Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today in support of heroes, in support of unity, and in support of love and compassion. I thank the senior Senator from Texas for his heartfelt remarks and leadership during this time of crisis, and I thank leaders across the State of Texas and across the country who are standing with the people of Texas. Texas is hurting. This hurricane, Hurricane Harvey, is unlike anything we have seen. I grew up in Houston. When you live on the gulf coast, you are used to hurricanes. It is part of life. I remember as a kid sheltering in the bathroom with my parents when Hurricane Alicia hit. We had a tree come down in the front yard. Harvey was different. Harvey was unlike anything we have ever seen before. Harvey is being described accurately as a 1,000-year storm, something that occurs every 1,000 years. In Texas, we have never seen anything like it. Harvey started out as a category 4 storm, hitting South Texas, hitting Corpus Christi, Victoria, Rockport, Port Aransas, and Aransas Pass, all of which I visited in the past 2 weeks. Those communities were devastated by category 4 winds that destroyed homes, that destroyed schools, that destroyed county courthouses, city halls, and buildings and took down wires, took down power, took down water, and took down sewage. As I visited each of those communities, you would drive down the street, and you would simply see home after home that had been obliterated by hurricane winds. I remember talking to the mother of a high schooler at Rockport High School who doesn't know where her son is going to go now because Rockport High School has been largely destroyed by the hurricane. She was saying how much the kids wanted to graduate from their high school, but their high school is badly damaged right now. Harvey wasn't finished after making landfall and wreaking destruction. Harvey then turned north, north and east, and moved over the city of Houston and just sat there, sat there dumping rain, day after day after day. I was home with my wife and kids. I live in Houston. For every day of those rains, it kept coming and coming. It is actually what made Harvey different. We are used to getting hit by a hurricane. Then it leaves, and you go and repair the damage and pick up the pieces. Harvey didn't have the good graces to leave. It sat there and dumped 27 trillion gallons of rain. Over 50 inches, which is typically as much as Houston receives in an entire year, fell in 4 days. We saw flooding in parts of the city that had never flooded. I went in an airboat, just north of the Addicks Dam in northwest Houston, riding through a neighborhood with water up to the roofs of houses. It was an ordinary suburban neighborhood. You could see all the vestiges of families playing there. You could see children's toys floating in the water in the backyard. You could see holes in the roof, where either people in the attic had taken an ax and broken through to get out to escape the rising water or where first responders had broken in to get them out. We took a boat down Clay Road, a fairly large road in northwest Houston. I know Clay Road well. I became a Christian at Clay Road Baptist Church. Clay Road is completely underwater. It looks like you are in the middle of a lake. You look out and see nothing but water as far as the eye can see. I rode with a local constable right down the middle of Clay Road, going over cars, but the water was high enough--8, 10 feet high--you didn't even know when you were passing over cars that were submerged beneath you. As we were going down Clay Road, we saw an alligator swimming across Clay Road. The scope of this disaster defies words. It is not one community or two communities or three communities. It is over 250 miles, stretching from Corpus Christi all the way to Louisiana. In the Houston area alone, the flooding is massive--neighborhoods where there is a real possibility that every single home will have to be knocked down and rebuilt, every single government building will have to be knocked over and rebuilt. On the airboat, I saw the county courthouse up to the roof in water. I saw a local LDS Church up to the roof in water. I saw a gas station with six or seven cars still parked outside. The water was right at the roof of the cars. It shows you just how fast that water rose. They were parked at the gas station. They had presumably stopped for some last- minute supplies, and the water rose so high they couldn't get out. They are still in their parking spots, but yet the water is at their roof. That same gas station, up high on the door was a red neon sign that said ``Open'' that was still lit, flickering ``Open'' as you look out over the vast expanses of water. The damage continued going east, hitting communities like Beaumont, like Port Arthur, like Nederland, like Orange, and into Louisiana--all of those communities I visited in the past 2 weeks and have massive devastation. Texas is hurting mightily, and yet, as I said, my remarks today are not about pain and suffering, they are not about death and loss and despair; they are, instead, about hope--hope that begins with the heroes of Harvey. We saw, over the last 2 weeks, incredible illustrations of bravery over and over again, every day, every hour, every minute. There were the first responders, the firefighters, the police officers, and EMS who risked their lives, including, tragically, Sergeant Perez of the Houston Police Department who lost his life in this storm. He went to go to work, and his wife pleaded with him: Please don't go to work. It is too dangerous out there. He said: I have to go. It is my job to save lives. He went. He couldn't go to his regular duty station. All the roads were flooded. There was no way to get there so he went to look for another duty station to report to, and tragically he got caught in high-rising water and drowned. There were the coastguardsmen who flew in choppers and dove into wild water to save people's lives. I have spent a lot of time in the last 2 weeks visiting with the men and women of the Coast Guard--what incredible heroes--flying in the chopper with them, surveying the damage of the Houston Ship Channel, talking with Coast Guard swimmers. You want to talk about a tough bunch of heroes, the swimmers--almost every one of them ripped as the guys that know their way around a weight room--who in hurricane winds and hurricane waters will dive off of a chopper and swim to someone in distress. Many times the person in distress is so terrified, their first reaction is to grab the swimmer and practically try to pull the swimmer under too. These swimmers have to be strong, strong enough to help someone terrified and at the verge of death get in that basket, get in that basket of life, be pulled up to a chopper. In the last 2 weeks I visited with person after person who was pulled off of the roof of their home by the Coast Guard into a chopper. The National Guardsmen, I have spent a lot of time thanking them over the last 2 weeks. We had 14,000 National Guardsmen called up in the State of Texas, but National Guardsmen from 41 States across the country came flooding in. That was part of the story of heroes. There were a great many Houstonians, there were a great many Texans from all over Texas, but there were people from all over the country. When I drove through Refugio--a small town on the gulf coast that had been devastated by hurricane winds--I stopped at the fire department unannounced just to come in and thank the firefighters. Actually, I met a couple of firefighters. They were not the local ones. They had expelled the local firefighters to go home and get some sleep after several days of having no sleep at all. They were a couple of California firefighters who jumped in their truck and had driven east from California to get to Texas. At the fire station in Rockport, there was a whole line of firetrucks, one after the other. You looked at each firetruck, on the door, and it was the name of a different city. Every one of them had the same story. They saw what was happening and said: I can help. They jumped in the firetruck and they headed to Texas. The outpouring of love we have seen has been extraordinary. It wasn't just the first responders who were so extraordinary. We cannot overstate the gratitude Texas feels for those heroes of Harvey, but I will tell you the most powerful story of Harvey, I believe, are the thousands of ordinary men and women who stepped up to save their neighbors, who went and grabbed a boat or a jet ski or anything that could float and went into harm's way to pull people out of life- endangering situations--hundreds and hundreds of rednecks in bass boats. Texas at its very finest. Mr. President, as an Alaskan, I can promise you, you would have been right at home with the rednecks in bass boats. All these guys in duck waders, fearlessly walking into the charging waters, pulling people out, one after the other, after the other. The Harris County Emergency Operation Center had an entire wall covered with Post-it Notes because when the local officials put out a call, if you have a flat-bottom boat, if you have a personal watercraft and can help, we need your help, hundreds and hundreds of calls began coming in. They put them all on Post-its with the name and cell phone. Then the emergency operation center operated essentially as a dispatch, where a 911 call would come in, somebody in distress, and they would pick up the phone and call someone's cell phone and say: Hey, your neighbor 6 blocks down needs your help. Can you be there? There were hundreds upon hundreds risking their lives to save their neighbors. Texans helping Texans. We had, among others, Louisiana sending the Cajun Navy--over 100 boats. They would go in and save people and then they cooked jambalaya. That is neighborly love. I met people who had come from Fort Worth, from Lubbock, from East Texas, from Oklahoma, from Illinois, from Alaska, from New York. I was at the George R. Brown Convention Center, the shelter that was set up. I met an individual there. He was a New York firefighter, a big guy. He told me he was serving the New York Fire Department on September 11. He told me, when 9/11 hit New York, when that terrorist attack hit, the love New York received from across the country, the outpouring of support New York received from across the country made a profound impact on him. He said now, when there is a major natural disaster, he gets in his truck and heads down to help. He said: You know what. That is my way of saying thank you, my way of saying thank you for what the country did on September 11. He wanted to be in Harvey and pull people out of harm's way to say thank you. All I could do is simply give him a hug. That heroism was happening every day and every hour. We all mourn the loss of life. There are tragic stories, heartbreaking stories, whether Sergeant Perez, whether it is the young mother in Beaumont who gave her life saving her little girl. Her little girl was pulled from her dead mother's chest, floating in the water, just minutes before being lost forever. As tragic as it is, that little girl will always know the love her mother had for her. There is the story the senior Senator from Texas just told of the van in Houston that took six to their death. Two elderly grandparents dealing with Alzheimer's disease and four children all lost their lives. We mourn those tragedies, but I will tell you that we celebrate also. This disaster easily could have seen a death toll 10 times higher or 100 times higher. There were recorded over 51,000 people saved by search-and-rescue missions. Roughly 2,000 pets were saved by search- and-rescue missions. One of the things the first responders told me over and over was this: You had better be able to take the pets because there are a whole lot of people, as the water is rising, who, if you are not willing to take Fluffy or Fido, will stay in the rushing water. So we celebrate the bravery of all those who risked their lives to save others. In any disaster, there are three phases. Phase No. 1 is the active crisis, where search and rescue is the only priority--saving lives. Let me say that in the city of Houston and the State of Texas, we saw a coordination across levels of government I have never seen before. The city officials, the county officials, the State officials, and the Federal officials were all working hand-in-hand seamlessly, not engaging in the bickering. There were no party lines. There were no Republicans. There were no Democrats. There was no Black, White, or Hispanic. There were Texans and Americans saving the lives of each other. You saw government working seamlessly together, not having the turf wars that in other contexts might so easily shut down getting anything done, by simply saying: How can I help? What can I do? What else do you need? After the search and rescue is over, after the saving of lives, there is the next phase, and that phase is relief--providing relief to the people who have lost everything right then. We have roughly 260 shelters that have been stood up across the State of Texas by wonderful private organizations. The Red Cross has done a phenomenal job. The Salvation Army has done a phenomenal job. Churches have done an incredible job. Private nonprofits have done an incredible job. There are individual citizens, such as ``Mattress Mack,'' who owns Gallery Furniture. He is a friend of mine. He is a terrific Houston entrepreneur who opened up his furniture stores as shelters. He said: Come on in. Do you need a bed? We happen to have a furniture store full of beds. It was not only that. He sent out his delivery trucks to pick people up in harm's way. At one of the shelters last week, I visited with an older woman who was on oxygen and uses a walker. She described how her house began filling with water, and she walked out of her house in waist-deep water pushing that walker. My mom uses a walker. I know how difficult it is to get around when you are mobility impaired. I cannot imagine how difficult it was for her pushing through the waist-deep water, fleeing for her life. She was picked up by a Gallery Furniture delivery truck. She was picked up and taken to the shelter. I called Mack and told him that story. I told him just one story of the lives he was saving. That is just one example of the heroes who stepped forward for their community. Anheuser-Busch shut down beer production to deliver more than 155,000 cans of water. Now, you know we are in a time of miracles when Anheuser-Busch isn't producing beer, but that is a generosity of spirit. One of the State officials who was helping lead the disaster relief called Academy. They had a warehouse just west of Houston, out in Katy. He said: How many boats do you have in the warehouse? The fellow from Academy told him. He said: Fine, we want them. We want them all. He said: Great, come take them. They are yours. DPS sent trucks. They loaded up the boats and sent the boats out to rescue people. J.J. Watt, the great Texans football player who, I hope, a year from now will be wearing a Super Bowl ring, launched a charity effort raising over $10 million on Twitter, just saying: Let's help people who are hurting. Shelters were stood up at the George R. Brown Convention Center and the NRG Center, both of which I have spent significant time at during the last 2 weeks. I remember one morning at the George R. Brown Convention Center. I was helping to serve breakfast. We were serving oatmeal. There was a fellow standing to my right, and I turned to him and said: Thank you for being here. Something I try to do a lot of is just to thank people. I don't think you can thank people enough in the midst of a crisis for what they are doing. Thank you for being here. Thank you for helping other folks. He just began laughing. He said: Well, you know, I have to be here; my house is under water. He said: I am staying here; this is the only place I have to sleep. Yet he was up at the food line helping to serve others. There were two gentlemen whom I met at that same shelter, and I asked them, as I tried to ask everyone: How are you doing? How is your home doing? Two different gentlemen told me: Well, I don't have a home. I am homeless. One said: I sleep under the bridge. Both of them were volunteering. Both of them were sweeping the floor. So they weren't just taking shelter. Even in the midst of distress, they were helping out to keep the facility clean and to care for the needs of others. Earlier this week, I was in Port Arthur. Port Arthur is a relatively low-income community in Texas, heavily minority. It was hit very, very badly by the storm. There were devastating floods in Port Arthur. I was at an African-American church helping to give out food and supplies to people who had lost everything, and I was visiting a line of cars as people were driving up. You would say to each person: What do you need? They would need some water. They would need some food, some diapers, or maybe some dog food or cat food. Several things were amazing. One, almost to a person, was what I have heard at least a hundred times in the last 2 weeks when you talk to someone who has lost their car or who has lost their house. You would say: I am so sorry. We are praying for you, and we are with you. Over and over, I heard people say: You know what; there are people a lot worse off than me. I may have lost my home, but at least I have my life. At least I have my kids. It is powerful to hear over and over, when you try to comfort someone, and they say: Look at everyone else who needs it more than I do. But at the same time, when you would hand something to someone who came in--a young mom would come in who needed diapers--and you would hand her two packets of diapers, she would say: No, no, I will just take one. Somebody else needs that other one. Give that to someone else who needs that. I heard that at relief centers in Port Arthur, in Beaumont, in Victoria, in Rockport, in Houston. I heard that same message over and over: There is someone else who needs it. At that church in Port Arthur, there was a couple there, both of whom had lost their home. They had lost everything, and they had been from dawn to dusk at the church, volunteering and helping others. They said, actually: Helping others is how we are getting through this. Now, there are also moments of joy. I visited with two little boys who were in their home and the water rose to waist level, and they had to be rescued, I think, by boat. I think they were about 8 and 10 years old. I asked the boys: Boys, was that scary? They laughed and said: Are you kidding? We got to swim in our living room. Those moments of laughter and joy are important, even in the face of fear, death, and destruction. The unity we are seeing has been remarkable. Then, the third and final phase will be rebuilding. Rebuilding is going to be a project that is going to take days, and, then, it is going to take weeks, and, then, it is going to take months, and it will ultimately take years. The scope of this devastation is massive. There are multiple estimates that this may prove the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. Having seen firsthand the scope of the disaster and the thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, I can readily believe it. I am here to say that Texas is coming back. We are going to rebuild. In East Texas, I visited with the mayor of a small town whose entire town was destroyed. Every home, every building was under water. Her home was under water. The mayor was just in tears. The whole town was gone. She said: If we rebuild--and I was there with several firefighters, police officers, and a county judge. We all hugged her. We said: There is no ``if.'' We will rebuild. We will come together. We will stand as one, and we will rebuild. We are seeing incredible generosity from Texans, and we are seeing leadership. I want to commend leadership at every level of government. I want to commend President Trump for his leadership during this crisis. I have spoken to the President multiple times throughout the course of this storm. From the very first call, right when the storm was about to make landfall, his message was consistent. He said: Ted, whatever Texas needs, it has. The answer is yes. When the Governor asked for a disaster declaration, the President signed it while the Governor was still on the phone. The President convened a week ago a Cabinet meeting via teleconference and instructed every Cabinet member to lean in. Whatever the State needs, give it to them. Give it to them fast. Be there. Every resource we have, make it available. I began to see Cabinet member after Cabinet member picking up the phone and calling. The Secretary of Health and Human Services said: All right, on the health side, what more can we be doing? How can we be helping the people in hospitals who are being evacuated? On the education side, the Secretary of Education said: How can we help the kids whose schools have been flooded? There was the Secretary of Energy, former Governor of Texas Rick Perry. The Secretary of HUD focused on the massive housing challenges. Of course, the Director of FEMA has been down in Texas repeatedly. The Federal Government leaned in with all the resources with a swiftness that I have never seen. At the State level, let me say that Governor Greg Abbott has done an extraordinary job. He is a close friend and mentor. He has led the State when we had crises playing out. When the city and county officials in Houston told me they didn't have enough emergency response vehicles, enough choppers, enough boats, enough high-water trucks, within hours the Governor and the Federal Government were able to flood the region with assets, with manpower, with the National Guard, with DPS troopers, and with coastguardsmen, so that those thousands and thousands of rescues could happen. At the local level, all across Texas there are county judges. One county judge in East Texas, whom I visited with a few days ago, just buried his mother. His mother had died right before the storm, and the storm was such that she couldn't be buried in the midst of the storm. So she was in the funeral home until just a couple of days ago, and he was able to put her to rest. Yet he was out there leading the effort. There are mayors and county judges. In Houston, Mayor Sylvester Turner and Harris County Judge Ed Emmett--one a Democrat and one a Republican--are working seamlessly as one. That unity has been powerful. In the next stage of rebuilding, we will have resources available. There are going to be very, very significant State resources. My office is working very closely with Governor Greg Abbott to mobilize the State resources and make them available and then at the Federal level. I commend the leadership in Congress and the administration for responding swiftly with the relief mandated under statute. The relief efforts are being led by the Texas delegation in the House and by Senator Cornyn and myself here in the Senate, and we will see, I believe, strong bipartisan support for the Federal relief needed to help people come out of this. But Texas will rebuild. We will come out stronger, and it will be through that same spirit, that same fearlessness, and that same compassion and love and unity that brought us through the crisis and saved thousands of lives. That same spirit will help us rebuild even stronger. Let me finally say to all the men and women across the State of Texas, across the United States, and across the world who have been lifting us up in prayer, thank you. Thank you for your prayers. I was at a church in Port Arthur visiting family after family, hugging women and men and children who had lost everything. A message of comfort I tried to give to each and every one of them was this: When you go to bed tonight, you are not alone. You are being lifted up in prayer by millions of people across Texas, across the country, and across the world. You are going through this journey surrounded by prayer warriors. The day before yesterday, my family and I went to a home in Missouri City. A woman had lost everything in the flood. We joined a church group in helping her clean out her house and helping her tear down the sheetrock the floodwater had destroyed. My girls Caroline and Catherine took part in it. I would say that Caroline, my 9-year-old, we discovered, can wield a mean hammer when it comes to taking out sheetrock. The experience for my girls and my family and that group was just helping, neighbor helping neighbor. As this woman grieved the loss of priceless memories, she also held on to special and wonderful memories. One thing we found was a note she had written to Santa Claus as a 9-year-old; that was saved. Another was a lock of hair from when she was 3 years old that was in an envelope and carefully preserved; that was safe. What I shared with her is the same thing I shared with Texans suffering across the State: You are not alone. America stands as one. Today, there are no Democrats, there are no Republicans. On other days, there may be issues that divide us. We will continue to debate tax policy and everything else, but today we are all Americans and we are all Texans. We are standing as one. That is the spirit that built our Nation, and it is the spirit that will rebuild Texas and Louisiana after this disaster. Let me note that it is also the spirit that has us standing in unity with the people of Puerto Rico, the people of the Caribbean, and the people of Florida who are in harm's way as Irma bears down upon them. Our prayers are that the storm will turn into the Atlantic, dissipate, and turn away from people, but whatever happens, if there is to be yet another major storm hitting America, know that we will stand united in harm's way. We will stand as one, and united we can overcome anything. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I stand here today to speak about the devastation befalling Venezuela--the people raging in the streets against unfair elections, the dissidents being seized from their homes and detained by security forces, and those starving without food and water. Venezuela--once one of the most richly resourced countries in Latin America--is being dismantled by Nicolas Madura and his flailing Chavista regime. It is a human tragedy impacting more than 30 million people who are literally witnessing society collapse around them. The numbers, sadly, speak for themselves. According to estimates from the International Monetary Fund, Venezuela's GDP contracted by almost 20 percent last year, with inflation reaching some 550 percent and unemployment spiking to more than 21 percent. The Pharmaceutical Federation of Venezuela estimates that the country suffers from an 85- percent shortage of medicine and a 90-percent deficit of medical supplies, including those needed to treat various types of cancer. Men and women, young and old, are going hungry. Thanks to Maduro's destruction of the Venezuelan currency, flour, cooking oil, and other basic commodities have disappeared from store shelves. Students and teachers leave their classrooms for hours on end to stand in line, hoping to receive a loaf of bread as a week's meal. The most vulnerable are going on what are called Maduro diets--skipping meals and reducing their food consumption. And Maduro's response? The would-be dictator is threatening to seize businesses that don't produce enough and has told Venezuelans that doing without makes them tougher. Thousands of Venezuelans have crossed borders in search of food and medicine, while Maduro and his cronies spin conspiracies and rail against phantom enemies on state media. The situation is so dire that the regime has begun ``rewarding'' some of its most loyal supporters with toilet paper. Alongside the disintegration of Venezuela's economy is the specter of Maduro's growing dictatorship. We have just witnessed the sham election of a so-called constituent assembly, which Maduro intends to use to try to rewrite Venezuela's Constitution, to crush what is left of its free political institutions, and to consolidate his grip on power. His electoral commission lied about the turnout and downplayed the number of government workers whom the regime pressured to participate. While Maduro preached dialogue on television, his security forces were busy rounding up political opponents and murdering peaceful demonstrators. This was not Maduro's first power grab. Earlier this year, his handpicked supreme court temporarily dissolved Venezuela's duly-elected National Assembly and stripped its members of immunity in what the head of Organization of American States called a ``self-coup.'' The regime backtracked only after ferocious pressure and condemnation. But this week's actions make plain Maduro's intent to complete the process begun under his mentor, Hugo Chavez, to transform Venezuela into a full socialistic dictatorship. We have seen that socialism doesn't work. We have seen the ravages of government control of the economy. The Venezuelan people are suffering, and when combined with dictatorship, it is a toxic mix. Maduro's actions must not continue unchallenged. I support the Treasury Department's sanctions against senior Venezuelan officials, including Maduro, placing him in the ignominious company of Kim Jong Un and Robert Mugabe. We must keep the pressure on and continue to isolate and delegitimize Maduro's regime, for behind Maduro can be found China, with its billions in infrastructure investments, and Russia, with its growing control over Venezuela's energy sector, and Iran, whose Hezbollah proxy launders money with Maduro's acquiescence. Yet Maduro is not without opposition. Brave men and women in the tens of thousands have taken to the streets to demand a better future for themselves and their families. Many dozens have been killed by the regime's security forces, and hundreds have been detained. These freedom-loving people represent the best of Venezuela and fearlessly follow in the footsteps of generations of dissidents against Socialist repression. Just yesterday, Maduro's security forces seized two prominent opposition leaders--Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma--for daring to criticize his regime on social media. These two men were carted away in the middle of the night, leaving their loved ones traumatized and frantic without information. To Lilian and Mitzi, the wives of these two extraordinary men, I want to say that you are two of the strongest people I have ever been blessed to meet. You inspire me. Your husbands' fight inspires me and millions of Americans and people across the globe. I urge you to continue to stand and fight on behalf of your husbands and the many others who are held captive by the Chavista government. I look forward to welcoming Leopoldo and Antonio back to freedom and, I hope, they will play leading roles leading a free Venezuela, a post- Maduro Venezuela. Members of my own family have lived through this sort of oppression in Cuba, where a lawless government can raid your home without warning, arbitrarily detain your relatives and neighbors, and ensure that you hardly, if ever, see them again. To Lilian and Mitzi, I will continue to raise my voice and to call for action--real action--to help Leopoldo, Antonio, and every other Venezuelan willing to stand and risk everything to live in a free and prosperous and democratic country. It is well past time to consign Chavismo to the dustbin of history. To the millions of Venezuelans waiting in lines for food, clothes, and medicine, struggling with galloping inflation, fearful of Maduro's henchmen detaining their friends and families or gunning them down in the streets, and thinking themselves helpless in the face of their country's decay, you are not alone and should not be afraid. America and our allies will help see you through this crisis and help you recover. Each new outrage from the Maduro regime only makes our solidarity with you grow. You are strong and Maduro is weak. You are Venezuela's future, and Maduro is its past. You will win, and Maduro will lose. Venezuela is not the private preserve of a ``busdriver turned authoritarian thug in a tracksuit,'' but instead Venezuela is a proud and free nation with a glorious past and an even greater future. Through its words and deeds, the Maduro regime has abandoned what little legitimacy it might have had. When this regime expires, Venezuela will restore its place at the forefront of Latin America and become a good friend and partner to America once again. We stand with the Venezuelan people as your friend against this socialist oppression, and we tell you that there are brighter days ahead, brighter days of economic cooperation, of energy growth, of abundance of prosperity, of throwing off the shackles of totalitarianism. Estamos contigo Venezuela, tus mejores dias estan por venir. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, unfortunately, there is far too much scaremongering that occurs in the political world. But as John Adams famously said: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' My friend from Oregon just described the consumer freedom amendment as ``a bomb going off in healthcare.'' That is interesting rhetoric, but it is disconnected from the actual facts. Let's talk about what my friend from Oregon neglected to mention or respond to in any way, shape, or form. He said not a single word about HHS finding that the consumer freedom amendment would expand insurance coverage by 2.2 million people. He had not a word to say in response to that. What he did say is that those who might choose freedom plans would be choosing what he called junk insurance. Well, it is very nice that ObamaCare mandates that every person must buy a full-fledged Cadillac plan with all the coverage in the world. The problem is, there are millions of people who can't afford it. Not only can they not afford it, they get fined by the IRS because they can't afford it. My friend from Oregon said not a word about the 6.5 million people being fined by the IRS, roughly 50 percent of whom make $25,000 a year or less. It is interesting that Democrats are advocating fining people who make $25,000 a year or less because they can't afford insurance. And what they say is: Look, we are going to fine you until you can afford to buy the full Cadillac plan. Well, you know what, if you are a young woman, you are 28 years old, you are just starting your career, you are making $30,000 a year, you may not be able to afford the full Cadillac plan, but you might like some coverage. You might like catastrophic coverage. So if you get a cold, you break your arm, you cover that out of your health savings account perhaps. But if, God forbid, you get some terrible disease or hit by a truck, you would like to have an insurance policy. Sadly, our friends the Democrats say that you are out of luck. If you can't pay for the full-fledged Cadillac, you get nothing. They think your choices are junk insurance. Remember when Barack Obama said that if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it? Well, listen to how the Democrats have moved today. If they don't like your insurance plan, you can't keep it. If they think your plan is junk, you can't keep it, and they are going to fine you through the IRS. I think you know better what your family wants. The consumer freedom amendment doesn't take away a single choice. If you like the ObamaCare plans, they are still on the market with all of those mandates. But the Democrats are terrified of freedom. They are terrified that if people actually had the choice, they might not choose the full Cadillac; they might make a different choice. But then in the world of scaremongering, my friend from Oregon also said: Well, those on the ObamaCare exchanges would go into a death spiral, would see their premiums spike. Remember that John Adams quote about facts being stubborn things? Here is something else my friend from Oregon ignored, said nothing about. HHS found that for those on the exchanges, with all the title I mandates, including preexisting conditions, their premiums would drop by over $5,500 a year. So the question is, Who is more trustworthy, the experts at HHS analyzing what would occur with competition and choices in the marketplace or the rhetoric and scaremongering that sadly is being offered from the other side? It would be one thing if they were confronting facts, if they were actually addressing real facts; instead, it is nothing but angry rhetoric. My friend from Oregon described repealing ObamaCare and empowering consumers and lowering premiums as ``wealth care.'' Well, there is an irony in that; in that, No. 1, roughly half of the people paying the IRS fines are making less than $25,000 a year. It is the Democrats who are fining low-income people. No. 2, do you know who agrees with the Democrats on this? The insurance companies. Indeed, my friend from Oregon was reading from the insurance companies. Why have the top 10 insurance companies had their profits double? Because of the Democrats' mandate you have to buy their products. Do you know where the Democrats and the insurance companies agree? None of them want premiums to lower. Of course, the insurance companies don't want more competition, more options, and your premiums going down. They want to stick it to you as much as they can. Sadly, I don't understand why, but the Democrats are standing arm in arm with the insurance companies, saying their profits need to increase even more. I don't know, maybe they cynically believe eventually it will push it to single-payer socialized medicine. I don't know why they do it, but what is wealth care is ObamaCare fattening the insurance companies at the expense of working men and women. Facts matter, and if our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle want to raise accusations, they need to stay in the realm of reality and deal with actual facts: You want lower premiums, you want more choices, more options, more competition. You want higher premiums, you want fewer choices, less options, less competition. That is what ObamaCare does, and it is why millions of people are hurting and frustrated. It is why today is an important day. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 270 and, if adopted, for the provisions of the adopted amendment included in any subsequent amendment to H.R. 1628 and any amendment between Houses or conference report thereon, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator from Oregon yield for a question?

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today is an important step in a very long journey. Some 7 years ago, ObamaCare passed into law, and in the 7 years that ObamaCare has been on the books, we have seen the results of this catastrophic law. We have seen the devastation that has resulted. ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this country. You and I and the Senators who have listened to their constituents across the country have heard over and over again from small businesses that have been hammered by ObamaCare. As I have listened to small businesses in the State of Texas over and over again, they have described ObamaCare as the single biggest challenge they face. Indeed, thanks to ObamaCare, we have discovered two new categories of people who have been hurt by the Federal Government--the so-called 49ers and the so-called 29ers. The 49ers are the millions of small businesses that have 47, 48, 49 employees and yet do not grow to 50 because at 50, they would be subject to ObamaCare, and in being subject to ObamaCare, they would go out of business. There are literally millions of new jobs that are waiting to happen, waiting to grow, small businesses ready to expand that ObamaCare penalizes so punitively that they do not expand. By the way, those jobs that would be the 50th and 51st and 52nd are typically low-income jobs. They are jobs for people who are just starting out in their careers. They are jobs for people who are minorities, who are African Americans, who are Hispanics. They are jobs for people like my father in 1957--washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour, but he was glad to have freedom in this new country. Then there are the 29ers, the people all across this country who are forcibly put into part-time work at 28, 29 hours a week because ObamaCare defines a ``full-time employee'' as 30 hours a week. People all over the country are being hurt. Single moms who are trying to feed their kids are being hurt because they have been forced into part-time work so that they end up working two or three part-time jobs at 28, 29 hours a piece, and none of them provide healthcare. The burden on them has been enormous. It hasn't just been jobs, although that is a big part of it; it has also been the millions of Americans who have had their health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare. We all know President Obama looked at the TV cameras and said: If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan, and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. PolitiFact--that left-leaning news site--labeled Obama's promise as 2013's Lie of the Year, and it was. It was a deliberate lie, as Jonathan Gruber, the architect of ObamaCare, said that they were banking on what they called the stupidity of the American people-- selling it based on a lie. Then there is the impact on premiums. President Obama promised the American people that under ObamaCare the average family's premiums would drop $2,500 a year. That wasn't just a little bit wrong; it was wildly and dramatically wrong. In fact, the average family's premiums have risen over $5,000 a year. People are hurting because health insurance is unaffordable. I hear from Texans over and over and over again: I cannot afford health insurance anymore. I will say that the harms from ObamaCare--the people suffering under this failed law--have been mounting and mounting and mounting, and for 7 years, the Democrats have been content to do nothing. Barack Obama as President and Democrats having majorities in the Senate did nothing for the 49ers who could not get new jobs; nothing for the 29ers, the single moms forced to work part time; nothing for the millions of people who had the insurance plans that they liked canceled; nothing for the millions of people who could not go see their own doctors anymore; nothing for the millions of people whose premiums had skyrocketed. After 7 years of stonewalling and blockading and saying ``We do not hear you'' to the American people, now our friends on the Democratic aisle are suddenly insisting that they want to do something. Today, we had a vote to take the first step in doing something--in honoring the promise every Republican made to repeal this disaster. The bill before the Senate is not perfect. No one would expect it to be perfect. Bismarck's comments about sausage-making are certainly true in this process here today. Yet I will say that in the bill before the Senate, which is not likely to pass tonight--but I believe, at the end of the process, the contours within it are likely to be what we enact, at least the general outlines--there are at least four positive elements that are significant. No. 1, it repeals the individual mandate. The IRS fines about 6.5 million people a year because they do not have enough money to buy insurance. Think about that for a second. You are struggling to make ends meet, and you do not have the money to buy health insurance. Not only do you not have insurance, but the IRS slaps you with a fine--millions of dollars of fines. In the State of Texas, there are roughly a million people who are getting fined by the IRS, roughly half of whom make $25,000 a year or less and nearly 80 percent of whom make $50,000 a year or less. The Democratic solution is, if you do not have the money for healthcare, the IRS is going to fine you on top of it, and you still do not get healthcare. That is a terrible outcome. This bill will repeal the individual mandate, repeal the IRS fines on 6.5 million Americans and the job-killing fines of the individual mandate. It also repeals the employer mandate, which is the driver of the 29ers and 49ers. For 7 years, the Democrats had no answer to the single mom forced to work part time. Repealing the employer mandate provides relief to everyone who finds himself in those camps. No. 3, this bill has a major reform that allows people to use health savings accounts--pretax money--to pay for insurance premiums. That means, for millions of Americans, their effective premium rates instantly drop 20 to 30 percent by using pretax money. That is a major reform for empowering you, the consumer, to choose the healthcare for your family. No. 4, the bill before the Senate includes the consumer freedom amendment--an amendment that I have introduced like the health savings account amendment. It is an amendment that says you, the consumer, should have the freedom to choose the healthcare that is best for your family. You should have the freedom. You shouldn't have to buy what the Federal Government mandates that you must buy; you should choose what meets the needs for you and your family. The consumer freedom amendment was designed to bring together and serve as a compromise for those who support the mandates in title I. The consumer freedom amendment says that insurance companies, if they offer plans that meet those title I mandates--all the protections for preexisting conditions--they can also sell any other plan that consumers desire. So it takes away nothing. If you like your ObamaCare plans, those are still there. It just adds new options and lets you decide: Do you want the ObamaCare option or do you want something else that is affordable? So rather than getting fined by the IRS, you can actually purchase something you and your family can afford. Now, our friends on the Democratic aisle have been unwilling to look at any option expanding consumer freedom; they just say it won't work. What we know won't work is ObamaCare. We know premiums have risen over $5,000 a year. What happens with the consumer freedom amendment? And this is critical. Over the past 2 weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services conducted a study on the impact of the consumer freedom amendment. They concluded, No. 1, it would expand insurance coverage by 2.2 million people. Our friends on the Democratic aisle are constantly alleging that repealing ObamaCare will reduce coverage. Well, HHS found the consumer freedom amendment expands it by 2.2 million people. But what does it do to premiums? This is powerful. HHS found that it will reduce premiums by over $7,000 a year. If you are a single mom, if you are a school teacher, if you are a truckdriver, $7,000 a year is a lot of money. It is the difference between making ends meet and not, perhaps. HHS found specifically that for those choosing freedom plans-- the less expensive options--premiums would drop $7,260 a year. But what about those on the exchanges? What about those purchasing plans subject to all of the mandates? HHS found those plans would also drop, they projected by $5,580 a year. So consumers benefit across the board with lower premiums. This has been a process. At the end of this process, it is not clear what the Senate is going to pass, what is going to bring together and unite the Republican conference because, sadly, the Democrats are not willing to help us provide more consumer freedom, to help us lower premiums, to help us provide relief to the 49ers and 29ers who have been hammered by this bill. But I believe the key to getting this done--and I believe we can and will get to yes. We are not likely to get to yes tonight, but we can and will get to yes. I think the key to it is the consumer freedom amendment, if we are lowering premiums. If Texans, if Montanans, if people across this country are going home and seeing premiums $5,000 a year cheaper with protections for preexisting conditions or $7,000 cheaper if you want a catastrophic plan on a freedom plan, that is a win for everyone. It is a win for conservatives. It is a win for moderates. It should be a win for Democrats. If Democrats were not engaged in this partisan fight, Democrats ought to be saying that lowering premiums $5,000 or $7,000 is a win for our citizens. That, I believe, will be the key to getting this done. Let me finally say that there is rhetoric about insurance companies. Do you know who loves ObamaCare? It is insurance companies. Under ObamaCare, the profits of the top 10 insurance companies have doubled. When you have the IRS fining people to force them to purchase their product and driving up premiums so they are unaffordable, ObamaCare effectively sets up a cartel for the large insurance companies. Consumer freedom puts you, the consumer, in charge of your choices. Instead of the giant insurance companies, instead of the Federal Government, it puts you in charge. Freedom is the key to unifying our conference, and lowering premiums is the key, and I believe we can and will get this done. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I stand here today on behalf of a hero of freedom and democracy in the People's Republic of China. Liu Xiaobo and his wife Liu Xia are the faces of liberty in China. They have sacrificed comfort and normalcy to chart a path toward political liberalization. For that, they have been detained, imprisoned, and abused. In 2008, Liu Xiaobo coauthored ``Charter 08,'' a manifesto that shined a light on the Communist Party of China and its totalitarian abuse of power. Though many brave souls signed their names and their fates to that document, Dr. Liu's name was at the very top. For this reason, he received the Nobel Peace Prize. He also received charges of ``inciting subversion of state power'' and an 11-year prison sentence. It is impossible to neglect the stark irony: a man dedicated to nonviolence, imprisoned for promoting peace. Motivating Dr. Liu's tremendous courage and self-sacrifice was a determination to remember what the People's Republic of China desperately wants the world to forget: Tiananmen Square. A poet, author, and political scientist, Dr. Liu was, in 1989, a visiting scholar at Columbia University, but when the pro-democracy protests broke out in Beijing in June of that year, he raced back to China to support them. He staged a hunger strike in Tiananmen Square in the midst of the historic student protests and insisted that they would remain nonviolent in the faces of the tanks, which the Chinese military deployed to smash them. In 1996, the party subjected him to 3 years of ``reeducation through labor'' for continuing to question China's one-party system. In 2008, on the eve of the 100-year anniversary of China's first Constitution and the 30-year anniversary of Beijing's Democracy Wall movement, Dr. Liu dedicated his work on ``Charter 08'' to the martyrs at Tiananmen Square. Today, 8 years into his unjust imprisonment, Dr. Liu needs our help more than ever. Last month, it was revealed that Dr. Liu has contracted an aggressive, late stage form of liver cancer. Although PRC authorities ``released'' him ``on medical parole,'' both Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia linger without freedom. Even worse, Liu Xiaobo is dying. His condition is critical, and we are running out of time to act on his behalf. Although Chinese authorities compelled the Lius to sign an affidavit allegedly attesting to their satisfaction with the medical care they have received in China and their wish to remain there, Liu Xia has communicated to their attorney their desire to spend Liu Xiaobo's final days in America. PRC doctors insisted that Dr. Liu was too ill to travel, but medical experts from the United States and Germany--one of them being Dr. Joseph Herman of the MD Anderson Cancer Center of the University of Texas--visited Dr. Liu and attested to the contrary. Issuing a joint statement, they agreed that Dr. Liu ``can be safely transported with appropriate medical evacuation care and support.'' They then issued this stark warning: ``However, the medical evacuation would have to take place as quickly as possible.'' The urgency of this situation goes beyond Liu Xiaobo. Liu Xia's livelihood is inextricably linked to the ability of the two of them to leave China. Due to his imprisonment, Liu Xiaobo has been unable to receive his $1.5 million in prize money from the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The holdup of transferring the funds is merely routine: a signed form from Dr. Liu and an open bank account with his name on it. But China has prevented these technical steps from progressing. If Liu Xiaobo dies without receiving this account, Liu Xia will be left destitute with no money. I shudder to think what a life would hold for the wife of China's boldest political prisoner. Only one man stands between a dying man's wish and his wife's livelihood and freedom: Xi Jinping. Although no one action can undo the turmoil that the Lius have suffered over the past 28 years, it is not too late to do the right thing and to allow this man and his wife to spend their last days together according to their wishes. It wouldn't be the first time that Xi has made a similar decision. Earlier this year, he agreed, after consultations with the Trump administration, to release an imprisoned Houstonian, Sandy Phan-Gillis, who was incarcerated on false charges. Although nothing could bring back the 2 years of separation from her family, she and her family are now reunited--something I spent considerable time urging and encouraging and was grateful to see come to pass. Lest Xi forget, even Kim Jong Un, the dictator in North Korea, allowed Otto Warmbier, a young American college student from Ohio--in the prime of his life before torture and abuse left him in a coma--to return home for his final hours. Surely, Xi can show the same degree of humanity shown by Kim Jong Un. Indeed, toward that end, the bill that I have introduced numerous times to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy in honor of Liu Xiaobo is an instrument of leverage that can help produce his freedom. In 2015, I came to this floor and asked on three separate occasions for unanimous consent to pass my bill to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy after Liu Xiaobo. Over and over again, sadly, Democratic Senators stood up and objected, stymieing the effort. Each time I advocated on behalf of Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia, my colleagues expressed procedural concerns: This is counterproductive. Doing so will only antagonize China. Well, some of us are less concerned about antagonizing Chinese Communist dictators. My fellow Senators assured me that they have negotiated the release of many political prisoners behind the scenes. Well, that is wonderful, and I encourage them to do so now in the few days and weeks Liu Xiaobo has ahead. Even so, despite repeated Democratic objections--repeated Democratic obstructionism--ultimately, the U.S. Senate was able to pass my bill by voice vote in the 114th Congress, and the reason at the time was evident: China's stubbornness--wrongly imprisoning a Nobel Peace laureate--required public action to force the issue. The end goal should be clear. It is not merely to rename a street, but rather to use the action to shine light on the Lius and to pressure the PRC to do the right thing. No Member can explain the success of this tactic better than my good friend Senator Grassley, the senior Senator from Iowa, who led a very similar effort in 1984 to rename the street in front of the Soviet Embassy after Andrei Sakharov, the famed Soviet dissident. Senator Grassley led that effort under Ronald Reagan, and when the street was renamed, it meant anytime a Soviet had to write to their Embassy, they had to write Sakharov's name. It meant anytime you had to pick up the phone and call the Embassy and say ``Where exactly do I find this Embassy?'' they had to address and highlight the dissident. For the PRC, they do not want to highlight Liu Xiaobo because he is a powerful voice for freedom and against tyranny. Just as it worked against the Soviet Union, as Reagan demonstrated, public shaming, shining light, telling the truth can bring down the machinery of oppression. So, too, can public shaming--shining light--secure Dr. Liu's freedom. As we stand here today, we don't know if Xi is going to allow Dr. Liu to come to freedom, to live out his last days in peace, and to receive the Nobel Peace Prize that he was so justly awarded. If Xi does the right thing, we can all commend the action. But if not, I am announcing my intention to continue to press this bill, to seek its passage again in this Congress, just as the Senate passed it in the prior Congress. I intend to press forward and seek passage of this bill. If Dr. Liu is not released--if he dies in China, still under their oppression--I intend to continue to fight until the day when the street is named in front of the Embassy and the Chinese Communists can bow their heads in shame at their injustice. If they don't want to be publicly shamed, there is an easy path: Don't commit shameful acts. Truth has power. Sunshine and light have power. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats: If there is an issue that should unite us all, it is that a Nobel Peace laureate speaking out for peace and democracy should not be wrongly imprisoned in Communist China. That should bring us together-- and the full force of the United States. I commend President Trump for leading on this issue, and I am hopeful that China will see its way to doing the right thing. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a momentous day. Starting this evening, millions around the world will celebrate Yom Yerushalayim, also known as Jerusalem Day. I am proud to join our close ally, Israel, and the Jewish people in celebrating this historic 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Half a century ago, overcoming Arab armies intent on Israel's destruction, the Israel defense forces liberated the Old City of Jerusalem during the Six-Day War. They courageously and miraculously fought their way to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, the holiest sites in Judaism. The commander of the paratroopers, Mordechai Gur, unable to contain his emotion, exclaimed through his wireless radio: ``The Temple Mount is in our hands!'' The army rabbi blew the shofar, and the eternal capital of Israel was reunited. This war was not the first time that Israel was threatened with annihilation. After the Jewish people established the modern State of Israel in their ancient homeland just 19 years earlier, neighboring Arab States responded to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence with an invasion. The Arab armies failed to destroy the newly established Jewish State, but Jerusalem, the ancient and Holy City central to the identity of the Jewish people, was left divided and occupied by Jordan. Residents of the Old City were murdered or expelled. Jews were prohibited from visiting and praying at the Temple Mount and Western Wall. Their synagogues were destroyed, and their cemeteries, such as the Mount of Olives, were desecrated. Access for Christians to their holy sites was also severely restricted. Leading up to June of 1967, Arab leaders repeatedly and openly expressed their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Syria was engaging in attacks on Israel from the Golan Heights and soon started to mobilize its forces for battle. Egypt began moving troops into the Sinai Peninsula in a massive military buildup, demanded and achieved the withdrawal of the U.N. Emergency Force that had been stationed in the Sinai, and then closed the Straits of Tehran, imposing an illegal blockade on Israel and cutting off a vital shipping lane for the Jewish State. Jordan then signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. Outnumbered and outgunned and against all odds in the face of external pressure not to act first to ensure its survival, the Jewish State launched a successful, preemptive strike against its hostile neighbors and prevailed in a defensive war. When it was over, Jerusalem was liberated, reuniting the city and Judaism's holiest sites with the Jewish people and putting an end to almost two decades of exclusion from the Old City. Since coming under its sovereignty, Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East that shares our values of freedom, has protected people of all faiths in Jerusalem and ensured their access to holy sites so that they might worship freely. They have protected the rights of Jews, of Christians, and of Muslims. This has occurred even while religious minorities are being targeted, persecuted, and attacked throughout the Middle East and religious and historical sites are being demolished today by radical Islamic terrorists. Today is a day where we must also reassert historical truth: The historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem and the land of Israel did not begin in 1967. These profound ties to Jerusalem have existed for thousands of years. They can be traced back and have been reaffirmed through numerous archeological excavations such as those in the city of David. In the past several years, I have traveled to Israel three times. There is something that stirs inside each time I am there. It is remarkable to observe the great successes and achievements of this small and yet mighty country that is one of America's strongest allies in the world. It is long past time that America do something it should have done two decades ago: Move the American Embassy to Jerusalem and formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and undivided capital. In every nation on Earth our Embassy is in its capital city except for Israel. There is no reason Israel should be treated any worse when they are such a reliable and unshakeable ally. We should honor the promise that Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents have made for decades and move our Embassy to Jerusalem. So I stand today to express my solidarity with Israel and with the Jewish people during this major celebration. Now, more than ever, America stands strong with our unshakeable friend and ally, the nation of Israel. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. By any objective measure, Judge Gorsuch is impeccably qualified. He is a graduate of Columbia University and the Harvard Law School and was awarded a doctorate from Oxford. He is a former law clerk for the legendary Justice Byron White, as well as for Justice Kennedy. He has been a respected Federal appellate judge for a decade. Judge Gorsuch has spent a lifetime in the law, and his record indicates he will make an exemplary Justice. Just 2 weeks ago, Judge Gorsuch testified for 20 hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His conduct during the hearing only further confirmed what his record demonstrates: that Neil Gorsuch is a principled jurist and a good man. And I was glad for all of us to get that confirmation because Judge Gorsuch bears a heavy responsibility-- he is being asked to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia. In truth, I doubt anyone could truly fill Justice Scalia's shoes. Justice Scalia was one of a kind, and his enormous impact on the law and on the Court will impact this Nation for generations to come. All of us miss him dearly, but I take solace in the knowledge that one of the ways in which I believe it will be easiest for Judge Gorsuch to imitate Scalia--perhaps the most important way--is judicial humility. Justice Scalia's greatest strength was not his amazing wit, his mighty pen, or his larger-than-life personality, as much as we loved those parts of him; rather, it was his consistent unwillingness to accumulate power to himself and to the courts. He refused to impose his own personal policy preferences on the law but instead understood that his role as a judge was simply to apply the law that the elected representatives of the people had enacted. This type of judging doesn't take otherworldly talents, although Scalia had that in abundance; instead, it takes character, integrity, and humility. Judge Gorsuch's lengthy record and his hearing testimony demonstrate that he has those attributes as well. He understands that his role as a judge is to apply the words of the Constitution and the laws of the United States to the specific cases that come before him, and nothing more. This is critical in an era when the Supreme Court has come to be seen by many--for good reason--as an activist Court, as a superlegislature that seeks to impose its own will in the place of the written law. It is this very humility that angers so many on the left. They don't want someone who humbly applies the law; rather, they demand nothing less than a person fully committed to enacting from the Supreme Court bench whatever policies the left is championing at that given moment, because they know their only refuge is the courts because the American people would reject the policies at the voting booth. Judge Gorsuch is clearly not that kind of person, so they have committed to opposing his confirmation by whatever means necessary, legitimate or not. Indeed, if this were being decided on qualifications and record, Judge Gorsuch would be confirmed unanimously. We don't have to hypothesize about that because Judge Gorsuch has already been confirmed by this body a decade ago by voice vote, without recorded dissent. Not a single Senator objected--not Ted Kennedy, not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, and not even Democratic Members who still serve in this Chamber, like Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, or Dick Durbin. Not one of them spoke out against Gorsuch's nomination to the court of appeals--not one. So what changed? The only thing that changed is that the radical left has become angry, extremely angry, and my Democratic colleagues are worried they will get opposed from their left in a primary. That is it. Their base demands total war, total obstruction, and they are begrudgingly bowing to this demand. Unfortunately for them, it has proven difficult to invent attacks against an obviously well-qualified judge like Judge Gorsuch. My Democratic colleagues couldn't get any legitimate grievance to stick at the hearings last week, despite their best efforts, but it hasn't stopped them from repeating their outlandish attacks over and over again. If the stakes weren't so high, it might even be humorous, but it isn't really funny because the primary argument the Democrats have made is dangerous. Their attack on Neil Gorsuch is a direct attack on the rule of law itself. Contrary to the very foundations of our government and legal system, my colleagues from across the aisle are arguing that Judge Gorsuch is unqualified to be a Justice because he allegedly failed to side with the ``little guy'' over the ``big guy.'' In their view, it is now the job of judges to reject equal protection, to take the blindfold off of Lady Justice, and instead judges should put their thumbs on the scales to actively discriminate against parties based on their identity. This notion of partisan, results-oriented judging is directly contrary to the constitutional system we have in this country. My Democratic colleagues are openly calling for judges to enforce their own political preferences from the bench, and they want to use a person's willingness or unwillingness to do so as a litmus test for who gets on the Court. This isn't even a jurisprudential position, it is a political position. And it is difficult to imagine a more effective way to destroy our judicial system--the best in the world, despite its flaws--than to adopt this results-oriented approach. Make no mistake, the Democrats' trumpeting of outcome-based judging will have consequences. Judges and potential judges nationwide will now have heard their siren call. You want smooth sailing in a confirmation hearing from the Democrats? Ignore the law, ignore the facts, and pick sides based upon whom you sympathize with--whoever is politically correct at that moment in time. My Democratic colleagues claim to detest attacks on the independent judiciary, but there aren't many attacks more dangerous and chilling of true independence and impartiality than the one they are making now. The public--the people who appear in court seeking an honest tribunal--have also heard this open call for bias, for prejudice, for discrimination, and I doubt they will soon forget. Luckily, Judge Gorsuch stood firm in his confirmation hearing. He reaffirmed what was clear from his record--that he will not legislate his own policy preferences from the bench and that he will respect the limited role a judge plays in our constitutional structure. He did all of this in the face of unrelenting opposition from my Democratic colleagues who demanded that he violate his judicial oath and swear to decide certain cases and political questions in a way that they would prefer. No recent nominee to the Supreme Court has ever made such pledges, and Judge Gorsuch rightfully refused to do so last week. Their demands of Judge Gorsuch were particularly galling given that this was the most transparent process in history for selecting a Supreme Court Justice. During the campaign, Donald Trump promised the American people that, if elected, he would choose a Justice in the mold of Justice Scalia. He laid out a specific list of 21 potential nominees, including Judge Gorsuch. The voters were able to see precisely whom President Trump would nominate, and they were able to decide for themselves if that was the future they wanted for the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, promised a very different kind of Justice. She promised a liberal judicial activist who would vote to undermine free speech, to undermine religious liberty, and to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In a very real sense, this election was a referendum on the Supreme Court. The American people could decide for themselves between a faithful originalist vision of the Constitution or a progressive, liberal, activist vision, and the voters chose. Donald Trump is now President Trump, and he has kept his promise to the American people, selecting Judge Neil Gorsuch from that list of 21 judges. Judge Gorsuch is no ordinary nominee. Because of this unique and transparent process, unprecedented in our Nation's history, his nomination carries with it a kind of super-legitimacy in that it has been ratified by the American people at the voting booth. Neil Gorsuch is not simply the President's nominee. It is the direction chosen by the American people, and I urge my colleagues to confirm him. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senate for passing S.J. Res. 23, the legislation I introduced that has now passed both Houses of Congress, which reins in yet another example of the Obama administration's Executive overreach, gives power and flexibility to the States, and enables States to deal with the problem of drug use-- the epidemic of drug use--and to craft solutions that help people escape addiction and dependence on drugs. This resolution was introduced in the House by Chairman Kevin Brady, a fellow Texan. It passed the House 236 to 189, with bipartisan support. With the Senate's passage of the resolution, we will now be sending it to President Trump for his signature. This resolution restores congressional intent behind the bipartisan Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. The job creation act of 2012 permitted, but did not require, States to assess State unemployment compensation or insurance program applicants for drug usage under two circumstances: where workers had been discharged from their last job because of unlawful drug use, or where workers were looking for jobs in occupations where applicants and employees are subject to drug testing. The wording of the 2012 job creation act clearly demonstrated that Congress intended to provide States the ability to determine how to best implement these plans. A number of States, including my home State of Texas, did precisely that, establishing testing and programs to help people who had drug dependency and addiction escape from that addiction. However, years after the law's passage, the Obama Department of Labor substantially narrowed the law beyond congressional intent to circumstances where testing is legally required, not where it is merely permitted. That narrow definition undermined congressional intent and it undermined the flexibility of the States. Now, together, we have reversed that interpretation. I commend my colleagues, and I thank Chairman Brady for his leadership in the House and introducing the resolution, and I commend all of us for restoring the authority of the States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for taking up legislation that I have introduced, along with my colleague in the House, Chairman Kevin Brady, to reverse yet another instance of Executive overreach by the Obama administration. H.J. Res. 42 passed the House 236 to 189, with support on both sides of the aisle, including nearly unanimous Republican support, and I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to swiftly approve this legislation and to send it to the President's desk for his signature. In the bipartisan Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Congress permitted but did not require States to assess State unemployment compensation or insurance program applicants for drug usage under two circumstances: workers who had been discharged from their last job because of unlawful drug use and workers looking for jobs in occupations where applicants and employees are subject to drug testing. The unemployment insurance program is designed to facilitate swift reemployment by requiring applicants to be able to work and actively seek employment in order to be eligible. The 2012 job creation act noted that if a worker lost a job due to drug usage, that worker would have established him- or herself as not being fully able or available to work. Further, under appropriate State-level programs, States could choose to restrict benefits for individuals who fail drug tests as well as to design programs to help them overcome their drug use and become work- ready. A number of States have responded to this opportunity. We are not helping anyone by leaving them in the position where they are dependent on and addicted to drugs. In Texas, for example, the Texas Legislature passed senate bill 21, which not only sought to secure the quality of job applicants, but it also provided help to those who needed it but would not have sought out that help otherwise themselves. The wording of the 2012 job creation act clearly shows that Congress specifically intended to provide States the ability to determine how to best implement these programs for their citizens. However, the Obama Department of Labor substantially narrowed the law to circumstances where testing is legally required, not merely allowed. Such an arbitrarily narrow definition undermines the ability of States to conduct drug testing in their programs, as permitted by Congress. This regulation is overly prescriptive. It removes State discretion regarding implementation, and it ignores years of congressional concern on both sides of the aisle. I thank Chairman Brady for taking the lead in the House on dealing with this overreach and for his leadership on H.J. Res. 42 to repeal this regulation. This joint resolution has broad support, including from President Trump, Texas's Governor Abbott, Mississippi's Governor Bryant, Utah's Governor Herbert, and Wisconsin's Governor Walker. All are united in restoring the flexibility of the States to deal with the problem of drug use and drug addiction and to tailor their unemployment programs to meeting that problem. This is yet another step in overturning the Obama administration's Executive overreach that has done so much damage. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this measure and to return discretion to the States and to the people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Texas Independence Day. One hundred eighty-one years ago, 59 delegates met in Independence Hall at Washington-on-the-Brazos to risk everything to make freedom a reality for generations of Texans to come. Today, I continue on a tradition started by the late Senator John Tower and carried on by Members of the Texas delegation to read the words of a 26-year-old Lieutenant Colonel, William Barret Travis, who at the time was under siege by the forces of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. On February 24, 1836, Travis penned the following immortal 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 & of 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. That same love of ``life, liberty, and property of the people'' that spurred the Texans at the Alamo and throughout the revolution still lives in each Texan today. I think it is particularly appropriate that right now this body will be confirming former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy. That is fitting to the spirit of freedom and independence of Texans. Texans fought for it, they died for it, and we owe it to their sacrifice to carry the torch of freedom for future generations, and we will. To all Texans: Happy Independence Day.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of the sinking of the USS Houston (CA-30), the ``flagship'' of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet, which fought bravely against the Imperial Japanese Navy Battle Fleet. During an engagement on March 1, 1942, the USS Houston and the Australian cruiser HMAS Perth were sunk at the Battle of Sunda Strait, suffering a combined loss of nearly 1,000 servicemen; the surviving sailors and marines became prisoners of war. After the war, it was revealed that they had been sent to Japan and then transferred to the mainland and used as slave labor for construction of the Thai- Burma Railway. Only 266 men from the Houston's complement of 1,008 and 214 of the Perth's complement of 681 returned home after the war. The news of this horrific loss hit the Lone Star state hard, but with typical Texan gusto and determination, it prompted a mass recruiting drive for volunteers to replace the lost crew. On Memorial Day 1942, a crowd of nearly 200,000 witnessed 1,000 ``Houston Volunteers'' inducted into the Navy. An accompanying bond drive raised over $85 million, enough to pay for a new cruiser and an aircraft carrier, the USS San Jacinto. This historic event speaks to the American spirit and grit as well as our enduring alliance with Australia. In honor of this occasion, we remember the brave men of Texas, and all of those from the Greatest Generation, who gave so much to preserve freedom in the Pacific and fight for America. They fought for country and liberty in the face of impossible odds. These sailors, soldiers, and marines represent America's unbeatable determination.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in the final days of the Obama administration's second term, with all eyes focused on the President- elect, the temptation to try to take a dramatic action to seal a cherished policy legacy must have been almost irresistible. So it proved for President Obama on December 23, 2016, when he betrayed decades of robust bipartisan American support for Israel at the United Nations by abstaining from a completely biased resolution that condemns our close friend and ally Israel and condemns all the so-called settlement activity, defined as any construction in any territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War. U.S. policy for decades has been to stand up for Israel at the United Nations, a hot bed of anti-Semitism that discriminately condemns Israel more than any country in the world, particularly when resolutions are being offered up that are outrageously biased, that attempt to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, that prejudge the basis for negotiations, or that try to dictate terms to Israel. We have seen this pattern of appealing to the United Nations from the Obama administration over and over with disastrous deals--the nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as the U.N. Convention on Climate Change, two international agreements that significantly threaten the security and prosperity of the United States. Both of them should have been submitted to this body, the Senate, as treaties. But the President chose instead to try to impose them through the United Nations because he knew that they would never be ratified by the Senate, even when this Senate had a Democratic majority. So the Obama administration's strategy, instead, has been to curb American power by subjugating our national interests to the globalist agenda of the U.N., a policy that he is now attempting to extend to Israel. Here are some of the main problems with UNSC Resolution 2334. First, it is an attack on Israeli sovereignty, as it falsely defines as illegal under international law building activity within Israel's own borders, which should be an internal Israeli issue. The historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel did not begin in 1967. Let us not forget that the Six-Day War was a defensive war fought almost 50 years ago by the Jewish state against the Palestinians and their Arab enablers, who were gathering in a concerted effort to wipe Israel off the map. Against all odds, Israel won quickly and decisively and the map was redrawn to ensure that Israel was not endangered by its own borders, the weakness of which Israel's enemies had attempted to exploit. Of course, the defeated party, the Palestinians, have not accepted this outcome. Israel has time and again invited them to negotiate a resolution--just one that involves Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state, something that the Palestinian Authority has over and over refused to acknowledge or accept. Therein lies the bottom line for Israeli security. The pre-1967 lines proved indefensible. So rather than, as the Obama administration, treat them as some sort of gold standard, Israel's security interest has deemed them intolerable and any resolution to this issue should not be dictated by the United States or the United Nations but rather should be negotiated and decided upon directly by the sovereign nation of Israel and by the Palestinians. Secondly, the resolution falsely claims that Israel's sovereignty over the eastern part of Jerusalem and areas that it controls after the Six-Day War, including Judea and Samaria, are supposedly ``occupied Palestinian territory''. This is nothing short of absurd. What that means is that, under the terms of the United Nations resolution that the Obama administration acquiesced to--indeed, there are considerable reports that the Obama administration, President Obama, and John Kerry actively encouraged and facilitated it--the Jewish Quarter, the Old City of Jerusalem, is illegal and illegitimate and not justifiably a part of Israel. Under the terms of that resolution, the location of holy sites for the Jewish people, including the most important holy site, the Temple Mount, is illegal and illegitimate to be a part of Israel. Under the terms of the resolution, the Western Wall, where Jews from all over the world go to pray, is deemed ``occupied Palestinian territory,'' illegal and illegitimate. It is more than a little ironic that President Obama went to the Western Wall to place a yarmulke there, pretending to show respect to Israel, and yet his administration, in an outgoing act of contempt, declares the Western Wall not part of the nation of Israel. This couldn't be further from the truth. It was also an affront to Jews around the world that the resolution was adopted on the eve of Hanukkah. For 8 days, Jews lit candles all over the world to remember the miracle that happened there, and to commemorate the heroic battle fought by the Maccabees that liberated Jerusalem and restored their right to worship freely and the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem. How ironic it is that on the eve of a celebration liberating Jerusalem and rededicating the Temple in Jerusalem, the Obama administration and the United Nations would declare that Jerusalem and the Temple are not legitimately part of Israel. How disgraceful--the United States should be not be facilitating the adoption of a resolution that at its core attempts to distort and rewrite recent history as well as the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel that goes back thousands of years. Third, the resolution will also help fuel the Palestinian diplomatic, economic, and legal warfare campaign against Israel, particularly because of its provision that calls on states to make a distinction in their dealings with Israel between pre-1967 Israel and Israel beyond the 1967 lines, encouraging boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel and potentially leading to Israelis and Americans being brought in front of the International Criminal Court. Palestinian leaders are already promising to use this resolution to push the International Criminal Court to launch a formal investigation against Israel. That was not an unintended consequence of this action. That was precisely the intent of the United Nations and the Obama administration--to facilitate assaults on the nation of Israel. Yet even after this disgraceful United Nations resolution, it was clear that the administration was not yet done, with Secretary of State John Kerry delivering just days later a truly shameful speech attacking Israel. His speech, very much like Kerry's 2014 remarks likening Israel to an apartheid state, will only enflame rising anti-Semitism in Europe. It will encourage the mullahs, who hate Israel and hate America, and it will further facilitate ``lawfare,'' the growing assaults on Israel through transnational legal fora. President Obama and John Kerry's actions were designed to secure a legacy, and in that, they have succeeded. History will record and the world will note that Barack Obama and John Kerry are relentless enemies of Israel. Kerry's speech drew a stunning moral equivalence between our great friend and ally Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which is currently formed by a ``unity'' government with the vicious terrorists of Hamas. Secretary Kerry declared the Hamas regime and Gaza ``radical'' in the same way that he declared the duly elected Government of Israel ``extreme.'' That moral equivalence is false, and it is a lie. The IDF, defending the people of Israel, protecting people, and keeping them safe, is not the same moral equivalent of terrorists who strap bombs to their bodies and seek to murder innocent women and children. Kerry declared the vicious terrorism sponsored by Hamas equal to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and he equated Israel's celebration of its birth with the Palestinian description of this event as the ``disaster.'' Unlike Barack Obama and John Kerry, I do not consider the existence and creation of Israel to be a disaster, and the Government of the United States should not be suggesting such a thing. Kerry's speech attempted to lay out a historic and seismic shift toward the delegitimization of our ally Israel. It is a sign of their radicalism and refusal to defend American interests that Obama and Kerry chose to attack the only inclusive democracy in the Middle East-- a strong, steadfast ally of America--while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the Islamic terrorism that grows daily. Unfortunately, President Obama still has 2 weeks left in his Presidency, and he may not yet be done betraying Israel. Next week, on Sunday, January 15, France is convening a conference with 70 other nations designed to serve as an extension of the U.N. resolution and the Kerry speech--an all-out assault on Israel. I am deeply concerned that what is decided at this conference will be used to try to further impose parameters or even audaciously to recognize a so-called independent Palestinian state through another Security Council resolution. The Security Council is scheduled to meet on January 17--conveniently, 3 days before Obama and Kerry leave office. Let me speak a moment to our friends and allies across the globe. When the President of the United States, when the administration of the United States attempts to encourage you to support their positions in the United Nations, that can be highly persuasive. It has been an arena, a forum that Barack Obama has flourished in, even as he has shown condescension and contempt for the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States. But to our friends and allies, let me remind you: The Obama administration is coming to an end on January 20. If you desire to continue being a friend to America, if you desire a continued close working relationship with America, then I call upon our allies: Do not join in attacking Israel on January 15 in France or on January 17 at the Security Council. The new administration--President-Elect Trump--has loudly condemned the U.N. resolution and the Obama administration's complicity in its passage. I would encourage our friends and allies not even to attend the January 15 conference, or, if they do choose to attend, to oppose and stand up and speak out against any further attempts to attack or undermine or delegitimize America or Israel. I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for offering resolutions to repudiate this administration for their actions of the last few weeks. It says something when you see Republicans and Democrats in Congress coming together, united to say: This action by the Obama administration is beyond the pale. Let me underscore again to our friends and allies, to our Ambassadors, to heads of state, to friendships and relationships that we value so much: Listen to the bipartisan consensus of Congress, and do not go along with the bitter, clinging radicalism of the Obama administration, attempting to lash out and strike out at Israel with their last breath in office. As commendable as these resolutions are, I believe the Senate and the Congress need to go further--that we need to take concrete steps so that there will be repercussions and consequences for the United Nations and the Palestinians for their behavior. That is why I am working with my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham on introducing legislation, along with other Members of this body, designed to cut the funding to the United Nations--designed to cut U.S. taxpayer funding going to the U.N.--unless and until they repeal this disgraceful anti- Israel resolution. We know, previously, that one way to get the U.N.'s attention is to cut off their money. We know from the failure of other U.N. organizations to recognize so-called Palestine as a member-state after American tax dollars were withheld from UNESCO for doing so in 2011 that the U.N. over and over values its pocketbook over its leftist values. However unintentionally, President Obama's misguided foreign policy has led to an unprecedented rapprochement between Israel and America's Arab allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE. We have also seen hopeful signs of shifting positions at the United Nations, as countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Italy, and Australia have recently signaled that they may no longer vote reflexively in favor of the Palestinians. Great Britain, although it voted for the resolution, has recently demonstrated an unprecedented degree of support for the Jewish state. These changes represent a significant opportunity for the United States to bolster one of our most important allies, an opportunity we can preserve for the President-elect by not letting Mr. Obama squander it on the way out the door. America should be leading the charge at the United Nations and around the world to rally burgeoning support for Israel, not trying to stab the Jewish state in the back. Just over a week ago, I spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. I told the Prime Minister that, despite the disgraceful actions of the United Nations, America stands resolutely with the nation of Israel, that the American people stand with Israel, and that I believe there is a very real possibility that the extreme and radical actions of Obama and Kerry will, in fact, backfire. It is not accidental that they waited until after the election to do this. They could have tried to do that this summer, but Obama and Kerry knew well that the American people do not support their attempting to attack Israel. So they waited until after the election. They waited until they were on their way out the door. Kerry, in his speech, said Israel cannot be both democratic and Jewish--one or the other, but not both. This is an inanity that is deemed profound only in Marxist faculty lounges. Israel is Jewish, it is democratic, and it is and should remain both. I believe that by revealing just how extreme they are, by removing the fake mask of support for Israel that Obama and Kerry have chosen to do in the last several weeks, it will help to galvanize support in this body and across the world for our friend and ally, the nation of Israel. Israel is not only our friend and ally, but it is a partner of the United States. That alliance benefits the vital national security interest of America. Israel's military benefits the national security of the United States of America. The Israeli intelligence services benefit the United States of America. Israel's steadfastness against radical Islamic terrorism, which has declared war on both Israel and America, benefits the national security interests of this country. It is Israel--the thriving, one and only Jewish state--that stands on the frontlines for America and, more broadly, Western civilization against the global threats we face. Our commitment to Israel must be restored and strengthened. I look forward to taking action with my colleagues--I hope on both sides of the aisle--in the near future to repudiate Obama's shameful attack on Israel, to repudiate the United Nations' efforts to undermine Israel, and to reaffirm America's strong and unshakable friendship and support for the nation of Israel. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, on this Pearl Harbor Day, we should learn the lessons of the past and seize new opportunities for America and Asia and beyond. The great lesson of Pearl Harbor--and more broadly World War II--was America's commitment to utterly defeat our enemies by whatever means necessary and then, when victory was secure, to bring them back into the community of civilized nations. It was an extraordinary achievement. To think that if, on December 7, 1941, I were to tell you that Japan would be, on December 7, 2016, a staunchly democratic ally, a vital security and economic partner to the United States, you would have said that I was barking mad. Here we are, three-quarters of a century later, and the day of infamy has become a day of remembrance, reflection, and above all gratitude-- gratitude for that greatest of generations who answered the call to service after Pearl Harbor, who stood staunchly with our allies, looked the evil of the axis squarely in the eyes, and saved the free world. They are leaving us now, making it all the more important that we assure each and every one of them of our boundless thanks while we still can. Indeed, I would encourage each and every one of us to thank every veteran we know, every veteran we encounter, every man and woman serving this country who risks their lives to keep us safe. We can also find much to be thankful for today as what had seemed unthinkable has come to pass. A nation that brutally attacked us 75 years ago today can now be a great and good friend. It is a tribute to both the Japanese and the American people that we have been able to not ignore or whitewash the past but to learn from it and come to the understanding that we are so much stronger as allies than as adversaries. As a Texan, I am personally appreciative of the fruits of this alliance. We host a range of Japanese companies who have invested in our State, with Toyota, for example, building its new North American headquarters in Plano this year and creating some 4,000 new jobs, all in Texas. Also this year, the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth has started to produce the F-35s that Japan is purchasing to bolster its defenses against increasing regional aggression from China and North Korea. So against all odds, the attack on Pearl Harbor has been transformed, and as we face great challenges around the world, and particularly in Asia, we can be grateful today to have our Japanese friends standing by our side, which is yet another lesson from the post-World War II era to be on the lookout not just for challenges and dangers but for unexpected opportunities. We might be forgiven as we contend with hostile nations with nuclear capability or intent--nations such as North Korea or Iran--to see a glass half empty and become consumed with fears of another Pearl Harbor-like attack potentially so much more catastrophic and deadly than the one in 1941. That would be a mistake. As with some of the fortitude our parents and grandparents showed, we can now count new allies as our partners, not just Japan but also--and equally stunningly--Germany. The list does not end there. We have Israel, which had yet to be born in 1941, not to mention the eastern and central European countries that languished so long under Soviet domination but now are helping build enduring democracies, many of which have joined NATO. That is simply amazing. If I had told you even 30 years ago that there would be a Czech Republic or a Republic of Poland that would be key NATO allies, I would have again been met with well-founded skepticism. But they are, and as we look forward to a new American administration, it is my hope that we can get off on a much better foot than the last one did in the region when they canceled the missile defense installations intended for those countries, squandering an opportunity to link them more closely to us. I have to say I am encouraged in this department by the activities of the President-elect, particularly in terms of the congratulatory phone call he received last week from the President of the Republic of China, Tsai Ing-wen. The liberal foreign policy elites were, of course, shocked and appalled. How, they wonder, could the President-elect have committed such an appalling gaff? Wasn't he aware we had degraded our relationship with Taiwan for more than 35 years and no longer recognized this friendly, prosperous, and democratic country as a nation state? Compounding their consternation was the concern that the People's Republic of China might not like it. Quelle horreur. The Chinese might not like it. Now, to be fair, given the flaming train wreck that is the Obama foreign policy writ large, our relationship with the PRC is, by comparison, a bright spot. All they have done is throw Mr. Obama's successor as Nobel Peace laureate, Liu Xiaobo, into prison, constructed 3,000 acres of weaponized artificial islands in the middle of one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, and utterly failed to contain North Korea, while dismantling the last vestiges of freedom in Hong Kong. Even so, I don't think our President-elect needs to clear his phone calls with Beijing. The phone call between President Tsai and the new American President was, in fact, an acknowledgement of a simple truth: that Taiwan has become an important friend to the United States, even after Jimmy Carter downgraded them in 1979 in acknowledgement of the ``One China'' policy the elites are so eager to perpetuate. That is another thing. Just because a policy is old doesn't make it sacrosanct. I don't think anyone here can honestly say our relations with the PRC is so fantastic that we shouldn't do anything to rock the boat. I don't think the Carter-era foreign policy was such a success that we should unquestionably continue it. I hope the President-elect continues to make clear that while he understands the importance of China and looks forward to a positive relationship with Beijing, he is not going to ignore our friends in the region. The call between President Tsai and the President-elect reminded me of another phone call which took place in September of 2013. At the end of that year's United Nations General Assembly in New York, while driving to the airport, the new President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, took out his cell phone and called President Obama. The Obama administration was in a tizzy of excitement over Mr. Ruhani's election, as they believed him to be a ``moderate'' who would be a good-faith partner in their planned and hoped-for negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Even at this early day, the signs were not promising. Despite Mr. Obama's offers, President Ruhani had refused to have a face-to-face meeting at the United Nations, opting for a call instead. There were no preconditions placed on this first direct exchange between an Iranian and American leader since 1979, such as, say, demanding that the Iranians release their American hostages and acknowledging Israel's right to exist--steps that would have indicated a fundamental shift in Iran's virulent hostility to the United States and our allies and suggested we were truly on a new path. We all know what has happened over the last 3 years as the Obama administration made concession after concession to get a deal--any deal--with Tehran. Even as Iranian belligerence and hostility had grown, as they have tested ballistic missiles, violated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, detained our citizens, and repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, Mr. Obama has over and over again proffered his hand in friendship, even sending them $1.7 billion in cash as a sweetener, all of which may well result, as I said earlier, in a terrible threat to the United States that could dwarf Pearl Harbor. In closing, I want to leave you with a message of hope. Our friendship with Japan, as well as Germany, Israel, the Czech Republic, and Poland, makes me hopeful. There is a discrete reason these nations are now aligned allies: the persistence and resolve of American leadership--leadership to discern moral from immoral, freedom from tyranny, right from wrong, life from death, and then to fight for the right. Such leadership has been sorely lacking in the past 8 years. Yet the past month affords ample reason for hope. Quite frankly, I think talking to President Tsai and not to President Ruhani was a material improvement for the national security interests of the United States, and it demonstrates renewed resolve to once more assume the mantle of leadership. That is enough to make all of us hopeful. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today I am introducing the SuperPAC Elimination Act. Another election cycle has come and gone without addressing a glaring issue that remains significant: free speech and transparency in campaign finance. Our current campaign finance system is absurd. Right now, a large percentage--sometimes a majority--of campaign expenditures are made by independent third-party SuperPACs that are prohibited from communicating with candidates. That makes no sense. Candidates should define their own messages, and citizens should be free to support whatever candidates they choose to support. Restrictions to political contributions are always presented under the guise of preventing corruption and holding politicians accountable, when in fact they accomplish exactly the opposite: protecting incumbent politicians. My legislation would put Americans on a level playing field with the media and politicians when it comes to influencing elections and exercising our First Amendment rights. Specifically, it would remove the caps on direct contributions to candidates from individuals and requires donations of more than $200 to be disclosed within 24 hours. Establishing unlimited contributions paired with immediate disclosure is the best way to promote transparency, eliminate the viability of SuperPACs going forward, and ensure that free speech is protected in the electoral process. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to shed light on the political arena and empower individual Americans by passing this important legislation.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, it was Armando Valladares, a Cuban dissident and poet who was imprisoned for 22 years under the Castro regime, who so powerfully observed in his memoir: My response to those who still try to justify Castro's tyranny with the excuse that he has built schools and hospitals is this: Stalin, Hitler and Pinochet also built schools and hospitals, and like Castro, they also tortured and assassinated opponents. They built concentration and extermination camps and eradicated all liberties, committing the worst crimes against humanity. This week we witnessed a powerful moment for people all across the country and especially for Cuban-Americans like myself. Cuba's longtime oppressive dictator Fidel Castro is dead. Let me be absolutely clear. We are not mourning the death of some revolutionary romantic or a distinguished statesman. We are not grieving for the protector of peace or a judicious steward of his people. Today we are thankful. We are thankful that a man who has imprisoned and tortured and degraded the lives of so many is no longer with us. He has departed for warmer climes. This brutal dictator is dead, and I would like to pay tribute to the millions who have suffered at the hands of the Castro regime. We remember them, and we honor the brave souls who fought the lonely fight against the totalitarian Communist dictatorship imposed on Cuba. Yet, at the same time, it seems the race is on to see which world leader can most fulsomely praise Fidel Castro's legacy while delicately averting their eyes from his less than savory characteristics. Two duly-elected leaders of democracies who should know better, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and American President Barack Obama, have been leading the way. Mr. Trudeau praised Castro as a ``larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century'' and ``a legendary revolutionary and orator, [who] made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.'' Tell that to the people in the prisons. Tell that to the people who have been tortured and murdered by Fidel Castro. Mr. Obama likewise offered his ``condolences'' to the Cuban people and blandly suggested that ``history will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure.'' Now, he added, we can ``look to the future.'' What is it about young leftists, what is it about young Socialists that they idolize Communist dictators who torture and murder people? Fidel Castro and Che Guevara and all of their goons were not these sexy, unshaven revolutionaries on posters in college dorm rooms that make leftists go all tingly inside; they were brutal monsters, and we should always remember their victims. Earlier this week, I publicly called that no U.S. Government official should attend Castro's funeral unless and until his brother Raul releases the political prisoners--first and foremost, those who have been detained just since Fidel's death. Unfortunately, in this administration, my call went unheeded. Two high-level U.S. Government officials attended Fidel's memorial service yesterday. This unofficial delegation included Ben Rhodes, assistant to the President, National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, and Jeffrey DeLaurentis, the top U.S. diplomat in Cuba. Yesterday, when asked about a U.S. presence for the memorial service, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, ``We believe that this was an appropriate way for the United States to show our commitment to an ongoing future-oriented relationship with the Cuban people'' and that ``this is an appropriate way to show respect, to participate in the events that are planned for this evening, while also acknowledging some of the differences that remain between our two countries.'' I am afraid I must ask Mr. Earnest whether any of these ``differences'' were publicly acknowledged while Rhodes and DeLaurentis were commemorating the legacy of Fidel Castro. How exactly do you commemorate it--cheers to the tyrant? I suspect that those ``differences'' were not mentioned in the funeral pamphlet. Mr. Earnest also claimed last night: ``Certainly no one from the White House and no other delegations will be sent to Cuba to participate in any of the other events.'' Well, that is comforting. Let's hold him to those words. My hope and prayers are that these officials do not attend the funeral. Although I must say, it is quite convenient that Rhodes had a preplanned trip to Cuba this week. Earnest remarked that ``Mr. Rhodes has played a leading role in crafting the normalization policy that President Obama announced about two years ago'' and ``he has been the principal interlocutor with the Cuban government from the White House in crafting this policy and implementing it successfully.'' I suppose it is appropriate that the Federal Government official who played an integral role in allowing billions of dollars to flow to Cuba--to flow directly to Raul and Fidel Castro--be there to commemorate Fidel's death. It is billions of dollars that have gone to strengthen the repressive machinery, to strengthen the regime. If a U.S. company or a European company wants to hire a Cuban worker, they can't do it. It is against the law. It is unlike many other countries. It is unlike China or other places where you can hire a local worker. Instead, you must hire the government. There is one and only one person you can hire. The foreign companies pay the Cuban Government, and the Cuban Government, in its benevolence, keeps 93 cents of every dollar and pays the Cuban workers 7 cents out of every dollar. Ninety-three cents of every dollar of the billions that Barack Obama has funneled to Castro has gone to the government of Raul Castro and Fidel Castro to fund the secret police, to fund the prisons, and to fund the torture, while our diplomatic brigade pat themselves on the back as to what enlightened diplomats they are. The life and legacy of Fidel Castro is no cause for celebration or commemoration. His contributions consist of a ruined country and a broken people. Cuba is almost like the land that time forgot. You can go and see cars from the 1950s--meticulously maintained, held together almost with rubber bands and chewing gum. It is not that the citizens there have a fondness for antiquities. It is that the repressive communist economy has trapped them, has mired them in poverty where 1950s cars are all they have, and where the last 60 years didn't happen, other than the jackboot of the oppressive police state. I will point out that on this issue I am not a disinterested observer. My own family's experience has been acute. My father, born and raised in Cuba, fought in the Revolution. He initially believed in the principles of freedom that he thought the Revolution was about. He fought against Batista, a cruel dictator, and was tortured and imprisoned by Batista's police state. Then my aunt, Tia Sonia, who is younger than my father, stayed and was there after the Revolution occurred and suddenly discovered the Revolution was based on a lie. The kids who thought they were fighting for freedom discovered instead an even worse tyrant than that who preceded him--a communist dictator who would line up dissidents and shoot them. My Tia Sonia participated in the counterrevolution. She fought against the Castro tyranny. I will tell you, when she was a high school girl, she and her two best friends were arrested, were thrown into prison by the Castro regime, and, like her brother, she faced terrible treatment in a Cuban prison. What they did in Cuban jails to teenage girls should not happen to anyone. This is the legendary figure that Trudeau and Obama celebrate. The night that the news broke that Castro had died, I received a text from my cousin Bibi--my Tia Sonia's daughter and someone whom I grow up with like a sister. Bibi texted me. She said: Fidel Castro is dead. I am glad that I was able to make that call to let my mother know. I image when Bibi called my Tia Sonia it was an extraordinary moment. My aunt was asleep at the time. Bibi sent me a second text. I couldn't help to think about all the conversations at the dinner table with my grandparents about the day that Castro dies. Texts just like that millions of people sent all over the world, especially in the Cuban- American community. People had dreamed for years, for decades about the day this tyrant would die and face eternal judgment. The betrayal, brutality, and the violence experienced by my father and by my aunt were all too typical of the millions of Cubans who have suffered under the Castro regime over the last six decades. This is not the stuff of Cold War history that would be swept under the rug simply because Fidel is dead. Consider, for example, the dissidents Guillermo Farinas and Elizardo Sanchez, who came to the United States. I had the opportunity to sit down and visit with them and interview them both. They warned me in the summer of 2013 that the Castros, then on the ropes of the reduction of Venezuelan patronage, were plotting to cement their hold on power by pretending to liberalize in order to get the American economic embargo lifted. Their motto was Vladimir Putin's motto--his consolidation of power in Russia, which Sanchez called ``Putinismo.'' Their plan was to get the United States to pay for it. Sadly, it worked. The year, after I met with Farinas and Sanchez, Mr. Obama announced his famous ``thaw'' with the Castros, and the American dollars started flowing. As we know now, there was no corresponding political liberalization--simply, American dollars funding a brutal dictatorship. Last September, Mr. Farinas concluded his 25th hunger strike against the Castros' oppression. Then there is the case of prominent dissident Oswaldo Paya, who died in 2012 in a car crash that is widely believed to have been orchestrated by the Castro regime. His daughter, Rosa Maria, has pressed relentlessly for answers on her father's apparent murder, and, thus, she has become a target herself. Just 3 years after her father's death, the Obama administration honored the Castros with a new embassy in Washington, DC, and at the launch of that embassy, Rosa Maria tried to attend the State Department press conference as an accredited journalist. She was spotted by the Cuban delegation, who demanded that she be removed if she dared to ask any questions. The Americans complied, in an act of thuggery more typical with Havana than Washington. What does it say of John Kerry and the State Department? What does it say of the Obama administration when a communist tyrant or their police force says: There is a dissident, a journalist who might ask inconvenient questions; will you silence her and muzzle her? And the response from the Obama administration is only too happy to comply--no inconvenient questions about the apparent murder of your father. We have different priorities. Last summer I had the honor to meet with Dr. Oscar Biscet, an early truth teller about the disgusting practice of postbirth abortions. I want you to think about that concept for a second--postbirth abortions, otherwise known as the murder of infants, which are far too widespread in Cuba. Dr. Biscet has been repeatedly jailed and tortured for his fearless opposition to the Castros. I asked him, as I had Mr. Farinas and Mr. Sanchez, whether his ability to travel signaled a growing freedom on the island? He answered--just as they had 3 years earlier: No. In fact, he said, the repression had grown worse since the so-called thaw. Didn't we realize, he asked me, that all those American dollars were flowing to the Castros' pockets and funding the next generation of their police state? That is the true legacy of Fidel Castro--that he was able to institutionalize his dictatorship so that it would survive him. Fidel Castro's death cannot bring back the thousands of victims, nor can it bring lasting comfort to their families. For 60 years, Fidel Castro systematically exploited and oppressed the people of Cuba, and now that tyrannical reign has fallen to his brother Raul, every bit as vicious as Fidel was. I was with my father shortly after he found out the news that Fidel Castro was dead. I asked my dad: What do you think happens now? My father shrugged and said sadly: Not much of anything. Raul has been in charge for years now. The system has gotten stronger. What Obama has done in funneling billions of dollars to the Castros has strengthened tyranny just 90 miles from our shores. Those billions--those American dollars--are being used to oppress dissidents. In 2016 roughly 10,000 political arrests occurred in Cuba. That is five times as many as occurred in 2010. What does it say about President Obama's foreign policy that under him political arrests have increased to 500 percent where they were just 5 years ago? This tyrannical regime has gotten stronger because of a weak President and a weak foreign policy. There is a real danger that we will now fall into a trap of thinking that Fidel's death represents material change in Cuba. It does not. The moment to exert maximum pressure would have been 8 years ago, when Fidel's failing health forced him to pass control to his brother Raul. Rather than leverage the transition in our favor, the Obama administration decided to start negotiations with Raul in the mistaken belief that he would prove more reasonable than his brother. It is an unfortunate pattern that this administration has repeated with Kim Jong Un, Hasan Ruhani, and Nicolas Maduro. They don't seem to learn the lesson about the brutality of tyrants. The administration lifted the embargo that had been exerting economic pressure and having real meaningful effect. Efforts to be diplomatically polite about Fidel's death suggest the administration still hopes that Raul can be brought around. All historical evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Raul is not a different Castro. He is his brother's chosen successor, who has spent the last 8 years implementing his dynastic plan. Unlike Cuba, however, the United States has an actual democracy, and our recent election suggests there is significant resistance among the American people to the Obama administration's pattern of appeasement and weakness toward hostile dictators. We can, we should, and we are sending clear signals that the policy of weakness and appeasement is at an end. Among other things, we should halt the dangerous ``security cooperation'' we have begun with the Castro regime, which extends to military exercises, counternarcotics efforts, communications, and navigation--all of which places our sensitive information in the hands of a hostile government that would not hesitate to share it with other enemies, from Iran to North Korea. I hope all my colleagues will join me in calling for these alterations. The Communist dictator Raul Castro is not our friend, and we should not be sharing military secrets in military cooperation with his military only to have those used against us. A dictator is dead, but his dark, repressive legacy will not automatically follow him to the grave. Change can come to Cuba, but only if America learns from history and prevents Fidel's successor from playing the same old tricks. It is very much my hope and belief that with a new President coming into office in January, President Trump and a new administration, that U.S. foreign policy--not just with Cuba but with our enemies, whether they be Iran, ISIS, or North Korea--will no longer be a policy of weakness and appeasement but instead will use U.S. strength to defend this Nation and press for change. This ought to be a moment where Cubans are dancing in the street because they are being liberated, but, instead, if anyone dances in the street right now, they will be thrown in jail. Obama is sending his condolences to the Cuban people on the passing of a dictator who has imprisoned, tortured, and oppressed them for 60 years. Those are condolences they can do without. Cuba is not a free society. You aren't allowed to speak or worship freely. They tear down churches. They repress the most basic liberty to worship God. We need leadership to prompt real and meaningful change in Cuba. Valladares wrote in his memoir: The mass execution was ordered by Raul Castro and attended by him personally. Nor was it an isolated instance; other officers in Castro's guerrilla forces shot ex-soldiers en masse without a trial, without any charges of any kind lodged against them, simply as an act of reprisal against the defeated army. I have never been to my father's homeland. I have never been to Cuba. My father has not returned to Cuba in over 60 years. I look forward to one day visiting Cuba, hopefully with my dad, my Tia Sonia, my cousin Bibi, and seeing a free Cuba where people can live according to their beliefs without fear of imprisonment, violence, or oppression, but under the dictator Raul Castro, today is not that day. The people of Cuba need to know that there are still those in America who understand that and stand with them, not the corrupt and vicious crime family that has oppressed them for so long, that has enriched themselves, accumulating millions and millions of dollars in personal wealth, living like emperors and kings while they have oppressed the people of Cuba. Those in Hollywood, those in the academy, and those in the Obama administration think that communism is about equality. There is nothing equal about Cuban communism other than a quality of suffering, other than a quality of misery, other than a quality of hopelessness. In the Cuban Communist regime, the army acts as the enforcers for the dictators who live opulent lifestyles while oppressing the masses. There is a word for that. It is called evil. It is not simply an interesting way to govern a society. It is the face of oppression, the face of dictatorship, the face of evil. Let there be no mistake, Fidel Castro was evil. Anyone who systematically murders, tortures, and oppresses people for over six decades embodies it, and I have no doubt that right now, today, Fidel Castro is facing the ultimate judgment. That is cause for celebration, and I look forward to celebrating the end of his dictatorship and repressive regime and the return of freedom to Cuba. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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