Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I am sorry to say that my friend from Kansas is not wrong. In the 237 years of our Nation's history, I don't know that there has been a more shameful day in the U.S. Senate than today. What we just witnessed was a travesty. It was a travesty to the U.S. Constitution, and it was a travesty to the American people. And it is important to understand why the Democrats did what they did. We are here on the Senate floor right now, but I want the record to reflect that I am going to do a very accurate count of the number of Democrats who are with us. That would be zero, other than the Presiding Officer, and somebody has to preside. Not a single Democrat Senator chose to come to this floor and listen to one word of evidence. When it comes to the Constitution, the Democrats concluded that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas defying Federal law, ignoring the text of the statute, deliberately releasing criminal illegal aliens over and over and over again--that is just hunky-dory. You can't impeach him for that. Every Democrat just voted. By the way, every Cabinet member--guess what--you have just been given a blank slate. Ignore the law. When Democrats are in charge of the Senate, the entire Cabinet can ignore the law. It is no longer impeachable in Democrat wonderland when a member of the executive branch openly defies the law. By the way, every Democrat just voted that way. They didn't hear one word of argument. The majority leader didn't stand up and say: Here is the reason why it is OK. No, he didn't present that argument. They didn't read a brief. Nobody wrote a brief. They didn't care enough to know what Senator Lee just laid out, that the Biden Department of Justice went in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and said: If the executive defies the law, the answer is impeachment. The willingness of every Democrat to be blatantly hypocritical--just last year, the Biden Justice Department said: No, no, no, no, no. You can't sue in court when we, the Biden administration, defy the law. The answer is impeachment. And like three-card monte, every Senate Democrat said: No, no, no, no, no. The answer is not impeachment. I don't know what it is. Actually, I do know what it is. There is only one answer left, which is that everyone who is unhappy about the open border shows up in November. And, to use the phrase, throw the bums out. Because if you are not willing to do your job--is there not one Senator on that side of the aisle who cares enough to honor the Constitution? And, by the way, the second article they threw out said that lying to Congress is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It is not impeachable. Now, as the Senator from South Carolina pointed out, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. And do you know what happened? He was ultimately acquitted, but after a full trial, where they heard the evidence, when the Senate did its job. By the way, one of the impeachment managers was Senator Graham, who presented that evidence right here on this floor. And do you know what? Before Bill Clinton, there is a guy named Walter Nixon. You may not know who Walter Nixon is. Walter Nixon was a Federal judge who was convicted of perjury. From Mississippi, he was convicted of perjury in front of a grand jury, and he was impeached. And it went to the Senate, and the Senate convicted him and removed him from the bench. So do you want to know what the precedents were prior to today? You commit a crime--lying under oath, perjury--it is a high crime or misdemeanor that is impeachable. No more, because understand the Democrats rule here. This is all about-- this is not about the Constitution. None of them care. By the way, we repeatedly moved: Let's go into debate and hear the other side of the argument--no. Look, the famous three monkeys: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. That is just evil, what they did. They don't want to know because they don't care, because it is not about the Constitution. It is not about the law. It is about political expedience. But every bit as violent as what they did to the Constitution was that it is even more offensive what they did to the American people. Last year, 853 migrants died crossing illegally into this country. That is almost three a day. You go down to the southern border. You go down to Texas--which the Democrats don't bother to do because they don't care about the people dying--and you see photograph after photograph of the Texas farmers and ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. Many of my colleagues who have been down there with me have seen the elderly people the human traffickers have abandoned, have seen the pregnant women the human traffickers have abandoned, and have seen the infants and toddlers left to die. The Senate Democrats just told the American people they don't give a damn about the bodies and the people who have died the last 3\1/2\ years, and they don't give a damn about the people who are going to die next week. Next week, more migrants are going to die. But we brought 19 Senators down to the border. We went out on a boat in the Rio Grande. We saw a man floating dead in the water. Senator Lee was there. Senator Kennedy was there. He had died that day. The Democrats just told the American people they don't care. When you go down to the border and you look at the children who have been brutalized--just about all of us here are parents. I will tell you, when you look in the eyes of a little girl or a little boy who has been abused by traffickers and you see it--you see the pain. You see the agony of children trapped in sex trafficking. The Democrats just said they don't care. They won't hear the evidence. They don't care if it is deliberate, and they don't care that it will happen next week, that it will happen tomorrow. Tomorrow, there will be children brutalized because of the Democrats' open border policies and not a one of them care. They don't care about the women who are repeatedly sexually assaulted. Again, when you look at the eyes of these women coming over, it is heartbreaking. And the Democrats just said: We don't care. And they don't care about the more than 100,000 Americans who died last year from drug overdoses, the highest in our Nation's history. Seventy percent of that is from Chinese fentanyl coming across our southern border. And the Democrats said: We don't want to hear about it. We are not interested in the Americans dying. You know what else they don't care about? They don't care about the criminals who are being released day after day after day. The Biden administration is releasing murderers and rapists and child molesters, and every week we see a different story of somebody being killed, somebody being raped, another child being assaulted by illegal immigrants being released by Alejandro Mayorkas and Joe Biden. How shocking that there wasn't one Democrat who said: You know, massive human suffering matters. We ought to hear the evidence. How shocking is it that there wasn't one Democrat--one. There are 51 of them on that side. Not a single one could screw up the courage to say: Let's do our job. Let's hear the evidence. How shocking is it that not a Democrat cares about the terrorists who are streaming across our southern border? The nation of Iran has called for jihad against America. Hamas has called for jihad against America. Hezbollah has called for jihad against America. And Joe Biden and the Democrats have put out a red carpet and said: If you want to murder Americans, come across our southern border and we the Democrats will welcome you. Like many of us on this floor, I was in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2001. I remember the horror. I lost a good friend. Barbara Olson was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I remember the smell of smoke and sulfur and burning. I remember the agony, and I remember the national unity that came after 9/11, and Democrats and Republicans came together. I don't know that I have ever been more proud of a President than when President George W. Bush stood on a pile of rubble with a bullhorn, talking to firefighters and New Yorkers. And one of the men in the crowd called out and said: ``We can't hear you.'' And he responded: Well, I can hear you. And soon the whole world is going to hear you as well. We were as one. Today, not a single Democrat was able to mount up the courage to tell the majority leader: You know what, I don't want another 9/11 to happen. The House impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, brought evidence of releasing terrorist after terrorist after terrorist. We ought to hear the evidence. I believe today we have a greater risk of a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil then at any point since September 11. And every Democrat just told the American people it doesn't matter to them to hear the evidence. I appreciate my Republican colleagues who are here, who are willing to hear the evidence, willing to engage, willing to stand up and defend the American people. But you know what? The Democrats who aren't here, they aren't here because you know who also is not here? If you look up at the Gallery, the reporters are all gone. The couple of folks in the back, I hope you all write. But the reporters are absent. That is the Democrats' plan. What is fascinating? We are presenting argument--many of us, particularly those of us on the Judiciary Committee, but many of us have presented those arguments over and over and over again in hearings--not a Democrat arguing from the other side. It is an issue unlike any other issue I know of in politics. Listen, if we are arguing about taxes as Republicans, we say: We can cut taxes. It is good for the American people. Do you know what Democrats do? They stand up with their talking points: No, tax the rich. OK, fine. We have a debate. When we are talking about just about every issue, the Democrats will argue on the other side. They have their spin. What is fascinating-- where is Dick Durbin, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, standing up and saying: No. No, it is not right that migrants are dying every day. No, it is not right that children are being assaulted every day. No, it is not right that women are being sexually assaulted every day. No, it is not right that they are releasing terrorists every day. They are not there. Not a Democrat is there. Why? Because you can't defend it. I will tell you, South Texas for 100-plus years has been a Democrat region of our State. It is turning red with the speed of a freight locomotive because nobody can see the suffering that is unfolding and defend it. And the Democrats, by their silence and by the complicity of the press corps--they are counting on the press corps to write stories: ``Victory for the Democrats.'' Yes, they got rid of the impeachment trial. That is the headline news. Understand, they don't have a substantive defense. None of them dispute a word we are saying. Not a single Democrat has stood up and said: You know, it is wrong that Laken Riley would still be alive if Joe Biden hadn't let her murderer go. They know it is right. The reason they didn't want a trial is because they don't want the American people to hear about it, and it is our obligation to make sure the American people do.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend the following: (1) Rule VII, paragraph 2; (2) Rule VIII, paragraph 2 the phrase ``during the first two hours of a new legislative day.''; and (3) Rule XIV, paragraph 6 for the purpose of considering on the same day as introduction an organizing resolution relating to the impeachment trial of Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, the text of which is as follows:

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, there are times when the eyes of history are upon the U.S. Senate. This is one of those times. We are facing today an existential crisis at our southern border. It is qualitatively different than anything we have ever faced at our southern border in the history of our Nation. A few moments ago, the Senator from Illinois acknowledged the border was broken, although he acknowledged it in the classic Washington way of using the passive voice--``the border is broken''--that is designed to hide and obscure who broke the border. He is correct that the border is broken, but it was broken deliberately by the President of the United States, Joe Biden; by the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris; by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas; and by every single Senate Democrat who repeatedly has rubber-stamped and embraced this open border policy. The Senator from Illinois said the border is broken. He is also the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, on which Senator Lee serves, and on which Senator Kennedy serves. In the past 3 years, we have held precisely zero hearings on the crisis on our southern border. The Senate Judiciary Committee cannot be bothered to inquire as to the cause of this crisis. Understand why Alejandro Mayorkas became the second Cabinet Secretary in the history of the United States to be impeached. The last one was in 1876--the Secretary of War--and now, 148 years later, Alejandro Mayorkas joins him. It is not because Alejandro Mayorkas is incompetent. It is not because he is negligent. It is not because he is bad at his job. Rather, unfortunately, Alejandro Mayorkas is very, very good at his job. However, he does not view his job as securing the border. He does not view his job as protecting our homeland security. Rather, he views his job as openly and directly violating--flouting-- Federal law and aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of this United States. He is not trying to secure the border. He is trying to accelerate the invasion that is happening. He wants more illegal aliens and more criminal illegal aliens released into this country. Under the Biden administration, 10.4 million illegal immigrants have been released into this country. Senate Democrats are desperate to avoid the misery and suffering and death that their radical policies have produced. At a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I asked Secretary Mayorkas how many migrants died last year crossing illegally into this country. He said: I don't know. I have no idea. I said: Of course, you don't. The number is 853. That is a number from your own Department, but you don't care about the dead bodies that Texas farmers and ranchers are finding--nearly three a day. When I brought 19 Senators down to the border to see firsthand what was happening, we went out on a boat on the Rio Grande River, and we saw a man floating dead in the river, who had drowned that day. By the way, those 19 Senators were only Republicans. I have invited my Democrat colleagues. I have invited the Senator from Illinois: Come to the southern border and see the people who are dying because of the policies you support. None of them have any interest in seeing firsthand the deaths they are producing. I have looked in the eyes of children--of little boys and little girls--who have been brutalized by human traffickers day after day after day. None of the Senate Democrats want to take responsibility for the little girls and little boys to whom unspeakable evils are being done. I have looked in the eyes of women who have been repeatedly and violently raped by human traffickers. None of the Senate Democrats want to take responsibility for the horrific violence and suffering their open border policies have produced. When I asked Secretary Mayorkas about colored wristbands on a poster I displayed at the Senate Judiciary Committee, he responded by saying he had no idea what those wristbands are. Those colored wristbands are worn by just about every illegal alien coming to this country. The colors correspond to how many thousands of dollars they owe the cartels. Understand, the cartels don't view them as human beings. They don't even view them as livestock. They are cargo. The colors show how many thousands of dollars they owe. If you stand on the banks of the Rio Grande River, you will see hundreds or even thousands of those colored wristbands laying there in the grass. And what Alejandro Mayorkas was saying, as I told him--I said: Mr. Secretary, you have just told the American people you are utterly incompetent at your job, and you don't even give a damn enough to pretend to try. When I invited my Democratic colleagues to come to the border and see the wristbands, the Democrats don't take us up on it. Understand why those wristbands matter. Thousands upon thousands of teenage boys, they turn themselves in to the Biden administration. They say: Where do you want to go? Some will say Chicago; some will say New York; some will say Los Angeles. And the Biden administration puts them on an airplane, puts them on a bus, and sends them to every city in America. The mayor of Chicago, the hometown of the Senator from Illinois, has declared it a crisis, the illegal aliens pouring into his city. Yet Senate Democrats not only will do nothing about it, they continue the policies in place that make it worse and worse and worse. Understand, those teenage boys, when they arrive in Chicago or L.A. or New York--and, by the way, the Democratic mayor of L.A. has also said it is a crisis. The Democratic mayor of New York has said it is a crisis. The Democratic mayor of Boston has said it is a crisis. The Democratic Mayor of Washington, DC, has said it is a crisis. When they arrive, they owe the cartels thousands of dollars. If they don't pay the money back, the cartels will murder their families. And so they are working for the cartels. There are crimes going on in your home State of California today by illegal immigrants the Biden administration has released that are working for the cartels. There are Californians who are being robbed right now, who are being carjacked, who are being assaulted. There are people in Chicago who are being robbed, who are being assaulted. You want to understand the misery, take a look at Laken Riley. There has been a lot of discussion about Laken Riley; although, sadly, only on one side of this Chamber. If a Democratic Senator has said the words ``Laken Riley,'' I have not heard it come from their mouths. Laken Riley was a beautiful 22-year-old woman who was murdered because of the Democrats' open border policies. How can I say that with such certainty? Because her murderer, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, was apprehended in El Paso. We had him. We had him. He was arrested. All Joe Biden and all Alejandro Mayorkas had to do was follow the law, and we would have put the murderer on a plane and flew him back to Venezuela. And he never would have been in Georgia murdering Laken Riley. But Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas made the decision that politics matters more than protecting American citizens, and so they released this violent criminal. He went from El Paso to New York City, where he was arrested again. We had him a second time, this time for endangering the safety of a child. Unfortunately, New York City is a sanctuary city run by Democratic politicians, so what did they do? They let him go a second time, and he went down to Georgia. And Laken Riley, 22 years old, was out jogging, a nursing student. She is out jogging like millions of people do across America, and this murderer took a brick and beat her to death. If either Joe Biden or Alejandro Mayorkas had followed the law or if New York had kept him in jail, she would still be alive. Do you know what I also haven't heard from Senate Democrats? The name Jeremy Caceres. Jeremy Caceres is a beautiful 2-year-old boy, murdered in Prince George's County, MD, just miles from where we are right now, murdered by an illegal alien that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas released. Just a few weeks ago, news broke of an illegal alien from Haiti that not only did Biden release but flew from Haiti to the United States. The Biden administration has had over 300,000 secret flights bringing illegal aliens to America. In this case, they brought the Haitian illegal immigrant to Boston, MA. And what happened just a couple of weeks ago, he was arrested for violently raping a 15-year-old girl who is seriously disabled. These are the very real consequences of the Democrats' open border policies. Yet Democratic Senators don't want to confront the people who are dying, who are suffering because of them. Alejandro Mayorkas was not impeached because he is negligent; he is impeached because he is actively defying the law. By the way, he has turned the Mexican drug cartels into decabillionaires. According to the New York Times, in 2018, the revenue from human trafficking the cartels earned was roughly $500 million. Last year, it was $13 billion. Thanks to Joe Biden and Senate Democrats, the drug cartels' profits have gone up 2,600 percent. That is why the House has impeached Alejandro Mayorkas. Now, what is the Senate to do when impeachment occurs? Well, fortunately, we have a document that tells us what to do. It is called the Constitution of the United States. Under the Constitution, it is the sole power of the House to impeach and the sole power and responsibility of the Senate to try. Twenty-one times in our Nation's history in more than 200 years, the House has impeached an individual and sent Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate. Here is what has happened in those 21 times: In one time, the Senate concluded it had no jurisdiction because the individual impeached was a Senator, and impeachment only attaches to members of the executive branch or the judicial branch. So they dismissed that one for lack of jurisdiction. In three of them, the individuals impeached were no longer in office, and so the Senate didn't act because it was moot. It was no longer necessary to resolve because the individual impeached was out of office. In the remaining 17 times, all of them--100 percent of the time--the Senate conducted a trial, the Senate heard evidence, and the Senate adjudicated guilt or innocence. Each Senator stood up and said ``guilty'' or ``not guilty.'' Well, next week, when the articles arrive, we are told that Senator Schumer intends not to proceed to a trial, not to follow the Senate rules of impeachment, not to allow any evidence but simply to move to table--to throw it out at the outset. Why is Senator Schumer doing so? Three reasons: No. 1, he desperately, desperately wants to stop the House managers from presenting their evidence. The Senator from Illinois says: He knows there is no evidence. It is like an ostrich putting his head in the sand. One way to know there is no evidence is look at no evidence, hear no evidence, consider no evidence, and do everything you can to prevent the American people from hearing evidence. No. 2, the Senate Democrats want to stop a trial. They don't want the American people to know the suffering and misery and dead bodies their policies are producing. But No. 3, the Senate Democrats desperately want to prevent Democrats who are on the ballot right now from casting a vote of guilty or not guilty. They want to avoid an adjudication, because, do you know what? Senate Democrats are back in their home States saying: Gosh, I am really concerned about illegal immigration. If they were really concerned, we can decide that next week by voting to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold a trial. Now, let me say something. I look and see the Senator from Illinois; I see the Senator from West Virginia. All three of us were on the Senate floor at another momentous time in 2013, when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option and blew up the filibuster for nominations. That did enormous damage to the institution of the Senate. I remember standing in the well of the Senate, 10 feet from where I am now, and turning to Senator Amy Klobuchar that day. I told her, I said: You are going to regret this day. This is a catastrophic mistake. I told her then: The result of this decision from Harry Reid and the Democrats will be more judges and Justices on the Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If you want to know why Roe v. Wade has been overturned, it is because Harry Reid and the Democrats exercised the nuclear option in 2013. Had they not done so, there is no way this Senate would have confirmed all three of the nominees put forward. It was the direct consequence of the utter disregard for this institution Senate Democrats have. I bring that up because we are at a second moment that is equally consequential, except instead of nuking the Senate rules as they did in 2013, Senate Democrats are preparing to nuke the Constitution of the United States itself, the impeachment clause, which every single time that the Senate has had jurisdiction and the person has been in office, the Senate has held a trial. If Senate Democrats proceed next week to table that, they will blow up that precedent. I am here to make a prediction. Senate Democrats sometimes behave like small children with no ability to look to the future and anticipate the consequences of their actions. Everyone can recognize right now we have got a Presidential election coming up in November. None of us knows the outcome. I am going to posit to you right now: There is a significant chance Donald Trump will be reelected as President. I am also going to posit to you that is an outcome no one on the Democratic side wants to see happen. There is also a significant chance Republicans will retake the Senate. But there is a possibility that Democrats will retake the House. That is a very likely scenario in this election. If that happens--I turn to my friend from West Virginia because I want you to contemplate what will happen. If that happens, I am going to make a prediction: One year from today, we are going to be on the Senate floor, and if Democrats control the House, they will have impeached Donald Trump again, impeached him a third time and maybe a fourth time and maybe a fifth time. If they have the House, that is what they are going to do. And if and when those impeachment articles come over to the Senate, if Senate Democrats next week dismiss this impeachment, I am telling you right now, Senate Republicans will do the same thing to any impeachment that comes over from the House. What Senate Democrats will have done is effectively eliminated the Senate's power of impeachment anytime the Senate is the same party as the President. Many of us were here the last time this scenario happened. It was the first Trump impeachment. The first Trump impeachment, he had a Democratic House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. The Democrats in the House impeached Donald Trump. They sent Articles of Impeachment over. The Senate Republicans could have played these games and tried to table the impeachment and said: We are going to shirk our constitutional duty; we are not going to have a trial. But we didn't. We followed the Constitution. My question for my colleagues here is: Is there even one Democrat who cares about the institution of the Senate, who cares about the Constitution, who cares about democracy? Democrats love to pound their chest and say they are defending democracy while they are engaging in a relentless assault on democracy. I have an organizing resolution that would follow the precedent and simply appoint an impeachment committee to hear the trial. The trial doesn't have to be on the Senate floor; that is typically done for Presidents. Instead, the impeachment committee could hear the evidence, which is what the Senate has done over and over and over again. By the way, every Democrat who says we have got other things to focus on--FISA and other matters--the impeachment committee would proceed parallel with the Senate floor considering other business. So it would delay nothing on the Senate floor to follow our Constitution and have an impeachment committee. But it would avoid destroying the impeachment power of the Senate, destroying the Constitution. And it would also give the American people a chance to hear the evidence and to hear the presentation of the House managers. Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 622; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes to respond to Senator Durbin.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, nowhere in Senator Durbin's remarks did we hear any mention of the children being brutalized by traffickers. Nowhere did we hear of the women trapped in sex slavery. Nowhere did we hear the words ``Laken Riley.'' Nowhere did we hear ``Jeremy Caceres.'' Nowhere did we hear a word about the dead bodies--three a day, nearly-- that are being found on Texas properties. Nowhere did we hear a word about the suffering. Instead, what did he do? He pointed to the Democrats' longstanding objection that granted amnesty to as many people as possible so they get more Democrat voters. The Gang of 8 bill was a terrible bill. And Senator Durbin is unhappy that democracy operated and the House of Representatives made the decision not to pass it. That is the way our system works. That is what led Senate Democrats and Joe Biden to decide to just open the border lawlessly because they couldn't actually get the votes to pass their bill. The Schumer bill he is talking about would have made this situation worse. And understand what Senator Durbin is saying. It is the policy of Senate Democrats to support these open borders. They don't have any arguments on the merits. By the way, Joe Biden inherited the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. All he had to do was nothing because we had success in securing the border. And Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas deliberately broke the border, and they continue the policies in place that ensure tomorrow more children will be brutalized and more women are going to be raped. They know that, and they are not willing to do anything to stop it. That is, I believe, immoral and wrong, and the Senate should hold a trial as the Constitution requires. We owe that to the American people.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882, with further amendment No. 1804.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, right now, Israel is facing the worst war in the Middle East in 50 years. On October 7, more than 1,200 Israelis were murdered by Hamas terrorists; more than 30 Americans were murdered by Hamas terrorists. Hamas was funded by Iran. Hezbollah is funded by Iran. In the last 3 years, the Biden administration has flowed more than $100 billion to Iran, has sent the money that paid for the Hamas terrorists that committed those act of atrocities. This amendment is very simple: It prohibits the Biden administration from sending billions of dollars to Iran. The ayatollah pledges death to America and death to Israel. The question is: Does the United States of America want to be responsible for funding the genocidal, theocratic lunatic who leads Iran, who is funding Hamas, who is waging war against Israel? The Democrats are going to move to table. And so a vote for yes is a vote to fund Iran. A vote for no is to say: Not one more penny should go to the lunatics in Iran.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, on Monday of this week, I visited the towns of Fritch and Borger in the Panhandle of Texas. Fritch is a town of roughly 1,800 residents. They are no strangers to hard times. In 1992, a tornado a mile wide ripped through the town and destroyed over 1,300 homes. Ten years ago, in 2014, a wildfire in Fritch destroyed over 100 homes. In the past week and a half, Fritch and the rest of the Texas Panhandle, and the Oklahoma Panhandle as well, have been dealing with devastating wildfires. When I was there on Monday, 242 homes had been lost. I met with local officials, county judges, mayors, the police chiefs, fire chiefs, volunteers at churches, and charities. I met with families who have been devastated and lost everything. I saw homes that had been burned beyond recognition. At one home I saw, outside was parked a truck that had been utterly burned and charred. The heat was so intense that the windshield glass had melted, and there were just pools of glass on the hood. I also saw, in front of a house, a motorcycle--I think it was a Harley--that had been utterly incinerated. The tires were burned and gone. I saw a boat--I think it was a bass boat, a fishing boat--again, utterly incinerated, nothing but fiberglass just melted on the ground. One of the officials I met with was Volunteer Fire Chief Zeb Smith. I met with Chief Smith on Monday. Less than 24 hours after, Chief Smith passed away fighting that wildfire, running into a home that was on fire, trying to stop the blaze. He had been fighting fires for 9 days straight when he entered that home first thing Tuesday morning. On Monday, I asked Chief Smith: Have any firefighters been injured yet? He said: ``Thankfully, no.'' Neither he nor I knew when we were having that conversation that, 24 hours later, he would be first, and he would give his life to save his community. These wildfires have been raging for a week and a half, and they devastated communities like Fritch all the way from Lake Meredith to Canadian. One of the fires, the Smokehouse Creek fire, is the largest wildfire in Texas history and the second largest in our Nation's history. The scar from these fires can be seen from space, and they currently cover more acreage than the entire State of Rhode Island. These fires have had a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers in Texas. More than 500 structures have been lost, and 10,000 miles' worth of barbed wire has been destroyed. It is still unclear exactly how many cattle have perished, but we know it is thousands upon thousands of cattle that have been taken by the fire. I texted a good friend of mine who lives in Canadian. I told her I was thinking of her and just asked how she was doing and how she was doing with the fires. I didn't expect her response. She responded: Well, not too well. My home burned down, so did my barn, and I lost half my cattle. But then she responded: Do you know what? I am actually feeling pretty lucky because the ranchers on both sides of me lost all their cattle. I have to say I prayed for my friend. I prayed for all the men and women in the panhandle. But that response also embodies the frontier spirit. These are tough Texans. The destruction we are seeing is enormous. Throughout all of this, to date, there have been only three deaths attributed to the wildfires. That is extraordinary given the magnitude of this disaster as there could easily have been scores and scores of deaths. That is a testament to the firefighters and the first responders in the panhandle who have been tirelessly working to get people out of harm's way and to contain the fires. At times, the fires have been traveling more than 200 yards per second. That is how fast these fires have been moving. Right now, as this disaster is unfolding in Texas, the first priority is to contain these fires, to put them out. Texans are working to stop their spread. The weather has been a big factor. A few days ago, fortunately, there was some cold. There was some wet weather with snow and ice. That slowed the fires some, but then the weather got drier and windier, which are ideal conditions for spreading fire. So, right now, there are firefighters heroically battling massive fires, risking their lives. When I was there, I was told that over 60 fire departments from across Texas and across the country have sent firefighters to battle the blaze. Monday night, I was at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, and I saw the Houston fire chief. He told me Houston had sent firefighters all the way up to the panhandle to help battle the blaze. To anyone in the panhandle who sees this, I want to ask you: Please listen very, very carefully to your local officials. Listen to emergency responders. If they give you an evacuation order, treat it seriously. Keep your families safe. At the end of the day, it is tragic when someone loses a home, but a home can be replaced. Your family members cannot. This fire is dangerous, and our first priority needs to be preserving life and getting people out of harm's way. The second step is to shift to relief and rebuilding, and rebuilding is a process that is going to take years. In the short term, there are charities that have stepped up and are engaged, including the Salvation Army and the Red Cross and their local churches. You know, I want to say something. I have been in the Senate for 12 years. Texas is a big State, and as a big State, we have our share of natural disasters--from hurricanes ravaging the gulf coast, to tornadoes doing enormous devastation, to this wildfire raging in the panhandle right now. As Texas's Senator, it is my responsibility to stand with those communities in a time of crisis and in the aftermath rebuilding. Every time we have had a natural disaster in Texas, it is heartbreaking when you see the loss of life and the suffering, but, consistently, it is also inspiring. It is inspiring because of the reaction of Texans in a time of crisis. They come together, Texans helping Texans, holding on to each other, supporting each other. When Hurricane Harvey hit the gulf coast and home after home was flooded, I remember Texans would go and rescue their neighbors. They were jumping on bass boats because the streets were flooded, and they would go from house to house, pulling people out of harm's way. Rednecks in bass boats is what I called them, and it was the spirit of Texas. The beauty in that time is there are no partisan divisions. There are no Republicans and Democrats. People don't care about race or ethnicity or religion. It is just Texans helping Texans. That is what I saw in Fritch and Borger, that same spirit of Texans helping Texans. I will tell you, in a time of crisis, the church steps up, and the church should. The church should show love. When I was in the panhandle, I stopped at multiple churches and relief centers. I thanked the volunteers who were there. They were giving out food. They were giving out water. They were giving out diapers. They were giving out supplies for people who had lost everything, and I thanked them. I visited with one woman whose home had burned down, and her daughter's home had burned down. Yet, I will tell you, she was smiling and was in good spirits. She said: Do you know what? My family is alive and safe. I mentioned that, in Fritch, 242 homes had burned down. The county judge told me, though, there were only half a dozen people in the local shelter they had stood up because everyone else whose home had burned down was presumably staying with friends or family or loved ones. It was other Texans who said: Hey, you lost your home; come stay with me. That is inspiring. It is powerful. That is what Texans do. There are also things we can and should do at the Federal level to help the panhandle. With every local official, I assured: Do you have the Federal resources you need? Do you have the assistance right now in crisis? Then, going forward, my office has been working hand in hand with State officials and local officials and is beginning to coordinate Federal resources to fight the fires. Indeed, I have already filed an amendment to the minibus the Senate is considering right now to increase the funding for wildfire relief to help the people impacted by this. I will continue working on measures to provide disaster relief for Texans in harm's way--from the people who have lost their homes to our ranchers who have suffered the devastating loss of livestock. We need to stand with the panhandle and help recover from this historic disaster. There is an old panhandle saying up there that people have ``Panhandle Spirit''--a spirit of humility; a spirit of companionship; a spirit that when a neighbor needs help, by God, you help him. The whole country has seen that spirit in the past few days. Thousands of bales of hay and cattle feed have been trucked up daily from ranchers wanting to help out fellow ranchers. Hundreds of pallets of water and food and clothes have been donated to help people in need. That same spirit that built Texas is the same spirit that makes the Lone Star State so unique. That is the spirit that keeps our firefighters fighting the blazes, that keeps our ranchers rebuilding the fences and people picking up the pieces and rerooting in the land they love. Together, with that same spirit and that same determination that people in the Panhandle Plains have had for generations, we will rebuild. We will come back even stronger than ever. God bless our firefighters, and God bless our first responders. God bless all the Texans who have lost their homes in the past few days and those Texans who have lost loved ones. We are praying for you, and we will help you rebuild. I would like to close by again talking about Chief Smith. The loss of Zeb Smith has left a huge hole in the community. On social media, the Fritch Volunteer Fire Department wrote: Just know that right now we are not OK. We love our chief, our brother, our friend. Please be patient with us. The Hutchinson County Office of Emergency Management team stated about Chief Smith: His exemplary leadership was evident in his tireless efforts over the past week, where he worked diligently to protect and safeguard his community and fellow citizens. Chief Smith was a hero. His name will not be forgotten. In his honor, I had a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol to recognize his heroic service. Chief Smith gave his life on Tuesday of this week so that his fellow Texans could live. To the family and friends and loved ones of Chief Smith, we are mourning with you, and we are celebrating a life well lived. May God bless the people of Texas. We will defeat these wildfires. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to pass the I-27 Numbering Act, bipartisan legislation to officially designate the route between Laredo, TX, and Raton, NM, as the future Interstate 27. I will say I am particularly gratified that the Senator from New Mexico is presiding because this is legislation that he and I offered together. It is bipartisan legislation that is supported by the State of Texas and the State of New Mexico. This bill is the next step to advance major highway infrastructure in Texas and New Mexico that will support trade and commerce and jobs and economic development. What is so important about a future interstate number? By officially designating the highways between Laredo and Raton as future Interstate 27, this bill is a clear signal to the communities and businesses across Texas and New Mexico that Congress supports their work to develop the current highways to become part of the Interstate System. Communities across this route need better infrastructure because of the increasing demands to move goods and people. Last year, Mexico was the top U.S. trade partner, with $798 billion of trade between our nations. That is higher than the trade with our second and third biggest trading partners, Canada and China. Even better, the port of entry in Laredo, TX, was the top trade gateway in the United States, outperforming the Port of Los Angeles-- Laredo, TX. This is fantastic news for Texas. It means more jobs and economic development in Texas to move those goods. It is also part of a broader trend of a flourishing freight business in Texas. Last year, I was proud to pass bipartisan, bicameral legislation to streamline the Presidential permit application process for bridges across the Rio Grande River in South Texas--four bridges: two in Laredo, one in Brownsville, one in Eagle Pass. And two of them are along the future I-27 route, the World Trade Bridge in Laredo, currently with 8 lanes--the proposal is to expand that to 18 lanes--and the Puerto Verde Bridge in Maverick County. Passing the I-27 Numbering Act would support the increased trade we are expecting to come across those new bridges and those new lanes of traffic. We have received letters of support for the I-27 Numbering Act from the Texas and New Mexico Departments of Transportation, the agencies tasked with building infrastructure along this route. We also have strong support from the Ports-to-Plains Alliance, which has worked so hard to bring the ports-to-plains route to reality. We have strong support from cities up and down the future Interstate 27. Notably, the Texas Department of Transportation is working to improve infrastructure all along the future I-27. TxDOT currently has $5.5 billion in active projects along the route related to planning, engineering, and construction, including $481 million from the Texas Transportation Commission to upgrade parts of the route to a four-lane divided highway. I want to thank Senator Lujan, who is presiding right now; Senator Cornyn, my colleague from Texas; and Senator Heinrich, your colleague from New Mexico, for working hand in hand with me on this bill. It is notable that all four Senators representing Texas and New Mexico are standing in unison with this bill because it is good for Texas, it is good for New Mexico, and it is good for the country. There should be no objection to this bill. The Senate previously passed this bill unanimously in July of last year. It then passed the House, which made some very small technical changes in December of last year. And there were no substantive changes to the bill, which means there should be no objections here now. The Senate should pass the I-27 Numbering Act today. Before I proceed, I want to yield to my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 992.

Mr. CRUZ. I move to concur in the House amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today with a motion to commit to instruct that H.R. 2 be added to this continuing resolution. H.R. 2 contains a comprehensive plan to secure the border, to stop catch-and-release, to build the wall, to stop visa overstays, and to reform abuse of immigration, parole, and asylum laws. In the past couple of weeks, we have seen tragedy across this country, including of a 22-year-old woman murdered in the State of Georgia, including a 2-year-old child murdered in the State of Virginia, including a 14-year-old child raped in Boston, MA, including a child under 14 raped in Louisiana--all by illegal aliens released by the Biden administration. It is time for this to end. This bill has passed the House, and if the Senate wants to secure our open borders, we can do so right now-- today. I urge an affirmative vote.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. On Saturday, March 2, the great State of Texas will celebrate 188 years since we declared our independence from Mexico and fought for liberty. In the fight for our independence, many brave Texans laid down their lives at the Alamo, including William Barret Travis, James Bowie, and Davy Crockett. They risked everything to make liberty a reality for generations of Texans to come. It is a tradition on Texas Independence Day to read the words of Colonel Travis, leader of the besieged forces at the Alamo. His call for reinforcements resounded across Texas, across America, and across the world, and it reminds us of the bravery of those who fought there and died for liberty. I have had the blessing to read this letter aloud many, many times, and every time, it stirs the spirit and speaks to the heart. Commandancy of The Alamo, Bejar, Feby 24th. 1836. To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World-- Fellow Citizens & compatriots-- I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man--The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death. [Signed] William Barret Travis. [Lieutenant colonel commandant]. P.S. The Lord is on our side--When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn--We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves. Travis. At the battle of Santa Jacinto on April 21, 1836, the Texans finally secured a decisive victory. We won our independence and formed the Republic of Texas, a new nation. Texas was an independent nation for 9 years before we officially became part of the United States of America in February of 1846. Sam Houston, the founding father, the George Washington of the Lone Star State, was also born 231 years ago on March 2, on Texas Independence Day. Sam Houston was an extraordinary American. He was born in Virginia. He spent many years in Tennessee, where he served in the U.S. House of Representatives and then became Governor of Tennessee. In Texas, he led the Texans to victory in the Battle of San Jacinto. When Texas became an independent nation, Sam Houston served as President twice before Texas finally became part of the United States. Later, he served in the U.S. Senate and finally as Governor of Texas. He is the only man in American history to serve as Governor of two separate States. Sam Houston was a tireless, talented leader and a great statesman who believed in liberty. His words, ``Govern wisely and as little as possible,'' still ring true today, and the Lone Star State still follows that adage. To every Texan, I wish you a gloriously happy Texas Independence Day. May God continue to bless the great State of Texas and the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, over the next 2 weeks, more than 7.5 million Americans will fly to see loved ones and to celebrate the holidays--a record number. This is no easy feat. A seamless travel experience depends on airlines, on air traffic controllers, on airport managers, on TSA screeners all working together for the aviation system to run efficiently during times of extreme strain like the holiday season. At the center of this effort is the Federal Aviation Administration, but there is one problem: The FAA's authorities are set to expire at the end of the year. Without the FAA extension, air travel and air cargo for those counting on quick shipping during Christmas and New Year's will be severely impacted. At the moment, we face a potential challenge of not extending the FAA's authorities because of the objections of a Senate Democrat. This is irresponsible and, frankly, bad for the safety Agency's ability to operate effectively. For the past year, Senator Cantwell, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and myself have worked to pass a long-term FAA authorization. The authorization we drafted on a bipartisan basis addresses airport infrastructure, workforce challenges, ATC staffing, protections for passengers, the safety framework, manufacturing. I could go on. It is an important bill that makes progress toward solving some of the challenges facing aviation, but we need to make sure we get it right. We now find ourselves having to pass a second short-term FAA authorization in less than 6 months, without even having gotten the bill through committee. This situation was entirely avoidable, but special interests, in particular the pilots' unions like ALPA, have decided that if they can't get their way, then the American people should pay the price. There have been several times throughout this process where we thought we had a deal, but, inevitably, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, often spurred on by the union, have tanked these agreements. Each month, it seems, there is a new issue we are told cannot be in the FAA bill because the unelected special interests are opposed to it. First, it was a modest reform to update pilot training. Then it was raising the retirement age for pilots. Imagine telling a perfectly healthy 66-year-old pilot who wants to fly, no, you can't fly anymore because your union has decided that younger pilots--with a lifetime of union dues still to pay--are more important than you are. What next will unelected, unaccountable, special interests tell Senate Democrats that we are not allowed to have in the FAA bill? Let me be clear. Short-term extensions are not good for the FAA. This extension until March should be the last extension. I am not satisfied with kicking the can down the road. I don't presume to speak on behalf of my partner in this effort, Senator Cantwell, but I am certain that she doesn't want to continue kicking the can down the road either. I would prefer that we pass a serious, multiyear authorization, such as the bill Senator Cantwell and I agreed to in June, but, unfortunately, in the months since that stalled markup, we have not made substantial progress, and we still have numerous outstanding provisions. I am very concerned that given the time we have, the limited progress we have made, and the constant moving goalposts in bill negotiations, that we are getting to the point that we will be forced to extend the FAA's authority until 2025. I don't want to do that. I don't think Chair Cantwell wants to do that either. We need to get this bill done, and I am still committed to trying to do so if it is a bill that is actually bipartisan and not a special interest wish list that ignores very real problems like the pilot shortage. In a moment, I will ask unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the FAA extension, which will last until March 8. The House earlier this week voted 376 to 15 to pass this legislation. The Senate cannot leave for the holidays without passing an extension. Without an extension, here is what would happen: No. 1, all airport construction projects using FAA grants would immediately stop. No. 2, the FAA would lose the ability to make new expenditures from the aviation trust fund, causing many employees in airports, facilities and equipment, and R&D offices to be immediately furloughed. No. 3, special authorizations for drone operations would expire. No. 4, airlines would have no authority to collect ticket taxes that fund the aviation trust fund. In 2011, the last time the FAA's authorization lapsed, more than 4,000 FAA employees were furloughed, and the FAA lost more than $400 million. The 2-week lapse halted billions of dollars' worth of construction projects and impacted more than 70,000 construction jobs. Leaving town without giving the FAA the certainty to operate would be a mistake. I remain committed to working with Senator Cantwell to negotiate a truly bipartisan FAA bill that the Agency, the industry, and the flying public deserve. And with that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, at this point, I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6503, which was received from the House; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, early in his remarks, the Senator from Colorado said the last time he and I were on this floor debating was when I had shut down the government and he was stepping forward to save those who had been shut down. Now, that would be entirely accurate if my name were Chuck Schumer; but since it is not, what the Senator from Colorado said is blatantly, objectively false. The last time he and I were doing this, the date was January 24, 2019. We were in the midst of the Schumer shutdown. Chuck Schumer and the Democrats had forced a shutdown. The Government was shut down, and there was a particularly unfair aspect of that shutdown, which is that Congress had voted to fund the military--the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force--but the Coast Guards had been left out because the Coast Guards are not in DOD, they had been left out. On January 24, 2019, Senator Sullivan and I came down to this floor to seek equity for the Coast Guard, to simply say: Pay our Coast Guardsmen the same as our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--and the Senator from Colorado stood up and objected. So understand, what he just said is exactly opposite of what happened. Our Coast Guardsmen went weeks in 2019 without being paid during that shutdown because the Senator from Colorado objected to their getting a paycheck. And during his remarks on that day, he jumped up and down and screamed at me and insulted me to great fanfare. And I think he was proud of his performance, because he then put it in his launch email for his Presidential campaign that ``I screamed at Cruz.'' Now, I suppose I should feel mildly offended that that was not a persuasive argument in the Democratic primary and he got maybe a percent. That was the last contest: shutting down the Coast Guard where the Senator from Colorado was responsible for tens of thousands of Coast Guardsmen not getting their paychecks. Understand where we are today. Today, the question is, does the FAA stay open or not? And once again, the Senator from Colorado is the shutdown Senator. The FAA extension would pass had he not said those two words ``I object.'' Now, we heard from the Senator from Colorado a long discourse on Ukraine. You know, remarkably missing from that discourse was acknowledgment that responsibility for the war in Ukraine falls very directly on the Biden White House, on Senate Democrats, and on the Senator from Colorado in particular who played a direct role in causing the war in Ukraine. Now, how is that? Putin did not wake up yesterday wanting to invade Ukraine. He has wanted to invade Ukraine for years. He did so in the year 2014. He invaded Crimea in the southern portion of Ukraine. But he stopped. He did not go into the full country. Why? Because Russia's major source of revenue is selling oil and gas, and the natural gas pipelines run right through the middle of Ukraine. He could not risk damaging or destroying those pipelines. So in 2015, Vladimir Putin began what is known as Nord Stream II, an undersea pipeline from Russia to Germany, the entire purpose of which was to circumvent Ukraine so once it was built and operational, he could invade Ukraine. In 2019, I authored sanctions legislation to shut down the Nord Stream II pipeline. That sanctions legislation got overwhelming bipartisan support, including from the Senator from Colorado. It passed, and Putin shut down building the Nord Stream II pipeline literally the day President Trump signed my sanctions legislation into law. In December of 2020, I again authored bipartisan legislation putting more sanctions on Nord Stream II. Once again, the Senator from Colorado and every Democrat supported it. It passed and was signed into law. Joe Biden became President January 20, 2021. Four days later, on January 24, Putin resumed deep sea construction of the Nord Stream II pipeline. Four days later. Why? Because Biden had telegraphed weakness. He had told Putin: I am going to go soft on the Nord Stream II pipeline. And what he telegraphed was accurate, because several months later, Biden formally waived sanctions on Nord Stream II. He gave a multibillion dollar gift to Putin and allowed him to complete the pipeline. Now, in January of 2022, I forced another vote on the Senate floor--a vote to reimpose sanctions on the Nord Stream II pipeline. The Senator from Colorado just invoked President Zelenskyy. Oddly enough, he didn't seem to care what President Zelenskyy thought in January of 2022, because President Zelenskyy in January of 2022 begged the U.S. Senate: Please pass Cruz's sanctions legislation. It is the last best hope to stop Russia from invading Ukraine. The Government of Poland put out a formal statement saying: Please pass Cruz's sanctions. If you do not, Putin will invade Ukraine. On the day of the vote, Joe Biden came to Capitol Hill. He came to meet with the Senate Democrats. It was the first time in his presidency he had done that. And he asked them as a personal favor: Will you stand with the Biden White House? Will you stand with Russia? Will you stand with Putin--will you vote to give billions of dollars to Putin? And, I am sorry to say, 44 Democrats flipped their votes. On the day of the vote I stood here on the floor and said: If you vote no, we will see Russian tanks in the streets of Kyiv. But 44 Democrats flipped their votes and decided partisan loyalty to the White House mattered more than Ukraine, mattered more than stopping Russia, and just 4 weeks later, the Russian tanks rolled in. And the Senator from Colorado was one of those 44 votes who voted for Russia and Putin on the eve of the war. And if you don't believe me, go look at what Zelenskyy said in January of 2022: If you vote no, Russia will invade. Now, I don't doubt that the Senator from Colorado today has genuine and good faith concern for the people of Ukraine. That is admirable. But understand what he is doing here. He is not doing anything related to Ukraine. He is holding the American flying public hostage. He is saying--because he is mad about what is happening on Ukraine funding-- he wants to shut the FAA down. He wants to shut jobs down in the Denver airport. And I would just urge the Senator from Colorado to listen to a very, very wise Senator from this body. And I will read a quote: Politics. Holding up FAA extension. Costing Colorado jobs. Hashtag ``FAA shutdown.'' Now the author of that tweet, that would be Senator Michael Bennet. He sent that on August 4, 2011--the last time we had an FAA shutdown. And I would say that Senator Bennet, I suspect, might not recognize the Senator today, but I would urge listening to the 2011 Senator who understood shutting the FAA down is bad for Colorado; it is bad for the country. And so I would urge the Senator from Colorado, if you are unhappy about Ukraine funding, don't hold the flying public hostage.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I appreciate everything that my friend from Wyoming, my friend from Idaho, and my friend from West Virginia said, and I agree with what they said. I agree with the policy goals of this bill, and I am strongly committed to curtailing Russia's ability to use nuclear energy as a geopolitical tool. Indeed, I have repeatedly introduced sanctions targeting Rosatom activities, and I am currently working on legislation that would go even further. We should absolutely end our dependence on Russian uranium, and the United States should not be dependent on any nation for our energy--nuclear or otherwise. I know that my friend from Wyoming shares my conviction on American energy independence, and as the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he understands better than most anyone how the zealots in this administration have shackled our domestic energy producers. And let me just say, I understand and appreciate how important this bill is to you, and I commit to work with you on this bill to get it passed into law. But this bill is also important to the House. That was made clear by just how quickly they took it up and passed it on suspension with only a voice vote last week--even as, at the same time, the House stripped out and disregarded a number of the priorities of this Chamber which had been included in the Senate NDAA. One provision, which I worked very hard on with Senator Kelly, was to streamline permitting requirements for new semiconductor plants, and which 120 Senators and House Members--a little over a sixth of the entire Congress--had signed a letter supporting. That was one of the casualties of their casual disregard. The House even stripped out of the bill my bill with Senator Cantwell--the Senate version of the Informing Consumers About Smart Devices Act--despite the House having already passed their version of the bill earlier this year by a vote of 406 to 12. Neither of these were partisan measures, and they are not wild policy changes. Instead, they are broadly bipartisan, widely supported priorities of Members of the Senate, and they have enormous impact. Unfortunately, our House colleagues--in particular, the leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee--decided that they did not matter, and they insisted they be stripped from the bill. Now we have come up with an important priority that they care about-- and, to be clear, a policy with which I agree--asking for the blessing of the Senate. The consequences of their stripping that legislation from the NDAA is they hurt thousands of jobs across this country. They have benefited communist China at our expense, and they have hurt our national security by making us more vulnerable to China, and they undermined the privacy of Americans across this country. I hope and believe the House and Senate should work together cooperatively. I am eager to do so. I have extended an olive branch to the House for us to work cooperatively, but it is a two-way street. Until the House begins to take seriously the priorities of the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and until they change course on the Senate priorities they disregarded arbitrarily, this bill and potentially others from the chairman of this House committee will not be moving in the Senate by unanimous consent. I object.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I appreciate my friend from Missouri. I appreciate his passion, and I share his passion for reining in the abuses of Big Tech. Big Tech has a lot that they are responsible for. The Senator from Missouri is right that Big Tech is doing a lot of harm to our kids. The Senator from Missouri is also right that Big Tech has been complicit in the most far-reaching censorship of free speech our Nation has ever seen. These are issues I have worked on for a long time--to rein in Big Tech, to rein in censorship, to protect free speech. However, the approach this bill takes I don't think substantively accomplishes the goals that the Senator from Missouri and I both want to accomplish. My concerns are both procedural and substantive. Procedurally, this bill has not yet been debated. This bill hasn't been considered by the Commerce Committee. This bill hasn't been marked up. This bill hasn't been the subject of testimony to understand the impact of what it would be. The Commerce Committee, on which I am the ranking member, has a strong tradition of passing legislation in its jurisdiction. To date, 22 bills have been reported out of the Commerce Committee. I am more than happy to work with the Senator from Missouri--he and I have worked on many issues together--on this bill, but we need to make sure, when legislating in this area, that we are doing so in a way that would be effective and that wouldn't have unintended consequences. You know, when it comes to AI, AI is a transformative technology. It has massive potential. It is already having massive impacts on productivity, and the potential over the coming years is even greater. There are voices in this Chamber--many on the Democrat side of the aisle--that want government to play a very heavy hand in regulating AI. I think that is dangerous. I want America to continue to lead innovation. Just this year in the United States, over $38 billion has been invested in American AI startups. That is this year. That is more than twice the investments in the rest of the world combined. Look, there is a global race for AI, and it is a race we are engaged in with China. China is pursuing it through government-directed funds. It would be bad for America if China became dominant in AI. Right now, the $38 billion that was invested this past year in American AI companies is more than 14 times the investment of Chinese AI companies. We need to keep that differential. We need to make sure America is leading the AI revolution. We also need to protect against the abuse of powers. The abuses my friend talks about are real, and I agree that section 230 is too broad. In fact, the last time this body considered legislation--successful legislation--to rein in section 230 was in 2017. We had a robust debate over reforms to section 230 to close the loophole for websites that were profiting from sex trafficking on their platforms. That bill, introduced by Senator Portman, the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act, ultimately gained 70 Senate cosponsors, received extensive debate in committee, and passed out of the Senate with only two ``no'' votes. I personally was proud to be an original cosponsor of that important legislation, which is now law. When it comes to section 230, we need to reform 230; but I believe doing so across the board, simply repealing large chunks of it, is not likely to be effective in the objective we want. When it comes to censorship, repealing 230 would not eliminate censorship. In fact, repealing 230, I fear, would lead to an increase in censorship. What I have long advocated--and I am happy to work with the Senator from Missouri on--is using section 230 reform to create an incentive not to censor. In other words, repealing section 230 protection when Big Tech engages in censorship, when Big Tech stifles free speech, they lose their immunity from Congress in those circumstances, so that 230 becomes a safe harbor, an incentive, to have a free and open marketplace for ideas. I think that is tremendously important. It has been a passion of mine for years, and I know the Senator from Missouri cares deeply about it as well. So I extend an offer to my friend from Missouri, let's work together on this. But this bill right now, I think, is not the right solution at this time. And so I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Sure.

Mr. CRUZ. Well, listen. It is a good question. And it is true. I am quite open to using exposure to liability as a way to rein in the excesses of Big Tech. But I think we should do so in a focused and targeted way. AI is an incredibly important area of innovation, and simply unleashing trial lawyers to sue the living daylights out of every technology company for AI, I don't think that is prudent policy. We want America to lead in AI, and so I am much more of a believer of using the potential of liability in a focused, targeted way to stop the behavior that we think is so harmful, whether it is behavior that is harming our kids--and I am deeply, deeply concerned about the garbage that Big Tech directs at our children--or whether it is the censorship practices. I support the approach, but, in my view, it needs to be more targeted and introduce the outcomes we want rather than simply harming American technology across the board. That shouldn't be our objective. Our objective should be changing their behavior so that they are not engaging in conduct that is harmful to American consumers and to American children and parents.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes so that my colleagues and I can participate in a live unanimous consent prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.