Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, later this year, American citizens across the country will exercise one of their most valuable and sacred rights: the right to vote--a right that has been hard-earned and fought for from the founding generation of our Republic to today. How was the right to self-government, the right to vote secured? It was secured by American colonists who rejected the royal edict and hurled tea into Boston Harbor, declaring ``no taxation without representation.'' It was secured by ordinary men who seized their muskets and fired the shot heard around world at Lexington and Concord. It was secured by Continental troops who marched to the fields of Saratoga and the coastline of Yorktown, repeating those immortal worlds of Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' For nearly 250 years, Americans have cast their votes for leaders at every level--from local officials, to State representatives, to the President of the United States. Every Member of this body is here today because we were elected fairly and honestly and given a mandate by our constituents to serve them here in Washington and to protect the liberties and freedoms our Founders fought to preserve. The power of the ballot box determines the course of our Nation, the history we are writing, and the freedoms we continue to defend. And while no single ballot in isolation may seem decisive, together, the votes of the American people shape the course of our Nation and the course of history. But it is worth remembering that our voting system did not begin as it exists today. When this Nation was founded, the right to vote was limited, and over time, through debate, sacrifice, a bloody Civil War, and constitutional amendment, the right to vote was quite properly expanded. The 15th Amendment prohibited denying the vote based on race. The 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. At every stage of our constitutional amendment process, the goal was the same: to ensure that the right to vote belonged to American citizens and that it was exercised with integrity. While our system has evolved, one principle has remained constant: Elections reflect the will of the American people. For a right so sacred, for a privilege so hard fought, it is shocking, it is tragic how neglected and vulnerable the protection of our elections has become. That is why I am here today on this very floor urging the Members of this body to pass the SAVE America Act. It says that when you register to vote in a Federal election, you must provide proof that you are a citizen of the United States and you must provide photo ID to vote. In simple terms, that is it. This is not some radical, politicized, or weaponized piece of legislation designed to restrict Americans from voting; it is a commonsense measure that protects the integrity of our elections by ensuring that American citizens and only American citizens are voting in them. Legitimacy in a democracy rests on two pillars: first, the mechanical integrity of the system to produce a valid result, and second, the public's confidence in that system. If either one fails, the system falters. If both fail, the system collapses. A system that cannot be trusted is a system that cannot govern. If you look around the world, between two-thirds and three-quarters of countries require some form of identification to vote. Why? Because it safeguards the integrity of their elections and reinforces public trust in their system. So it begs the question: Why hasn't the United States fully embraced this standard? Well, for the last several months, we have heard claim after claim about how this legislation would somehow inhibit people from voting, that requiring identification is discriminatory, and that the American people do not support voter ID. Our Democrat colleagues are fond of bellowing into the TV cameras that photo ID to vote is Jim Crow--they tell us with mock earnestness. Now, I will admit our Democrat colleagues should be experts in Jim Crow because it was Democrat politicians who passed the Jim Crow laws. It was Democrat politicians who founded the Ku Klux Klan. It was Democrat politicians, decade after decade, who enforced discrimination, separate-but-equal poll taxes, and a host of other laws designed to prevent African Americans from voting. But do you know who has rejected their disingenuous claim that a photo ID to vote is Jim Crow? The Supreme Court of the United States-- the Supreme Court of the United States. The State of Indiana passed a photo ID law requiring that you show a photo ID to vote, and a group of leftwing plaintiffs filed litigation challenging that. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time, I was the solicitor general of the State of Texas. I led a coalition of States before the Supreme Court defending photo ID to vote, and the leftwing plaintiffs made the same argument that our Democrat colleagues make today--that requiring a photo ID to vote would somehow disenfranchise minorities. The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 to 3, rejected their argument. The author of the majority opinion was John Paul Stevens. John Paul Stevens was one of the great liberals on the Court. He was not a conservative. He was not of the rightwing. He was the leading liberal for years on the U.S. Supreme Court. He rejected that claim, and he pointed out that when someone votes illegally, they are stealing the votes of legal voters; they are stealing the votes of American citizens. The Supreme Court explained that when photo ID laws have been implemented, minority participation in the election goes up, not down, and the Supreme Court explained that requiring photo ID enhances the integrity of an election and the integrity of democracy. Now, our Democrat colleagues don't want to acknowledge any of those facts, and I guess it is understandable because the American people have heard their specious arguments, and they have rejected them. Eighty-one percent of Americans support requiring a photo ID to vote. But my Democrat colleagues might say: What about African Americans? Well, about three-quarters of African Americans in the United States support requiring a photo ID to vote. How about Hispanics? More than 80 percent of Hispanics in America support requiring a photo ID to vote. How about Democrats? Here is an astonishing statistic: If you get out of elective office and you ask a Democrat on the street, 70 percent of Democrats in America support requiring a photo ID to vote. The one group that doesn't is elected Democrats in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. By the way, the premise of their argument that minorities, if you require a photo ID to vote, are not going to be able to vote is, frankly, insulting. I am proud to be an Hispanic American. I have been Hispanic all my life. Do you know what I have in my wallet? I have a driver's license. I look at my colleagues across the way, and I feel confident they have driver's licenses in their wallets as well. Hispanics are not morons. African Americans are not morons. When you claim minorities can't figure out how to get a driver's license--well, gosh, what do you need a photo ID to do right now in America? You need a photo ID to purchase alcohol or to purchase tobacco. You need a photo ID to gamble or to purchase lottery tickets. You need a photo ID to go into a bar. You need a photo ID to get on a plane. You need a photo ID to rent a car. You need a photo ID just to drive a car--not even to rent a car but to drive a car. You need a photo ID to apply for government benefits. You need a photo ID to enroll in college. You need a photo ID to open a bank account. You need a photo ID to check into a hotel. And--I have to admit this is my personal favorite--you need a photo ID--actually two photo IDs--to shovel snow in New York City. These are routine, everyday activities. The Gallery is full. I feel confident everyone in the Gallery who is not a child has a driver's license. By the way, you wouldn't be admitted to the Gallery if you didn't. And I feel confident every Member of this Chamber has done just about anything I listed--well, except shoveling snow. I am not convinced many of my colleagues have shoveled snow, although they do shovel other things. The question is not whether Americans are bright enough to obtain a photo ID. We know they can, and we know they do. The real question is, Why would we not require the same level of verification for something as consequential and vital as voting? Are our Democrat colleagues saying voting doesn't matter or is it something else? Voting is not just another everyday activity; it rolls around every year or few years, and it is the vehicle that protects the principles of our Republic. It is safeguarding what matters. This legislation is necessary because there are individuals and systems that can undermine confidence in our elections if proper safeguards are not in place. One of the most apparent ways that we have seen is through the masses of illegal immigrants that our Democrat colleagues let in through open borders for over 4 years. During the Biden administration, more than 12 million illegal immigrants flooded into this country--the vast majority through my home State of Texas. Now, understand that was not an accident. That was not something the Democrats could not stop. That was their desired outcome. How do we know that? Because the instant President Trump was sworn into office for his second term, illegal border crossings plummeted 99 percent overnight. The Democrats said: No, Joe Biden can't secure the border. He needs new legislation. We now know that was a lie. It was objectively false, and they knew it was false. Well, if they could have secured the border for 4 years, they chose not to. They chose to let murderers into this country. They chose to let rapists into this country. They chose to let child molesters into this country. They chose to let gang bangers into this country. They chose to let terrorists into this country. We have had four radical Islamic terror attacks in the last 2 weeks. Why would the Democrats choose to allow more than 12 million illegal aliens to invade this country? I am going to suggest the obvious reason: because the Democrats look at those illegal aliens and they want them to cast a vote for Democrats in Federal elections. Why are the Democrats lined up and saying: No. No. No. Under no circumstances should we test to see if you are an American citizen. Under no circumstances should we require photo IDs. There was one activist a few years ago who filmed himself going into a DC polling place. The DC polling place said: Sir, what is your name? He said: My name is Eric Holder. Now, this activist was not the Attorney General of the United States at the time, but yet DC handed him a ballot and said: Mr. Holder, please cast your vote. The Democrats are lined up in this Chamber because they want our elections to be insecure; they want voter fraud to be rampant and to be easy. Ask yourself: Do the American people have a difficult time buying a beer? Do they have a difficult time getting into an R-rated movie? Do they have a difficult time getting on an airplane? Well, yes, because the Democrats have refused to fund the TSA, so there are long lines right now. But the lack of a photo ID is not an impediment that stops people from flying. This debate is about something very simple: Do our elections matter? Does our democracy matter? And, boy, I have got to say that that is a phrase the Democrats love--that they are defending democracy. It is interesting that their voices usually drop an octave when they say that. They clutch their pearls--and that is just the men. ``Defending democracy'' is what they say. Ask yourself: Why are they not concerned at all about the 12 million illegals whom they let into this country voting illegally? I will submit that Occam's razor provides that the simplest solution is usually the right one. The simplest solution is very clear: The Democrats in this body want illegals to vote. They want power enough that they are more than happy to undermine democracy to try to seize power. I get that from their personal self-interest, but it is not in the interest of the men and women they represent; it is not in the interest of the people of America. This bill is rightly called the SAVE America Act. If we were voting on the merits of what was good for America, what was good for democracy, and what was good for American citizens, the vote would be 100 to nothing. Although I would note that on the other side of this building, at the State of the Union Address that the Presiding Officer was at and that I was at, we saw why our Democrat colleagues are so adamantly opposed to this bill. President Trump turned to the Democrats on the right side of the floor of the House, and he gave them an opportunity to demonstrate with absolute clarity. He said: If you agree our first priority should be to fight for American citizens and not for illegal aliens, please stand. Every single Democrat in Congress remained seated. I would note, as we are on the floor today, of the 47 Democrats in this body, only 1 is here on the floor, but a whole lot more were on the floor during the State of the Union, and every one of them chose to remain seated because they could not support the statement that we need to support American citizens and not illegal aliens. That is why they oppose the SAVE America Act. It is because they want to be handed power over this country by the illegal aliens they let into this country. That is why we need to save America, and it is why I urge every Member of this body to pass the SAVE America Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today, Texans celebrate 190 years of independence. On March 2, 1836, Texans fought bravely for liberty and for independence from Mexico. Many heroes, including William Barret Travis, James Bowie, and Davy Crockett, laid down their lives for the future of the Lone Star State. It is a longstanding tradition on Texas Independence Day to read aloud the words of Colonel William Barret Travis, the leader of the besieged forces at the Alamo. His call for reinforcements reminds us of the bravery, resilience, and fortitude of those who fought and died for liberty. And today, I would like to take a moment to read his letter: To the people of Texas & All Americans in the World: Fellow citizens & compatriots--I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country. Victory or Death. Signed, William Barret Travis. Texans are known for their resilience, work ethic, courage, and patriotism--qualities forged in sacrifice, sealed in blood, and handed down by the very man who gave everything for Texas independence. I would also like to note that Texas' founding father, the George Washington of Texas, Sam Houston, was born on March 2, 1793, and he later led the Texans to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. He left behind an extraordinary legacy of leadership and sacrifice. I will close with words of wisdom that Sam Houston shared: Govern wisely and as little as possible. Today, as we remember the Alamo and the birth of the Republic of Texas, our own independent nation for 9 glorious years, we remember the tremendous bravery of men past, and we renew a promise for the future: a promise to defend liberty, a promise to stand firm in the face of adversity, and a promise that the spirit of victory or death will always live on in the Lone Star State. To every Texan, I wish you a proud and happy Texas Independence Day. God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 1 minute.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Nicholas Ganjei of Texas to be the U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. Nick Ganjei's story is in many ways a classic American story. He grew up in Northern California as the youngest of four children. His mother, the daughter of immigrants, was a public school teacher, and his dad was an engineer for General Electric. Nick's father emigrated from Iran in 1961 as a student with $100 to his name and found his way from New York to El Paso and then to California. Nick's upbringing instilled a fidelity for public duty, a respect for limits on government power, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. As U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, Nick has been on the frontlines of Federal law enforcement--leading one of the busiest districts in the country, prosecuting violent crime, cartel activity, and transnational threats while enforcing the law fairly. Nick's career is filled with great success and clear dedication to this country, but I want to highlight his work in the U.S. Senate. Nick served as my chief counsel for 3 years, during which he oversaw vital initiatives on criminal justice, border security, judicial nominations, antitrust issues, intellectual property, and religious liberty. During his time on my staff, I saw firsthand Nick's dedication to judicial integrity. I am confident that he will work tirelessly in service of the American people and in faithful adherence to the Constitution. I also want to note a happy personal milestone of Nick's. Just last week, Nick became engaged to his now-fiancee Jessica. She will join him in Houston and become one of our newest Texans, and we look forward to having her in the Lone Star State. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of his nomination as U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. He will make us proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Peterson nomination.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in January of this year, tragedy struck just a few miles from here when an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Sixty-seven souls were tragically lost in an instant. After the crash, it quickly became evident that there were commonsense changes that would immediately enhance aviation safety. The Army helicopter, flying along the Potomac River, had deliberately chosen not to broadcast its location to other aircraft or to air traffic control using the common aviation technology called automatic dependent surveillance broadcast, or ADS-B. Had the Black Hawk been using ADS-B, like every other aircraft is required to do, tragedy could well have been averted. We have since learned from the National Transportation Safety Board that the military was routinely flying by its own set of rules, particularly around Reagan National, which meant that there had been numerous near misses before this deadly crash. In fact, just last Friday, an Air Force tanker was flying without using ADS-B and nearly collided into a JetBlue plane headed to New York despite the justifiable public outrage over what happened at DCA. Clearly, the Pentagon's behavior needed to change. In July, I, alongside eight of my Republican colleagues, introduced the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform--or ROTOR-- Act. After several weeks negotiating a bipartisan agreement with the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Maria Cantwell, the committee passed the ROTOR Act unanimously. Here is what the ROTOR Act does: No. 1, it tightens the rules for military aircraft so air traffic control and other pilots have a better idea of nearby planes and helicopters. No. 2, it requires all aircraft, civilian and military, to equip and receive ADS-B signals. No. 3, it directs the FAA to comprehensively evaluate the safety of airspaces around airports across the country so that no other airspace has the same risk of collisions that DCA did. No. 4, it improves aviation safety information sharing between the FAA and the military. No longer will there be silos of safety data. These improvements will save lives. Earlier this week, the families of the DCA crash victims joined Senator Cantwell and me at a press conference to highlight how the NDAA had a provision moving backwards on safety and to call for the passage of the ROTOR Act. Two of those family members, Amy Hunter and Laura Augendre, are in the Gallery today. I am happy that they are here to witness the Senate passing the ROTOR Act, along with the language removing the offending NDAA provision. Senator Cantwell, Senator Moran, and I have made significant progress with our Senate colleagues, and we have reached an agreement that will allow the Senate to pass this bill unanimously today. I am also pleased to report that the ROTOR Act now has the explicit backing of the White House on this revised product. The White House is committed to helping us work with our House colleagues to see that the ROTOR Act passes in that Chamber. We still have a few small outstanding issues, but I am optimistic that we are going to get this done and signed into law as soon as next month. Before turning it over to my colleagues, I want to note two things. One, I want to say thank you to Senator Cantwell for her partnership. She and I have worked hand in hand on this. I am grateful for the trust we have with each other and for the work ethic displayed by Senator Cantwell and by her staff, who have worked very hard on this matter. I also want to say that this bill will be a fitting way to honor the lives of those lost nearly 1 year ago over the Potomac River. The goal of the victims' families is to ensure that no one else endures a similar, avoidable, completely unnecessary tragedy. With that, I yield to Ranking Member Cantwell.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I now yield to Senator Moran, who has been a critical leader in fighting to pass the ROTOR Act and to ensure we have accountability and that we do not repeat the tragic mistakes that led to that horrific accident.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 269, S. 2503.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Cruz-Cantwell substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a true servant of Texas, Carl Mica. For over 10 years, Carl has worked in my office, starting as my regional director and now ending his career as my deputy chief of staff and State director. For over three decades, Carl has dedicated his life to public service, the ``Lone Star State,'' and this Nation. So today, I would like to share part of his story, his work, and the legacy he leaves behind as he enters retirement. Carl is known for his exemplary character, quality leadership, and genuine compassion. He is someone who inspires others through integrity, empathy, and a clear vision of what is possible. Carl has led not by relying on authority or titles but by setting an example of accountability, respect, and dedication. But most importantly, Carl has always been committed to uplifting those whom we serve, driving collective success while nurturing trust, collaboration, and a shared sense of purpose. Carl's career has been defined by steady leadership, a commitment to service, and an unwavering devotion to the people of Texas and the United States. Throughout his storied career, Carl has served in roles that placed him at the intersection of policy, people, and crisis response. As my deputy chief of staff and State director, he has overseen operations in Washington, DC, and across Texas, serving more than 31 million Texans and leading a team of more than 60 staff members across the country. His position demanded poise, strategic judgment, and compassion, qualities he has consistently demonstrated. Carl has been at the forefront of the most pivotal and challenging moments in recent Texas and American history. He helped guide statewide responses and engagement following hurricanes and floods and tornadoes and wildfires and community crises, including the crisis at our southern border for the 4 years of the Biden administration. And like all of us, he navigated the uncertainty brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring Texans remained informed and connected to Federal resources. These were not moments for the faint of heart. They were moments that required steady, empathetic leadership, and Carl was there. Time and again, he stepped forward to help communities heal, to support elected officials in crafting responses, and to ensure that the voices of Texans were heard in Washington. But Carl's influence extends far beyond crisis management. His career has been a master class in forging relationships and strengthening institutions. During his time at the University of Texas system, he helped launch the Chancellor's Centurions Program, cultivating future leaders in education and healthcare. He also served as the UT system's chief liaison to business organizations nationwide, bolstering partnerships, and supporting growth for one of the State's most important institutions. Prior to working at UT, Carl built his foundation in public service, working with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, my predecessor, rising from an assistant to her regional director. And while Carl has dedicated his career to public service, he has also invested deeply in his community. He has served on the Austin Club's board of directors, contributed to the Austin Chamber of Commerce, supported the Texas Exes, and remained active in organizations that celebrate Texas history, education, and civic engagement. In every chapter of his life, Carl has embodied the values we cherish: integrity, commitment, loyalty, and leadership. He has been a bridgebuilder, a steady hand in times of crisis, a mentor to many, and a servant leader to all. Carl's career reflects both accomplishments and character. His career is a testament to what one person can achieve when they lead with purpose, humility, and heart. When Carl's colleagues reflect on his leadership, one theme rises above all others: His heart. They describe someone who cared deeply for his team, who held high expectations but met them himself every single day, and whose Texas pride and loyalty ran as steady as his professionalism. Beneath his attention to detail was a genuine sentimental spirit that shaped this office in ways he never fully realized. They reflected on how Carl walked with them through every walk of life, through celebrations, through grief, and through the mundane. There are countless stories I could share about Carl, but they all show the mark of a true servant leader. He inspired excellence. He opened doors. He changed lives. Carl's legacy is written not just in the work he accomplished but in the people he lifted along the way. So, Carl, while your departure from this team is bittersweet, I want to say congratulations on an extraordinary legacy, and I also want to say thank you, thank you for changing lives. And in recognizing such leadership, it is equally important to thank his incredible wife Tara, whose support and service alongside him made his contributions possible and even more meaningful. I will also note that Carl is known throughout the State of Texas for having the most impeccable head of hair that could possibly grace a fellow. And when he comes to DC and walks the hallway, he is regularly greeted with ``Senator,'' ``Senator,'' as everyone he meets is convinced, I am sorry to say, that he is one of us. I have wondered, sometimes, if Carl has come down to the Senate floor and cast a vote. I feel confident that the clerk would record the vote and assume he must be a Senator, and there must have been a new special election that they missed. Carl, you have been a dear friend to me and my wife Heidi for decades, and I can speak to everyone when I say: You will be missed. Your retirement is greatly deserved, and I look forward to continuing our friendship in this next chapter of life. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a grave matter and a clear violation of religious freedom, human dignity, and the rule of law. In China, Christians are fighting daily for their religious freedom against the Chinese Communist Party. And on October 10, 2025, the Chinese Communist Party launched the largest coordinated nationwide crackdown in more than four decades against a Christian urban house church in China. In that sweep, 23 pastors and church members of the Zion Church, one of China's largest underground congregations, were arrested and wrongfully detained, including Pastor Ezra Jin. Pastor Jin and the members of the Zion Church were not engaged in violence. They were worshiping. They were serving God. And for that action, they are being treated as enemies of the communist state. Last week, I introduced a bipartisan, bicameral resolution to condemn the abduction of Pastor Jin and the Zion Church leaders and to demand their immediate release. This resolution is designed to pressure Chinese leadership to release the congregation members and to let them practice their Christian faith freely. It sends a message that faith is not a crime, and a government that fears its citizens' faith is nothing more than an oppressive tyranny. Pastor Jin's daughter and her husband Bill, a native Houstonian, wrote about the CCP's persecution in the Washington Post this past week. In their column, they made a piercing observation, and I want to share it here in full: There were few more obvious ways to showcase the bankruptcy of an ideology--and the vitality of the Christian faith--than by forcing peaceful believers to suffer for the sake of their convictions. This is a profound truth. China, like other communist regimes before it, utterly despises the fact that there is and always has been a higher authority than the state itself. In its effort to bring every aspect of society under brutal government control, the CCP uses state power to drive fear into the hearts of its citizens. History has shown that these tactics will fail, and the persecuted church will only grow stronger. The Apostle Paul reminds us that God gave us not a spirit of fear but of power and of love. I know that that same spirit--one of power and of love--is what the church in China is fighting with. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution unanimously to show our support for Pastor Jin, his family, and his fellow believers, and to show the world that the United States stands on the side of freedom, on the side of faith, and we stand with the persecuted Christians in China. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 463.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent that the Cruz substitute amendment to the resolution be considered and agreed to.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I know of no further debate on the resolution, as amended.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cruz substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to honor a very special group of Americans--the soldiers, the sailors, the marines, and the airmen who have fought bravely for this Nation, but who have received the very highest distinction that any member of the Armed Forces can earn, the Medal of Honor. Since 1863, Presidents of the United States have awarded the Medal of Honor to more than 3,500 of the bravest men and women ever to wear the uniform of this Nation. Each one has demonstrated valor, gallantry, and heroism above and beyond the call of duty, with acts so selfless, so extraordinary that they stand as beacons of courage for future generations. In 1960, Congress passed Public Law 6556, establishing the Army and Navy Medal of Honor Roll and entitling each Medal of Honor recipient to a modest special pension of $10 per month for life. Over time, that monthly amount has gradually increased from $10 to $100, to what stands today at approximately $1,400 per month. But let's pause and think about that: $1,400 a month for those who risked everything--their safety, their future, their very lives for freedom, for the opportunity for all of us to be here today. Today, there are 61 living Medal of Honor recipients, 61 men who faced unthinkable odds, who put their country before themselves so that the rest of us could live in peace. We cannot truly ever repay them. There is no sum, there is no medal, there are no words that can measure up to their sacrifice. But there are ways that we can continue to honor them, by ensuring that they are cared for, respected, and supported. In January of this year, I introduced the Medals Act, my legislation to raise the monthly pension for Medal of Honor recipients. This legislation is a way for this Nation to say: We see you, we remember you, and we will not forget what you have done. Many of these heroes spend their time traveling the country, speaking to schoolchildren, visiting military hospitals, and strengthening the very fabric of America. This monetary increase will allow them to continue those efforts and to reach more communities, mentor more veterans, and remind all of us about the cost of freedom. And I would like to take a moment to recognize nine Medal of Honor recipients who currently live in the Lone Star State. We honor them, and we cherish them. I would also like to recognize the 139 Medal of Honor recipients who were either born in, entered the service from, or died in Texas. These are America's heroes, and they are heroes for the great State of Texas. Now, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Medal of Honor recipients here in the Gallery: LTC William Swenson and COL Paris Davis. In just a moment, I will propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass H.R. 695, the House-passed version of the Medal Act that passed the House 424 to 0. I urge my colleagues to join me, as our companions in the House have already done, in supporting this measure, in passing it into law, in sending it directly to the President's desk to be signed into law, and showing that, when it comes to honoring our Nation's very greatest heroes, we are united, and we speak with one voice. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 695, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I thank Senator Johnson. It is day 38 of the Schumer shutdown--the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States. Now, Senator Schumer told the world: Every day gets better for us. Senator Sullivan asked: Who is the ``us''? I will tell you who the ``us'' is. This is a partisan political show. It happened because, in March, the Democrats decided to be reasonable and allow the government to stay open. And the extreme-left wing of the Democrat party got furious, and Senator Schumer nearly lost his job. And now the government is shut down because the Democrats want to show the radical-left wing in their base that they really, really, really hate Donald Trump. Now, on the Democrat side of the aisle, there is a talking point--a talking point we actually had in the Commerce Committee yesterday. One of our Democrat colleagues said: There is a Republican President. There is a Republican Senate. There is a Republican House. This is the Republicans' shutdown. And I don't know who actually produces those talking points for Democrats, but every one of them, word for word, said the identical thing. Well, I tell you, I spoke shortly thereafter, and I said: You know, every witness in a court of law, before they testify, they are sworn in, and they are asked that their testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I said: What my Democrat colleague just did there failed part No. 2, the whole truth. You are right; there is a Republican President. You are right; there is a Republican House. And you are right; there is a Republican Senate. What the Democrats also know is that, under the Senate rules, it takes 60 Senators to vote to fund the government. They all know that. That is not something they don't know, and it is not an accident that they don't mention it. Why do we have a shutdown? Well, let's count. There are 53 desks on this side of the Senate floor. There are 53 Republicans, which means the government cannot be funded until at least 7 Democrats decide we are going to fund the government. By the way, this is not a new development. When Joe Biden was President, 13 separate times we passed a clean continuing resolution. What does that mean? We had a 60-vote threshold then too. That means Republicans could have done this garbage any of the 13 times under Joe Biden, but we did not. They didn't have 60 votes. What was different when Joe Biden was President is Republicans voted with the Democrats to allow the government to stay open. And, by the way, in March, the Democrats knew that was the responsible thing to do. It does not take much on the magic Google machine to get video of every one of these Democrats saying on TV: Government shutdowns are reckless. They are irresponsible. They are wrong. They all know that. But you know what they are counting on? I look up, and the press gallery is virtually empty. They are counting on ABC, NBC, and CBS lying to the American people. They are counting on CNN lying to the American people. They are counting on MSNBC lying to the American people. This is not complicated. Fourteen times the Republicans on this side of the floor have voted to open the government, and 14 times Democrats have voted to keep the government closed. And then, after they vote to keep the government closed, the Democrats walk out to the reporters and say: Gosh, I can't believe the Republicans closed the government. That is when a reporter is actually supposed to do something really radical. It is called ``report.'' The person telling me he or she is upset at the government shutdown, why did you vote 14 times to keep the government shut down? Now, there are lots of aspects of this that are painful, but there is one in particular that has impacted American families all over the country, which is any family that is traveling--traveling for work, traveling to visit a sick relative, traveling to go to a funeral in a family, traveling to go on a family vacation. There are, right now, over 50,000 TSA agents. Many of them are going to work. They are not getting paid. They missed their paycheck. There are, right now, more than 14,000 air traffic controllers. Many of them are going to work. None of them are getting paid. That means they are trying to figure out--their last paycheck didn't come. They are trying to figure out: How do I pay my mortgage? How do I pay my rent? How do I pay my food? How do I feed my kids? How do I take care of medical bills? You know what the answer from the Democrats is? Every day gets better for us. If you are hurting and not getting a paycheck, Senator Schumer's answer--I do appreciate his doing the Mr. Burns tent with his hands. I wish he had started off with ``excellent.'' But that is, in fact, his quote: Every day gets better for us. On Wednesday, there were over 15,000 flight delays. On Wednesday, there were over 600 canceled flights. Delta Airlines has called on the Democrats: Vote to reopen the government. United Airlines has called on the Democrats: Vote to reopen the government. Southwest Airlines has called on the Democrats: Vote to reopen the government. American Airlines has called on the Democrats: Vote to reopen the government. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has called on the Democrats: Vote to reopen the government. Yesterday, I had a conversation with the Administrator of the FAA. It was chilling. As everyone knows, the FAA announced that it is putting in place a mandatory 10-percent reduction in flights in the 40 largest airports in America. What the Administrator of the FAA told me yesterday on the phone was why, and here is what Administrator Bedford said. He said: Last Friday, which was Halloween, half of the busiest 30 air traffic control facilities were short-staffed. That includes New York, Austin, Newark, Phoenix, Washington, Nashville, Dallas, and Denver. I want you to listen to this next statistic. Nearly 80 percent of the air traffic controllers in New York City called out. They did not show up to work--nearly 80 percent. Senator Schumer represents New York City. Nearly 80 percent of the controllers called out on Halloween. There were rampant delays. The FAA said the aggregate data, the whole national air space system, looked OK. But then they deaggregated the data. Looking at the 40 biggest airports, in particular, painted a very different picture. Here is what the Administrator of the FAA told me: Pilots filed more than 500 voluntary safety reports about air traffic control problems they were encountering--air traffic controllers that were fatigued, that were tired, that were making mistakes. And what is the Democrats' view? Well, there is an old line that a gaff is when someone in Washington accidentally tells the truth. You heard Chuck Schumer say: Every day gets better for us. Here is what one Democrat aide told CNN. Another senior Democrat aide said as long as public perception is in their favor, the party will not concede short of ``planes falling out of the sky.'' That is out of the words of the Democrats themselves. Let me tell you, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, part of our responsibility is to oversee the FAA and to do everything possible to ensure safety. Turning to my Democrat colleagues, saying: This is not a joke. First of all, the shutdown happened because Senator Schumer had to demonstrate he was tough so he didn't get primaried by AOC in New York. Then the next threshold was the No Kings rallies. They had to show they were tough enough that, when radicals were marching in cities across the country, they were as angry as the blue-haired, angry radicals. Then we had election day. They were going to keep everything shut down until election day because it energized their base. And then Democrats won elections in the very blue State of New Jersey, the very blue State of Virginia, and the insanely blue city of New York City. And, suddenly, Democrats said: Holy cow. Our really leftwing voters like it when we shut the government down. Are there any Democrats on that side of the aisle for whom responsibility matters? Or is every one of them proud to say: We will keep it shut down until planes fall out of the sky. God forbid that comes to pass. Over 500 voluntary safety reports about air traffic controllers. You have got air traffic controllers driving Uber to pay their bills. And here is the good news. We can resolve it right now. Senator Johnson's bill, that we will vote on in just a few minutes, is very simple. It says: Any Federal worker that goes to work will be paid. If you have to work--if you are a soldier, if you are manning the wall, keeping this country safe, you are being forced to work, you will be paid. If you are a Border Patrol agent, if you are an FBI agent, if you are a TSA agent, and you have to work, you will be paid. And if you are an air traffic controller and your job is literally keeping, Mr. President, your children and my children safe when they get on an airplane, you will be paid. And to those in the media who persist in repeating Democrat talking points, understand this: The vote right now, if we vote yes, the air traffic controllers will be paid. If we vote no, the air traffic controllers will not be paid. So every Democrat who votes no is saying: We will not pay the air traffic controllers. What does that mean? There are roughly 45,000 commercial flights a day in the United States. The 10-percent reduction that the FAA has put in place will be roughly 5,000 flights a day that will be canceled. Now, if you assume 100 passengers are on each flight--I am a lawyer, not a mathematician. So I am going to make the math simple. So 100 passengers, 500 flights a day, that is more than 500,000 Americans who will have their flight canceled each and every day the Schumer shutdown continues--more than 500,000. And millions more will have their flights delayed. So it is a simple choice. It is a simple choice. Do you want to pay the air traffic controllers or not? But I have got to tell you, you had better be ready to talk to your constituents who said: Why was my plane canceled when I was going to see my sick mother? Well, because I, Democrat, voted against paying air traffic controllers. That is the answer. You won't like getting that answer, but I tell you what, that is a lot better answer than if you have to look in the eyes of someone whose family was killed because the Democrats get what they are explicitly asking for, which is planes falling from the sky. The Schumer shutdown--you are a leftwing, partisan Democrat, you say: Every day gets better for us. I will tell you who ``us'' ain't. It ain't the American people. So do the right thing because every one of you knows it is the right thing. Vote yes. Pay the air traffic controllers, and end this ridiculous shutdown. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Oswaldo Paya and, as I have done before, to urge this body to honor his legacy. Paya was a Cuban dissident who fought against the communist regime and who stood up and fought for free speech, for democracy, and for human rights. He was a thorn in the side of the Cuban communist regime his entire life. Oswaldo Paya was the only person at his school who refused to join the Communist Youth. Later, at the age of 35, he founded the Christian Liberation Movement, which called for nonviolent disobedience against the rule of the Cuban Communist Party. He then founded the Varela Project, which sought a referendum on Cuba's communist system. Throughout, he fought for democratic governance, religious liberty, freedom of suppression, and the freedom to start businesses. For over three decades, Paya put pressure on the communist regime to free its political prisoners, to allow for genuine elections, and to uphold basic human rights. In retaliation, the regime harassed him. They arrested him repeatedly and, ultimately, in 2012, they killed him. But in life and in death, they never succeeded in silencing his message. Growing up, I heard countless stories from my father about life in Cuba, and they instilled in me, from a very young age, the desire to fight for change, to fight for truth, to fight for freedom. The yearning for liberty and the courage to fight for it is universal and deeply felt in every Cuban heart. Since 2015, in every Congress, I have introduced legislation to rename the street outside the Cuban Embassy the ``Oswaldo Paya Way.'' This body has passed it before, rightly and unanimously. Oswaldo's legacy matters deeply to Cuba and to the United States. And it matters to his family, with whom I have worked closely on this resolution. Over the years, I met many times with his daughter Rosa Maria Paya. Rosa Maria is herself a formidable and courageous dissident and warrior for human rights. Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy would help preserve that legacy. During the Cold War, President Reagan renamed the street in front of the Soviet Embassy ``Sakharov Plaza'' after the famed human rights dissident in the Soviet Union. It was part of a broader strategy to shine a light on the abuses of the evil empire. My strategy here is the same. Some might think a street name is not that big a deal. Well, it is. Anyone who wants to write to the Cuban Embassy will have to write Oswaldo Paya's name. Anyone who wants to go there has to look up the address and see his name. The operatives of the Cuban regime will have to say or write his name. Saying his name has power. In just a moment, I would propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass the Oswaldo Paya Way resolution. I want to point out this is bipartisan legislation. Indeed, I am joined by Senator Durbin, the Democrat whip, in this legislation. In a previous Senate, this passed the Senate 100 to nothing. That means every Republican voted for it, and every Democrat voted for it. I am hopeful this Congress can demonstrate the same unity and the same resolve to stand up in support of democracy and in support of human rights. Right now, we will find out if that is the case. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 218 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. I must say, the objection from my friend from New Jersey is deeply unfortunate. The remarks that he gave were unfortunately seriously in error. The Senator from New Jersey suggested that it is only the DC City Council that has the power to do this. This is objectively false. DC is a city unlike any city in America because DC--the Constitution explicitly gives the authority to govern DC to the Congress of the United States. That is written into the Constitution. My friend from New Jersey said he would object if this were done in Newark, NJ. Well, Newark, NJ, is not in the Federal District of Columbia, which the Constitution gives to Congress to govern. It is also objectively disproven by the example I gave. We have done this before. When Ronald Reagan was President, he signed into law legislation renaming the street in front of the Soviet Union ``Sakharov Plaza.'' The author of that legislation is someone you and I still serve with. He is the senior most serving Member of this body. Senator Chuck Grassley, then a brandnew Senator, introduced the legislation to rename the street in front of the Soviet Embassy. It was part of shining a light on communist oppression. The legislation that the Senator from New Jersey just objected to is Cruz-Durbin. Its lead Democrat author is Senator Dick Durbin, the whip for the Democrat party. This is not partisan legislation. Indeed, this exact legislation--Senator Booker, who just objected, voted for it just 2 years ago in this Congress. It passed 100 to nothing, and 1 of those 100 was my friend Senator Booker. He voted yes. By the way, one of the most vocal advocates of this legislation was Senator Booker's former colleague Senator Bob Menendez, another Cuban- American. And there is a rich irony because, after Florida, the State of New Jersey has a massive Cuban-American population. To see a Senator from New Jersey objecting--I know this is not his intent, but the communist Government of Cuba is cheering right now because they do not want to acknowledge Oswaldo Paya. They murdered him, and they don't want to have to say his name. They don't want anyone to say his name. I know there are Cuban-American residents of New Jersey whose hearts are heavy right now. They are hurting to see their elected Senator object over not just honoring Oswaldo Paya but calling out the regime. Senator Booker suggests, oh, some other general statement; Paya is a nice guy; we should do that. That is not the purpose here. I am happy to support any resolution praising Oswaldo Paya. I have done so many times. The purpose here is to put pressure on the Cuban communist regime, and naming the street does that. As I pointed out, Senator Booker voted for this identical legislation just 2 years ago, this bipartisan legislation. That leads to the obvious question: What has changed? One thing has changed: the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When Senator Booker voted for this bipartisan legislation, Joe Biden was the President. Today, Donald J. Trump is the President. Unfortunately, our Democrat colleagues have decided that bipartisan cooperation is no longer something they are interested in. Their party is instead unified behind one principle, which is that they hate Donald J. Trump. We are on day 15 of a government shutdown because the Democrats are unwilling to fund the Federal Government, unwilling to pass a clean continuing resolution. By the way, every one of them, including the Senator from New Jersey, has given speeches about how it is reckless and irresponsible to shut the government down, not to pass a clean continuing resolution. Yet, earlier today, almost every single Democrat voted, for the ninth time in the last 2 weeks, to shut the government down, whereas Republicans are unified to reopen it. This weekend, there will be a rally in DC of leftwing radicals, the so-called No Kings rally. Many, if not most, of us on the Republican side of the Chamber believe that the reason the government is still shut down is because Democrat Senators are terrified for that rally to occur and those leftwing radicals to see that the government is open because they have to demonstrate that they hate President Trump. Just this week, President Trump announced a historic Middle East peace deal. Yet virtually zero Democrats could bring themselves even to say his name. Bill Clinton praised President Trump for the Middle East peace deal. Hillary Clinton praised President Trump for the Middle East peace deal. I commend Bill and Hillary Clinton. I will say that in my time in the Senate, that is the first time that sentence has ever come out of my mouth: I commend Bill and Hillary Clinton. But why is it--indeed, Senator Booker put out a statement about the Middle East peace deal, but nowhere in it was President Trump's name to be found. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that there is power in saying his name. Just as the Democrats are terrified of saying the name ``Donald J. Trump'' in any way connected to anything positive, so, too, are the Cuban communists terrified of saying the name ``Oswaldo Paya.'' I am hopeful that my friend the Senator from New Jersey will put aside the partisan rancor that characterizes the Democrats in this body and will say: Let's come together and stand for the Cuban people. Let's stand for Cuban-Americans in this country. Let's stand for freedom. Let's stand for democracy. Let's stand for human rights. That ought to be bipartisan. Time will tell whether it continues to be at the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I thank my friend the Senator from Oregon for his passion for privacy. He has had a passion for protecting privacy his entire tenure in the Senate, as have I, and his passion is genuine. I believe we have an obligation, a bipartisan obligation, to do more to protect the privacy of Americans, especially kids, but to protect the privacy of Americans across the board. We also are well aware we live in a time in which violence is on the rise. There is enormous division. There is enormous anger and hatred. The entire world was shocked just a couple of weeks ago at the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a deranged gunman who inscribed his political agenda on the shell casings as he murdered a husband and a father of two. Just last week, I was in Dallas where another deranged gunman opened fire at an ICE facility, killing two. Again, that deranged gunman inscribed his political agenda on the shell casings. I wish we did not face this partisan anger. I wish we did not face these threats of violence. A previous Congress passed legislation protecting the personal information of Federal judges because, sadly, too many Federal judges and their families have been targeted for violence. That legislation was bipartisan; it passed into law; and it has had some modicum of success in protecting Federal judges and their families. In this instance, Senator Klobuchar, a Democrat, and myself have teamed up together to extend the same protections of privacy that Federal judges have to Members of Congress and to their staffs. We are all blessed to represent our States, and yet we know that there are threats of violence that come with this job. Collectively, the 100 of us in this Chamber have faced thousands and thousands of death threats and threats of violence. Our staffs have been victims of violence over and over again, and so this legislation is bipartisan legislation to enhance the safety and security of Members of Congress and their staffs. Senator Wyden has now suggested broadening that to all Americans. I admire that sentiment and agree with that sentiment. There are challenges, however, with the language he has drafted. The language he has drafted, as presently written, could, among other things, prevent law enforcement and parents from knowing where convicted sexual predators are living. It could have the effect of gutting Megan's Laws that have been adopted all across this country. So what I have offered to Senator Wyden is to work with him in good faith. I chair the Commerce Committee. I have already offered to convene a hearing to examine how we can expand privacy protections more broadly but do so in a way that doesn't disrupt law enforcement; that doesn't disrupt legitimate interests, such as knowing where sexual predators are living and making sure they are not living near young children, near daycares, near schools. Because the legislation submitted by the Senator from Oregon has not yet worked through those issues, I reiterate my offer to work in a bipartisan manner to find an expansion of the legislation that is under consideration that would work effectively, but in the meantime, I object.