Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I respect my friend from Virginia, but he is mistaken. This amendment is not a new authorization for military force. It restates current law. The language in the finding is, word for word, the finding that President Trump put in place when he authorized the strike that took out General Soleimani. After that strike against General Soleimani, I introduced an amendment on this floor to commend President Trump and the Armed Forces for taking out General Soleimani; and we voted on this, commending President Trump and our Armed Forces for taking out Soleimani. This is not breaking new ground. This is reiterating the proposition that the Commander in Chief has the authority to defend U.S. Armed Forces. To my friend from Virginia, I would note, by the way, earlier last week, we voted on Senator Graham's amendment that would have been a new authorization for use of military force. Many Senators voted against it. This is a much narrower amendment. This says if Iran attacks U.S. troops, the Commander in Chief can defend those troops. That is current law, but it is important for Iran to hear. It is important for our troops to hear. It is important for the Biden administration to hear. Nowhere in my friend from Virginia's remarks did he dispute that Iran has attacked the United States 78 times in the last 2\1/2\ years and that the Biden administration has responded only three times. We owe our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to have their backs. I urge support of this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 9

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

Mr. CRUZ

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Phil Washington, President Biden's nominee to serve as the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the top job at the FAA. The FAA has been in the news far too often lately, from the software meltdown of a critical safety system in January that resulted in the first U.S. ground stop of aircraft since September 11 to recent, numerous near-misses of airliners on runways. These incidents are a stark reminder of why it is essential to have an FAA Administrator with decades of deep and real aviation experience, especially experience in aviation safety. After all, the FAA's primary mission is to keep the flying public safe. This mission is so important that Congress has explicitly mandated, by statute, that the FAA Administrator must ``have experience in a field directly related to aviation.'' This is not a patronage job; this is an aviation safety job. And it is, frankly, irresponsible to entrust the role of protecting the lives of millions of Americans who fly in the hands of a person who needs on-the-job training. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have with President Biden's FAA nominee, Phil Washington. I am deeply disappointed that the Biden White House decided to treat a critical safety position as a political spoil system, to reward a political ally rather than to ensure an experienced safety professional to keep us all safe. And as a result of the Biden White House playing politics with this critically important position, the FAA has lacked a Senate-confirmed leader for a year now. Phil Washington is objectively, indisputably unqualified to lead the FAA. For two decades, he worked at mass transit agencies, where he was in charge of buses and trains, not planes. That experience might qualify him to serve at the Federal Transit Administration or on the board of Amtrak. Those would be reasonable nominations given Mr. Washington's experience. But buses and trains have nothing to do with airplanes. The indisputable fact is that Mr. Washington has zero aviation experience and, in particular, zero aviation safety experience. Mr. Washington has never flown an airplane. He has never been a military pilot. He has never been a commercial airline pilot. He has never worked at an airline. He has never worked at an airline manufacturer. He has never served as an air traffic controller. He has never worked for a company that repairs airplanes. The only aviation experience that Mr. Washington has is limited, for the last 20 months, to working at the Denver airport as the CEO. However, in that job, his primary responsibility is the physical plant there. It is the airport's shopping. It is its dining. It is its parking. It is its buildings. He doesn't have responsibility for aviation and aviation safety. In particular, as Mr. Washington admitted at his confirmation hearing, the pilots don't work for him, the mechanics don't work for him, and the air traffic controllers don't work for him. His job is not in aviation safety. Aviation is a field involving highly technical issues. To understand these issues, to lead the FAA, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration needs to have extensive knowledge, experience, and expertise in aviation. This shouldn't be a controversial statement, and, historically, the head of the FAA has had decades of real, serious experience in aviation safety. The FAA Administrator is supposed to be a nonpartisan position for an aviation expert. I don't want a Democrat FAA Administrator or a Republican FAA Administrator. I want someone who has some idea how to keep the damn planes in the sky. That is why the term of office is 5 years for this position--because it is not a position that is suitable to partisan patronage, but rather you need nonpartisan experts. FAA Administrators typically stay on the job even when the White House changes hands. This is a job for someone with specialized knowledge needed to ensure the safety of the flying public. I will readily admit, I am wildly unqualified to be FAA Administrator. No one in their right mind would put me in charge of this Agency because I don't have any idea how to fly a plane. I certainly don't know what needs to be done to ensure that they are flying safely. The sad thing is, Mr. Washington doesn't know any more than I do when it comes to this critical, specialized role. Mr. Washington's nomination hearing confirmed what is abundantly clear in his resume: that he lacks any aviation experience. At his hearing, he was unable to answer basic aviation questions, including safety questions about aircraft certification, about pilot licensing, about airports. I asked Mr. Washington about what caused the two tragic accidents with the 737 MAX. He was forced to answer to say he didn't know. Sadly, I believe him. But that is an enormous problem, given that 346 souls were lost in those two horrific crashes. An FAA Administrator who doesn't know what happened is not qualified to do the job. One of the newest members of the committee, Senator Ted Budd, is a pilot. I would commend the Presiding Officer, I would commend anyone, go watch Senator Budd's questioning of Phil Washington. Senator Budd asked him basic questions a pilot should know, basic questions such as how close airplanes are allowed to get on runways. I will be honest. I have no idea. I am not a pilot; I am not an air traffic controller; and I am not running the FAA. But it is pretty stunning that the person nominated to run the FAA has no idea either. That person should know how to do his job. And I will point out it wasn't just Republicans who raised these questions. At the confirmation hearing, multiple Democrats raised serious questions about Mr. Washington's lack of qualifications to lead the FAA. As a result, State and local aviation groups from all across the country, including pilot groups from Arizona, from Montana, from New Mexico, from Minnesota, from New Hampshire--all are opposed to this nomination. One of them, the Montana Pilots Association, has said that Mr. Washington is ``singularly unqualified to serve as FAA administrator.'' And, unfortunately, the problems with Mr. Washington's nomination don't end with his lack of aviation experience. There are also serious concerns regarding outstanding allegations that Mr. Washington engaged in misconduct during his time as the head of the Los Angeles Metro. He has been named in multiple search warrants in an ongoing criminal public corruption investigation, and he has been the subject of multiple whistleblower complaints. One search warrant was executed just last September, not very long ago. It contained allegations that Mr. Washington pushed forward lucrative no-bid contracts to a politically connected nonprofit to run a sexual harassment hotline that was hardly ever used and that he did so in order to stay in the good graces of a powerful politician on L.A. Metro's board. The allegations are the kind of local corruption, sadly, we see far too often across this country in both parties. But a whistleblower who exposed the details of this alleged pay-to-play contracting scheme claims to have been retaliated against by Mr. Washington. After Mr. Washington left the L.A. Metro, the agency settled these claims with the whistleblower for $625,000. I practiced law for a long time. You did as well. A $625,000 check is not a nuisance check. It is not a go- away check. It is indicative that there is real there, there. Whistleblowers don't get settlements for more than a half million dollars if their claim is baseless. During my 11 years in the Senate, I have seen lots of nominees. I cannot recall seeing even a single other nominee who was currently entangled in an ongoing public corruption criminal investigation while his nomination was pending. The week before his confirmation hearing, my staff contacted the California attorney general's office about the status of this investigation. Despite Mr. Washington's insistence that he has done nothing wrong, the attorney general's office stated, No. 1, that there is an ongoing criminal investigation into this public corruption scheme; No. 2, that Mr. Washington has a ``material involvement in the case''; and, No. 3, that the investigation is months from being completed. It is important to note that the law enforcement officers involved in this investigation--from the L.A. County sheriff to the California attorney general--are all Democrats. There is no issue of partisan targeting. There is no Republican who has it out for Phil Washington. This is a Democrat sheriff and a Democrat attorney general in California who are investigating Mr. Washington right now for public corruption. Even more amazingly, when my staff spoke with the California attorney general's office, the AG's office told us that at the time they spoke, they were not aware of anybody from the White House, from the FBI, or from the Senate who had even contacted them to ask about Mr. Washington's ongoing involvement in the investigation. That is truly stunning. That is, frankly, just not caring. It is inexplicable to me that a President, that a White House, would choose to nominate someone who is materially involved in a current ongoing public corruption investigation. Just imagine how damaging it would be to the FAA if Mr. Washington were confirmed and then months later he were to find himself indicted for public corruption. That would do real damage to an Agency that needs serious trust and leadership. The FAA's mission to keep the flying public safe is far too important to have anyone other than a highly experienced aviation expert at the helm. Fortunately, the FAA right now is being run by Acting Administrator Billy Nolen, who unlike Mr. Washington has decades of aviation experience. Mr. Nolen has worked as a pilot; he is a seasoned aviation safety executive; and he has been in senior leadership roles at the FAA. At the nomination hearing and at the hearing that followed the next week with Acting Administrator Nolen, I suggested an obvious solution. President Biden has already named an Acting Administrator who is qualified and knows how to do the job. For those who are concerned about racial diversity, both Mr. Washington and Mr. Nolen are both African American. The difference is, Mr. Nolen has decades of experience in aviation safety, and Mr. Washington has none. The Presiding Officer serves with me on the Commerce Committee. You are the newest member to join the committee. Welcome to the committee. We are glad to have you. I don't believe Mr. Washington's nomination is going to go forward successfully. I do not believe the votes are there. I would suggest to the Presiding Officer and to every Democrat on the committee and in this Chamber, if you agree with me, pick up the phone and call the White House. Say: Hey, look, don't spend time on a nomination when the votes aren't there. Let's go with someone who knows how to do the job, who is qualified. I stated at the last hearing, if Mr. Nolen were nominated--and to be clear, I don't know Mr. Nolen. I don't have a dog in the fight other than I would like someone who knows how do this job. But I stated publicly at that hearing that if Mr. Nolen were nominated, that I assumed he would be confirmed quickly and with very significant bipartisan support. That should be our objective for a job like this. And let me say this. You know, all 100 of us get on an airplane a lot. It is part of the job serving in the U.S. Senate. I was on a plane this morning. I suspect the Presiding Officer was either this morning or yesterday on a plane. We have millions of Americans who fly every year, who get on planes, who get on planes with their husbands, with their wives, get on planes with their children. And, tragically, one of the inevitable realities with that many people flying is that safety is always an issue, and there will be, at some point, a catastrophic crash. We don't know when. We want to do everything we can to prevent it, but we know at some point another plane will crash. Let me suggest to the Members of the Senate, if, God forbid, that were to happen in the next 2 years--and I pray that it does not--I can tell you, I certainly wouldn't want to be a Senator who voted to confirm an Administrator of the FAA who has never flown a plane, who doesn't know anything about aviation safety, and has no idea why the plane crashed. I don't know how I would go home and explain to 30 million Texans that, well, you know, my political party nominated him, and so I went with party loyalty and voted to confirm the guy, even though he didn't have the experience to do the job. I don't believe Mr. Washington is going to be confirmed. Personally, I respect his military service. When he testified before the committee, he seemed like a decent and capable man. But he is also a man who doesn't know anything about airplanes. And if there is any job in the entire Federal Government where you need to know not just something about airplanes, a lot about airplanes, it is to be the Administrator of the FAA. We need a Senate-confirmed leader in this job quickly. And I would urge the President to withdraw this nomination and nominate either Acting Administrator Nolen or, if not him, somebody like him, with decades of real experience, so that we can have a Senate-confirmed leader with the knowledge and judgment and expertise to do everything humanly possible to keep your family safe and my family safe and to keep the flying public safe. We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to do this right. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, crime is surging across this Nation. Murder rates have risen over the last 3 years, carjackings are rising, robberies are rising. Today, I want to discuss the resolution disapproving of the DC City Council's decision to eliminate mandatory minimums and to reduce maximum sentences for violent crimes, including robbery, carjacking, and burglary. The DC City Council made this decision to lower penalties late last year, despite the fact that crime has been skyrocketing in this city. In the past 12 months, overall crime is up 25 percent in DC. Car theft has increased 110 percent in DC. And homicides have increased 30 percent. Who, in their right mind, looks to those rising crime rates and says the answer is to lower the penalties for violent crime? DC's spike in crime is hardly confined to the last 12 months. In 2021, the number of murders in DC was the highest it has been since 2003. The Mayor of DC, a Democrat, vetoed the city council's decision to rewrite the Criminal Code, saying: Any time there is a policy that reduces penalties, I think it sends the wrong message. Unfortunately, the Democrats on the city council in DC overrode her veto. Time and time again, we have seen Democrats in major cities reducing penalties for crime; and we have seen, as a result, crime spiking. We have seen this in San Francisco. We have seen this in Los Angeles. We have seen this in Portland. We have seen this in Boston. We have seen this in Philadelphia. We have seen this in New York. We have seen this in St. Louis. We have seen this in Chicago. Crime is spiking in DC, and it is incredibly harmful to the men and women and children who live in DC to be lowering the penalties for violent crime. That is why I am proud to support the resolution to disapprove of the DC City Council's decision. And I thank my friend from Tennessee for his leadership in bringing this resolution. This has already passed the House. And I believe it will pass the Senate as well. And, despite being soft on crime his entire Presidency, President Biden has said he will sign it if it passes the Senate. Now that is remarkable given Biden's record on crime. That is remarkable given that Biden has nominated not one, not two, but three of the leading advocates of abolishing the police to senior positions in the Department of Justice. I am sorry to say that every Democrat in this Chamber voted to confirm not one, not two, but all three of those advocates of abolishing the police to senior positions in the Department of Justice. One of those was a George Soros-backed prosecutor in Massachusetts who, like the DC City Council, put out a list of crimes that she would not allow her prosecutors to prosecute, endangering the citizens she was charged to protect. What was her reward for refusing to prosecute violent criminals? President Biden nominated her to be U.S. Attorney for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and every Senate Democrat voted to confirm her as the U.S. Attorney, the chief Federal prosecutor, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, once President Biden said he would sign this bill, the political pressure it has put on the DC City Council has had enormous impact. This week, the council tried to withdraw the legislation. ``Never mind,'' was their response. But simply withdrawing a bill doesn't permanently get rid of it under the Home Rule Act, which allows Congress to review legislation that comes out of the DC City Council. To permanently stop the DC Council's harmful bill, Congress should proceed and pass the Resolution of Disapproval and President Biden should follow through on his commitment to sign it. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that violent crime is a major problem. Democrats, tragically, have been soft on crime for years; and crime has surged as a result. At the end of the day, it is not complicated: If you let violent criminals go, they commit more and more violent crimes. We have seen patterns all over the country of mass murders carried out by violent criminals who Democrat DA's have let out of jail, only to see them turn around and commit more violent crimes. Congress, right now, has an opportunity to come together and to speak in a bipartisan way and to say: Enough is enough is enough. Stop letting violent criminals out of jail. Let's protect our citizens. Let's do our job. I urge every Senator, Republican and Democrat, to support this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 86, which is at the desk.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, tomorrow is Texas Independence Day. On that day 187 years ago, the Texians declared our independence from Mexico and fired a shot for liberty. In the fight for independence from Mexico, many would go on to give their lives for liberty at the Alamo, including William Barret Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett. But shortly afterwards, after losing battle after battle after battle, the Texians won a decisive victory at the Battle of San Jacinto and formed the Republic of Texas. The rest is history. After 9 years as a republic, our own nation, Texas officially became part of the United States in February of 1846. Sam Houston, the founding father of the Lone Star State, was also born 230 years ago tomorrow. Tomorrow is Sam Houston's birthday. Happy birthday. Sam Houston was an extraordinary American. He was born in Virginia, spent many years in Tennessee, where he served in the U.S. House of Representatives and then became Governor of Tennessee. In Texas, he served as commander in chief of the Texian Army. He led the Texas Army to victory in the war for Texas independence. When Texas became an independent nation, Sam Houston served in the Texas House of Representatives and then as President of the Republic of Texas. When Texas joined the United States, he served in the U.S. Senate and finally as Governor of Texas. I have always been a bit jealous that my colleague Senator Cornyn happens to occupy the seat that once was held by Sam Houston. Sam Houston was a tireless, talented leader and a great statesman who believed passionately in freedom. His words, ``Govern wisely and as little as possible,'' remain true today, and the Lone Star State still follows that principle. These great heroes, these great Texians, risked everything for freedom to make freedom a reality for generations of Texans. And tomorrow, we celebrate and honor their sacrifices. Many years in the past, I have stood on the floor of the Senate and read Travis's letter from the Alamo to honor Texas Independence Day. This year, my colleague Senator Cornyn will read it since I read it last year.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of Oswaldo Paya, who would have celebrated his 71st birthday this week. His memory and his story have been an inspiration to dissidents across the world, and I would like to briefly retell it here today. Oswaldo Paya was a dissident and a democracy activist in Cuba with unrelenting passion and dedication. He was someone who stood up against the Castro regime at very direct risk to his own life. He had incredible courage. He spoke up for human rights. He spoke up for free speech. He spoke up for democracy. Eleven years ago, Oswaldo Paya was murdered. On July 22, 2012, Paya left his house with three other people to go visit friends. From the start of their journey, their car was followed. On the way, the Cuban police drove Paya's car off the road and killed him. The crash is widely believed to have been orchestrated by the Castro regime. Paya had long been a thorn in the side of the Castros, even from a young age. He was the only person at his school who had refused to join the Communist Youth. As a teenager, he publicly opposed the communist crackdown on protesters in Czechoslovakia who were fighting for freedom, and he was punished with 3 years in prison. Paya went on to found the Varela Project, which sought a referendum on Cuba's communist system. Their demands were simple: democratic government, religious liberty, freedom of expression, and the freedom to start businesses. Paya managed to get 11,000 signatures to petition the government to hold a referendum, and eventually 20,000 people supported the referendum. Twenty thousand people risked their lives by standing with Oswaldo Paya for freedom. But the Cuban Government refused to hold a referendum. Paya's fight for freedom made him a target repeatedly of the Communist Party in Cuba. They harassed him, tried to intimidate him, and arrested him numerous times. And in 2012, they killed him. Paya's friend and the driver of the car said that when he awoke after the crash, he was confronted at the hospital by a government operative, and the hospital was flooded with uniformed military personnel. Under extreme duress, drugged, and threatened with death by government officials, he signed a confession that directly contradicted what he knew to be true--that the communist regime had just murdered Oswaldo Paya. I have met multiple times with Oswaldo Paya's daughter, Rosa Maria, who is an incredible, courageous, powerful leader in her own right, and we have discussed ways we can continue her father's fight for justice in Cuba. One of the things I have done is I have filed legislation to rename the street in front of the Cuban Embassy in Washington, DC, ``Oswaldo Paya Way.'' Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy would send a powerful message to the communist regime. During the Cold War, President Reagan followed this very same strategy. He renamed the street in front of the Soviet Embassy ``Sakharov Plaza'' after the famed human rights dissident in the Soviet Union. It was part of a broader strategy to call out the evil regime. My strategy is the same here. Some people may think a street name is not that big a deal, but think about it for a moment. If you change the street name, it means anyone who wants to write to the Cuban Embassy will have to write Oswaldo Paya's name. If you need to go there, you will have to look up the address and see the same. Tyranny exists in darkness. Oppressive regimes are terrified by dissidents. Members of the Cuban Government who deal with the Embassy will have to acknowledge that Paya existed and that this hero who was wrongfully murdered was real. They will have to say his name. There is power in saying his name. I want to tell you another story that illustrates just how powerful this renaming strategy can be. Several years ago, I introduced legislation to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, ``Liu Xiaobo Plaza.'' Liu Xiaobo was a Noble Peace laureate and democracy activist in China who was wrongfully imprisoned there. My bill ended up passing the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing. Every Senator, Republican and Democrat, agreed with that bill. Sadly, even though it was a Democrat Senate at the time, the Republican House failed to take up the bill, so it didn't pass into law. But here is an epilogue to that story. At the beginning of the Trump administration in 2017, I was having breakfast with Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State. We were at Foggy Bottom at the State Department. We were talking about China at one point, and he said he had just had a meeting with his counterpart, the Foreign Minister of China. He said the Foreign Minister came out and said the Chinese Communist Government has three top priorities in foreign policy, and Rex kind of shook his head. He said: Ted, it is the damnedest thing. One of their top three priorities is to prevent your bill to rename the street in front of their Embassy from passing. I will tell you what I told Rex that morning. At the time, Liu Xiaobo had passed away. He had never collected the over $1 million that he was entitled to for winning the Noble Peace Prize. But his widow, Liu Xia, was still in China. China would not let her go. I told Rex: You go back to China, and you tell them the following. If they release Liu Xia, if they let her go, I will stop pressing to pass this bill. But if they don't, I will continue pressing to pass it, and we will succeed. I have already passed it 100 to nothing in the U.S. Senate, and the next time, we are going to get it passed in the House as well and get it passed into law. Just a few weeks later, communist China released Liu Xia. She was able to receive the prize money for the Noble Peace Prize and escape the oppression of communist China. This story speaks volumes about the weakness of a tyrannical regime, just how vulnerable they are to sunshine, to truth, to transparency, to being called out. Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy after Oswaldo Paya would shine a light and would highlight the truth about the communist regime in Cuba. It would be a powerful tool in bringing down the machinery of oppression there. We saw not long ago thousands of Cubans taking to the street, fighting for liberty. The Cuban people should know the American people stand with them against tyranny and against the communist oppression, the poverty, the misery, the death under which they live every day, and it would be a powerful tool to bringing down the machinery of oppression in Cuba in the nonviolent way that Oswaldo Paya so powerfully championed. This Congress, I am very hopeful that my bill to rename the street in front of the Cuban Embassy ``Oswaldo Paya Way'' will be passed by both Chambers. Oswaldo Paya fought for a free Cuba--Cuba libre--built on human decency, on human rights, where citizens are heard, not murdered by their government. Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to honor Oswaldo Paya. Let's come together and force the communist regime to say his name. I yield the floor.

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, when the COVID pandemic hit, small businesses were shut down; millions of Americans lost their jobs; schools were shut down; flights were canceled; and traveling ground to a halt. The sick and the elderly were forced to die in hospitals and nursing homes, tragically alone, without the comforting embrace of loved ones. The corporate media told us there was no way that this virus could have escaped from a Chinese Government lab, and Big Tech companies banned and censored posts laying out the evidence that it had escaped from a Chinese lab, labeling that evidence a ``conspiracy theory.'' Masks were mandated everywhere. And when the COVID vaccines came out, those were mandated too. Doctors, nurses, and our brave service men and women who chose not to get the vaccine were fired, discharged, sent home. The corrupt corporate media's reaction to COVID devastated our economy and led directly to massive inflation, to weakening and even destroying faith in public health institutions, and resulted in learning loss that millions of American children may never recover from. The pandemic is over. President Biden has even admitted that. The vast majority of America has moved on with their lives. But, sadly, the Biden White House and too many Senate Democrats want to cling to power. During the pandemic, we saw abuses of power at every level of government but especially the Federal Government. Over the past 2 years, I have been proud to lead the fight in the Senate to stop these abuses by introducing targeted pieces of legislation that I have reintroduced in this new Congress. Five of these bills would get rid of mandates. If passed into law, they would mean no more mask mandates, no vaccine mandates, no vaccine passports, no vaccine mandates for minors, and no vaccine mandates for kids to go back to school in Washington, DC. Two other bills concern vital healthcare. The GIVE LIFE Act, or Doss's bill, is named after a teenager in Texas who was denied a kidney transplant because he hadn't been vaccinated against COVID. No American should be denied a lifesaving medical treatment such as an organ transplant because of their COVID vaccine status. That is wrong. Unfortunately, we have seen this kind of discrimination over and over again. We saw it happen to a teenager in Texas. It also happened to a 31-year-old man in Boston who was denied a heart transplant, to a 38- year-old veteran who had already had COVID twice who was denied a kidney transplant in North Carolina, and a man in South Carolina who was also denied a kidney transplant because he wasn't vaccinated against COVID. Just in December, yet another teenager was denied a kidney transplant, this time in North Carolina, because she wasn't vaccinated against COVID. The GIVE LIFE Act would stop the Federal Government from enabling this discrimination when it comes to organ donation. Another bill, the Ending Discrimination in COVID-19 Treatments Act, would mandate the Department of Health and Human Services to require that providers not engage in discriminatory practices when treating COVID. I filed this bill in response to reports that States across the country have used race and ethnicity as a factor in determining whether someone is eligible to receive COVID treatments, particularly monoclonal antibodies when they were first introduced. This bill now applies to all COVID funding and treatments, not just monoclonal antibodies. This kind of discrimination and treatment has happened in the past year. In January 2022, a man in New York who had both COVID and pneumonia was denied monoclonal antibodies. He told CBS News: The doctor just shut me down and said this is the criteria: You're not of age, which is 65, and you're not a minority. As part of its response, the New York Department of Health told CBS: This guidance is based on CDC guidelines that show COVID mortality rates are higher among certain demographic groups, including senior citizens, immunocompromised individuals, and nonwhite/Hispanic communities. So what New York said is they were following CDC guidelines in determining how this COVID treatment would be distributed. As New York, itself, admitted, the CDC guidelines are encouraging racial discrimination in the distribution of healthcare, and that is immoral and wrong. My bill would stop this discrimination. Let's be very clear here. Race, religion, ethnicity should not be a factor--zero--in determining anyone's medical treatment. Doing so is unconstitutional; it is wrong; and it is abhorrent. These are battles worth fighting. For those of us who have been standing up against these abusive mandates, we recently won a big victory in December of last year on COVID vaccines in the military. I have fought hard to end President Biden's military vaccine mandate and last month, December, we succeeded. We passed into law a provision to end the mandate, finally, but, sadly, that provision was prospective. The Democrats in Congress would only agree to it going forward if it applied in the future, but provided zero relief to the thousands or even tens of thousands of service men and women who were terminated because they declined to get the vaccine. To fix this, I have introduced legislation called the AMERICANS Act, which would allow those service men and women who were terminated to be reinstated if they want to go back into the military. And if they do, they could go back to their original rank and receive the benefits to which they were entitled and which they have earned. If those servicemembers choose not to go back in the military, my bill would ensure that they receive an honorable discharge--not merely a general discharge, as too many of them have received--which will ensure that they can receive the benefits they earned by fighting to defend this country. I am committed to fighting for every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every marine, every coastguardsman who was wrongfully terminated or wrongfully demoted because of the COVID vaccine mandate. And I give my word: I am going to keep fighting for them until they see justice. That is why tonight, we are going to be at the State of the Union Address on the other side of the Capitol, and my guest tonight for the State of the Union is LT Levi Beaird, a naval surface warfare officer. Lieutenant Beaird is a Texas resident and a top-rated officer. In March of 2022, he faced a separation board because he made the personal decision to decline to get the COVID vaccine. But before the Biden administration could kick him out, a Federal judge entered an injunction preventing the Navy from terminating Lieutenant Beaird. However, the Navy is, right now, trying to recoup from him $75,000 that they already paid him in anticipation of Lieutenant Beaird's becoming a department head because he wasn't named a department head. Well, the reason he wasn't named a department head is because he made the personal decision not to get the COVID vaccine due to his own sincere religious objection. I am proud to be welcoming Lieutenant Beaird to the State of the Union tonight. I hope that his being there will cause those in the media to tell his story because it really underscores how grotesquely unfair the Biden administration's policies have been and how they punish those American heroes. So Lieutenant Beaird will be in the audience tonight as Joe Biden, no doubt, will congratulate himself and try to avoid accountability for the problems his administration has caused. When it comes to COVID, the pandemic we endured as a nation was an enormous challenge. The policies that were put in place across this country in response to the pandemic, many of them have caused enormous damage. I believe, as a nation, we will look back on these policies, in the years and decades to come, and wonder what collective insanity came over this country; what insanity led to the judgment that it is a good idea to shut down schools for tens of millions of children across this country for more than a year; that it is a good idea for young children, elementary school children, not to learn reading and writing and math. That policy has resulted in massive learning loss, and that learning loss has been all the greater among the economically disadvantaged, among Hispanic and African-American kids. The result of these shutdowns is a generation of kids who have been harmed, perhaps, irreparably. In our military, the results of firing thousands upon thousands of service men and women--and we don't know how many. I would note, I asked the Biden administration over and over again: How many of our heroes have you fired? The administration refuses to answer. It is, in the minimum, thousands; it may be in the tens of thousands. But I can tell you, I have spoken with Navy SEALS, heroes who spent their lives training and defending this Nation, and they are being fired--some of the youngest, healthiest people we have in our country are being fired because they didn't comply with an arbitrary decree. And now, the President and the administration have admitted that decree should no longer be enforced, but the Navy Seals they fired last year or the year before are still out of the military. All the while, we have massive recruiting shortfalls, and America is in greater jeopardy. Mr. President, you are new on this side of the aisle but not new to Congress. There was a time in this body when Republicans and Democrats could come together and reason together, where not everything we did was a shirts-and-skins partisan battle: Good morning. No, it is not. In less vituperative times, these shouldn't be difficult questions. When I forced a vote on the Senate floor that the DC Public Schools should not throw out of school every student who hasn't received the COVID vaccine--and, mind you, that is 20 percent of the students in DC Public Schools, and, in the African-American community, it is 40 percent of the African-American students in the DC Public Schools. I am sorry to say, but when we voted on that on the Senate floor, every single Democrat--all of them--voted to throw out of public schools 40 percent of the Black kids in DC. You are talking about a 13-, 14-, 15-year-old kid who Senate Democrats were willing to make a high-school dropout involuntarily because that child or that child's parents made the decision not to receive the vaccine. In ordinary sane times, that should be a 100-to-nothing vote. You would think it was almost satirical that someone would stand up and say: We are debating whether or not to throw out of DC Public Schools 40 percent of the African-American children. If you and I go home and talk to our citizens at home, to a person, they would think that was nuts, unless they happened to work in this building. On the question of service men and women, we saw, in the preceding year, that President Biden called to congratulate a coastguardsman who showed incredible heroism rescuing people at a time of natural disaster. That coastguardsman, within the week, was notified that he was being terminated because he hadn't gotten the COVID vaccine. This shouldn't be divisive. We want our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and coastguardsmen to be ready, to be trained, to be serving, and, if the administration agrees the mandate makes no sense today, why would we sit by and let thousands upon thousands of them remain fired, terminated, and denied the benefits they have earned? So I call upon this body: Let's have a return to sanity. Let's fight for the men and women we are elected to represent. And I give you my word that I am going to continue to fight against these mandates that are wrong, that are unjust, that are harmful, and I hope and pray this body can come together and embrace sanity once again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a gross miscarriage of justice--the imprisonment of Mark Swidan by the Government of China and the Chinese Communist Party. Mark is from Luling, a small city in my home State of Texas. His mother, Ms. Katherine Swidan, still lives in Luling, while Mark eventually became a resident of Houston, my hometown. For over 10 years, Katherine has been waging a desperate battle to see her son again. In 2012, Mark traveled to China on a business trip, which turned into a nightmare. On November 13, 2012, Mark was abducted by China's Public Security Bureau while he was taking his family back home. A witness to the abduction has said that Mark was detained because Chinese officials wanted to view the contents of his cell phone. Mark was accused of being a part of a criminal conspiracy with 11 other individuals to manufacture and traffic drugs--charges that Mark has denied and which have been debunked over and over again. Chinese authorities tried to coerce Mark into confessing. He refused, and he pleaded not guilty in a trial that occurred in November 2013. During the trial, the prosecution didn't produce any forensic evidence to back up their allegations, and no drugs were found on Mark or in his hotel room. Records in Mark's passport showed that he wasn't even in China during the time of the alleged offenses, and the 11 other individuals indicted in relation to this alleged drug conspiracy couldn't identify Mark. Nevertheless, outrageously, in 2019, a Chinese court sentenced Mark to death. Mark remains unjustly detained today. He is suffering in a Chinese prison right now, as we speak. In prison, Mark has been kept in deplorable, abusive conditions. His jailers seek to break his will and break his faith. They have confiscated his Bible and his rosary. Mark's cell exposes him to extreme heat and extreme cold. He is deprived of sleep and subjected to physical abuse. He is in danger of high blood pressure, skin infections, and asthma. He has lost more than 100 pounds. His health is dire. Throughout all of this, Mark has been denied access to his family and access to American diplomats. Mark has communicated with his mother, and his mother has told me and told the world that the Chinese communist government has failed to break Mark's faith, which remains strong. I spoke with Mark's mother earlier this week. This is a mom whose heart is breaking. This is a mom who wants to see her son again. This is a mom who wants to hold and hug and care for the son she loves. The treatment of Mark has been atrocious, so much so that even the United Nations has called on China to release him. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention--a U.N. group of human rights experts who investigate cases of arbitrary detention around the world--found that Mark is being held in violation of customary international law and international norms, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The world can see that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to use hostages and hostage taking as a tool of statecraft. The Chinese Communist Party says they want to be taken seriously as a great power and a great nation, and they say they want to be respected on the global stage. But their treatment of Mark is not how great nations and great powers behave; their treatment of Mark is how third-world despots act. I have drafted and this week introduced a resolution calling on the Chinese Government and the Chinese Communist Party to immediately release Mark. I am joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and by Representative Cloud from Texas in the House, who has introduced the same resolution in the House of Representatives. This resolution not only calls for Mark's immediate release, it also condemns China for withholding from Mark access to his family and to proper medical care. Furthermore, it calls on the Biden administration to prioritize efforts to secure Mark's release, both in their conversations with Chinese diplomats and in international forums. In a few days, Secretary of State Blinken will be in Beijing, and he will have an opportunity to finish the final chapter of this tragedy. I am calling on the Biden administration to use all of the tools at our disposal to secure Mark's release, and I am calling on the Government of China to finally release Mark. This ordeal has to end. It has to end for Mark. It has to end for his mother. It has to end for his family. We must and will do more so that Mark can come home. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object. Let me start by expressing agreement with my friend from Virginia on two points he just raised: No. 1, his very good advice to the pages here and to any Senate staff that might be listening. The best thing to do probably is do not tweet. But if you must tweet--and I am guilty of that offense myself--remember that your tweets can and will be used against you; that the internet is forever. And as the father of daughters, I sometimes am terrified of what our children will say and to see it come back to haunt them years and decades later. And the second thing my friend from Virginia said that I also agree with is he said, administrations from both parties have neglected the Americas. I think that is a serious problem. I am a strong believer in the Monroe Doctrine. I think the United States of America has a pivotal leadership responsibility in North America and in South America. And I think under both Republican and Democrat administrations, too often the executive branch has neglected the vital role of Central America, of South America, of our friends throughout the Americas. I think that problem has been exacerbated under the Biden administration because under the Biden administration, not only have they neglected the hemisphere, but what little attention they have given has had the effect of elevating the extreme left in Latin America--elevating socialists, elevating Marxists, elevating terrorists, and elevating enemies of America. We see this tragically in the recent election in Colombia, where a strong friend and ally of America is now led by someone who had been a hard-left active terrorist, and I believe the Biden administration's actions, including delisting multiple terrorists from our official terrorism list, played a role in elevating an anti-American leftist in Colombia. Well, how does that relate to this nomination? I rise to express very significant concerns with the nomination of Mr. Martinez Nucete. For one thing, at the outset, Mr. Martinez Nucete is a man of the left--a man of the hard left. Now, the Senator from Virginia suggested that he may have sent an ill-advised tweet now and then, and that is true, but that is not the basis of my opposition. He has been a hard partisan his entire life, and even further than that--and this is really quite remarkable--Mr. Martinez Nucete was actually a Socialist congressman in Venezuela. Under Hugo Chavez, he was a member or his party was a member of Socialist International, and he was a man of the hard left, the anti-American hard left. Hugo Chavez was an unshakable enemy of America. Nicholas Maduro continues to be a brutal dictator, an illegitimate leader, and an enemy of America. I believe President Biden nominating a fellow traveler, a Socialist congressman from Venezuela, for a major role dealing with Latin America is astonishingly ill-advised. Secondly, Mr. Martinez Nucete has expressed an unusual--an odd-- hostility to and antipathy for people of faith. This is not something we have seen in many nominees, but his answers have been peculiar in this regard. It is particularly inappropriate for the job to which he has been nominated. For example, here is what the World Bank says about their role: The Bank recognizes-- This is speaking of faith-based organizations. --their distinct strategic value given their unique attributes, including the fact that more than 80 percent of the world's population claims religious affiliations. [Faith- based organizations] are found in every country and offer opportunities for partnership and advocacy on a broad range of key development issues. It is not just the World Bank. Here is what USAID said: Faith-based . . . organizations serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the world. They are often the first in and the last to leave, and [are] uniquely qualified to identify and meet local needs. Indeed, here is what a study actually funded by the Inter-American Development Bank, where Martinez Nucete would be representing the United States, said, the IADB: All institutions surveyed partnered with community groups and faith-based organizations to provide information. Now, what are Mr. Martinez Nucete's views? Well, I asked him about them specifically when he came in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I asked him the extent to which he believed faith should be disentangled from development, because he had previously been quite vocal on his passions in that regard. Here is his answer: There should be no entanglement between government and religion. That is a bedrock constitutional principle for us in America. I don't think any particular culture or religion is superior to others in terms of achieving socioeconomic development. Now, that answer was odd, and it was nonresponsive to the question I asked, so I asked more precisely for Mr. Martinez Nucete to describe the role that faith plays in economic development as a constraint and a contributing factor. And I remind you that these organizations repeatedly said faith-based organizations are integral to success in their mission. Here is his answer: Education and respect for human rights, promoting social mobility in market economies, is the key to development, not faith. That is unusual. That degree of I think myopic hostility to faith and those with faith is odd in any nominee but particularly one who would be required to deal with faith-based organizations on a daily basis. I raised these arguments in committee, and he was defeated in the committee. We had an even--a deadlocked vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee precisely because of his answers, and then after that, he came back and revised his answers. I would say his revised answers were terrific. Clearly, someone wrote them who apparently does not have a manifest hostility to people of faith. But there is no reason to believe that his first answers were not true and honest and a reflection of his views. There was a time not too long ago where the U.S. Senate found bipartisan consensus on many issues, including a defense of religious liberty. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed this body; I believe the vote was 97 to 3. Numerous iconic, liberal Democrats voted for RFRA. President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. Sadly, we are no longer in that era. Too many in the Democratic Party now have embraced a view that is hostile and antagonistic to people of faith, whether people of the Christian faith, people of the Jewish faith, or people of other faiths. I wish that were not the case. Nevertheless, I believe it is inappropriate for the U.S. representative on a development board that is required to deal with faith-based organizations on a regular basis to be both an extreme man of the left who was a Socialist congressman under Hugo Chavez and an individual who has expressed repeated antipathy to people of faith. Accordingly, I object.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in the last few weeks, students in Uvalde and the rest of Texas started a new school year. Three and a half months ago, on May 24, 19 innocent children and 2 teachers were murdered by a deranged, evil gunman. There are no words to describe a monster who enters a school and murders little children--19 children, 19 families in Uvalde who lost their little boys and their little girls, 2 teachers who are no longer here with us. I was in Uvalde the day after the shooting. I sat down with local officials and law enforcement. I went to the prayer vigil that night where the entire Uvalde community came together, praying, weeping, and mourning the unbelievable loss of those 19 precious children and 2 teachers. The Uvalde shooting was the deadliest school shooting in Texas history. Before that, I was in Santa Fe, where yet another evil madman killed eight students and two teachers. I was also at Sutherland Springs, the worst church shooting in U.S. history. I was in El Paso. I was in Midland-Odessa. I was in Dallas. There have been too damn many mass shootings. With kids going back to school all across the country, we need to again revisit what we can do to keep them safe from mass shooters. Many students, especially in Uvalde, are scared. Their parents are scared, and they have expressed concerns that the security measures at schools in Uvalde haven't improved enough to make them feel safe. Today, I want to put forth two bills that would address this problem. Inevitably, when a mass murder occurs, Democrats in this Chamber and the media implore Congress: Do something. Well, in just a moment, the Senate can do something. The first bill I am going to ask this body to pass is the Secure Our Schools Act, which would spend unused COVID education funds on hiring police officers in schools and hiring school-based mental health professionals. This bill would be the most serious, the most significant, the most major investment in school security Congress has ever enacted. This bill would double the number of police officers on campus. So if, God forbid, the next deranged madman shows up trying to commit murder, before that madman gets into the school, into the classroom, he would encounter an armed police officer who could stop him outside the school before he commits murder. This bill also funds $10 billion for 15,000 new mental health counselors in schools. So many of these deranged killers have a long and horrifying descent into mental illness before they commit their crimes. We see the pattern of the lone, alienated, angry, deranged, young man who seeks to commit the most unspeakable evil. If we had additional mental health resources on campuses, they would be in a position to spot the warning signs, to see the young man heading down that dangerous path, and to intervene and stop them. Recently, the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the U.S. Department of Education, found that 88 percent of public schools did not ``strongly agree'' when asked whether they had the funding and the mental health professionals they needed in the schools. Eighty-eight percent said: We need more mental health professionals in schools and more funding to hire them. My bill would address both of these problems by ensuring that we are doubling the number of police officers so there are armed police officers to protect our kids and keep them safe and so there are mental health counselors to spot a dangerous young man before he goes down the road of committing a horrific mass murder. This bill is common sense, and in a sane political environment, it would be passed 100 to nothing. My colleague Senator Barrasso wants to make some additional remarks on our bill. So I yield the floor to Senator Barrasso. (Ms. ROSEN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4845, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, what we just saw on this floor was stunning. I am genuinely at a loss for words. This bill is common sense. There is not a constituent in Texas or Nevada or Connecticut who, if you asked: Would it be a good thing to have more police officers keeping our kids safe, wouldn't say: Of course it would. There is not a constituent of ours who, if you asked: Would it be a good thing to have more mental health counselors on campus to stop people from committing crimes, wouldn't say: Of course it would. I was informed a few days ago that when I was going to seek unanimous consent, the Senator from Connecticut was going to object. Now, the Senator from Connecticut styles himself the leading advocate of gun control in the U.S. Senate. I was asked by reporters: Why are the Democrats objecting to this? I will tell you what I told reporters: I have no idea. They haven't said. They haven't told me why they object to it. So I was genuinely looking forward to seeing the Senator from Connecticut's remarks. I was sitting here waiting to see, why do you oppose more police officers to keep our kids safe? Why do you oppose mental health counselors in schools? I have been in the Senate 10 years. The Senator from Connecticut and I were elected at the same time. I have engaged in many debates on this floor, including with the Senator from Connecticut. The fact that he chose not to say a word about why he objects is stunning. I find myself genuinely flabbergasted. I will say that one of reasons I think the Senator from Connecticut feels content not only not to argue but now to walk off the floor and not even listen to the debate he is ostensibly participating in, one of reasons he feels free to do so is, if you look up in the Senate Gallery--I can count them--there are precisely zero reporters in this Gallery. Not a single one of the corporate media will report on this, and I think the Senator from Connecticut feels absolutely certain, when he walks out, he will have reporters that will say: Tell me how terrible Donald Trump is. He will lean in and say: Oh, Donald Trump is really terrible. But not one of the reporters will ask: Hey, wait a second, why don't you want police officers keeping our kids safe? None of them will. The Democrats are protected by a dishonest army of propagandists in the corporate media. CNN will not have a panel sitting around discussing why is it that the Democrats simply do not care to defend their positions. Let me tell you, when there is a mass murdering and the Democrats stand up and give speeches and they point at Republicans and say: Blood is on your hands, it is great political rhetoric. It is dishonest, but, boy, it gins up their donors. It gets people to go and write checks to Democrats and fund their campaigns. What we just saw reveals that Democrats have one objective when a mass murder happens, and that is to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. That is always, always, always their solution. Never mind that it doesn't work. Never mind that it doesn't stop violent crime. Never mind that if you look at the jurisdictions across the country with the strictest gun control laws, almost every single one of them consistently has among the highest crime rates and murder rates. Earlier this year, the Senator from Connecticut authored his big gun control package, rammed it through this body--a package which will do nothing, zero, to stop mass murders. We will see another mass murder. I pray that we don't, but evil exists in the world, and if another lunatic attacks a school, and there is not a police officer at the front door to stop him, remember right now. Remember this moment when the Democrats said: No, we will not protect our kids.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, the Senator from Connecticut just gave us the sum total of his wisdom as he walks off the floor again, which is, he says this isn't real. The Presiding Officer is well aware of how the Senate operates. When a Senator arises for a unanimous consent request, one of two things happens: A Senator objects, or the bill passes. I have stood on this floor and passed unanimous consent requests because our colleagues chose not to object. One of the more notable instances was following multiple instances in the House of House Democrats making anti-Semitic comments. The House tried to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Sadly, the radical left in the Democratic caucus objected, and the House Democrats couldn't pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. I joined with our colleague Senator Kaine from Virginia, a Democrat. We authored a resolution, the Cruz-Kaine resolution--a bipartisan resolution that was a clear and unequivocal condemnation of anti- Semitism. It condemned BDS as anti-Semitism. It condemned explicitly the anti-Semitic comments made by those House Democrats at the outset of the dispute. When Senator Kaine and I came to the Senate floor, we did not know if a Senator would object. There were numerous Senators in this body who did not join the resolution and could easily have walked out on the floor and objected. We stood up and asked unanimous consent, and much to our very pleasant surprise, the opposing party chose not to object, and the resolution passed. It passed 100 to nothing. When the Senator from Connecticut says this isn't real, the only reason this bill has not passed the U.S. Senate is because the Senator from Connecticut stood up and uttered two magic words: I object. Had he done something really simple--just shut up, just shut his mouth, just sat there--we would be standing in a position where both of these bills would have passed into law. What does it say about the Democrats' view of the American people that they don't engage in debate, they don't engage in discussion, they don't defend their positions? They, instead, arrogantly say no and have full confidence that their compliant cheerleaders in the media will never even tell anyone about it. I don't know how you defend the position he just took. I was genuinely looking forward to hearing some form of an argument. I can tell you, when I forced a vote on the Cruz-Barrasso bill on this floor and the Democrats voted, party line, no, we don't want more police officers in school; no, we don't want more mental health counselors in school; no, we don't want additional funding for school safety, to the best of my knowledge, no reporter asked a single Democrat: Why are you leaving our kids vulnerable? Why aren't you acting to protect children in school? Because, you know what, there is no money on the left for actually stopping these crimes. The money is for disarming law-abiding citizens. It is a narrow-minded, political focus. We could have just passed the most significant school safety legislation ever passed by the Federal Government. Why didn't we? Because the Democrats objected. That objection is wrong, it is irresponsible, and it shows a willingness to play political games while demonstrating contempt for our constituents. Today, the U.S. Senate failed the American people. Today, the U.S. Senate failed the schoolchildren of America. And I pray that the consequences are not truly horrific. I pray that this body will show up and do its damn job: Debate real issues and pass real legislation that will actually stop crime rather than the empty political gestures of the left. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5263 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, there are a lot of bad things in this bill, but few are worse than the proposal by Democrats in this bill to double the size of the IRS and create 87,000 new IRS agents. I guarantee you citizens in every one of our States, if you ask them what do they want, they don't want 87,000 new IRS agents. And they are not being created to audit billionaires or giant corporations; they are being created to audit you. The House Ways and Means Committee, the minority has put out an estimate that, under this bill, there will be 1.2 million new audits per year, with over 700,000 of those new audits falling on taxpayers making $75,000 or less. I believe, personally, we should abolish the IRS, but, at a minimum, we shouldn't make the IRS larger than the Pentagon, the State Department, the FBI, and the Border Patrol all combined. That is what the Democrats are proposing here. It is a terrible idea. If you don't want 87,000 new IRS agents, vote yes.

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

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5265 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, this bill represents the most significant assault on U.S. energy production the Senate has ever considered. It is designed to bankrupt every coal miner in America, to dramatically increase gas prices consumers are paying, and to permanently harm U.S. oil and gas production. There is, however, one group Senate Democrats do not oppose having more oil, and that is the Chinese communists. In the past year, President Biden has sold over 2 million barrels of oil to the Chinese communist Government from America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That oil was paid for by U.S. taxpayers. My bill would block the President from selling our oil to the Chinese communists. I would note also that it was sold to a Chinese company owned by the communist government in which a significant stake was owned by a private equity firm owned in significant part by the President's own son, Hunter Biden. If the Democrats don't want to see millions of barrels of U.S. oil sold to the Chinese communists, they should support my amendment.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and relevant budget resolutions, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.