Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President.

Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from West Virginia for his hard work on this very important matter. I support the objective of this legislation. I also appreciate the commitment that the Senator from West Virginia has made and also that Congressman Westerman has made to--if this bill were to pass today-- incorporate the changes that have been negotiated to improve it in the next Congress. In particular, these are changes dealing with the deployment of resources for broadband. Those negotiated changes would significantly improve and ensure that it operates the way it is intended to operate. I appreciate that commitment. As the Senator from West Virginia knows, I am pressing very hard right now to pass legislation that is very important to me and very important to Texans. It is legislation called the TAKE IT DOWN Act. The TAKE IT DOWN Act is bipartisan legislation that I authored, along with Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, to protect women and to protect teenage girls and young girls from a growing epidemic of nonconsensual intimate images online, both actual photographs and also a dramatically escalating problem of deepfake AI images that target real people. We are seeing every day more and more women and more and more teenage girls targeted with false deepfakes made using AI that appear to be explicit photographs, explicit videos. They are victimized. The TAKE IT DOWN Act makes the publication of those nonconsensual, intimate images a crime, a Federal felony. Critically, it puts a Federal obligation on the tech platform to remove those images, remove those videos when notified by the victim. You have a right to protect your privacy and not to be victimized. The women have a right. That legislation, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, passed the U.S. Senate unanimously 100 to nothing. Every Senator, Republican and Democrat, agreed with the bill. That legislation is now at the House, and House leadership placed the TAKE IT DOWN Act in the continuing resolution that was introduced earlier this week. It is in the bill. I am grateful for that. As the Presiding Officer knows, as the Senator from West Virginia knows, the path to passing the continuing resolution has proven to be challenging, and House leadership right now is actively negotiating and trying to find a path forward. I very much want the TAKE IT DOWN Act passed by whatever vehicle gets it to the President's desk because we have an obligation to protect women and to protect teenage girls. I have asked the House, as an alternative, to take up the TAKE IT DOWN Act on the suspension calendar. If it gets a vote on the floor of the House, it will pass. All it needs is a vote. So from my perspective, I am fine with it passing as part of the CR--if a CR passes with anything on it--or I believe it should pass on the suspension calendar and go to the President's desk. The Senator from West Virginia and Congressman Westerman have both committed to me to use their full force and persuasion and leverage to ensure that, one way or another, the TAKE IT DOWN Act will pass out of the House and get to the President's desk, because all of us want to protect our constituents. We have an obligation to do so. Because the gentlemen in question are my friends and I trust their good-faith representations and because we are about to lose the good graces of the Senator from West Virginia, who has decided to ride off into the sunset and leave us to the nonsense of the swamp--both Senator Manchin and Congressman Westerman have asked for a personal favor, that I not object, and therefore I do not object.

Mr. CRUZ. I do not.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank my friend the Senator from West Virginia who is standing here--we are standing here together--with a bipartisan plea to the Senate to act in a reasonable, fiscally responsible way. Senator Manchin and I are also, in a bipartisan way, asking the Senate: Don't sell seniors down the river. Look, we all know the U.S. Congress spends like drunken sailors. And, frankly, that is not fair to the sailors because at least they are spending their own money. But even in that context, what we saw earlier today was tragic. The vote earlier today was designed to solve a real problem: the windfall elimination provision, the WEP provision. It was enacted in an effort to ensure Social Security benefits are paid fairly, and they recognized the amount that is actually paid into Social Security. However, when the WEP was enacted, it got the formula wrong, and the result is, for thousands upon thousands of retired police officers and retired firefighters and retired teachers, they got shortchanged. A very significant number of those cops and firefighters and teachers are in my home State of Texas. I have heard from countless firefighters and cops and teachers who have raised that issue. Since 2017, I have been fighting to fix the WEP problem. In 2017, I introduced legislation to fix the inequity and to treat our retired cops and firefighters and teachers fairly. My legislation I have worked on very closely with Kevin Brady, a Republican in the House, then the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He initially had an agreement with the Democrat ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee to get this resolved, but, unfortunately, House Democrats backed out of that agreement. So we didn't fix the WEP in 2017. We didn't fix it in 2018. We didn't fix it in 2019, or 2020, or 2021, or 2022, or 2023. And now, just days before Christmas, we step in with this bill designed to fix the inequities for retired police officers, firefighters, and teachers. So what is the problem? The problem is this current bill simply repeals the WEP across board, which is a massive cost to Social Security. This bill imposes a cost on the Social Security Trust Fund of $190 billion--nearly $200 billion. What else does this bill do that we just voted on? It accelerates the insolvency of Social Security by 6 months. The Social Security system right now is scheduled to be insolvent within 9 years--by 2033. As a result of this vote, if the same 73 Senators who just voted for this provision stick with it, Social Security goes broke 6 months earlier. What does that mean? When Social Security--if Social Security goes insolvent, there is an automatic benefits cut of over 20 percent that goes into effect automatically by operation of law. So what did 73 Senators vote to do today? To throw Granny over the cliff, to hurt Social Security for every senior citizen in America. Now, if that was our only choice, if our only choice was to treat the cops and firefighters and retired teachers fairly or do harm to Social Security and to seniors, I could understand people making that tradeoff. It is an ugly tradeoff, but I could understand it because we absolutely need to treat retired cops and firefighters and teachers fairly. But there is another choice. The legislation that I introduced in 2017 and have been fighting to pass ever since, it is bipartisan legislation that I have introduced. I have it as an amendment to this bill right now. Senator Manchin, who is a Democrat, is a cosponsor. What does my amendment do? It fixes the WEP problem--it fixes the windfall elimination problem--which means it corrects the unfairness for retired cops, for retired firefighters, and for retired teachers. But it does so at a much, much more affordable pricetag. The Cruz-Manchin amendment would cost $25 billion over the next 10 years--$25 billion compared to $190 billion. And, critically, the Cruz- Manchin amendment has been scored that over 75 years--which when you are dealing with Social Security, you typically look at the longer window--over 75 years, the scoring shows it has a negligible impact. It doesn't speed up the insolvency of Social Security by a single day. The Senate has an option right in front of it: Take care of the cops. Take care of the firefighters. Take care of teachers. But at the same time, don't hurt the seniors. I am confident that every Member of this body goes home to our States, and we tell senior citizens we are going to protect Social Security. Well, do you know what? If 73 Senators in this body continue charging ahead to blow a $200 billion hole in the Social Security trust fund, every Senator who votes that way is breaking their promise to the seniors in their State. Every Senator who votes to impose $200 billion of costs on the Social Security trust fund, you are choosing to sacrifice the interests of seniors who paid into Social Security, who have earned those benefits, and who deserve to have them protected. What is so frustrating is this should be easy, and this should be simple. I could tell you, in the Republican conference, I urged my colleagues, I said: Listen, let's take this up and finally pass it early next year in the brand new conference. John Thune, the incoming majority leader, committed, if the Senate did not proceed on this bill today, to take up my amendment on the floor within the first 3 months of next year. Listen, I understand the frustration of the people who have been fighting to get this problem fixed because they have been fighting and fighting and fighting, and it has never gotten there. So people are understandably frustrated by being treated unfairly. But we have a way to fix this problem, to put more money in the pockets of retired cops and retired firefighters and retired teachers but do so in a way that is fiscally responsible and that doesn't hurt every senior in America. It saddens me that only 27 of us were willing to stand up and say we are going to keep our promise to protect Social Security. We are going to keep our promise to protect the seniors in West Virginia and Texas. We are not going to sell Granny down the river. There is still a chance for this Senate to reconsider. It would be very simple to take this up. It would be very simple to schedule a hearing in the Finance Committee early next year. The incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Mike Crapo, committed to having a hearing on this legislation early next year. We could fix this problem without blowing a $200 billion hole in the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. CRUZ. I would happily yield to my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from West Virginia, and I urge the body to listen to the very reasonable words from the Senator from West Virginia. I will say, the Senator from West Virginia is retiring in just a few days. We are going to miss Joe Manchin in this body. We are going to miss a voice of reason on both sides of the aisle. We have in front of this body a bipartisan amendment that fixes the WEP problem, that treats retired cops and firefighters and teachers fairly, but it does so while being responsible and not blowing a hole in the Social Security trust fund. You know, my dad is 85 years old. My mom is 90 years old. Both of them rely on Social Security. We have a solemn obligation to honor the promises we made to seniors. There is not a Senator in this body who hasn't promised seniors: I am going to protect Social Security. Well, if the Senate goes forward and passes this bill, 73 Senators will be breaking their word. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Do the right thing. Do the responsible thing. Keep your word to the seniors in your State. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, let me tell you two brief stories. A high schooler takes from the internet a picture of a female classmate, then uses artificial intelligence to ``nudify'' that young girl, and shares this deepfake sexually explicit image with the rest of the school on social media. The classmate--mortified and humiliated-- doesn't want to show her face at school. She is afraid. She spends a week begging her parents not to force her to go back. Her parents, futilely, report the images to the social media company, but they never hear even a word back. Meanwhile, everyone at the school knows who distributed this sexually explicit image of this 14-year-old girl, but he faces no consequences. Here is the second story: A teenage boy begins a relationship online with a young girl. He is smitten, and they decide to swap explicit photos with each other, but it turns out the teenage girl is a scammer, and he has just fallen prey to sextortion. The scammer repeatedly messages the young man, demanding payment or the explicit photos will be sent to his friends via a social media network. The young man-- embarrassed, mortified, thinking there is no way out--dies by suicide. His name was Gavin Guffey. His father is here today advocating to hold Big Tech accountable. On my lapel, I am wearing the heart emoji that Gavin texted his family moments before he took his own life. Where do these stories take place--in Texas? New Jersey? South Carolina? Washington? California? Illinois? Florida? Sadly, the answer is all of them. American high schools are experiencing an explosion of AI-generated sexual images, and in many cases, there is no consequence and no recourse for the teenage girls or boys like Gavin. There have been thousands and thousands of cases of sleazebags using nonconsensual, intimate images to extort victims both sexually and financially. In fact, the FBI just issued a warning this year about the growing threat of sextortion for minors online. There are dozens of families across the country whose children have taken their own lives because of their fear of these images being released. There are hundreds of high schoolers targeted, often by their own classmates, who are experiencing incredible psychological harms in knowing that these images exist and are still out there. And your child's images aren't just targeted while they are in middle school or in high school. In New York, a young man right out of high school took images of his former classmates from their social media profiles and used AI to alter the images in a sexually explicit manner. He then posted them for the world to see, along with their personal identifying information, encouraging violence and harassment against those he was victimizing. He was convicted only of a misdemeanor, and he faced zero charges for the deepfake explicit images. I would venture to guess some of the victims tried and failed to get these fake images removed by the tech company. I have spoken to these victims and their parents, including two 14- year-old girls who were victims in the same month, with the same story, on opposite sides of the country. These girls were scared; they were hopeless; but they also wanted justice and relief from these images so they took action. Elliston Berry of Texas and Francesca Mani of New Jersey bravely spoke up about their experiences and how the TAKE IT DOWN Act--my bipartisan legislation with Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar--would have protected them and afforded them justice for these horrific acts. Both Elliston and Francesca testified at a field hearing for the Senate Commerce Committee, bravely sharing their stories. There are 29 States that have not criminalized deepfake revenge porn. Thus, law enforcement in those States cannot prosecute the slimeballs who peddle this lifelike, yet fake, smut. That is justice denied for these teenagers and other victims. The TAKE IT DOWN Act empowers victims across the entire United States. It makes it a felony for these creeps to use AI to create and publish fake, lifelike pornographic images of real people. Just as importantly, our bipartisan bill requires Big Tech to have a notice and takedown process so that every American--not just the Taylor Swifts of this country who are famous enough that they can get the images taken down but every American and every teenager in junior high and high school who is victimized--like Elliston and Francesca and Gavin--can get these disturbing images taken offline immediately. I don't want to see another family suffer such a fate, which is why I am on the floor today, trying to pass the TAKE IT DOWN Act. This bill is overwhelmingly bipartisan. There are nearly 20 Republican and Democrat cosponsors of this bill. Over 80 organizations, including victims' advocates, including unions, including law enforcement are backing this bipartisan legislation. The TAKE IT DOWN Act passed the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously. Every Republican, every Democrat on the committee voted for this legislation. The House companion, likewise, has strong bipartisan support. The Senate acted on parts of this issue earlier this year in having passed two complementary pieces of legislation 11 weeks ago. However, neither of these other bills empowers victims to get their explicit images--real or fake--removed from websites. In a moment, unfortunately, you will be hearing an objection from my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, who previously supported both of these complementary bills. One of these bills is the SHIELD Act, authored by Senator Klobuchar-- the coauthor of my TAKE IT DOWN Act as well. The SHIELD Act was significantly modified at the request of my colleague from New Jersey before he would allow that to pass. The TAKE IT DOWN Act deliberately adopted the exact same language that the Senator from New Jersey requested in the SHIELD Act--everything he requested--from the same sentencing provisions to the same intent provisions, to the same exceptions to the bill. Now it appears the Senator from New Jersey no longer supports the language he voted for and the language he negotiated and helped draft. It cannot be that the Senator from New Jersey is concerned about free speech matters, because he has already agreed to pass two bills that deal with this very same issue and using the same language. I certainly hope that the Senator from New Jersey doesn't actually believe that realistic child pornography, as we have described here today, is somehow protected speech under any of our legal precedents. It is not. The only difference between the two bills that, perhaps, the Senator from New Jersey can possibly point to is that the TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes the publication of deepfake revenge porn--an issue this body has not yet addressed--and that the TAKE IT DOWN Act requires big tech companies to remove these heinous images upon notice from the victims in order to protect the victims. Neither of these positive changes are good reasons to hold up the bill, but they are essential to bringing justice to our constituents from Francesca to Elliston. So, if the Senator from New Jersey objects, teenage girls like Francesca Mani of New Jersey, like Elliston Berry of Texas, or teenage boys like Gavin Guffey will have no protection from sextortion or from having fake sexual abuse materials--images and videos, literal child pornography--being publicly shared by predators and sex offenders. If he objects, the next Francesca, the next Elliston, the next Gavin won't be able to force Snapchat or Instagram or TikTok to step up and take down this abusive content. For the folks at home, I want you to listen very carefully. Sometimes Senate procedure can be confusing. I want you to listen for two words from the Senator from New Jersey: ``I object.'' Let me tell you how this works. If he doesn't say those two words, this legislation will, right now, this evening, pass the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing. And understand, this legislation--99 Senators have already indicated they have no objections to this legislation. All the Senator from New Jersey has to do is not say those two words, ``I object,'' and this law is passing the Senate unanimously. On the other hand, if you hear those two words, ``I object,'' the result is going to be that this legislation is defeated on the floor of the Senate. On behalf of Elliston Berry, on behalf of Francesca Mani, on behalf of the memory of Gavin Guffey and his family who still grieves his loss, on behalf of the countless teenagers and others who have been victimized by real and by deepfake explicit images, on behalf of the thousands more teenagers and women who are likely to be victims of this abuse in the future, I urge my colleagues to come together with a simple, bipartisan, commonsense step and pass the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Therefore, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 4569 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Cruz-Klobuchar substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. I have to tell you, I am saddened that the Senator from New Jersey chose to give no explanation for his objection; chose to give no reason to Francesca, why she is being denied; no reason to Elliston; no reason to Gavin. He had an opportunity to explain his objections. Do you know what he said? Nothing. Nearly 2 weeks ago was when I circulated this amendment to both sides of the aisle, and it cleared 99 Senators. He had a week and a half to object. Yesterday, this legislation was about to pass, and an hour before it was going to pass, the Senator from New Jersey raised his objection. He said last night: Ted, I haven't had time to read the bill. It had been circulated to his office 2 weeks earlier, but he said he hadn't had time to read the bill. I said: Great. I will delay this for a day so you can read the bill. The language in the bill is word for word verbatim the language you agreed to, you have voted for, and you negotiated. He said he had numerous substantive objections. If he does, we heard none of them, not a word of it. It makes me sad that he doesn't feel his constituents deserve any explanation for blocking legislation as important as this. Madam President, it is not lost on anyone that this is an election year. And I will say, absent a single substantive objection, the obvious inference is that this objection is being made because we have got an election in less than 6 weeks. I consider the Senator from New Jersey a friend. I sure hope he is not standing up here denying victims of this abuse relief simply to score partisan political points. I would like to think he wouldn't do such a thing. But in order for me to believe he wouldn't do such a thing, he needs to actually explain some reason for his objection, which at least, so far, he has not bothered to do. I will tell you, we had an agreement negotiated with the majority leader to pass an entire package of bills--Republican bills and Democrat bills--that have passed the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. All of that package was going to pass yesterday until, at the last minute, the Senator from New Jersey came with his midnight objection and no reasoning whatsoever. So I am now going to give this body the opportunity to pass the package that had been negotiated in a bipartisan manner, that had been agreed to, and we are going to find out if the Senator from New Jersey will not only object to providing relief to the victims of this abuse but will object to multiple other bills that are bipartisan bills supported by Members of this body, because he wants to play partisan politics instead. I hope he does not. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: S. 4569, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Cruz-Klobuchar; Calendar No. 473, S. 275, the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2024, Capito-Klobuchar; Calendar No. 474, S. 1570, the Bottles and Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Enhancement Act, Duckworth and Daines; Calendar No. 285, S. 1153, the National Manufacturing Advisory Council for the 21st Century Act, Peters and Rubio; Calendar No. 480, S. 3475, Strengthening the Commercial Driver's License Information System Act, Peters and Young; Calendar No. 479, S. 3277, the Marine Debris reauthorization, Sullivan and Whitehouse; Calendar No. 513, S. 4212, the American Music Tourism Act of 2024, Blackburn and Hickenlooper; and Calendar No. 485, S. 4107, the Think Differently Transportation Act, Duckworth and Capito; further, that S. 4569 be discharged from the Committee on Commerce; that the committee-reported amendments, where applicable, be agreed to; that the Cruz-Klobuchar amendment to S. 4569, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend Senator Britt for her powerful and passionate defense of in vitro fertilization. Senator Britt has been an incredible partner as she and I have worked to pass landmark Federal legislation protecting IVF for every American. I am proud to rise once again to speak on an issue that is personal and vital to millions of American families: the protection of in vitro fertilization. IVF is a medical miracle that has brought the joy of parenthood to millions of families who otherwise might never have experienced it. I am an unequivocal supporter of protecting IVF, and I am grateful that IVF has given so many parents struggling with infertility the gift of finally holding a child, a baby, in their arms, finally having the opportunity to be a mother or a father and to raise a son or daughter and to give all of the love in a family that they so desperately want to give. Today, unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are staging an empty show vote on what they call an IVF bill in order to stoke baseless fears about IVF and push their broader political agenda. Let's be clear, there is not a single Senator in this Chamber, on either side of the aisle, who wants to ban IVF. All 100 Senators, to the best of my knowledge, support IVF. Not a single one has called for banning it. And yet I previously voted against the Democrats' partisan legislation because it is not an IVF bill. It is designed to backdoor and federalize broad abortion legislation, which I understand is the Democrats' partisan position, but it is contrary to the views of a great many Americans. And the partisan Democrat bill also deliberately overturns the conscious protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. You know, it is unfortunate that Democrats have abandoned what used to be a bipartisan commitment to religious liberty and they are now more than willing to overturn religious liberty protections. Instead of pushing a partisan and, frankly, cynical agenda, I invite my Democratic colleagues to actually do what they claim they want to do, which is work with me today and stand together to pass clear Federal legislation protecting IVF. IVF is profoundly pro-family. Over 8 million babies have been born through IVF, providing millions of American families the chance to embrace the joy of raising a child. It is an avenue of hope for those struggling with infertility. Misconceptions and deliberate scare tactics from the Democrats about the legal standing of IVF will only serve to hurt families who are desperately trying to welcome a child into their lives. What the American people deserve is straightforward, pro-IVF legislation. That is why my colleague Senator Britt and I have introduced the IVF Protection Act, legislation that offers ironclad, Federal statutory protection for IVF. Our bill does not engage in backdoor politics. It does not infringe on the deeply held beliefs of individuals or organizations. It simply does what needs to be done: safeguarding the right of couples to grow their family if they choose to use IVF. Because this should not be a political issue; instead, it is a deeply human issue. Our bill unequivocally prohibits any State or local government from banning IVF, ensuring that no family will be caught in the crossfire of State-level judicial interpretations. It provides peace of mind to parents and to aspiring parents, while still allowing States to implement reasonable health and safety standards. It ensures that access to IVF is fully protected by Federal law so that every family praying to have a child will be fully protected in their right to pursue parenthood. This isn't just policy. It is a promise to honor and support your desire to welcome a new baby into your family. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. This is a moment for us to unite political divides and affirm our shared belief in the sanctity of family and the promise of life. In just a moment, I will propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass the Cruz-Britt bill. Because if we truly stand with families, we must act now to ensure that IVF remains protected today and for generations to come. Now, for those of you in the gallery, those of you at home, there are times when Senate procedure can sound confusing. I want to explain what you are about to see. I am going to ask this body for unanimous consent to pass Senator Britt's and my legislation protecting IVF, putting it into Federal law, a clear Federal statutory protection for IVF. After I ask for consent, we are going to see a Democrat Senator stand up and begin speaking. When she begins speaking, you should listen to two magic words: ``I object.'' If the Democrats say those words, ``I object,'' it will defeat this bill. And I want you to understand all that is necessary is for the Democrats not to say those words, ``I object.'' We could have Democrat Senators stand up and give speeches about all of their policy priorities, but understand, the show vote this afternoon is not about IVF, because if the Democrats wanted to protect IVF, this bill would pass 100 to nothing right now. What the show vote this afternoon is about is Democrats want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars running TV ads in an election season falsely claiming that Republicans oppose IVF. So listen carefully, if you hear the words ``I object'' from Senate Democrats, then you will understand the only reason that IVF is not protected with strong, ironclad protection in Federal statute is because Senate Democrats cynically object to protecting IVF. And I would note to the members of the media who are writing on this, the Democrats are staging the show vote to get the headlines. They want you to write headlines: Every Republican opposes IVF. Well, if you are going to write those false headlines, at least include the facts that today the Senate would have passed 100 to nothing strong, clear Federal protection of IVF for every mom and dad, every parent in America but for the fact that Senate Democrats cynically object while they claim to support IVF. Well, let's listen and see what happens. Let's hear if we hear the words ``I object.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4368 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would note there is one reason and one reason only that the Senate has not passed 100 to nothing a clear, unequivocal Federal protection of IVF: because Senate Democrats cynically chose to object. The Senator from Washington raised all sorts of issues that are, frankly, red herrings. The issues she raised are current State law in multiple States, including Louisiana, including Missouri, including Georgia. Yet, IVF is fully protected and available in those States. Senator Britt and I very consciously focused this bill on issues that could command bipartisan agreement. There is not a word in this bill that any Senator, Democrat or Republican, disagrees with. Understand why the Democrats are objecting. The Democrats are objecting because they do not want to protect IVF in Federal statute. It is cynical because we are 49 days away from Election Day, and they intend to try to scare voters in elections across the country by misleading the voters--I will point out, at the same time that we have a Presidential election. Many of us served with the Vice President, Kamala Harris. I remember Vice President Harris voting again and again and again against border security, against a border wall. Yet, right now, Vice President Harris is spending millions of dollars running ads with pictures of Donald Trump's border wall. It is deeply cynical, and it is because she is running away from her open borders record. The same is true here. The Democrats are going to spend millions of dollars arguing that Republicans are opposed to IVF and ignoring the fact that it is Democrats standing up and objecting that prevent it from being protected in Federal law. The Democrats don't want to protect IVF because if we pass this law, do you know what? They couldn't run their misleading campaign commercials. So from a partisan perspective on the Democrat side, it is far better to block strong Federal legislation protecting IVF than to actually come together in a bipartisan way and pass this. I wish we had done that, but this is an election season, and perhaps that is asking too much from my colleagues.

Mr. CRUZ. I would happily yield to Senator Cornyn for a question.

Mr. CRUZ. As usual, my friend, the fellow Senator from Texas, you are not missing something. That is precisely what is going on. This is not lawmaking. This is politics. This is partisan politics. This is an election campaign commercial that the Democrats are engaging in. To make clear, Leader Schumer knows the result of the vote this afternoon. Why? Because we had the same vote just a couple of months ago. He knows exactly the result. Why are we voting on it again? Because they want reporters to write the same headlines again to deceive the voters. Again, I invite my Democrat colleagues, this should be an easy bill to support if--and this is a big ``if''--in good faith you actually want to protect IVF legislation. If you want a campaign issue, the worst thing for Democrats is actually to pass the Cruz-Britt bill because then it takes the issue off the table because every mom and dad and every woman or man who wants to be a mother or father knows IVF is protected. The Democrats don't want that.

Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to Senator Cornyn.

Mr. CRUZ. The Senator from Texas is exactly correct. As Senator Cornyn knows well, there are multiple ways to draft a bill. What the Democrats have drafted is a bill that is intended to force Republicans to vote no because that is the objective. They want the ``no'' vote. They deliberately have put poison pills in this bill. They call it an IVF bill, but it is a radical pro-abortion bill, and it is a radical anti-religious liberty bill. Their objective is they want their bill to fail because this is all about misleading campaign commercials. The bill that Senator Britt and I drafted--we worked very carefully to draft a bill that every Senator could agree with. There is not a word in our bill that the Democrats disagree with. Look, abortion is an issue that divides this Chamber. There are some of us who are pro-life; there are others who are pro-choice. Senator Britt and I recognized we were not going to resolve the disagreements on abortion on the floor today, so we deliberately drafted a bill that is focused on IVF specifically. There are no poison pills in our bill. There is nothing designed to force the Democrats to vote no. Senator Cornyn is exactly right that if our bill were on the floor, I believe it would pass. I believe any Democrat voting honestly would vote for it, but I think, at a minimum, we would get 60 votes and enough to pass it, which is why the Democrats object to taking it up-- because they want their bill to fail in order to be misleading.

Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CRUZ. I thank Senator Britt for that question. No, no Democrat has spoken to me. I am, like you, unequivocally in support of IVF, but, understand, the Democrats do not want to pass legislation protecting IVF. If you are trying to pass legislation, you don't put poison pills in it. That is what the Democrats have done. Their objective, their goal, is to have their partisan bill fail so that they can use it for political campaigns across this country. It is designed to fail, and it is cynical. It is also predicated on, sadly, the failure of the media--I would note there are no reporters that I see sitting in the Gallery. It is predicated on what they know the media will refuse to cover--that they are the ones blocking IVF. They are counting on the media to be partisan and to push their deceptive messaging. We should be protecting IVF. We should be standing unequivocally. As Senator Britt noted, all 49 Republicans stood and signed a joint letter saying we support IVF, we support protecting IVF. I would note, the last time Senator Britt and I came to this floor, we were joined by Senator Roger Marshall from Kansas. Senator Roger Marshall is a physician--he is an OB/GYN--who has performed IVF for years. He has helped hopeful parents become parents through IVF. And it is literally the cynical position of Democrats that an IVF doctor is opposed to IVF. I want to repeat that for you because it is such an absurd statement. It is the partisan political position of Senate Democrats that an IVF doctor--Roger Marshall has helped hundreds of parents conceive through IVF, and yet Senate Democrats claim he somehow opposes IVF. That is not true. Use your common sense. This is cynical, and it is wrong. But for those of you at home about to be subjected to millions of dollars of false campaign ads from the Democrats, just understand that if they are telling you that there are Senators who are trying to ban IVF, they are deliberately misleading you, and they are doing it because they don't want to defend their actual position on the issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached legal opinion of the Government Accountability Office, no. B-336512, titled ``Office of Management and Budget--Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to Controller Alert CA-23-6, Enhancing Transparency Through Use of the Investing in America Emblem on Signs,'' issued on August 29, 2024, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, while there is no doubt our country has greatly benefited from the internet, for some families, it has come at a painful and even tragic cost. Every parent I know is concerned about the online threats directed at our kids. Whether it is predators targeting children or online videos promoting self-harm, risky life choices, or undermining their lack of self-esteem, we all know someone who has had to grapple with the failure of Big Tech to take responsibility for the harms caused by its products. Today, the Senate is beginning to put Big Tech on notice. The Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA 2.0, will both help keep children safer online and protect their privacy. I want to thank Senators Blackburn, Blumenthal, Markey, and Cantwell for collaborating with me and my team over the past year to significantly improve both measures. In KOSA, we added an express preemption provision that will help limit the litigation magnet from a patchwork of State laws. We eliminated all FTC rulemaking authority, putting in place guardrails against government overreach. Importantly, we also struck an important balanced approach on the obligation tech companies have with respect to determining whether a user online is a minor in both KOSA and COPPA 2.0. Instead of the current law's age-verification approach--an actual knowledge standard that has permitted tech companies to rely on children absurdly claiming to have been born in 1882--tech companies will now have to bear more responsibility to enforce underage online accounts. This update is not a constructive knowledge standard, but it reflects, rather, a balance that puts greater responsibility on tech companies without imposing unfeasible requirements. Nearly 30 years after the original COPPA's passage, the internet has changed, and I believe COPPA 2.0 meets the moment to update the current privacy issues effectively. Congress should continue to build off the specific bipartisan provisions in COPPA 2.0 for children's privacy and enact a comprehensive data privacy bill. In the Commerce Committee, I intend to continue that work. KOSA and COPPA 2.0 are important first steps in protecting children online, but we are not finished. More work remains to be done. Senator Klobuchar and I have together introduced the Take It Down Act, which targets bad actors who use AI to create and publish on social media sites fake, explicit imagery of real people--often teenage girls. The Take It Down Act gives them the justice they deserve by criminalizing the spread of so-called revenge porn and requiring Big Tech to remove the images immediately upon notice by the victim. It also applies to fake images made using AI, deepfake images that we are seeing more and more becoming a plague targeting young people and in particular young women. Senator Schatz and I have also introduced the Kids Off Social Media Act, KOSMA, which builds upon KOSA by addressing specific harms to children from social media--especially in schools. Big Tech claims users under 13 aren't permitted, so KOSMA makes that explicit. It prohibits children under 13 from having social media accounts. It stops companies from targeting minors, and it requires schools to block social media in school. I hope this body will meet parents where they are and say enough is enough. Let's also soon pass KOSMA because there is no good reason for an 8-year-old to be on Instagram or a teenager to be doom-scrolling Twitter in a classroom at taxpayers' expense. Parents across the country agree: It is time Congress answered the call and held Big Tech accountable. I am proud to work alongside Republicans and Democrats. I am proud of the work the Commerce Committee has done to bring KOSA and COPPA 2.0 forward. I look forward to continuing this critically important work of protecting our kids online. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following intern and law clerk be granted floor privileges until August 2, 2024: Eugenie Davis and Michael Lettieri.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise at a time of widespread and acute peril for the national security of the United States and for America's allies. Led by China, our enemies and our adversaries--Russia, Iran, North Korea--are actively cooperating to target us and our allies all over the world. In extreme cases, they seek nothing less than the physical annihilation of the countries they are targeting. In Europe, Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In Asia, China is engaged in day-by-day aggression against our allies and is threatening another full-scale invasion of Taiwan. And in the Middle East, Israel is fighting for its survival in the face of a war of extermination being waged against it by the Iranian regime. October 7 was the worst 1-day mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust. Iran and its terrorists have attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip, from Lebanon, from Syria, from Judea and Samaria, from Yemen, from Iraq, and from Iran. And what has the Biden administration's policy been? Since the opening days of this administration, they have pursued an obscene policy of denying weapons to our allies while allowing resources to flow to our enemies. They immediately halted arms to our Arab allies that they were using against Iran's Houthi terrorists while lifting sanctions simultaneously on the Houthi terrorists. The Houthis immediately launched a vast offensive and today are significantly blocking shipping through the Red Sea. The administration denied critical weapons such as ATACMS to Ukraine at a period that they could have stalled Russia's offensive, providing both time and space for Iran to flood drones to be used by Russian forces against Ukraine. And, of course, the Biden administration flooded unaccountable hundreds of millions of dollars into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, which they knew would benefit Hamas. Joe Biden sent that money to Gaza, even though he was warned that the money would inevitably go to Hamas and be used for terrorism. I joined 19 Senators in making that point explicitly: If you send this money to Gaza, it will be used by Hamas for terrorism. And we now know that the Biden administration agreed with me. The Biden administration concluded that it was ``highly likely''--that is their assessment--``highly likely'' that the money going to Gaza would be used by Hamas for terrorism. Now, ordinarily, under U.S. anti-terrorism law, that is the end of the matter. If it is highly likely the money will be used for terrorism, you don't send it. Do you know what they did instead? They waived our anti-terrorism law and said: Send it anyway. I guess they are OK if Hamas uses U.S. dollars to murder Israelis because that is exactly what happened. After October 7, the administration didn't change. Even after October 7, the Biden administration has slowed and halted critical weapons that our Israeli allies need to counter Hamas. That utter incoherence has entangled this body. During the debate over the last national security supplemental, I and many other lawmakers found ourselves unable to support the policy, in part, because we did not believe that the Biden administration would faithfully implement the authorities and appropriations Congress would be providing. Those doubts were subsequently publicly confirmed. President Biden has explicitly said that he is blocking precision weapons to Israel and that he would even block artillery if Israel moves to fully root out Hamas from Rafah. I will add, Mr. President, that this policy is particularly egregious in the context of the Gaza pier because the Biden administration requires Israelis to provide force protection for the pier while denying them the weapons they need to do so. Senate Democrats have, unfortunately, found themselves in the position of knowing that this policy is both incoherent and catastrophic. But at the same time, it is their party's policy so they defend it anyway. What we should be doing is providing Israel weapons now and denying Hamas the resources it needs to continue its war of terror against Israel. That is why, in a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request to ensure that the Biden administration delivers to Israel the weapons that the Biden administration is withholding. This legislation has already passed the House. In a moment, it might pass the Senate. For folks at home who are watching, you should watch very carefully. When I raise the unanimous consent request, a Democrat Senator will stand up and begin speaking. He will begin by saying: ``Reserving the right to object,'' and then he will give some remarks. Listen for two words: ``I object'' because this is binary. If at the end of his remarks he says ``I object,'' it will defeat this motion, and it will mean that Senate Democrats have decided they agree with Joe Biden in blocking weapons to Israel. And if he doesn't--if he gives the identical speech and just pulls out his pen and crosses out those two words written at the bottom of the speech, he just doesn't say ``I object''--do you know what happens? The legislation that has already passed the House would pass the Senate unanimously, 100 to 0, and go to the President's desk for signature. Just about every Member of this body goes and gives speeches and says: I support Israel. Well, talk is cheap. If you support Israel, provide them the weapons they need in a time of war. We are going to find out if the Democrats are willing to do so or not. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 398, H.R. 8369; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I move to discharge S.J. Res. 89 from the Foreign Relations Committee.