Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I commend my friend from Minnesota for her very good bill. This bill is good policy. It is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, as she noted. It passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. I was proud to vote for this piece of legislation. However, at the time the Judiciary Committee took up the bill it also considered amendments--in particular, two amendments I introduced that are both relevant and germane to this bill. This bill is addressing the IRS. We have seen in the past year abuses from the IRS that sadly this body--the Senate--has been unwilling to address. It has been the practice under the current majority leader to prevent the minority from introducing amendments, preventing the minority from having a voice, and so the only avenue for the minority to have a voice is to use tools such as denying consent to try to raise issues that are relevant to the American people. When it comes to the IRS targeting of individual citizens, it was roughly 10 months ago the Inspector General at the Department of the Treasury concluded the IRS had wrongfully targeted conservative groups, tea party groups, pro-Israel groups, and pro-life groups. The day that news broke, the President of the United States said he was outraged. He said he was angry, and he said the American people have a right to be angry. That same day Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder said he too was outraged and, indeed, the President pledged to work hand in hand with Congress. Ten months have passed, and in the 10 months that have passed we have discovered not a single person has been indicted. In the 10 months that have passed, many of the victims of this illegal targeting have not even been interviewed by the Department of Justice. In the 10 months that have passed, we have discovered that one of the lead lawyers leading the investigation at the Department of Justice is a major Obama donor who gave over $6,000 personally to support President Obama and the Democrats. In the 10 months that have transpired, Attorney General Eric Holder has turned down my request that he demonstrate the same impartiality, the same fidelity to the law that has been a bipartisan tradition for Attorneys General under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Indeed, as I pointed out to the Attorney General, when credible allegations of wrongdoing against Richard Nixon arose, his Attorney General Elliott Richardson, a Republican, appointed Archibald Cox to investigate those allegations, free of political pressure. Likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton arose, his Attorney General, a Democrat, Janet Reno, appointed Robert Fiske as an Independent Counsel to get to the bottom of it. Sadly, when I asked Eric Holder if he was willing to follow that same tradition of impartiality, of independence, of fidelity to law, of insulating the Department of Justice from political pressure, the Attorney General gave a flat-out answer of no. He was perfectly content; he saw no reason why anyone should doubt the integrity of an investigation led by a major Obama donor. As I asked the Attorney General, Would you trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon? Of course you wouldn't. So it is in the context of this abuse of power--this abuse of power of the administration--that rather than working hand in hand as the President has pledged, they have stonewalled it--that I introduced two amendments. The first amendment was simply to make it a criminal offense for an IRS employee to target people based on their political beliefs. I will note the text of the language I introduced made it a criminal offense to willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate, or single out for the purpose of harassment any person based solely on the political, economic, or social positions held or expressed by that person or organization. When the IRS targeting was revealed, it was condemned in bipartisan language. If that language was real, this provision should pass this body unanimously. To make the law reflect that it is criminal for the IRS to willfully target someone based solely on their political beliefs ought to be a proposition that passes this body 100 to 0. Yet I am sorry to say that when I introduced this amendment in the Judiciary Committee it was voted down on a straight party-line vote. Every Democrat who had given speeches against the IRS targeting, when given the opportunity to actually codify a prohibition against it in committee, voted against it. Likewise, the second amendment I introduced was an amendment to stop the IRS from its attempt at codification of this persecution of political views. The IRS promulgated new rules that would have put in place its targeting of political views. The response from the citizenry was record-setting. Indeed, I would note what the ACLU said about the IRS's proposed rules. The ACLU--not exactly a bastion of rightwing thought--said: The proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in America. The ACLU went on to say: Most social welfare organizations--on both the left and right--serve exactly that function as they see it--the promotion of social welfare and community good. Based on their respective visions, they advocate for the powerless and the voiceless. They promote fiscal responsibility and good government. They serve as a check on government overreach, or as a cheerleader for sound public policy. I can say in this respect that I agree emphatically and wholeheartedly with the ACLU. So I while I am perfectly happy to assent to the bill of my friend from Minnesota, if only the same reciprocal courtesy will be so and the remainder of the body will assent to these commonsense bills that make it a criminal offense to willfully target people based on their political views, and that keep the IRS out of the business of persecuting people for their political views. I ask this body to stand with the ACLU. I ask this body to stand with the words of President Obama, if not the actions. I ask this body to stand with the American people to protect them from being wrongfully singled out by the abuse of power in the IRS. Accordingly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 311, S. 2066, and Calendar No. 312, S. 2067 en bloc; I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to address the idea of raising the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. But first I wish to spend a few moments talking about the state of the Senate and why the latest push for a higher Federal minimum wage isn't an issue that appears to be driven by solving the underlying economic problems our Nation faces. Over the past few weeks, the Senate majority leader has relished in making personal attacks on two private citizens, David and Charles Koch, on this Senate floor. He has used the Senate floor for the purpose of attempting to assassinate their character. They have committed no crimes, although the majority leader appears to treat it as a crime that they don't support him politically. Many political observers can see this for exactly what it is: a desperate political strategy designed to distract from the economic misery that is being visited on the American people by a failed economic agenda. The Senate majority leader is using the Senate floor to run a political campaign against entrepreneurs and philanthropists who have dared to stand and speak out against the failed Obama economic agenda. The reason he is doing so should not surprise anyone. On substance, the record of this administration cannot be defended. They can't talk about how great ObamaCare is working because millions of Americans have lost their health insurance plans and lost the doctors they like, despite the President's repeated promises to the contrary. Health insurance plans have skyrocketed in States all across this country, especially for young people in the individual market who are seeing their rates sometimes double or triple. And they certainly can't talk about the state of the economy. Today, we have the lowest labor force participation since 1978. The official unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, but that doesn't capture the millions who are underemployed. When we include them, the number rises to 12.7 percent. The rates of poverty in the United States are right now at historic highs--15 percent. As CNN recently noted, this is ``the first time the poverty rate has remained at or above 15 percent 3 years running since 1965.'' Among full-time workers, there are more than 3.8 million fewer employed today than there were before the recession. The number of people not in the labor force today is at its highest level since 1978. Over 91 million people are not in the American workforce. Roughly three of five working-age Americans have jobs today. This is a travesty. It is a denial of the American dream to millions of people across this country. Long-term unemployment persists. Nearly 36 percent of the unemployed are long-term unemployed. When President Obama took office, the average number of weeks that an individual was unemployed was 19.8. Today, the average duration is 35.6 weeks. It is also a good thing the President has begun to talk about income inequality. It is a good thing because income inequality has increased dramatically under President Obama. Today, the top 1 percent in our economy earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928, and those who are being hurt the most in the Obama economy are the most vulnerable among us--the people who are struggling. The working class Hispanics, African Americans, and single moms are the ones paying the price for the great stagnation in which we find ourselves. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who describe themselves as middle or upper class fell 8 points between 2008 and 2012. President Obama's terrible economy doesn't discriminate. It hurts Americans from every demographic. On the President's watch, women have lower incomes today. The median income for women has dropped by $733 since President Obama took office, and, indeed, poverty among women has gone up markedly under President Obama. The poverty rate for women has increased from 14.4 percent when the President took office to 16.3 percent. In real terms, that means 3.7 million more American women are in poverty today than when the President took office. The President is not responding to any of this. Instead, we see the President, we see the Senate majority leader shifting to the topic of a mandated Federal minimum wage in an effort to change the subject. But the undeniable reality, the undeniable truth is that if the President succeeded in raising the minimum wage, it would cost jobs for the most vulnerable. The people who have been hurt by this Obama economy would be hurt worse by the minimum wage proposal before this body. In 2013, the President, in his State of the Union address, proposed raising the minimum wage to $9. A year later, the request has magically changed to $10.10. There is no economic justification. The only reason is politics. I suppose if the approval ratings of Democratic Members of this body continue to fall, in another month we will see a proposal for $15 an hour and then maybe $20 or $25 an hour. But I think the American people are tired of empty political show votes. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that raising the minimum wage could cause the loss of 500,000 to 1 million jobs. I want the American people to realize, and every Member of this Senate, that votes for the minimum wage is voting to tell up to 1 million Americans: Your jobs don't matter to me because I am voting to take away your job. By the way, this view is not only the view of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. On March 12, 2014, over 500 economists, including three Nobel Laureates, sent a letter to Congress that said the minimum wage is a poorly targeted anti-poverty measure. I will give one example from my home State. GO-Burgers, which is a Texas company with six Burger King restaurants, analyzed the effect of the minimum wage increase on their employees and their businesses. The last minimum wage increase we have seen was from $5.85 an hour in 2007 to $7.25 an hour in July of 2009, and 2010 was the first complete calendar year that GO-Burgers had to analyze the impact on their workers. GO-Burgers discovered that raising the minimum wage by 23.93 percent caused these Burger King restaurants to reduce the available hours worked by 24.98 percent, for a net sum loss in hours and wages for the typical employee. Let me repeat that. The experience in these Burger King restaurants was the employees were worse off after the minimum wage was raised because their hours got cut in direct response to the increase. These six restaurants eliminated over 40 jobs and reduced the average number of hours worked per employee. In total, these six Burger King restaurants reduced the man-hours allocated by over 60,000 hours in 2010. Sadly, the people that bear the brunt of that are not the rich and powerful. They are not those who walk the corridors of power in Washington, DC, and have gotten fat and happy under the Obama administration. The people who would bear the brunt if this bill were passed would be, to a substantial degree, young African American teenagers and young Hispanic teenagers. Right now, young minorities, if we look at unemployment rates by race--just looking at the official unemployment rates, Anglos have an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent; Hispanics, 7.9 percent; African Americans, 12.4 percent--nearly double that in the white community. It is even more heartbreaking among teenagers. White teens currently have an unemployment rate of 18.3 percent, but African American teenagers have an unemployment rate of 36.1 percent--36.1 percent. Every Senator who votes yes is voting with an absolute certainty that hundreds of thousands of workers, including a great many African American teenagers and a great many Hispanic teenagers, will be laid off as a consequence of their vote. I would challenge any of the Senators in this Chamber to look in the eyes of those African American teenagers, those Hispanic teenagers who are looking for a better opportunity. If my colleagues detect a note of passion in my voice as I discuss this, it is because in my family this is not an abstract, hypothetical situation. Fifty-seven years ago, when my father fled Cuba and came to Texas at the age of 18, penniless, not speaking English, his first job was working in the restaurant industry as a dishwasher making 50 cents an hour. The restaurant industry had been such a terrific avenue for climbing the economic ladder, for achieving the American dream. My dad washed dishes at 50 cents an hour to pay his way through college to go on and start a small business to work toward the American dream. If the majority leader had his way, if the minimum wage were jacked up, if back in 1957 the restaurant where my father worked were forced to pay every worker $2 an hour, the odds are very high that restaurant would have fired my dad and bought a dishwasher instead. It was that entry- level job that gave him the grip on the first rung of the economic ladder that led him to pull to the second and the third and the fourth. This bill, if it were to pass, would hammer those on the bottom of the economic ladder and would take away jobs from the most vulnerable among us. So what should we do instead? We can talk about the problems we have in this country, but we need to talk proactively about better solutions. Fortunately, we are on the cusp of a great American energy renaissance. I have introduced legislation to remove the barriers to developing the abundant energy resources we have in this country--barriers that, if removed, would allow the creation of millions of high-paying jobs. The discussion before this Chamber is whether to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. But even if it passed, that is not the Obama minimum wage. Rather, the real Obama minimum wage is $0.00 an hour. We have right now the lowest labor participation rate since 1978. To the millions of Americans who have lost their job because of $1.7 trillion in new taxes, because of crushing regulations, this is the Obama minimum wage: $0.00--not the political window dressing of $10.10; the reality, the hard, brutal reality. Last week, I was in Nebraska at a rally. A woman named Barb came up to me. She hugged my neck. She said: Ted, I am a single mom. I have six little kids at home. My husband left me, and he is not paying child support. I am working five jobs, trying to keep my kids fed, trying to keep them with clothes on their backs. Barb had tears in her eyes. One of the most brutal consequences of ObamaCare is it has forced millions of Americans like Barb into part-time work because the threshold for ObamaCare is 30 hours a week. So instead of having one or two jobs, Barb and millions of other single moms are going from one job to another, to another, to another, and they are not spending the time with their kids. This is the brutal reality of the Obama minimum wage. But, Madam President, I am happy to tell you, there is a better alternative. The better alternative, I would note--far better than zero, far better than the promise of $10.10 an hour--is $46.98. Madam President, $46.98--that is the average hourly wage in the oil and gas industry in the State of North Dakota. Every one of us should want to see millions more jobs at $46.98 an hour, and we should want millions rescued from the Obama minimum wage of $0.00 an hour. That is the choice before this body--of expanding this American energy renaissance, creating opportunity. Let me tell you, in the State of Texas--Texas is an incredible example--there is a reason why 1,400 people a day are moving to Texas, moving from high-tax, high-regulation States, represented by many of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. They are coming to Texas because Texas is where the jobs are and Texas is where the salaries are. Oil and gas industry jobs in Texas paid, on average, 150 percent more than other private sector jobs in Texas--$128,000 a year compared to $51,000 a year--in 2012. In the 23 counties atop the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, average wages for all citizens have grown by 14.6 percent annually since 2005. The top five counties in the Eagle Ford shale region have experienced an average 63-percent annual rate of wage growth. How many millions of Americans would love to see 63 percent annual wage growth? In Texas, the average pay for an entry-level truckdriver ranges from $36,000 to $45,000, but it rises to $50,000 to $70,000 in the oilfield. These are kids straight out of high school making $70,000 a year. As reported in an AP story from March 28, 2014: ``James LeBas, economist for the Texas Oil and Gas Association, said the industry directly employed 416,000 employees in 2013 and they averaged $120,000 a year in wages.'' As a separate nation, Texas right now would rank as the ninth largest oil-producing country in the world. Not only can energy development bring good-paying jobs, it can also help our children and schools. Cotulla, TX, was once one of the poorest districts in Texas, but now--because of the Eagle Ford shale energy development--it is one of the richest. The taxes that are coming from the energy development mean money for fixing schools, for hiring teachers, for paying them more, and for purchasing technology in the classrooms. One thing that is striking is what has happened across the country. If you look, this is a map I have in the Chamber of changes in median household income by county from 2007 to 2012. Madam President, 2007 to 2012 is a long time. On this map, green indicates that the median household income has gone up; yellow indicates no statistically significant change; and red indicates it has gone down. Overlaid on this map is an overlay of the geological shale formations in this country. What is striking about looking at median incomes in the United States is where median incomes have gone up. This is almost exactly a geological shale map of the United States. You can see median incomes have gone up up here in the Bakken shale in and around North Dakota. You can see the Permian Basin shale, the Eagle Ford shale, the Barnett shale. You can see the Marcellus shale. Green, green, green, green--median income going up--for everyone in the county median income going up where energy production is occurring. Now, strikingly, the Marcellus shale extends north to New York, and yet for the entire State of New York, you can see there is not a county in the State of New York where median income has gone up. Why? Well, one of the main reasons is the Democratic politicians in New York have prohibited developing those natural resources because they ban fracking. So in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanians apparently would like jobs, would like higher median incomes. They are seeing the benefits. But in New York, New Yorkers are not because Democratic politicians in New York have prohibited developing those resources. I would note that one of the most promising areas is the Monterey shale in California--abundant resources--and you would note, in the entire State of California there is not one green county. That is because California, likewise--even though they have those resources, the Democratic politicians there have concluded Californians do not want jobs, they do not want higher incomes, and they are going to prohibit developing their natural resources rather than providing for the very real suffering that is being caused. I would note, there is one striking exception from this pattern being largely a geological shale formation of this country, and that is the bright green on the map that is located right here where we are standing--the District of Columbia and the surrounding areas. Let me tell you, it is a good time to be in and around government. The lobbyists, the consultants, those who make money on the growing and growing and growing Federal Government spending and debt, are getting fatter and happier every day. You look at the rest of the country, and you see stagnation, you see median income falling. Rather than engaging in political games--driven by polling done by the Democratic Senatorial Committee on this minimum wage bill that, if passed, would only hurt low-income African-American and Hispanic teenagers--instead, we ought to come together with bipartisan unanimity to say: We will stand with the American people to bring millions of jobs. We will stand with the American people to raise median income. We will stand with the American people to make it easier for people who are struggling to achieve the American dream. Therefore, I have proposed an amendment to replace the text of S. 2223, the minimum wage act, with the text of the American Energy Renaissance Act that I have introduced, S. 2170. We should all come together and vote on removing the government barriers, opening new Federal lands and resources, developing high- paying, promising jobs that expand opportunity. In conclusion, let me say this debate comes down to two numbers. It is not a complicated debate. This debate comes down to two numbers. On my left, the real Obama minimum wage: $0.00 an hour. I am sorry to say, in this Democratic Senate, this Chamber is largely empty. There is no discussion of fundamental tax reform or regulatory reform, of removing the barriers that have caused the lowest labor force participation since 1978. Instead, we are debating a bill to increase unemployment. This minimum-wage bill--the nonpartisan CBO has told us more people would be paid $0.00 an hour under the bill before this Chamber. No wonder Congress's approval rating is 8, 10, 12 percent, when you take the greatest challenge facing Americans right now--the need for economic growth and jobs--and the U.S. Senate in Democratic control will not even talk about providing real relief there. No wonder people are disgusted with the U.S. Congress. You want to know what this debate is about? Compare $0.00 an hour to $46.98 an hour. I want to see millions of Americans making $40, $50, $60 an hour, providing for their kids, having a better future. As I travel this country, over and over again, men and women come up to me. They look me in the eyes and say: Ted, I am scared. I am scared that we are bankrupting this country. I am scared that my kids and grandkids are not going to have the future, the opportunity, the freedom we have been blessed to have. This U.S. Senate has an opportunity to address that. We should pass the American Energy Renaissance Act. We should stop making it harder for working Americans, but, instead, we should come together for jobs and economic growth. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, every Member of this body has expressed our bipartisan commitment for the United States to stand resolutely with our friend and ally, the nation of Israel. Doing so is right, and it is overwhelmingly in the national security interests of the United States of America. It was therefore with great sadness that I read this morning about the comments of Secretary of State John Kerry, who reportedly suggested at the Trilateral Commission that Israel could become an apartheid state if his proposed two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process fails. Secretary Kerry has long experience in foreign policy, and he understands that words matter. Apartheid is inextricably associated with one of the worst examples of state-sponsored discrimination in history--the apartheid system in South Africa that was ultimately brought down by the heroic resistance of Nelson Mandela inside the country, supported by a concerted campaign of diplomatic and economic sanctions by the international community. There is no place for this word in the context of the State of Israel. The term ``apartheid'' means apart, different, and isolated-- the state of the victims of apartheid with which the Jews are tragically all too familiar. The notion that Israel would go down that path--and so face the same condemnation that faced South Africa--is unconscionable. The United States should be aggressively asserting that Israel can never be made an apartheid nation while America exists and stands beside her because America will be with Israel regardless of the status of the diplomatic process. Fifteen months ago, almost to the day, John Kerry was confirmed by this body by a vote of 94 to 3. Despite my preference for giving the President the Cabinet members of his choice, I found that I could not join the vast majority of my colleagues and support his nomination because I was convinced that as Secretary of State, John Kerry would place what he considered to be the wishes of the international community above the national security interests of the United States. I fear that with these most recent ill-chosen remarks, Secretary Kerry has proven these concerns well founded. Rather than focusing on our clear national security interests--which is continuing to guarantee Israel's security through our unquestionable commitment to it-- Secretary Kerry has instead repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to countenance a world in which Israel is made a pariah because it will not sacrifice its security to his diplomatic initiatives; likewise, he has previously suggested that Israel might probably be subject to boycotts for the same grounds. It is no wonder Israel's Defense Minister remarked in January that ``the only thing that can `save us' is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.'' Indeed, my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, has suggested that the foreign policy carried out by Mr. Kerry is the equivalent of a ``human wrecking ball.'' The fact that Secretary Kerry sees nothing wrong with making a statement comparing Israel's policy to the abhorrent apartheid policies of South Africa--and doing so on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day--demonstrates a shocking lack of sensitivity to the incendiary and damaging nature of his rhetoric. Sadly, it is my belief that Secretary Kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds and, therefore, before any further harm is done to our national security interests and to our critical alliance with the nation of Israel, that John Kerry should offer President Obama his resignation and the President should accept it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cruz amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the Cruz amendment to the title be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the nomination of Hamid Aboutalebi to be the Ambassador from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations is a deliberate and unambiguous insult to the United States. Mr. Aboutalebi was an active participant in the terrorist group that took 52 Americans hostage on November 4, 1979, and held them for 444 days. There are no circumstances under which the United States should grant such a person a visa, and our immediate concern is to prevent Mr. Aboutalebi from ever setting foot on American soil. But this nomination is not an isolated incident that is taking place in a vacuum. It is part of Iran's clear and consistent pattern of virulent anti-Americanism that has defined their foreign policy since 1979. Given the larger strategic threat to the United States and our allies represented by Iran's nuclear ambitions, this is not the moment for diplomatic niceties. We need to send Tehran an equally clear message: The Senate is not going to ignore this most recent insult but, rather, is going to give our President the authority to affirmatively reject it. Unanimous passage of the bill I have introduced, which specifies that engaging in terrorism against the United States is a basis to deny a foreign U.N. ambassador a visa to enter our country, will do just that, while also signaling to other unfriendly nations that we see this kind of offensive behavior for what it is, and we will not tolerate it. I wish in particular to thank Senator Coats, who is a cosponsor of this bill, as well as Senator Graham, Senator McCain, and Senator Kirk for their leadership. I also wish to thank my friends across the aisle and, in particular, Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, and Senator Menendez for working together with my office to reach bipartisan agreement. I am proud to join with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this effort, and I am encouraged that we can all come together in a bipartisan manner on this national security issue that transcends political parties. I am encouraged that the Senate can speak unanimously in a bipartisan voice defending the interests of our Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2195 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under current law, which allows no terrorists to be granted visas to the United States under the cover of being ambassadors to the United Nations. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, has recently announced that Hamid Aboutalebi is his new ambassador to the U.N., which is, of course, headquartered in Manhattan, NY, and a visa application has been duly filed. In most cases--indeed, until now, in all cases--such applications for ambassadors have been granted in accordance with article 13 of the United Nations charter, but Mr. Aboutalebi's is a special case, as he was a member of The Muslim Students following the Imam's Line, the group who held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days from 1979 to 1981. He protests that his involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but he was sufficiently involved for the Muslim Students organization, which is still active, to feature to this day his photo on their official Web site celebrating that historic outrage against the United States of America. Now the Obama administration is considering granting this person a visa to come to the United States. I have to wonder--as did CIA Director Stansfield Turner in the movie ``Argo''--you don't have a better bad idea than this? It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist. In his January 23, 1980, State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter called the hostages ``innocent victims of terrorism'' and their captivity an act of ``international terrorism.'' I do not believe that anyone--beyond perhaps the Supreme Leader in Tehran--has debated President Carter's characterization since then, nor do I think I have ever agreed more emphatically with President Carter. It is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives the President the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she, as it currently states, has engaged in espionage against the United States and poses a national security threat. The legislation I am introducing, S. 2195, will require the President to deny a U.N.-related applicant a visa if the President determines the applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the United States, has engaged in espionage against the United States, or poses a national security threat to the United States. I will note that I very much appreciated the kind comments and the impassioned support for this legislation from the senior Senator from South Carolina. This legislation speaks to the larger issue of whom we have to let into this country. How would we feel, for example, if the Taliban had sent Osama bin Laden to be an ambassador to the United Nations from Afghanistan or how would we feel if some other country sent an ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in Beirut in 1983 or how would we feel if another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit in the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers that murdered 19 airmen in 1996, to name but a few potential examples? None of these examples would necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having engaged in espionage. They murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent Americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in a specific act of espionage. But all unequivocally should be excluded. This legislation would ensure that such people can never use the United Nations to gain entry into the United States. I had intended this afternoon to ask the Senate for unanimous consent to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could exclude a known terrorist from entry into this country. However, I am pleased to report that I have been told there is a real possibility of bipartisan cooperation on this--a real possibility that both sides of the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law so we can keep this known terrorist out of the United States. I am encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. I hope it comes to fruition. And I hope this week we see the Senate act in a bipartisan way and in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known terrorist. I wish to make a broader point. This nomination is willfully, deliberately insulting and contemptuous. It is not an accident that Ruhani picked a known terrorist who held Americans hostage to send to our country. I would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up call that the regime in Tehran is directed by the same policies that resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place. There has been considerable optimism expressed by the Obama administration in the months following the election of President Ruhani that Iran is somehow softening its position toward the West, that Ruhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in its negotiations over its nuclear program. This nomination should dispel those illusions. And the professed optimism of this administration flies in the face of reason. On the eve of the first round of these talks in November, the Revolutionary Guard transferred American pastor Saeed Abedini, unjustly incarcerated simply for professing his Christian faith, from the Evan Prison to the even more brutal Rajai Shahr Prison, carefully selecting the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis-- what they call ``Death to America'' day in Iran. After the joint plan of action was agreed to in late November, which one of our closest allies has rightly assessed as a ``very, very bad deal''--a historic mistake--President Ruhani triumphantly tweeted--in English, no less--that in the Geneva agreement, ``world powers had surrendered to Iran's will.'' These are hardly the words of a friend. Last February the Iranian Government released a statement declaring that the Nation of Israel is ``a cancerous tumor that must be removed.'' These are not the words of a rational negotiating partner. The choice of Mr. Aboutalebi for ambassador to the United Nations once again demonstrates that the same militant hatred of America that has dominated Iran's foreign policy since the revolution continues to flourish unabated. Indeed, there is a reason Iran refers to Israel as the ``Little Satan'' and America as the ``Great Satan.'' It is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the administration continues to engage in these talks given the clear and consistent message of hostility coming out of Tehran. The legislation I am introducing will take the first step by establishing that there are no circumstances under which the perpetrators of the hostage crisis--those who have committed overt acts of war against America--will be welcomed into the United States. This action should be followed by the President suspending the Geneva negotiations unless and until Iran not only ceases this behavior but also ceases all enrichment activities and dismantles their nuclear program in its entirety. Then and only then should there be meaningful dialogue between our two countries. In 1979 our citizens had to wait more than a year--during which they were tortured by their captors--before they were finally released on January 20, 1981--not coincidentally on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President. I am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we can stand together as a unanimous Senate against allowing a known terrorist into the United States who has participated in acts of war against our Nation. We should not extend the ordeal of those hostages even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of Iran. One of the former hostages, Barry Rosen, called the possibility that the United States might grant the visa application a ``disgrace,'' and he said, ``It may be [setting] a precedent but if the President and Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our captivity and suffering at the hands of Iran was for nothing.'' I believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in Geneva, the true face of Tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 35 years ago, whom they are now attempting to send to America under the auspices of being an ambassador. Instead, I believe we should stand together in saying that a known terrorist who has carried out acts of war against America will, in Mr. Rosen's words, ``never set foot on American soil.'' I hope we can stand together behind this legislation.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under current law, which allows no terrorists to be granted visas to the United States under the cover of being ambassadors to the United Nations. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, has recently announced that Hamid Aboutalebi is his new ambassador to the U.N., which is, of course, headquartered in Manhattan, NY, and a visa application has been duly filed. In most cases--indeed, until now, in all cases--such applications for ambassadors have been granted in accordance with article 13 of the United Nations charter, but Mr. Aboutalebi's is a special case, as he was a member of The Muslim Students following the Imam's Line, the group who held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days from 1979 to 1981. He protests that his involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but he was sufficiently involved for the Muslim Students organization, which is still active, to feature to this day his photo on their official Web site celebrating that historic outrage against the United States of America. Now the Obama administration is considering granting this person a visa to come to the United States. I have to wonder--as did CIA Director Stansfield Turner in the movie ``Argo''--you don't have a better bad idea than this? It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist. In his January 23, 1980, State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter called the hostages ``innocent victims of terrorism'' and their captivity an act of ``international terrorism.'' I do not believe that anyone--beyond perhaps the Supreme Leader in Tehran--has debated President Carter's characterization since then, nor do I think I have ever agreed more emphatically with President Carter. It is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives the President the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she, as it currently states, has engaged in espionage against the United States and poses a national security threat. The legislation I am introducing, S. 2195, will require the President to deny a U.N.-related applicant a visa if the President determines the applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the United States, has engaged in espionage against the United States, or poses a national security threat to the United States. I will note that I very much appreciated the kind comments and the impassioned support for this legislation from the senior Senator from South Carolina. This legislation speaks to the larger issue of whom we have to let into this country. How would we feel, for example, if the Taliban had sent Osama bin Laden to be an ambassador to the United Nations from Afghanistan or how would we feel if some other country sent an ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in Beirut in 1983 or how would we feel if another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit in the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers that murdered 19 airmen in 1996, to name but a few potential examples? None of these examples would necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having engaged in espionage. They murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent Americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in a specific act of espionage. But all unequivocally should be excluded. This legislation would ensure that such people can never use the United Nations to gain entry into the United States. I had intended this afternoon to ask the Senate for unanimous consent to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could exclude a known terrorist from entry into this country. However, I am pleased to report that I have been told there is a real possibility of bipartisan cooperation on this--a real possibility that both sides of the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law so we can keep this known terrorist out of the United States. I am encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. I hope it comes to fruition. And I hope this week we see the Senate act in a bipartisan way and in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known terrorist. I wish to make a broader point. This nomination is willfully, deliberately insulting and contemptuous. It is not an accident that Ruhani picked a known terrorist who held Americans hostage to send to our country. I would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up call that the regime in Tehran is directed by the same policies that resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place. There has been considerable optimism expressed by the Obama administration in the months following the election of President Ruhani that Iran is somehow softening its position toward the West, that Ruhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in its negotiations over its nuclear program. This nomination should dispel those illusions. And the professed optimism of this administration flies in the face of reason. On the eve of the first round of these talks in November, the Revolutionary Guard transferred American pastor Saeed Abedini, unjustly incarcerated simply for professing his Christian faith, from the Evan Prison to the even more brutal Rajai Shahr Prison, carefully selecting the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis-- what they call ``Death to America'' day in Iran. After the joint plan of action was agreed to in late November, which one of our closest allies has rightly assessed as a ``very, very bad deal''--a historic mistake--President Ruhani triumphantly tweeted--in English, no less--that in the Geneva agreement, ``world powers had surrendered to Iran's will.'' These are hardly the words of a friend. Last February the Iranian Government released a statement declaring that the Nation of Israel is ``a cancerous tumor that must be removed.'' These are not the words of a rational negotiating partner. The choice of Mr. Aboutalebi for ambassador to the United Nations once again demonstrates that the same militant hatred of America that has dominated Iran's foreign policy since the revolution continues to flourish unabated. Indeed, there is a reason Iran refers to Israel as the ``Little Satan'' and America as the ``Great Satan.'' It is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the administration continues to engage in these talks given the clear and consistent message of hostility coming out of Tehran. The legislation I am introducing will take the first step by establishing that there are no circumstances under which the perpetrators of the hostage crisis--those who have committed overt acts of war against America--will be welcomed into the United States. This action should be followed by the President suspending the Geneva negotiations unless and until Iran not only ceases this behavior but also ceases all enrichment activities and dismantles their nuclear program in its entirety. Then and only then should there be meaningful dialogue between our two countries. In 1979 our citizens had to wait more than a year--during which they were tortured by their captors--before they were finally released on January 20, 1981--not coincidentally on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President. I am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we can stand together as a unanimous Senate against allowing a known terrorist into the United States who has participated in acts of war against our Nation. We should not extend the ordeal of those hostages even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of Iran. One of the former hostages, Barry Rosen, called the possibility that the United States might grant the visa application a ``disgrace,'' and he said, ``It may be [setting] a precedent but if the President and Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our captivity and suffering at the hands of Iran was for nothing.'' I believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in Geneva, the true face of Tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 35 years ago, whom they are now attempting to send to America under the auspices of being an ambassador. Instead, I believe we should stand together in saying that a known terrorist who has carried out acts of war against America will, in Mr. Rosen's words, ``never set foot on American soil.'' I hope we can stand together behind this legislation.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Wyoming for their leadership on this important issue. The crisis in Ukraine has riveted our attention for the last 4 months as we have seen brave men and women standing in freezing cold, standing for freedom, standing for their desire to stand with the West, to stand with Europe, to stand with America, and to be free from the domination of Putin's Russia. We all strongly support the efforts of the Ukrainian people to choose a different path from subjugation to Russia, to choose a path toward economic and political liberty and toward a close friendship with the West. Madam President, all of us on both sides of the Chamber are united in decrying the military aggression of Russian strongman Vladmir Putin, as he has invaded a sovereign nation with military force, committing an act of war. No one should be confused as to what Mr. Putin is attempting to do. Indeed, acting Ukraine Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said very clearly that Putin is trying to reestablish the borders of the old Soviet Union. He is expanding, sadly, into a vacuum of leadership the United States has not been filling. Russia is filling that vacuum, and the seizure of Crimea is only the beginning of Putin's aggressiveness. He will continue, I would predict, to be aggressive unless and until he meets significant resistance. We are also united in believing there is an important role for the United States to play in responding to this crisis. I believe we should take concrete actions to respond to Russia's invasion of Crimea. No. 1, we should press to expel Russia from the G8. No. 2, the administration should immediately begin enforcing the Magnitsky Act--which he has failed to do up to this point--designed to punish human rights atrocities by Russian Government officials. Indeed, we should expand it to include Ukranian human rights abusers. No. 3, we should immediately install the ballistic missile batteries in Eastern Ukraine that were scheduled to go in that President Obama mistakenly canceled in an effort to appease Mr. Putin. That effort did not succeed, and we should go forward with allowing eastern Europe to defend itself. Additionally, there is a great deal we can do to aid the people of Ukraine. The President should immediately offer the Government of Ukraine a free-trade agreement indicating that their goods are welcome in the United States and our goods in their country. We should explore other options to assist them in economic recovery consistent with free market principles, including moving as expeditiously as possible to allow them access to U.S. energy exports and in particular liquidified natural gas. Russia uses natural gas and energy as a tool of economic blackmail. It is critical to the source of Russia's power not just over Ukraine but over much of Europe. The United States is blessed with abundant supplies of natural gas. It is only foolhardy government policy that stands in the way of our exporting that natural gas, meeting the need and helping Ukraine be free of the economic blackmail. We should move immediately in that regard not just because it would help Ukraine, not just because it would represent a serious blow to Russia when Russia relies on the revenue from those energy exports--if the United States steps up and provides it to them instead, that would be a serious economic blow to Russia--not just that but because it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the United States of America, our economic interests at a time when we have the lowest labor rate participation since 1978. When millions of people are out of work and hurting, we should be developing and expanding our resources, and energy provides an opportunity to transform the geopolitical playing field, to use our abundant resources in a free market manner to respond and help liberate the people of Ukraine. There is also a financial component of the assistance for--Ukraine that it makes a world of sense should come from the International Monetary Fund, to which the United States is a contributor. That is what the IMF was created to do, and the IMF today stands fully capable of meeting that need. My friend from Arizona has an admirable passion on this issue for the people of Ukraine and for standing up to Mr. Putin, and I commend my friend from Arizona for his passion in this regard. However, the reason this bill has not passed today is because the majority of this Chamber--the majority leader made a decision, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a decision to inject into the aid and sanctions plan for Ukraine an extraneous issue, an issue of the IMF that has nothing to do with the underlying issue. That was a mistake. That was a mistake. I would suggest that the so-called IMF reforms are misguided policy. They don't make sense for four separate reasons. No. 1, they are unnecessary. There is no need whatsoever for these reforms. Indeed, the IMF is perfectly capable of managing the task on hand, and estimates have shown that Ukraine aid would cost no more than 5 percent of its current resources. So the IMF portions are unnecessary, extrinsic. I agree with the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, who says these so-called IMF reforms are unnecessary and extrinsic to this bill. No. 2, these IMF provisions, if passed into law, would dramatically expand the financial exposure of the United States of America, effectively doubling our contribution, expanding our exposure. If that is good policy, that should be debated on its merits. We should not be opening the U.S. taxpayers to billions in additional financial liability without a debate on the merits. It shouldn't be just tied to Ukranian aid and forced through the Senate. That is the wrong approach. No. 3, most inexplicably, these so-called reforms, if passed, would diminish U.S. influence on the IMF; would reduce our ability to control the decisions of the IMF; indeed, would move the funds from a fund in which we have veto authority into one in which we no longer have veto authority. We would have a smaller portion of influence over the IMF. Astonishingly, No. 4, this bill would expand Russia's influence and control over the IMF. Let me repeat that. A bill that is being ostensibly introduced to punish Russia for their acts of war and aggression would expand Russia's influence over the IMF and decrease the influence of the United States of America. I agree with my friend from Alabama who suggested moments ago that this is ``Through the Looking Glass.'' This makes no sense. I would challenge any of my friends here to stand here and explain why a sensible response to what Russia has done is to expand Russia's influence in the IMF and to diminish America's influence. That makes no sense whatsoever. Madam President, I wish to close with two points. No. 1, we could pass aid for the people of Ukraine right now--today. The Senator from Wyoming rose and asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill that has already passed the House. Had the majority leader not stood up and objected on behalf of Senate Democrats, that bill would have passed into law. It would be already headed to the President's desk for signature. It is only because the majority leader objected that we are not sitting here today having already passed aid for the people of Ukraine. I would note, by the way, that the majority leader had extended commentary about two businessmen, the Koch brothers, who I am beginning to think are characters almost out of ``Dr. Seuss'' in the majority leader's mind. They are the grinch who stole Christmas in his telling. I would note that the majority leader focuses on the IRS rules--not focusing on the abuse of power by the IRS, the Treasury inspector general chronicles, but instead on the need for a vote to regulate the IRS's abuse of power. Let me say very simply that the House bill on Ukraine doesn't mention the IRS at all, doesn't mention P4s at all. So when the majority leader stood on the floor, this is all because of the nefarious Koch brothers. Set aside the impropriety of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate picking two private citizens--individuals engaged in political speech, standing up for what they believe, and the majority leader using his position of political power to lambaste them, to target them. Interestingly enough, the majority leader does not seem to have a problem with the California billionaire who has publicly pledged to put $100 million behind Democrats to press them to pass climate change legislation that would cost millions of jobs across this country from blue-collar workers, from hard-working Americans. That billionaire, in the majority leader's view, is perfectly free to spend $100 million in the election, but the Koch brothers, because the two of them have stood and expressed their views, are subjected to vilification and personal attack from the majority leader. The Senate rules allow a Member of this body, if his or her integrity is impugned, to raise an objection. Let me ask you something, Madam President. What Senate rule allows a private citizen to raise an objection when his integrity is impugned by the majority leader? Those two brothers are not Members of this body, so they can have their reputation dragged through the mud. Yet they are denied a point of personal privilege to come and defend themselves. That is not the job of the U.S. Senate, to vilify private citizens. I would note that the provision he is talking about is not in the House bill, which means when the Senator from Wyoming stood and asked for consent to pass the House bill, if the majority leader had simply refrained from objecting, we would have passed aid to Ukraine tonight. It has nothing to do with the Koch brothers, nothing to do with the IRS. That is not in the House bill. The reason the majority leader objected is that he wants to hold aid to Ukraine hostage to force through these misguided IMF reforms. That is the wrong decision. One final point I wish to make. The world should understand, Russia should understand, the people of Ukraine should understand, and Mr. Putin should understand that all of us are united in standing with the people of Ukraine, that the United States will act. I am convinced it will act decisively to impose sanctions and serious consequences on Russia for this unprovoked act of war. We will act decisively to stand with the people of Ukraine. There should be no doubt in any observer's mind that this will unify both parties. We will stand together. We would have done so tonight had the majority leader not made the cynical decision to hold aid for Ukraine hostage to force a partisan bill that does not enjoy sufficient support in this body to pass otherwise. Politics should end at the water's edge, and I think it is unfortunate to see the majority leader trying to use the crisis in Ukraine for political advantage. That is a mistake. But there should be no ambiguity. We will impose sanctions. We will stand with Ukraine. And the people of America understand that Mr. Putin's aggression is reliving the days when the Soviet Union was an evil empire. It is reliving those days Mr. Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of modern times.'' Well, all of us surely hope he does not succeed in his intentions of restoring the Soviet Union, restoring that evil empire, restoring the cloud of oppression across Europe and across the world, and we stand united with the people of Ukraine and with the people surrounding Russia in support of freedom and against his unconscionable act of war. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women across the country serving as police officers who protect law-abiding Americans. It is out of this respect for our Nation's police officers that I also rise to oppose the nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the head of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. We must always remember our Nation's fallen police officers who have bravely given their lives to serve our Nation and to protect us. Police officers help form the backbone of our country that supports the rule of law. They risk their lives every day to help keep law- abiding citizens safe. According to the FBI, in 2012, 95 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents and 52,901 officers were victims of line-of-duty assaults--52,901. The New York Times in 2012 observed: ``As violent crime has decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: rising numbers of police officers are being killed.'' In 2008, 41 officers were killed; in 2009, 48 officers were killed; in 2010, 56 officers were killed; in 2011, 72 officers were killed; and in 2012, 95 officers were killed. Unfortunately, as Byron York noted today, the New York Times has not reported on the controversial nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the DOJ Civil Rights Division. It is out of respect for all of our Nation's police officers that I rise to oppose Mr. Adegbile's nomination. Under Adegbile's leadership and supervision, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund brazenly politicized the murder of a Philadelphia police officer, Officer Daniel Faulkner. On December 9, 1981, 25-year-old Officer Faulkner was murdered by Wesley Cook, who is widely known as Mumia Abu-Jamal. Officer Faulkner was shot several times. The fatal shot was when Abu-Jamal pointed the gun inches from Officer Faulkner's face and pulled the trigger. During the trial it was made known that Abu-Jamal was a supporter of the MOVE Organization, an anarchist group that explicitly advocates for violence against police officers. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mrs. Faulkner described that during the trial, when her husband's bloodstained shirt was displayed by the evidence handler, Abu-Jamal turned in his chair and smirked directly at her, the grieving widow. The jury convened for a matter of hours before they came back with a guilty verdict and a death sentence. That was 1982. Fast forward 27 years to the year 2009. Adegbile was at the time the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund Director of Litigation. In 2009, the Legal Defend Fund began advocating for Abu-Jamal--first as an amicus and then as cocounsel. To be clear, every criminal defendant is entitled to an attorney, but Adegbile's representation of Abu-Jamal was pure advocacy. Abu-Jamal's guilt was not in doubt. Four eyewitnesses saw the shooting. Abu-Jamal confessed and stated in front of three witnesses that he hoped Officer Faulkner died. There was significant ballistic and forensic evidence. For example, the murder weapon was registered to Abu-Jamal and found at the scene with spent shell casings. Abu-Jamal already had a team of high-priced lawyers working pro bono, who had filed decades of post-trial petitions and appeals, delaying the carrying out of his sentence. Under Adegbile's supervision, LDF lawyers fanned the flames of racial tension. Through rallies, protests, and a media campaign, all portrayed Mumia Abu-Jamal, an unrepentant cop killer, as a political prisoner. For example, a 2011 LDF press release said: ``Abu-Jamal . . . is widely viewed as a symbol of the racial injustices of the death penalty.'' That press release also said: ``Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.'' LDF lawyers under Adegbile's supervision went farther than that. They held rallies and protests. This is advocacy. This is political advocacy. This is extreme and radical advocacy. This is not legal representation. They even went so far as to travel to France to hold multiple rallies for Abu-Jamal. The French had already named a street after Abu-Jamal in a suburb of Paris. This prompted the House of Representatives in 2006 to vote 368-31 to condemn the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner and to urge the French town to change that street name. After fanning those flames of racial tension in the court of public opinion, Adegbile pressed aggressive arguments on race in our courts of law. Thankfully, the State and Federal courts rejected those arguments. Under Adegbile, the LDF initially argued in court that Abu-Jamal's death sentence should be overturned because he believed there should have been more African Americans on Abu-Jamal's jury. During his Senate confirmation on January 8, Adegbile said the LDF filed a legal brief regarding merely jury instructions about the death penalty. LDF did make those arguments eventually, but Adegbile's initial arguments had nothing to do with jury instructions. They were arguments that Abu-Jamal's jury was unconstitutional because it didn't have, he argued, a sufficient number of African Americans serving in the jury. The courts rejected those arguments. The jury that convicted Abu- Jamal had two African Americans serving on it. It would have had a third African American serving on it but Abu-Jamal instructed his lawyers to strike that person. The Fraternal Order of Police vehemently opposes this nomination. According to a letter written by the president of the FOP, Adegbile's nomination only exacerbates the ``growing division and distrust'' toward local law enforcement agencies--a trend that has continued from the time now-Labor Secretary Thomas Perez was leading the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. Peter Kirsanow, a member on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, wrote: Responsible people should agree that going out of your way to defend a convicted cop-killer long after it has become unequivocally clear that he was guilty and had suffered no violation of his civil rights disqualifies one from serving as the head of a division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Obama administration's message with the nomination is clear: It wants even more politicization of the Department of Justice. This is insulting to law enforcement officers everywhere. I stand with the Fraternal Order of Police and oppose Adegbile's nomination, and I urge my Democratic colleagues to join the Democratic senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bob Casey, and vote no on this nomination. This is not a matter of leftwing or rightwing. We all should agree that violent criminals should be punished, and we all should agree that those who go out of their way to advocate for, to celebrate, to lionize convicted cop killers are not suitable for major leadership roles at the U.S. Department of Justice. I urge every Member of this body to oppose that nomination. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise to commend the words of my esteemed colleague, the junior Senator from Florida, who has just spoken powerfully about the threats facing our Nation. On Monday evening he spoke powerfully on the Senate floor about the brutal human rights abuses that have been endemic in communist Cuba over the past 50 years, and the sad reality that Cuba is playing a leading role in the repression of the opposition protests that are currently taking place in Venezuela. I commend the sentiments of the Senator from Florida, and I offer a few additional thoughts of my own on this important topic. Brave Venezuelan protesters persist in crowding the streets in Caracas, San Cristobal, Merida, and Valencia despite the detention, torture, and murder of their compatriots in recent days. They are not alone. They have been joined by darker figures, representatives of Hezbollah, Iran, and Cuba, all of whom have a vested interest in propping up the increasingly authoritarian socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro. The appearance of the Iranians, and their Hezbollah agents in Venezuela, is concerning, but it should not be surprising. Iran has long maintained one of its largest embassies in Caracas, where it has been able to exploit the Venezuelan financial system to evade the international sanctions that--up until a few weeks ago--were placing a real burden on Iran's economy. Now that the administration has eased the sanctions on Iran, Iran is in a significantly stronger position. Not only have they received the first $500 million in unfrozen assets, but they have also reaped considerable collateral benefit. Iranian President Rouhani recently tweeted: ``You are witness to how foreign firms are visiting our country; 117 political delegations have come here.'' The Dutch ambassador to Iran tweeted in mid-January that he participated in ``speeddate sessions to meet business[es] interested in Iran.'' China has emerged as Iran's top trading partner with nonoil trade hitting $13 billion over the past 10 months, according to Iranian media. According to documents seen by Reuters, Iran has signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million--a move that would break the U.N. embargo on weapons sales by Tehran. What could a reenriched Iran offer Venezuela, given that the joint plan of action that has enabled this economic detente has done nothing to reverse their nuclear program. The answer is chilling. The longstanding commercial ties between Iran and Venezuela, not to mention their mutual hatred for the United States, raise the specter that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons technology, it might be inclined to share it with Venezuela, which would then act as a surrogate threat to the United States in our own hemisphere. We need to act immediately to reimpose sanctions on Iran and stand unequivocally against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I am sorry to say there is one reason--and one reason only--that we have not done so, and that is because the senior Senator from Nevada has been single-handedly blocking the Senate from voting on a bipartisan bill on Iranian sanctions. Given the broad bipartisan support in both Chambers, both the senior Senator from Nevada and the rest of the Democratic leadership need to be held accountable for this obstruction and standing in the way of defending U.S. national security interests and standing in the way of defending our friend and ally, the Nation of Israel. As alarming as the increasing collaboration is between Iran and Venezuela, there is no country that has a greater stake in preserving the status quo in Venezuela than communist Cuba. Over the 15 years of Hugo Chavez's rule, Venezuela and Cuba have engaged in a mutually parasitic relationship in which Venezuela has exported free oil to Cuba and imported the repressive apparatus of a police state that Raul and Fidel Castro have carefully nurtured other the last 50 years. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, many former Soviet satellites have moved towards freedom and prosperity promised by closer ties to the West--some even joining the historic NATO alliance. But Cuba, tragically, has remained mired in the communist past in no small part because Chavez provided the economic lifeline that sustained the Castro brothers' brutal oppression. While some hoped that after Raul Castro replaced his brother in 2008, a new era of moderation might dawn, the opposite has occurred. Despite minor cosmetic reforms largely targeted toward beguiling the Western media rather than helping the Cuban people, the Castros have consolidated their control of the island with a significant uptick in human rights abuses. Last year I had the opportunity to visit and interview two Cuban dissidents to help provide a forum for them to tell their stories. They described the oppression as ``Putinismo.'' That said it was following the strategy of Russia's President Putin, appearing on the outside to make cosmetic reforms while brutally repressing the people at home. That is what is happening in Cuba. The Castro playbook includes targeting family members of the opposition, brutal attacks and even murder, as well as keeping inexorable control over communications in and out of Cuba. An American citizen, Alan Gross, was thrown into prison in 2009 for the crime of handing out cell phones to Havana's Jewish population. Alan Gross should be released, and the United States should be calling for Alan Gross's release. In a tip to the information age, heavy Internet censorship, among the most repressive on the planet, blankets the island to preempt the spontaneous organization facilitated by social media. First Chavez, and now Maduro, have learned these lessons well under the tutelage of agents from the Cuban intelligence services, and their work has been on grim display during the protests that have taken place this month. The death toll is now at 13, and climbing, as police bullets have taken the lives of not only activists, but of students, innocent bystanders, and even a beauty queen. Maduro's agents have also borrowed the tried-and-true Castro tradition of summarily detaining opposition leaders, including Leopoldo Lopez who helped organize the protests. But Mr. Lopez's real crime has been to propose an alternative to the socialist catastrophe into which Chavez and Maduro have plunged this once prosperous nation, and to suggest that real economic freedom is the only path out of the rampant inflation and chronic shortages that are making life in Venezuela intolerable. Recent polling by Gallup reveals a dramatic shift in Venezuelans' attitude toward the economy, as the socialist policies continue to depress growth and to worsen the lives of hard-working Venezuelans. In 2012, just a couple of years ago, 22 percent of the population thought the economy was getting worse and 41 percent thought it was getting better. In 2013, those numbers reversed, with 62 percent believing it was getting worse while only 12 percent believed it was getting better. These numbers suggest there has been a sea change in how the majority of Venezuelans see their situation. These protests are different, and it is little wonder that so many have taken to the streets to demand something better. America should stand with the protesters. America should stand on the side of freedom. America has a tradition for centuries of presenting a clarion voice for freedom because every heart yearns to be free across the globe, and the United States should unapologetically defend freedom. Maduro appears to understand the threat of his people demanding freedom, but the unprecedented scale of his crackdown on the protesters has largely been masked from the rest of the world by a heavy veil of Internet and media censorship designed to simultaneously disable the opposition and to mask the scale of their oppression from the outside world. Some ingenious remedies have emerged, including Austin, TX's, own Zello--a direct messaging service that allows members to communicate freely either privately with individuals or over open channels that can support hundreds of thousands of users. Despite the best efforts of the Venezuelan censors to block access to Zello, the company has nimbly developed patches and work-arounds to maintain service to the some 600,000 Venezuelans who have downloaded the app since the protests began. Zello is a shining example of how we can use our technological advantage to support those fighting for economic and political freedom across the globe, recalling our proud tradition of Radio Free Europe during the Cold War. Can my colleagues imagine apps such as Zello spreading to millions of Cubans, to millions of Iranians, to millions of Chinese, providing them the tools to directly speak out for freedom? We have other ways of supporting those advocating for a more free and prosperous Venezuela, such as supporting the sort of liberal economic reforms Mr. Lopez has proposed. Given the remarkable natural resources Venezuela has enjoyed, it is ridiculous--it is tragic--that the economy has been so mismanaged that citizens face a chronic shortage of basic necessities. But this situation is not inevitable, and the United States is uniquely poised to help. For the United States, Canada, and now Mexico, democratic, market-oriented energy production has been the foundation of what we are beginning to call the American energy renaissance--and there is no reason that Venezuela could not reap these benefits if they reverse the socialist policies that have destroyed their economy. In this event the United States could help Venezuela reach its full energy potential by offering a bilateral investment treaty that would cover the energy sector. Such an arrangement would protect American companies eager to invest in Venezuela and, at the same time, modernize facilities and increase production of crude--which, I might add, can be refined at the CITGO facilities in Corpus Christi, TX--resulting in gasoline and other refined petroleum products that can be sold on the open market for the benefit of the Venezuelan people, not given to Cuba to prop up the Castros. Which is the better deal for the Venezuelan people: having them receive the benefits of the bounty God has given that country in the open market, receive freedom, receive material blessings, or have instead their oil given to Castro to fuel the repressive policies that are inflicting misery on so many millions? This is a dangerous and unsettling moment for Venezuela, but it is also a moment of great opportunity. Almost exactly 1 year ago, the Obama administration had a chance to push strongly for reform in Venezuela, when Chavez was on his deathbed. Instead, the Obama administration opted not to rock the boat, in the hopes that Chavez's hand-picked successor would prove more susceptible to diplomatic outreach, that he might not follow Chavez. These hopes are apparently evergreen, as just yesterday a State Department spokeswoman announced that they were open to closer engagement with the Maduro regime, saying: ``We have indicated, and have indicated for months, our openness to develop a more constructive relationship with Venezuela . . . .'' Negotiating with tyrants and bullies doesn't work. The notion that our State Department could at this moment extend yet another olive branch to Caracas is exactly backward. This is the moment to point out that Maduro's abuse of his fellow citizens is intolerable to the United States; that if he wants better relations with us, he should start by listening to the demands of his own people. He should immediately and unconditionally release Leopoldo Lopez, who is being held as a hostage at the mercy of an authoritarian state. He should lift the cloud of censorship that he is using to isolate Venezuelans from each other and from the rest of the world, and the United States should do all it can to help the people of Venezuela as they choose a different path--a path of freedom and prosperity that will return this one-time enemy to their traditional role of our partner and friend. That is where the Venezuelan people want to be, and it is only their brutal leadership that is preventing it. This is a time for American leadership to speak in defense of freedom. This is a time for the President of the United States to unequivocally stand against oppression, against totalitarianism, and for the desire of the Venezuelan people to be free and prosperous. That would benefit them, it would benefit us, and it would benefit the world. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for her stirring remarks on the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and urge that we pay heed to the words she said. It is striking--the Senator from New Hampshire has said more about that terrorist attack than our Commander in Chief has ever said. We are at a time where Tolkien's classic ``The Hobbit'' is one of the best-selling, most popular movies in the country. ``The Hobbit'' is a fantasy story. In Washington, we were visited with fantasy last week in the President's State of the Union Address. I would like to talk about the contrast, concerning foreign policy, between the fantasy presented to the American people and the cold, hard realities of the dangerous world in which we live--which is only getting more and more dangerous. In his State of the Union Address last week, President Obama gave some revealing clues as to how he believed the United States should interact with the rest of the world. On the whole, his remarks encourage Americans not to worry too much about international challenges. He suggested the situations in Syria and Iran are being definitely managed by American diplomats; that Al Qaeda is now a regional nuisance that can be outsourced to surrogates; that our relationship with Israel is defined by the Palestinian peace process, which will also be resolved in short order through American diplomacy; and that our interest in Ukraine is to express support for the abstract principle that all people should peacefully participate in their own governance. In this rosy scenario, difficult challenges such as the deadly terrorist attacks on Benghazi on September 11, 2012, or the long and painful ordeal of Pastor Saeed Abedini in an Iranian prison simply do not exist. I wish we all lived in the utopian world President Obama painted last week. But in just a week, numerous news reports have come out to suggest that picture belongs far more in the world of fantasy than reality. In the interests of being honest with the American people-- which I wish our Commander in Chief had done--I would like to contrast reality with what we were told last week. On Syria, in the State of the Union Address, the President claimed: American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why serious chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve--a future free of dictatorship, terror, and fear. That is truly a rosy scenario. Yet, what is the reality? On Sunday, just 4 days after the President delivered the State of the Union Address, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly told a congressional delegation that the administration's Syria policy is on the brink of collapse. Syria's chemical weapons are purportedly being destroyed through the intervention of Vladimir Putin in what was a major diplomatic victory for the Russian strongman. But we have learned in recent days that this process has not proceeded as promised. The Syrians have ignored their deadlines and only 4 percent of the stockpiles have been eliminated, undoubtedly because Assad knows there is no compelling reason for him to comply. As for what the Syrian people deserve, after 3 years of rudderless U.S. policy, over 130,000 are dead, millions are refugees displaced across the region, and the oldest Christian communities on the planet are threatened with extinction. Assad is entrenched and Al Qaeda is in control of the opposition. Sadly, as a result of the President's mismanagement, today we have no good options in Syria. Yet not a word of that made it into his State of the Union Address. On Iran, the President claimed: It is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran's nuclear program . . . The reality is quite different. No enriched uranium has been destroyed--not a pound--and no centrifuges have been dismantled. The Iranians quickly refuted the President's claim in the State of the Union, announcing, quite publicly, that they have not halted their progress in the slightest. America's closest ally in the region, the nation of Israel, has called this a ``very, very bad deal.'' Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu has referred to it as a ``historic mistake.'' Yet the President proceeds on and the Senate refuses even to allow a vote on reimposing sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. There has been no renunciation of Iran's State sponsorship of terrorism that killed Americans in Lebanon and in Saudi Arabia and in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The mullahs have gone on a hanging spree, executing some 40 people in the first two weeks of January alone. Meanwhile, billions of dollars are flowing into the country, both through relaxed sanctions and Iran's reemergence as a legitimate business partner because of this administration's misguided deal. Indeed, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani might almost be forgiven for publicly gloating that ``the Geneva deal means the surrender of the big powers in front of the great nation of Iran.'' I wish he was not speaking the truth. That reality did not emerge on the House floor last week. On the House floor, the President claimed: If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today. The reality is the claim that we are negotiating with Iran from a position of strength and confidence is a blinkered view of reality because it isn't even clear our President is negotiating towards actual victory. Capitulation is not victory. President Obama announced in the State of the Union that in order to keep negotiations going, he would veto any additional sanctions Congress might pass to pressure Iran to actually stop pursuing nuclear weapons--a position that is supported not only by his current administration, but expressly by his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has good reason to announce publicly he has no ``fear'' of Congress. When Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, he did it from a clear, strategic perspective of ``we win, they lose,'' standing for U.S. national interests. He was facing an existential threat that he defined as ``the Evil Empire.'' There was no danger or misunderstanding of what the goal was or who was going to be doing the surrendering. As a result of his leadership, the Cold War was won without firing a shot. Today, on Iran, we are tragically repeating the mistakes of the past--in particular, the mistakes of the Clinton administration--in relaxing sanctions on North Korea for the same empty promises that they would cease developing nuclear weapons only to have North Korea use the billions of dollars we sent to them--or allowed to go to them--to develop nuclear weapons. The difference is the North Korean leader is motivated by staying in power, which means some form of rational deterrence is hopefully possible. In Iran, the supreme leader has made clear his desire to destroy the nation of Israel and as a result of the billions of dollars going to Iran right now, the risk is unacceptably high that we discover the same thing that happened in North Korea happened in Iran, except that we discover it because Iran, in pursuit of Jihad, detonates a nuclear device over Tel Aviv or New York or Los Angeles. Not a word of that was acknowledged in the President's speech. On Al Qaeda, President Obama claimed: While we have put Al Qaeda's core leadership on a path to defeat, the threat has evolved, as Al Qaeda affiliates and other extremists take root in different parts of the world-- in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Mali, and we have to keep working with partners to disrupt and disable those networks. The reality is that whatever path Al Qaeda is on, it does not currently appear to be towards defeat. The recent assertion by a State Department spokeswoman that Ayman al-Zawahiri is the only core Al Qaeda member left and that thus the threat has been decimated by the President is demonstrably false. For starters, Zawahiri is no mere abstract threat. He explicitly called for attacks on the United States on September 10, 2012, the day before the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, including the first U.S. ambassador killed on duty since 1979. Zawahiri is actively involved in directing Al Qaeda groups that are active in Syria. But core or not core--whatever that means--the reality is that Al Qaeda has been at war with the United States for more than two decades and the attacks of September 11, 2001, are only the most spectacular of a series of attacks and attempted attacks launched at us. Trying to parse this threat to make it seem less deadly, to make it seem like less of a threat to Americans, will not make it so. We need to confront what attacked us in 2001. We cannot defeat radical Islamic terrorism when the President seems unwilling to utter the words ``radical Islamic terrorism.'' Indeed, the recent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence documented that what attacked us in Libya in 2012 is the very same thing that attacked us on September 11, 2001. We should not aim simply to disrupt or to disable Al Qaeda terrorists. We should aim to defeat them. On Israel, in the State of the Union, the President had one mention of Israel in that speech. He said: American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and a lasting peace and security for the State of Israel--a Jewish State that knows America will always be at their side. The reality is sadly much different. Over the weekend, we saw a diplomatic spat play out in the press over allegations that Secretary of State Kerry is actively working behind the scenes to encourage European countries to threaten Israel with boycotts if the Israelis don't agree to whatever framework Mr. Kerry will propose in two weeks. Rather than threats from the U.S. Secretary of State, and rather than tweets from National Security Advisor Susan Rice criticizing Israel, instead, the United States should stand unequivocally with our friend and ally, the nation of Israel. We should reaffirm Israel's unique status as a strong, democratic ally in the Middle East, a uniquely Jewish State, and that the United States appreciates the excruciatingly difficult security situation in which Israel finds itself with the threat of a nuclear Iran, and that the United States will vigorously defend Israel from attacks, from international institutions, from legal onslaughts, and from attempts to undermine Israel's economy through punitive boycotts, and that the United States is unshakably committed to preserving Israel's security, regardless of the status of the peace process. I commend to my colleagues the recent remarks Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave in Israel. Those are the remarks of an ally standing strong with Israel and appreciating the incredible value that Israel provides to our national security and to peace in the world. I wish our President could speak with a fraction of the clarity and solidarity with Israel that the Canadian Prime Minister recently provided. On Ukraine, the President claimed: In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have a right to express themselves freely and peacefully and to have a say in their country's future. The reality is the day after the State of the Union, Ukraine's former President said that the country teeters on the brink of civil war. Protesters have been brutally tortured and murdered. Indeed, one opposition leader described how he was recently crucified. The Ukrainian people's constitutional rights have been trampled. This former Soviet republic has been wrenched away from a proposed trade agreement with the EU and a path towards membership in NATO and instead thrust back into Russia's sphere of influence by a corrupt and autocratic leader, depriving the United States of an important economic and security partner. We need to tell this story. We need to look for concrete actions we can take right now to demonstrate real support for the opposition, to demonstrate real support that Ukraine is welcomed by the West, and that we will not accede to Putin's efforts to reassemble the old Soviet Union and place Ukraine under its domination. We can start by immediately offering a free-trade agreement to Ukraine and partnerships to help them build natural gas infrastructure so they need not remain dependent upon Russia, which uses natural gas to blackmail them, and we could immediately release exports of liquid natural gas from the United States in conjunction with helping with that infrastructure. Surely, the people gathering in the frozen snow of Maidan Square, crying out for the freedom of the West, deserve more from the leader of the free world than mere blandishments about abstract universal rights. If you are standing in the frozen streets of Kiev, being beaten, bleeding--naked, as one opposition leader was--and yet standing proud for freedom, empty generalities from the President do you very little good. On Benghazi, the President claimed nothing. We all remember last fall, during the debates in the Presidential election--just over 1 year ago--when the President emphatically stated no one cared more about the terrorist attack that happened in Benghazi than he did. Yet in the year and a half that has followed, the word ``Benghazi'' seems never to leave his lips. The reality is we have four Americans murdered in a preventable attack, and that is what the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan manner; that this was preventable by Al Qaeda terrorists, and more than 16 months later, no one in Washington or Libya has been held accountable. Congress and the American people, and particularly the families of the fallen, deserve the answers that only a joint select committee of Congress could get. Yet, sadly, the majority leader and Democrats in this Chamber are blocking a joint select committee. ``What difference does it make,'' former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked. It makes all the difference in the world to ascertain the truth. I will note, even though he said not a word about Benghazi in the State of the Union, he was forced to say something this week when he was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. Before the Super Bowl, when Bill O'Reilly asked him about Benghazi, what is striking--and I would urge everyone to go and watch and listen to what the President said--Bill O'Reilly asked him: Did Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tell him that night that the attacks were the works of terrorists? Mr. O'Reilly asked that question, and yet the President, over and over and over, refused to answer a simple yes or no, did Leon Panetta tell him it was the act of terrorists. He did not want to answer that question, and indeed he did not. For those of us who have spent some of our career in a court of law, the technical term for his answer was ``nonresponsive,'' and were a judge there, he would have directed the President to answer the question that was put to him; nor did the President say one word about why the talking points were scrubbed to eradicate any mention of terrorism and the Al Qaeda affiliates involved. We need accountability. We need accountability for those four brave Americans who lost their lives to terrorism and need to know why no one has been held accountable in the State Department, nor have any of the terrorists who committed that attack been brought to justice. On Saeed Abedini, the American pastor brutally imprisoned in Iran, President Obama in the State of the Union Address said nothing. The reality is an American citizen has been wrongly imprisoned in Iran for more than 1 year simply for professing his Christian faith. All of us are blessed to live in a land where the Constitution guarantees us religious liberty. Yet a Christian pastor, going to Iran, professing his faith, was thrown in a pit of a jail. There is no more compelling evidence that the Supreme Leader in Tehran represents the very same repressive Islamist regime today that he has for so many years and that his goal is not peaceful rapprochement with the West but the preservation of his own power. The President of the United States should be standing and demanding Pastor Saeed Abedini's release, not making his captors into diplomatic partners. Indeed, it is notable, in the midst of our negotiations in Geneva, the nation of Iran transferred Pastor Saeed Abedini from one horrible prison to an even worse prison, where they keep their death row, where they send people to die, and he did so on the anniversary of Iran's taking Americans hostage--what is referred to in Iran as ``Death to America Day.'' That was not accidental. That was meant to thumb their nose at our Nation, and the President--instead of standing for an American wrongfully imprisoned for preaching his Christian faith--the President instead chose, in the State of the Union Address, to say not a word. The President concluded his speech on foreign policy by saying: Finally let's remember that our leadership is defined not just by our defense against threats, but by the enormous opportunities to do good and promote understanding around the globe--to forge great cooperation, to expand new markets, to free people from fear and want. And no one is better positioned to take advantage of those opportunities than America. The reality is, if this past week has proven anything, that American leadership is not defined by global opportunities to do good and promote understanding. American leadership is defined by defending and promoting the values that have made our Nation great. We do not do this by ignoring unpleasant realities, refusing to acknowledge the terrorist attack in Benghazi, sending administration officials out to claim it is not a terrorist attack but the result of an Internet video or refusing to stand for an American wrongfully imprisoned in Iran for preaching his Christian faith, and we do not do this by refusing to admit failure but by standing and facing our challenges, accepting responsibility for our actions, and speaking out with a clarion voice for the freedoms we enjoy--freedoms that should be the aspiration of every man and woman on the planet. Leading from behind does not work. As a result of this administration's misguided foreign policy, the world has become a much more dangerous place in the last 5 years. U.S. national security interests have been endangered dramatically. We see nations such as Russia increasing their sphere of influence, while the threats to the security of men and women throughout America grow and multiply. Standing strongly with like-minded allies and encouraging others to seek freedom is not disinterested do-gooding; it is vital work that will promote the security and prosperity of the United States of America, something I believe is ultimately in the interest of all mankind. I wish, when the President of the United States stood on the floor of the House of Representatives to address the Nation and to address the world, that when he spoke of foreign policy he had not embraced a foreign policy fantasy that disregards the cold, hard reality of the dangerous world we live in and the consequences of receding U.S. leadership. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, last year Members of this body could say they didn't know. They didn't know people's plans would be canceled. They didn't know premiums would skyrocket. They didn't know people would be shut off from seeing their doctors. Now they know. Now they know. And the response of the majority leader and Senate Democrats, tragically, is to do nothing. This body faces a choice--a choice between pragmatism and irresponsibility. Once this body makes this choice, ultimately, in November, the American people will have a choice as well. At the end of the day, every elected official should not ignore the facts but should listen to the American people. We need to make DC listen. The majority leader and Senate Democrats right now are not listening to the American people. Instead, they have chosen a course of conduct of doing nothing, that is not responsible, and I hope that, in time, they reconsider. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I want to turn to a second amendment I have introduced. This second amendment provides real relief to the millions of Americans who are being hurt because of ObamaCare, but it also corrects something this body did just recently that was wrong. Recently, this body acted to decrease the pensions of millions of veterans--millions of men and women who have served our Nation, who have fought for our Nation, and who have bled for our Nation. This body decreased their pensions irresponsibly. So this second amendment I would introduce defunds ObamaCare because millions of Americans are hurting, and it uses the savings from defunding ObamaCare to restore the pensions to the hard-working men and women of the military, which never should have been taken away in the first place. This is an opportunity for all 100 Senators to demonstrate we stand together with the working men and women in the military and with all Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to achieve a better life. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2686, to prohibit funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and to fulfill our Nation's promise to our military retirees, be called up and agreed to.

Mr. CRUZ. I rise to speak of pragmatism and irresponsibility. Four years ago, when this body was debating the law known as ObamaCare, reasonable minds perhaps could have differed as to whether that law might work. The essence of pragmatism is looking to the facts as they are today and responding. Today reasonable minds can no longer differ in terms of whether ObamaCare is working. Today it is abundantly clear that millions of Americans are being harmed right now by this failed law. Today it is the essence of pragmatism to acknowledge the facts of the future of ObamaCare and for Congress to step up and act to stop the harm that has been caused by this body. Irresponsibility, on the other hand, is seeing undeniable harm, undeniable facts, and saying, nonetheless, we will do nothing. What are the facts from the American people? The facts that we now know today are that already at least 4.7 million Americans have received cancellation notices, have had their health care plans cancelled because of ObamaCare. This was, of course, after President Obama repeatedly looked in the TV cameras, spoke to the American people, and made the promise: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period. We now know that promise was false, and for over 4.7 million people painfully false in their lives. Pragmatism is responding to the facts and doing something about it. Unfortunately, what have the Senate majority leader and the Senate Democrats done to protect Americans from ObamaCare? Nothing. These facts are known and Senate Democrats have done nothing. At least 4.7 million Americans lost their health insurance because of this body. The omnibus bill that this body is galloping to approve does nothing for the 4.7 million Americans who have had their health insurance canceled. It is not only health insurance plans. What else are the facts that we know now? As Time magazine observed: ``Keeping your doctor under ObamaCare is no easy feat.'' President Obama looked at the American people and said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. We now know that promise too was deliberately, repeatedly, false. Millions of Americans are facing the very real prospect of losing their doctor. A good friend of mine, a cancer survivor, is facing the very real prospect--because Texas Oncology has suggested it does not intend to participate--of losing his cancer doctor, not being able to go to the doctors who saved his life. This is the father of two young children facing the terrifying reality of losing his doctor because of the conduct of the Congress. In response to millions of Americans losing their doctors, what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done? Nothing. The essence of irresponsibility is seeing a harm, seeing the facts, and refusing to act. What else do we know? We know ObamaCare is killing jobs all across the country. Indeed, ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this Nation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said: Of small businesses that will be impacted by the employer mandate, one-half of small businesses say they will either cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate. 24 percent say they will reduce hiring to under 50 employees. The President has recently been talking about income inequality. This exacerbates income inequality. It is why the rich have gotten richer under President Obama. But the people who are struggling--young people, Hispanics, single moms, people like my dad, who 56 years ago washed dishes for 50 cents an hour as a teenage immigrant--those are the people getting their hours reduced because of ObamaCare; those are the people getting laid off because of ObamaCare. Income inequality is increasing. What have the Senate majority leader or Senate Democrats done to protect Americans from ObamaCare? The answer is simple: Nothing. In response to the millions of Americans being forced into part-time work, losing their jobs, nothing from Senate Democrats. What else do we know? The New York Times front-page headline explained ``New Health Law Frustrates Many in Middle Class.'' I recognize that not everyone is inclined to listen to a Republican from Texas. So let me instead quote that famed rightwing rag, The New York Times, discussing ObamaCare. Ginger Chapman and her husband, Doug, are sitting on the health care cliff. The cheapest insurance plan they can find through the new federal marketplace in New Hampshire will cost their family of four about $1,000 a month, 12 percent of their annual income . . . Mr. Chapman is a retired fireman who works on a friend's farm and he and his wife have two sons. Mrs. Chapman had this to say about the cost of that insurance: That's an insane amount of money. How are you supposed to pay that? In response to the middle class, frustrated at getting hit with skyrocketing premiums, what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done? The answer is the same: Nothing. But going beyond that, it is not just the middle class that is getting hurt. If we were to look at one demographic group that is getting hammered the worst by ObamaCare, it is young people. ObamaCare is a law designed to be a massive wealth transfer from young people to older wealthier Americans. Forty percent of young Americans today believe ObamaCare will bring worse care, 51 percent believe it will bring higher costs, and 57 percent of young people disapprove of ObamaCare. And what is the source of this information? Another famed rightwing institution--Harvard, a Harvard Institute of Politics poll. Young people in particular are getting hammered by ObamaCare, and what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to listen to the young people who are losing their jobs, who are forced into part-time work, who are facing skyrocketing premiums? The answer is simple: Nothing. Looking beyond that, Forbes reported that ObamaCare is to increase individual market premiums by an average of 41 percent--41 percent. That is real money from hard-working people who are being hurt because of the failures of this body. And what have Senate Democrats done in response? Nothing. Looking beyond that, in my home State of Texas, the average premium increase for Texans will be 26 percent in the individual market. But let's take a 27-year-old Texas man. The average premium increase will be 70 percent; for a 27-year-old Texas woman, 22 percent. These are young people who are struggling, who are starting to build a family, and their premiums are going up because of ObamaCare. What have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to listen to young people who are being hurt? The answer is simple: Nothing. Let's look beyond that, though. Let's look beyond Texas and let's talk about State by State some of the very real harm. Let's take a State picked at random--the State of Nevada. If we look at the State of Nevada, 24,600 policies have been canceled in Nevada; in the individual market, a 179-percent premium increase. One might hope that these 24,600 people who had their health insurance canceled would have Senators representing them. One might hope these people paying 179-percent premium increases would have Senators representing them standing up and saying: Let's act right now. But what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to respond to the people of Nevada? The answer is absolutely nothing. Let's look at some other States. The State of California. In California, that bright blue State on our west coast, 1.1 million policies have been canceled; a 27-percent increase on average premiums. What have Senate Democrats done to respond to Californians suffering because of ObamaCare? The answer is simple: Nothing. Let's take another State: Arkansas. Arkansas people are hurting because of ObamaCare. The State is not tracking cancellations, but in the individual market in Arkansas a 138-percent increase in premiums. For the millionaires, many of whom populate this Chamber, 138 percent may not be that much. But if you are struggling in Arkansas, you need help. You need relief. And what have Senate Democrats done for the people hurting in Arkansas because of ObamaCare? The answer is nothing. Let's look at another State: Louisiana, 92,790 policies canceled because of ObamaCare; a 53-percent increase in average premiums because of ObamaCare in the individual market. I will note, one Senator from Louisiana has fought hard for those 92,790 people in Louisiana who have had their health insurance canceled, and another Senator in this Chamber has fought hard to ensure the response is not to relieve them from ObamaCare. What have Senate Democrats done in response to the people in Louisiana who are hurting? The answer is simple and it is tragic: Nothing. Let us look at another State: New Mexico, 26,000 policies canceled; 142-percent increase in the individual market. What have Senate Democrats done to listen to the citizens of New Mexico being hurt because of ObamaCare? The answer is nothing. Let's take one more State: The State of North Carolina, 183,800 policies canceled. I want my colleagues to think of the single mom raising three kids who receives a notification in the mail that her policy has been canceled not because of anything she has done but because of Congress's law that is not working. A 136-percent increase. I want my colleagues to think of the immigrant struggling hard--like my dad was when he was washing dishes-- who discovers his premium has gone up 136 percent. What have Senate Democrats done to respond to the people of North Carolina who are being hurt because of ObamaCare? The answer, tragically, is nothing. Four years ago, reasonable minds might have differed, but today these are the facts. And the facts are Senate Democrats are not listening to the American people. They are not responding to the harm they have caused. I am going to suggest that is the essence of irresponsibility. I have filed two amendments. One amendment to the omnibus bill would simply provide that ObamaCare would be defunded so long as it is the case that ObamaCare is causing Americans to lose the health insurance policies they wish to keep, increasing their premiums, and preventing them from seeing the doctors they want to see. All of those, by the way, were promises President Obama and Senate Democrats made to the American people that ObamaCare wouldn't do, and it is exactly what they are doing. This amendment, if Senate Democrats disagree that they have done nothing, presents the opportunity for them to do something. Right now they can step in and say: It is the essence of pragmatism to recognize this isn't working, people are hurting, so let's start over. So, accordingly, I am going to ask the first of two unanimous consent requests: I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2685, to prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act so long as the Act is harming the healthcare of Americans, be called up and agreed to.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I strongly oppose efforts to close down debate on the National Defense Authorization Act. It is a shame that despite being on this bill for four days, we have only had two rollcall votes for amendments. Over 400 amendments have been filed and we only found time to vote twice. This is unacceptable. While I voted against this legislation in committee because it clearly and significantly ignored the budget caps put in place by sequestration, there are significant provisions worthy of support. The Senate worked in a bipartisan manner with leadership from the junior Senator from New York to consider an amendment to reform and modernize our military justice system. This amendment was carefully crafted in anticipation that it would receive a roll call vote on the Senate floor and I proudly cosponsored and supported this amendment. The junior Senator from Indiana had an amendment to help military reservists and the National Guard be recognized for their service and qualify for veterans' preference in hiring for federal jobs. His amendment deserves consideration and a vote. Democrats and Republicans in the Armed Services Committee adopted several of my amendments to this bill to protect the religious liberty of our troops serving here in the United States and overseas. The Armed Services Committee also accepted my proposals to prohibit a base realignment and closure commission until after the Department of Defense conducts an exhaustive review of our overseas bases, and to study how the entire United States should be protected against threats from a missile launch. Also, I am seeking an up-or-down vote or an acceptance of an amendment I filed to authorize up to a $10 million reward for any information regarding the terrorist attacks against Americans in Benghazi, Libya. I have been very flexible in accepting edits and changes from the majority in order to speed this process along. The same goes for my amendment to protect the Mount Soledad veterans' memorial in California. In fact, the senior Senator from California filed the exact same legislation. So this is not a political or partisan amendment but yet it is still being denied consideration. For these reasons and for the obstruction by the Senate majority leader who accuses the minority of being obstructionist, I oppose ending debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gillibrand amendment. I am proud to support Senator Gillibrand's concerted effort to deal with the problem of sexual assault in our military. I want to begin by commending her persistent leadership in forging a bipartisan coalition to tackle this serious problem. I supported the Gillibrand amendment in committee, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment here on the floor of the Senate. I rise today to share my reasons for supporting it and to encourage my colleagues to continue to come together in support of this amendment. Everyone in this body wants to support the men and women of our military. In the course of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on sexual assault, we heard testimony after testimony after testimony about the persistent problem of sexual assault in the military. I found myself persuaded by the arguments that Senator Gillibrand raised in defense of her amendments. Indeed, when I said at the hearing that I had been persuaded by the arguments, I have to tell you, afterwards a reporter from a newspaper came up to me astonished, and asked, in wonderment: Were you really persuaded by arguments at a hearing? I thought everyone came in with their views already set in stone, and nothing that was said here made a difference. I chuckled and said: Well, the arguments Senator Gillibrand put forth I found powerful in terms of how do we deal with a serious problem. There were two arguments in particular that I found persuasive. The first is that sexual assault has proven to be a persistent problem in the military. According to the Defense Department, 3,374 cases of unwanted sexual contact were reported last year. More than 23,000 additional cases of unwanted sexual contact went unreported. This has been a problem that has been present in the military for decades. Our commanders, our generals, our admirals, have worked in good faith, have worked diligently to correct this problem. It has proven a persistent problem. Yet, unfortunately, their efforts to correct the problem have not proven successful. In the civilian side, one of the great challenges when it comes to sexual assault is the relatively low rate of reporting. Sadly, on the military side, that problem is even greater. The most significant barrier we see to deterring and preventing sexual assault is that many of the victims are unwilling, are not comfortable coming forward and reporting the assaults they are experiencing. Despite the repeated good-faith efforts of our military commanders, we have been unable to fix that problem. The second argument Senator Gillibrand raised that I find quite persuasive is that a number of our allies, including Great Britain, including Israel, including Canada, including Germany, have implemented reforms quite similar to the reforms she is proposing, which is namely that the decision whether to bring a prosecution for a crime like sexual assault should be made by an impartial military prosecutor and not by the commanding officer who may well be the commanding officer both of the victim of the crime and the perpetrator of the crime. Those reforms have been implemented by our allies. Our allies have not seen good order and discipline undermined. Indeed, the data suggests they have seen an increase in reporting rates. Those are the arguments that persuaded me that we need to solve this problem, we need to stop this problem. Let me point out that the coalition supporting the Gillibrand amendment is a bipartisan coalition. This cuts across party lines. In my view, there are two strong conservative principles, both of which the Gillibrand amendment furthers. No. 1, all of us want to strengthen our military, ensure that good order and discipline are protected; that our commanders are effective; that we maintain the strongest fighting force on the face of the planet. But, No. 2, all of us want to prevent and deter violent crime and to ensure that anyone who commits violent crime, and in particular a crime of a sexual nature, meets swift and sure punishment. Prior to being elected in the Senate I spent many years in law enforcement working to ensure that those guilty of violent crimes, and in particular crimes of sexual violence against children, against women, received the swiftest and surest punishment. In my view, the Gillibrand amendment furthers both of these conservative objectives. I have tried to think about this issue not just from the perspective of a Senator but also from the perspective of a father. My wife and I have two little girls, Caroline and Catherine, who are 5 and 3. I have tried to think if some years hence Caroline or Catherine made a decision to step forward and volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces, what are the rules I would want to be in place to ensure that my daughters were protected against any risk of sexual assault. Given the two-decade-plus history that we have seen in the military of not being able to effectively prevent these crimes and not having victims willing to come forward and report, in my view, shifting not to a civilian authority but to an impartial military prosecutor is going to significantly increase the reporting rates, which, in turn, is going to deter these crimes from being committed. All of us owe a duty to our soldiers, our sailors, airmen, and marines, the young men and women who voluntarily step forward to risk everything to defend our Nation. For one of those young soldiers to find himself or herself the victim of sexual assault is an absolute violation of that trust. The Supreme Court has referred to rape as ``short of murder, the ultimate violation of self.'' All of us have an obligation to make sure we are protecting our soldiers. An environment where young men and women in the military fear the risk of sexual assault or are not able to come forward and report those crimes is not an environment that furthers good order and discipline. So I would encourage all of my friends in this body, both Democrats and Republicans, to come together in support of this commonsense proposal to strengthen our military, and at the same time to deter and punish the unacceptable, unspeakable crimes of sexual assault so we can together honor the commitment we owe to all men and women in the military. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, millions across this country are losing their health care, are losing their doctors because of ObamaCare. In Texas this past week the Austin American-Statesman reported that Austin's largest provider of cancer treatment won't participate in the health insurance plans offered through the marketplace set up by the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, they went on: ``ObamaCare looked like the sunshine on the horizon. And now it's a tornado,'' said one Austinite who has breast cancer and is being treated at Texas Oncology. In its upcoming issue, Texas Medicine, a publication from the Texas Medical Association, references a survey by the Medical Group Management Association that says uncertainty has 40 percent of physician practices across the country pondering their participation in marketplace-based insurance plans. But by reducing their risk, Texas Oncology is passing the burden on to some already stressed families, said Seth Winick, whose wife is being treated by Texas Oncology for breast cancer. Winick also said: ``It's an unwelcome burden and could seriously affect thousands of families who deal with cancer in our communities.'' If Winick's family is forced to pay out-of-network rates to treat his wife, the family will have to make some tough decisions. He says: ``We will make the financial sacrifice necessary to purchase the best care we can afford and we hope that it is enough.'' But Mr. Winick had nothing positive to say about the people and the care provided at Texas Oncology. He also said: Expanding health insurance coverage to people who don't have it is a noble goal, but the impact that has on those of us who do have it remains to be seen. Folks in the individual market don't really know what is in store. President Obama promised the American people: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. We now know that promise wasn't true. ObamaCare isn't working and it is time to start over. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late Judge Paul Brown, and to urge the Senate to adopt a bill I am introducing, along with the Senior Senator from Texas. This bill will rename the Federal courthouse in Sherman, TX, as the Paul Brown United States Courthouse. Judge Brown was a Federal judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He joined the court in 1985, after being nominated by President Reagan. He served on that court admirably until his death on November 26, 2012. Judge Paul Brown was born on October 4, 1926. He was the youngest of 6 children. He was raised on a farm near Pottsboro, TX. He graduated from Denison High School in 1943. He left home to attend the University of Texas at Austin. But with World War II escalating, he left UT to enlist in the Navy at the age of 17. He returned to UT, where he got his law degree in 1950. He is said to have loved UT so much that a fellow judge once recalled that although Judge Brown never wore a burnt orange tie on the bench, you could see him ``glow orange'' by simply mentioning UT. Just after Judge Brown got his law degree, the Korean War began. And he served our country admirably once again in the Navy from 1950 to 1951. In 1951, he returned to Sherman, TX, and began private practice. In 1953, he was appointed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas. President Eisenhower named him U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas in 1959. After meeting and marrying Francis Morehead in Texarkana, Judge Brown then moved back to Sherman and reentered private practice in 1961. After almost a quarter century of practicing law in Sherman, Senator Phil Gramm recommended Judge Brown to President Reagan for a new vacancy in the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Brown was confirmed for this vacancy in 1985. He served with distinction for the next 27 years. Judge Brown took senior status in 2001. At Judge Brown's retirement celebration, Chief Judge Heartfield called Judge Brown ``a textbook member'' of ``the Greatest Generation.'' His legacy lives on today, as the Judge Paul Brown Endowed Scholarship was established at the University of Texas School of Law in 2005. He was honored as a Distinguished Alumnus of Denison High School in 2006. Judge Brown will be missed by his family, his community, and his nation. He, and his family, deserve this great honor, as the people of Sherman, TX, will forever remember the great jurist, Judge Paul Brown.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late Judge Paul Brown, and to urge the Senate to adopt a bill I am introducing, along with the Senior Senator from Texas. This bill will rename the Federal courthouse in Sherman, TX, as the Paul Brown United States Courthouse. Judge Brown was a Federal judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He joined the court in 1985, after being nominated by President Reagan. He served on that court admirably until his death on November 26, 2012. Judge Paul Brown was born on October 4, 1926. He was the youngest of 6 children. He was raised on a farm near Pottsboro, TX. He graduated from Denison High School in 1943. He left home to attend the University of Texas at Austin. But with World War II escalating, he left UT to enlist in the Navy at the age of 17. He returned to UT, where he got his law degree in 1950. He is said to have loved UT so much that a fellow judge once recalled that although Judge Brown never wore a burnt orange tie on the bench, you could see him ``glow orange'' by simply mentioning UT. Just after Judge Brown got his law degree, the Korean War began. And he served our country admirably once again in the Navy from 1950 to 1951. In 1951, he returned to Sherman, TX, and began private practice. In 1953, he was appointed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas. President Eisenhower named him U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas in 1959. After meeting and marrying Francis Morehead in Texarkana, Judge Brown then moved back to Sherman and reentered private practice in 1961. After almost a quarter century of practicing law in Sherman, Senator Phil Gramm recommended Judge Brown to President Reagan for a new vacancy in the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Brown was confirmed for this vacancy in 1985. He served with distinction for the next 27 years. Judge Brown took senior status in 2001. At Judge Brown's retirement celebration, Chief Judge Heartfield called Judge Brown ``a textbook member'' of ``the Greatest Generation.'' His legacy lives on today, as the Judge Paul Brown Endowed Scholarship was established at the University of Texas School of Law in 2005. He was honored as a Distinguished Alumnus of Denison High School in 2006. Judge Brown will be missed by his family, his community, and his nation. He, and his family, deserve this great honor, as the people of Sherman, TX, will forever remember the great jurist, Judge Paul Brown.