's hear if that is what the Democrats have to say. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 71, H.R. 2; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, well, I would like to say I am surprised, but I am not. It is worth, though, pausing to reflect both on what the Senator from Illinois said and what he didn't say. What he didn't say: He didn't dispute the point I made about this Democrat bill they are having a show vote on later this week. He didn't dispute that this bill codifies catch-and-release; that it puts into Federal statute Joe Biden's lawless practice of releasing illegal immigrants when they are apprehended. He didn't dispute that. He didn't dispute that this bill would normalize 5,000 illegal immigrants a day, 1.8 million illegal immigrants a year, every year, forever. He didn't dispute that either. He didn't dispute that this bill would give illegal immigrants who are apprehended immediate work permits. He didn't dispute that. He didn't dispute that this bill would give many of them taxpayer-funded lawyers. And he also didn't dispute a point I have made many other times, though I didn't just make it, that it would give billions of dollars to the NGOs that are part of the human trafficking network; that it would fund the people trafficking millions into this country. He didn't dispute any of that. Instead, he said the standard Democrat line, which is: Trump, Trump, Trump. Trump is the bad guy. It is all Trump's fault. And I get that, in Democrat circles, Trump is the bogeyman. But there is a simple fact. When Donald Trump was in the White House and when he was actually working to secure the border, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. When Joe Biden and the Democrats are in charge, we have the highest rate of illegal immigration in American history. That is a fact. And all the political smoke and mirrors from the Democrats can't hide that fact. But it is also interesting what he did say. He gave these epic words about Chicago welcoming immigrants. And he is right. Our country was built by legal immigrants, by people following the law, coming here the right way. My father came as an immigrant from Cuba. There is a right way to come following the rules. I found it striking, though, that when he was saying how much Chicago loves illegal immigrants, that he somehow omitted that the mayor of Chicago has declared an emergency because of the crisis of illegal immigrants flooding into the city of Chicago; illegal immigrants taking resources from the residents of Chicago; being housed in Chicago O'Hare Airport. We are seeing illegal immigrants in places like New York City being put in public schools and throwing Americans out of their facilities. The mayor of New York City--again, a liberal Democrat like the mayor of Chicago--has said illegal immigration is a crisis that is destroying New York City. And yet Senator Durbin told us, in essence, the Democrats are the party of open borders. He said farmworkers--we can't get anyone to work on the farm unless we have those open borders. Apparently, in the Democrats' view, Americans are lazy and don't want to work and the only way to grow our food is to open our borders to a full-on invasion. Listen, if some people have to die, if people have to get murdered by criminals and gangbangers released by Democrats day after day after day, that is an acceptable price to the Democrats. Because, if you listen to his criticism of H.R. 2, you know what he said? Well, the people who are here illegally, they wouldn't be able to work. My God, it would stop illegal immigration. That is his objection. That is the Democrats' objection. They object to this bill because it would do what they say they want to do. And the truth is, they don't want to do that. Joe Biden could secure the border today. He broke the border by unilateral action. Nothing prevents him from reversing those three decisions, from ending catch-and-release today. He won't do it. He doesn't want to do it. And every Democrat in this Chamber supports those open border policies. (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.) I am going to close by observing the very real victims of the Democrats' open border policies. There are some Democrat policies that are victimless. This is not one of them. We have heard a lot about Laken Riley, but it is worth reflecting on what exactly happened to her, because the murderer who murdered her came from Venezuela illegally, and we caught him. We had him. He was apprehended in El Paso, TX. All Joe Biden had to do was follow the law. If he followed the law, what would he have done with an illegal immigrant from Venezuela? He would have put him on a plane and flown him back. But he didn't do that because Joe Biden and the Democrats have decided they want open borders. Instead, they released this illegal immigrant. They let him go. Now, what did he do? He went to New York City, and we caught him again. He committed another crime. This time, he endangered the safety of a child. New York City caught him. They arrested him. And what did New York have to do? All they had to do was follow the law and put him in jail. You know what, if they had done that, Laken Riley would still be alive. By the way, if Joe Biden and the Democrats had followed the law, Laken Riley would still be alive. But New York City is a sanctuary city, so they let him go again. The murderer came down to Georgia, and Laken Riley--a beautiful 22- year-old woman, a nursing student--she went out jogging for what she thought was going to be a beautiful day and this murderer, this illegal immigrant the Democrats had released over and over again, picked up a brick and beat her to death. Mr. President, that is happening every week. Another name you don't hear Democrats say is Jeremy Caceres. Jeremy Caceres is a beautiful 2-year-old boy. He was murdered in Prince George's County, MD, just a few miles from where we are now, by another illegal immigrant who Joe Biden and the Democrats released. Mr. President, I want to finally point to a 15-year-old girl in your home State, in Boston, MA. Not only is the Biden administration allowing a completely open border and releasing illegal immigrants that are apprehended, but they are flying hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants directly from their home countries into America. In this case, the Biden administration flew an illegal immigrant from Haiti to Boston, MA. He didn't try to cross illegally. The Biden administration said: Come on, get on an airplane. We will bring you to Boston. You know what he did in Boston? He has been arrested now for violently raping a 15-year-old girl with severe mental disabilities. This is sick. This is grotesque. And this is happening day after day after day. And we have a bill right now we could pass that would stop it. And the Democrats' answer is ``I object.'' And another American is going to be killed next week and the week after and the week after and the Democrats--all in the name of power--are perfectly fine with this. The good news is, an election is coming. In January 2025, with a new administration, we will solve this problem. We will secure the border. We will stop this invasion. And we will protect the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my resolution to disapprove of the Biden Department of Energy's final rule targeting gas furnaces. In October of last year, the Biden Department of Energy announced a final rule on energy efficiency standards for gas furnaces, and in December, the Agency published the final rule mandating that gas furnaces achieve an efficiency standard of 95 percent when right now, residential gas furnaces only require an efficiency standard of 80 percent. This rule would remove up to 60 percent of current residential furnaces from the market and would impact 55 percent of American households. It would have a terrible, negative effect on families who are already struggling with historic inflation numbers under the Biden administration, and it would force consumers to spend thousands of dollars they don't have on renovations to accommodate a new gas furnace or to switch to an electric appliance, which could mean higher monthly utility bills for families. In Texas, 25 percent of households have a natural gas furnace, and of those, over 45 percent would be negatively impacted, meaning they would spend more to retrofit their homes and to purchase and install a furnace than they would save over the life of the appliance. Now, in every State and in the State of Texas, some Texans may choose to move to an electric appliance for a variety of reasons, and some may decide they would like to stick with a gas furnace, but with this Biden rule in effect, Texans won't have a choice, and neither will the residents of the other 49 States. The Biden administration will have made the decision for them. Texans aren't alone in this. Other States are in a similar situation. For example, 39 percent of Arizonans with a natural gas furnace would lose money from this rule. Let me give you some percentages from some other States picked almost at random. These are the percentages of households with natural gas furnaces that would be negatively impacted in the following States: in Pennsylvania, 33 percent; in West Virginia, 47 percent; in Montana, 36 percent; in Wisconsin, 16 percent; in Michigan, 35 percent; in Nevada, a staggering 63 percent negatively impacted; in Maryland, 57 percent; and in the State of Ohio, 47 percent of those households would be negatively impacted. This rule is a continuation of the Biden administration's capitulation to environmental radicals, who value following climate dogma more than helping families actually provide for their kids and save for the future. Joe Biden, when he campaigned in 2020, told voters that if they elected him, he would halt drilling onshore and offshore in the United States. In his first week in office, he shut down the Keystone Pipeline and destroyed 11,000 jobs with a stroke of a pen, including 8,000 union jobs. Joe Biden shut down all new leases on Federal land, onshore and offshore. He shut down development in ANWR, putting in place banking regulators and SEC regulators to cut off debt financing and to cut off equity financing for energy exploration and development. He put a tax--yes, a tax--on natural gas production despite the cost- of-living crisis many Americans are facing because of failed Democrat policies. That is why I introduced this Congressional Review Act--to help alleviate the unending assault on American families from President Biden and the Democrats' radical energy agenda. The average household in Texas has spent $5,113 more on energy due to inflation since January 2021, and $5,113 is a lot of money for a lot of families. This administration's answer to those struggling is that it is more important to appease the environmental radicals than to allow you to pay your rent or pay your mortgage or to save for your family or to put money away for your kids in a college fund. What is maddening is that this is done, they say, to reduce carbon emissions and to help the environment, but why would Americans take them at their word on this? This is the same administration that has no problem burdening U.S. oil and gas producers, who maintain the highest environmental standards in the world, but refused to crack down on Iran for shipping 2 million barrels of oil a day all around the world. It is the same administration that in one breath wants to reduce emissions globally but will then ban new U.S. permits to ship liquid natural gas overseas, leaving our allies to fend for themselves and driving them to burn dirtier coal, emit more carbon, and pollute the environment even more. So if you care about reducing emissions, this administration has been an abject failure. Instead of delivering actual solutions, it is their belief that putting a de facto ban on your gas furnace is more important than addressing record coal consumption in China--the biggest polluter on the face of the planet. According to the Department of Energy's own estimate, 91 to 95 percent of furnace replacements will be at an annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of 92 percent or higher by 2028. So according to the Department of Energy's own estimate, this rule is unnecessary. The folks who can already afford the higher cost of a new gas furnace can buy one, but Americans who can least afford another price shock after suffering under Bidenflation for years will be hurt the most. I want the Presiding Officer to listen to these data. According to some estimates, the Department of Energy rule will lead to higher prices for 30 percent of senior citizen households, for 27 percent of small businesses, and for 26 percent of low-income households. This rule represents the fundamental transformation of the Democratic Party. There was a time the Democratic Party called itself the party of the working class. That is no longer the case. Today's Democratic Party cares more about the money from California environmentalist billionaires than they do about the jobs or the monthly budgets of hard-working families in America. Today, the blue-collar family in America is the Republican Party because the Democratic Party looked at their union brethren and said: We don't care about you anymore. We are chasing the money. That is why groups like the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents 300,000 small businesses across the country, strongly support this CRA. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the Biden administration is being sued for this illegal rule. The law that empowers the Department of Energy to set efficiency standards was passed during the energy scarcity of the 1970s, but the law also contains a prohibition against weaponizing efficiency standards to eliminate entire product categories like this rule seeks to do. The American people are required to comply with Joe Biden's rule effectively banning affordable gas furnaces on December 18, 2028. Congress should come together and vote for the resolution to stop this rule. Doing so would save American families and American seniors thousands and thousands of dollars as well as save American jobs. We should do this without delay.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 399, S.J. Res. 58.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say I appreciate the passion of my colleagues from Virginia. I have served with both of them for 12 years. Senator Kaine and I both were elected together in 2012. He and I have worked together on many issues, and I anticipate we will work together on many issues going forward. On this issue, he and I see the issue very differently. This bill that is before the Senate is a bill that moved forward the right way. It moved forward, frankly, a way I wish a lot more legislation proceeded in the Senate. This bill proceeded through regular order. It began in committee. The Commerce Committee took it up. We had a series of markups scheduled over several months. In the process of drafting this bill, we solicited the input, initially, of every Senator on the Commerce Committee. And every single Senator--Democrat and Republican--has priorities that are reflected in the underlying bill that were adopted. After the bill came out of the Commerce Committee, we solicited the input of every other Senator, those not on the Commerce Committee, for their ideas, their priorities for their respective States. This bill contains over 200 Member priorities, from Democrats and Republicans, reflecting the different needs and the different priorities of our 50 States. In addition to all of those, this week, we added nine more amendments in a managers' package when the majority leader laid down the substitute earlier this week. This is an amendment that reflects the consensus view of this body, which is why I anticipate shortly we will see an overwhelming bipartisan vote passing the FAA bill. Now, on the question of slots, in the committee initially, an amendment was offered by Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, to expand the number of slots at DCA Reagan airport by 28 slots. That was an amendment that had a lot in its favor, but it also prompted furious lobbying on the other side. Ultimately, what the committee did is work to seek common ground, work to seek a compromise. Senator Warnock's amendment of 28 slots was not adopted. Instead, what was adopted was an amendment that I drafted, working hand in hand with the chairman of the committee, Senator Cantwell, that went down from 28 slots to merely 5 slots. Now, several arguments have been raised against creating any additional slots at Reagan. One argument is pointing to the recent near miss at DCA Reagan as evidence that no additional flights can go into or out of Reagan. However, it is worth noting that the FAA experts have recently clarified that this near miss had absolutely nothing to do with traffic on the runway; that it was unrelated issues that produced the near miss. And I might note those unrelated issues include what this underlying bill addresses, which is ensuring we have sufficient air traffic controllers to monitor the traffic and protect safety. Another argument used by opponents of adding new flights to Reagan is the argument that DCA was originally designed to accommodate 15 million passengers annually and that in 2023 it served 25.5 million passengers. What that argument fails to acknowledge is that DCA has made significant investments to increase capacity, including adding more gates and expanding terminals. Opponents of additional flights have also claimed that DCA is overburdened by its current flights and that DCA flights are already delayed. What that argument omits is the fact that DCA has a better on- time arrival rate than either Dulles or BWI. It has the best on-time arrival rate of the three airports in this immediate vicinity. I would note, the most voracious opposition to this amendment comes from lobbying on behalf of United Airlines, and the reason is not complicated to ascertain. United has a near-monopoly position at Dulles airport, and United understandably wants to preserve its monopoly profits. Five new flights into and out of Reagan airport would provide additional competition--competition that would, predictably, lower the price of tickets. It is not surprising that United Airlines doesn't want tickets to go down; they want to continue charging monopoly prices. I will point out, for the people of Virginia and the people of Maryland and the people of DC, limiting supply, allowing United to reap monopoly profits, and raising prices is not a good outcome. And for that reason, this bill, as drafted, with the new flights, will benefit the people of Virginia, the people of Maryland, and the people of DC. Indeed, in a recent poll, 67 percent of Northern Virginians support adding flights to DCA. This bill improves competition. And in terms of the overall traffic, there are right now 800 slots at DCA Reagan. When this bill is adopted, it will go from 800 to 805. So it is a small, reasonable increase. I would also point out, DCA Reagan is the only airport in the country that has Federal slot control and a restriction on long-haul flights. This restriction is in no other airport in the country, and there is a long, protectionist history as to why this one airport is subject to these restrictions. I want to make one final point. In addition to being a benefit for everyone going to our Nation's Capital or from our Nation's Capital, a benefit that impacts the entire country--Americans from all 50 States travel to Washington, DC, to our Nation's Capital, whether it is schoolkids coming to tour the Capital, whether it is families coming to the Smithsonian, whether it is people coming to the Holocaust museum or the Lincoln Memorial, whether it is people coming to see the cherry blossoms. Everyone coming to and from DC will benefit from this provision, but there is also a very particular benefit to my home State of Texas, and that, understandably, is near and dear to my heart. This issue first came to my attention about 3 years ago, and it came to my attention because a delegation from the city of San Antonio came to my office. That delegation included business leaders; it included committee leaders; it included elected leaders in San Antonio, most of whom are Democrats. And to a person, they were deeply, deeply dismayed that the city of San Antonio does not have even one direct flight to DCA Reagan. Now, San Antonio is, today, the seventh largest city in America. San Antonio is the second largest city in Texas. San Antonio actually has a higher population than Dallas, TX. San Antonio also has an enormous military population. Indeed, the city's nickname is ``Military City USA.'' And there is an enormous population of Active-Duty military and veterans who live in San Antonio. DCA Reagan is right next to the Pentagon, and it is right next to Arlington National Cemetery. I can tell you, the community of San Antonio is united on a bipartisan basis that San Antonio deserves a direct flight to and from Reagan, that it will save money for residents of San Antonio, that it will generate jobs for residents of San Antonio, and that it is only fair for residents of San Antonio that they be able to come directly to DCA Reagan. And as a result of this bill that the Senate is preparing to vote on, San Antonio is going to win a major bipartisan vote to get that flight. And my final observation: Senator Warner said in the past a bipartisan compromise had been reached on this issue. I would note that happened here too. This bill that was voted out of committee was a bipartisan compromise. It was a compromise that was negotiated between me, the ranking member on the committee, and Senator Cantwell, the chairman of the committee--a Republican and a Democrat--and this provision was added to the bill and voted out of the committee unanimously. Every Democrat voted for it; every Republican voted for it because it is a reasonable provision that benefits consumers and is fair. Therefore, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has tonight passed this vital legislation. The House of Representatives should next week take it up and quickly pass it and send it to the President's desk for signature. This legislation is a strong, bipartisan, bicameral bill that includes hundreds of priorities for Senators and Representatives, both Republican and Democrat. This bill gives the FAA the safety tools it needs at a critical time to help bring new aerospace technologies to market. I want to take a moment to recognize the staff who has spent countless hours hammering out this legislation. This was no easy task. As I stated earlier, this bipartisan product was the result of many, many months of hard work, late nights. There were many times it appeared this bill was not going to make it over the finish line, and the hard work of the staff is a big part of the reason we are where we are tonight. I want to thank my staff for their tireless efforts to get this bill passed into law. Many thanks to Simone Perez, who is next to me and who has not slept in about 6 months. I will note that she broke her foot stepping on a dump truck of her young son, but I personally said she got the foot boot from kicking hindquarters. Since the Presiding Officer is also a pastor, I will make sure to speak in a way that would be appropriate in front of a pastor. I want to thank Duncan Rankin, Andrew Miller, Matt Swint, Hannah Hagen, Ryan Cannon, Melissa Braid, Christian McMullen, Amanda Thompson, Liam McKenna, Nicole Christus, Brad Grantz, Omri Ceren, and Aaron Reitz. I am also thankful to Chairwoman Cantwell and her staff. The chair has worked tirelessly as well. Her staff has worked tirelessly. We have worked hand in hand navigating issues--some contentious, some passionate, some that seemed would take the entire bill down--and then we went back and worked out a compromise. They have been terrific partners with us, and I look forward to our committee continuing to produce strong, bipartisan products in the near future, in the weeks and months ahead. I would be remiss if I also didn't thank Senators Moran and Duckworth, who serve as the leaders on the Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation Subcommittee. I appreciate both Senator Moran and Senator Duckworth and their staff for working collaboratively with us on this bill. Finally, I would like to thank Senate legislative counsel-- specifically, John Goetcheus, Ruth Ernst, and C.J. Murphy, who worked long hours and late nights to make this bill happen. And now, Mr. President, I look forward to going to Ronald Reagan National Airport, getting on an airplane, and flying home to Texas. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following personnel in my office be granted floor privileges until the end of the Congress: Jade Winfree, Thomas Struble, Leticia Vega, Joel Coito, Chad Meckley, and Catherine Latour.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. This bill, negotiated by Chair Cantwell and myself, with the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Science Committees, is a bicameral and a bipartisan accomplishment. It is the culmination of many months of work between us and our staffs and is reflective of the priorities of a great many Senators. On the Republican side alone, more than 200 Member priorities were included. I am especially proud of the numerous provisions that make for a safer and more convenient travel experience for Texans and for consumers across the Nation and the provisions that will help grow Texas's thriving aerospace sector. It will make significant strides in aviation safety, the primary mission of the FAA--and something that I know that all of us care deeply about. It will provide a clear path forward to integrate new advanced aviation technologies and will make it easier for fliers to get upfront information on ticket prices. A flurry of near misses at our Nation's airports, multiple concerning maintenance reports of United Airlines' flights, and the alarming decompression event of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 have together raised serious concerns with the safety of our airspace. Aviation safety has been, and will continue to be, one of the very top priorities of the Senate Commerce Committee. When the people of Texas board a flight, they expect their flight--and their families--to be safe. As a result, I am proud to say that our bill includes numerous crucial safety provisions, such as requiring 25-hour cockpit voice recorders in all commercial aircraft. This safety upgrade will allow the National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA to have access to vital information needed during accident investigations. This became abundantly clear after the cockpit voice recorder in the Alaska Airlines flight was lost because of an outdated 2-hour requirement. That is unacceptable, and it should never happen again. With this bill, it will not happen again. In response to recent runway surface incidents, this bill establishes a zero tolerance runway safety policy. It prioritizes projects that improve surface surveillance; it establishes a Runway Safety Council; and it requires a timeline and an action plan to actually get better runway and tarmac incursion technologies installed at airports that need them. Air traffic controller shortages have plagued airports across the country--including in my home State of Texas--putting travel safety at risk. This legislation aims to relieve the strain on air traffic control by directing the FAA to hire the maximum number of air traffic controllers, hopefully aiding the many facilities that have been understaffed for far too long. At a time when aircraft safety seems to be in the news every other day, our bipartisan bill makes important upgrades to safety reporting. Commercial aviation has improved in the last several decades, in part because the FAA and industry have tracked trends in safety to respond in a proactive manner to safety concerns, instead of waiting until after a fatal accident has occurred. Furthermore, this bill recognizes the important role that whistleblowers play and includes protections for those reporting safety concerns. This bill also makes transformative investments in airports across our country by making updates to the formula used to disburse grants for airport infrastructure projects. As a result, all airports across the country will be able to rehab their runways or acquire critical safety technologies. I am also pleased that the bill makes it easier to obtain permits for airport construction projects. This bill is good for airports large and small across the Nation. This bill does not ignore the fact that sometimes airlines screw up and leave consumers hanging. One provision parents in the Chamber should be really happy about is the requirement for airlines to ensure that families are able to sit together. This just makes sense and will help to make traveling with young children just a little bit easier. I am also pleased that there is a requirement that customers who need customer service will now be guaranteed that they can talk to a human representative--an actual human being--24/7. Finally, this bill makes important improvements for travelers with disabilities, including requiring training, for employees who handle wheelchairs, and it requires the DOT to actually respond to complaints submitted by aggrieved passengers. I know there has been a lot of attention paid to the additional five round trip flights at DCA added by this bipartisan bill. Reagan National is the only airport in the country that Congress has decreed that a plane may travel no further than 1,250 miles from when landing or taking off from. It is absurd, and it is unfair to millions of fliers who are forced to pay higher prices because of this rule. It has been over a decade since Congress has expanded access to DCA, and the inclusion of five round trip flights is a modest proposal that will bring down consumer prices for fliers in the DC region and from western States. This modest increase will not result in negative impacts or delays, nor will it result in loss of flights for anyone who currently receives service. I repeat: It will not result in loss of flights for any route that currently receives service, despite the threats and the fearmongering from the army of United Airlines' lobbyists who are actively working to protect their Dulles monopoly. By my count of United's threatened service cuts, these five round trip flights will lead United to cancel air service to more than half the States in the Union. Don't believe the propaganda. And I have to say, it is not in the interest of any Senator to support a policy that reduces competition, enhances monopoly products for one airline--United Airlines--and drives up the prices not only for the residents of Virginia, DC, and Maryland, but for the residents of all 50 States who have come to our Nation's Capital. In contrast, this modest addition of service would allow for further competition between the airlines that serve DCA. Competition is good for consumers, and it is good for lowering prices. This change will also provide the ability for there to be a direct flight from San Antonio to DC Reagan, delivering a more convenient travel experience for members of the military traveling from Joint Base San Antonio to the Pentagon, to Arlington Cemetery, to our Nation's Capital, and also for business travelers and tourists in San Antonio. I also want to talk about the benefits this bill has for new aerospace technologies. Our bill helps the FAA both modernize and transform its operations and handling of new entrants, like drones and air taxis--a provision that will increase productivity and spur economic activity. Importantly, this reauthorization includes measures to eliminate inefficiencies plaguing the NextGen Office. This legislation also directs the FAA to complete the Beyond Visual Line of Sight rulemaking, which will expand drone delivery and other drone operations across the country and especially in my home State of Texas. I am also proud of the reforms aimed at better integrating commercial space activities into the National Airspace System. Assisting launch providers in navigating complicated airspace will be a boost for Texas's thriving commercial space industry. To carry out all of these ambitious goals, the FAA needs a workforce that has the technical expertise to conduct effective oversight of manufacturers and airlines, as well as technical experts who can help in the certification of these new and novel technologies. This was a major focus of our efforts. For example, in an effort to boost the aviation workforce and provide more opportunities for America's veterans, this legislation makes it easier for military servicemembers to transition to civil aviation careers. This comprehensive and bipartisan bill bolsters the FAA at a time when the Agency needs support. The aviation system is more strained than ever. Millions of Americans travel every single day. Millions of Americans depend on this sector to earn their livelihood. The U.S. aviation sector is the gold standard of safety, and I am proud of the improvements and reforms made in this bill. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bill to final passage. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that permanent privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of the majority and minority Commerce Committee staffs throughout the duration of Calendar No. 211, H.R. 3935: William McKenna, Duncan Rankin, Simone Perez, Rachel Devine, Alexander Simpson, Gabrielle Slais.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise to make a motion. The majority leader has argued that Secretary Mayorkas's defiance of Federal immigration law, an act in aiding and abetting of the worst criminal invasion in our Nation's history, does not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. He has presented no argument on that question. He has presented no briefing on that question. And the position is directly contrary to the Constitution, to the original understanding of the Constitution at the time it was ratified, and to the explicit position of the Biden Department of Justice as argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The majority leader's position is asking Members of the Senate to vote on political expediency to avoid listening to arguments. The only rational way to resolve this question is actually to debate it, to consider the Constitution, and consider the law.

Mr. CRUZ. And my motion is to change that so that we can actually debate the law, as Senators care what the Constitution and law says. I therefore move that the Senate proceed to closed session to allow for deliberation on the question as required by impeachment rule XXIV.