Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in 1975, Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov was awarded a Nobel Prize for his public opposition to the totalitarian communism of the Soviet Union. He knew what he was talking about as he had spent decades working on the Soviet nuclear weapons program, work he had originally thought was a patriotic duty that would ensure the balance of power with the United States but that he came to understand was in the service of a brutal, oppressive regime with aggressive intentions. The Soviets prohibited Sakharov from accepting the award in person, although his wife Yelena Bonner was abroad at the time. She accepted on his behalf and delivered his seminal speech, ``Peace, Progress, and Human Rights.'' In it, Sakharov declared: I am convinced that international confidence, mutual understanding, disarmament, and international security are inconceivable without an open society with freedom of information, freedom of conscience, the right to publish, and the right to travel and choose the country in which one wishes to live. I am likewise convinced that freedom of conscience, together with other civil rights, provides the basis for scientific progress and constitutes a guarantee that scientific advances will not be used to despoil mankind, providing the basis for economic and social progress, which in turn is a political guarantee for the possibility of an effective defense of social rights. He recited the names of his fellow dissidents who were being persecuted by the Soviets, but he called for peaceful reform, not a violent revolution, saying: We must today fight for every individual person separately against injustice and the violation of human rights. Much of our future depends on this. In struggling to protect human rights we must, I am convinced, first and foremost act as protectors of the innocent victims of regimes installed in various countries, without demanding the destruction or total condemnation of these regimes. We need a pliant, pluralist, tolerant community, which selectively and tentatively can bring about a free undogmatic use of the experiences of all social systems. Sakharov was relieved of all his scientific duties and, after denouncing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, was banished to Gorky, 250 miles east of Moscow on the Volga River, to remove him from the public eye. His wife joined him in 1984, charged with anti-Soviet slander, and was prohibited from traveling abroad for medical treatment. Sakharov began a hunger strike in protest. Soviet authorities detained and force-fed him. In solidarity, President Ronald Reagan--who was then initiating his historic negotiations with the Soviets--proclaimed May 18, 1983, National Andrei Sakharov Day, and the following year the United States Congress passed a bipartisan measure renaming the mailing address of the Soviet Embassy from 1125 16th Street to No. 1 Andrei Sakharov Plaza. Every piece of mail delivered to or sent from the embassy would thus bear the name of the courageous dissident the Soviets were trying to silence. The following year, the Soviet Union allowed Bonner to travel abroad for heart surgery, and the year after that, Gorbachev allowed Sakharov and his wife to return to Moscow, although Sakharov remained critical of the slow speed of Gorbachev's reforms until his death in 1989--just 1 month after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The bravery of Andrei Sakharov was instrumental in bringing down a great and oppressive empire. Armed only with the truth, he was able to expose to the world the reality of Soviet Communism, the futility of trying to placate or domesticate the regime, and the power of standing for human rights. Today, we have a case before us that is eerily reminiscent of Sakharov's legacy. Dr. Liu Xiaobo, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, sits today in a Chinese jail for the crime of subversion. A poet, author, and political scientist, Dr. Liu was in 1989 a visiting scholar at Columbia University, but when the pro-democracy protests broke out in Beijing in June of that year, he returned to China to aid the movement. He staged a hunger strike in Tiananmen Square in the midst of the historic student protests and insisted the protests would be nonviolent, even in the face of the violence threatened by the People's Republic of China. The PRC arrested Liu for his involvement in the Tiananmen Square demonstration and sentenced him to 2 years in prison. In 1996, the party subjected him to 3 years of ``reeducation through labor'' for questioning the single-party system. In 2004, the PRC cut Liu's phone lines and Internet connection after he published an essay criticizing the party's campaign to silence so- called subversive journalists and activists. In 2008, Liu, along with over 350 Chinese intellectuals and human rights advocates, penned ``Charter 08,'' a manifesto modeled after the Czech ``Charter 77,'' an anti-Communist manifesto written in 1977 by Vaclav Havel and others calling for human rights and political reforms in the Soviet Republics. Dr. Liu's ``Charter 08'' made 19 specific demands of the PRC, including abandoning one-party rule in favor of instituting a separation of powers composed of a legislative democracy and independent judiciary; abolition of the Hukou housing system that has victimized poor and rural Chinese for decades; and securing freedom of association, assembly, expression, and religion. ``Charter 08'' was released on December 10, 2008. Although the Communist Party quickly censored it, over 10,000 journalists, scholars, businessmen, and teachers have signed the document since 2008. Two days prior to the release of ``Charter 08''--on the eve of the 100-year anniversary of China's first Constitution and the 30-year anniversary of Beijing's Democracy Wall movement--the PRC detained Liu for his involvement in this charter. In June 2009, he was officially arrested and charged with ``inciting subversion of state power'' for his coauthorship of ``Charter 08.'' After being detained for over a year, Liu pled not guilty to ``inciting subversion of state power'' before the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court on December 23, 2009. His defense was not allowed to present evidence, and on Christmas Day Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison with an additional 2 years' deprivation of all political rights. Beijing High Court rejected his appeal 2 months later. On October 2010, Dr. Liu Xiaobo received the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in writing and publishing ``Charter 08.'' Like Sakharov, he could not attend in person but accepted in absentia, boldly declaring in his acceptance speech: Hatred can rot away at a person's intelligence and conscience. Enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and hinder a nation's progress toward freedom and democracy. That is why I hope to be able to transcend my personal experiences as I look upon our nation's development and social change, to counter the regime's hostility with utmost goodwill, and to dispel hatred with love. The very moment the Nobel Commission awarded the Peace Prize to Liu, his wife Liu Xia was taken into custody by the PRC. She penned an open letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping in June 2013 decrying her unjust arrest and detention: I have been under house arrest and have lost all my personal freedoms since October 2010. No one has told me any reasons for detaining me. I have thought about it over and over. Perhaps in this country it's a ``crime'' for me to be ``Liu Xiaobo's wife.'' Both Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia remain in prison today. The opening paragraph of ``Charter 08'' captures the entirety of Liu Xiaobo's lifework: Having experienced a prolonged period of human rights disasters and challenging and tortuous struggles, the awakening Chinese citizens are becoming increasingly aware that freedom, equality and human rights are universal values shared by all humankind, and that democracy, republicanism, and constitutional government make up the basic institutional framework of modern politics. A `modernization' bereft of these universal values and this basic political framework is a disastrous process that deprives people of their rights, rots away their humanity, and destroys their dignity. Where is China headed in the 21st century? Will it continue with this `modernization' under authoritarian rule, or will it endorse universal values, join the mainstream civilization, and build a democratic form of government? This is an unavoidable decision. Dr. Liu's enormous courage and willingness to voluntarily sacrifice not only his own freedom but also that of those most dear to him poses a challenge to the free world. Will we be silent, eager to enjoy the economic benefits of cooperation with the PRC? Or will we put President Xi on notice that for America, human rights are no longer off the table, and that we are listening to the truth about Communist China. I believe that the freedom championed by Dr. Liu is possible for all the Chinese people. I believe that from Tiananmen Square to Taiwan, the evidence is clear that the Chinese desire--and are capable of-- democracy. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to not marginalize Dr. Liu and his brave fellow dissidents but to make their plight central to all our dealings with the PRC. For that reason, we should follow the example of Ronald Reagan. We should follow the example of standing up to oppression, standing up do the Soviet Union's oppression of Andrei Sakharov. For that reason, in solidarity with the Chinese people engaged in a long and nonviolent struggle for basic human rights, I am asking my colleagues to join me in creating a new version of Sakharov Plaza by naming the street in front of the People's Republic of China Embassy in Washington, DC, Liu Xiaobo Plaza. This would be the street sign that the Chinese Ambassador would look at each day. This would be the address that every piece of correspondence going into the embassy and coming out of the embassy would have written on it, just as with the Soviets when forced to recognize the bravery of Sakharov. The PRC officials will be forced to recognize the bravery of Dr. Liu and to acknowledge it dozens of times a day, day after day. I realize that this is an expedited request, but given the ongoing repression not only of the Lius but of so many other voices for political and religious freedom in China and the imminent arrival of the Chinese leader who is directly responsible for it, I hope that my colleagues will join me. I intend to propound a unanimous consent request, and it is my hope that all 100 Senators will stand with me. But for the moment, I yield the floor. Mr. CRUZ addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, for reasons that I just detailed to this Chamber, reasons for which we should stand in bipartisan unanimity in support of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Liu Xiaobo and in support of human rights and dissidents across the world, that we should follow the successful pattern of Sakharov Plaza under Ronald Reagan, this should be an issue that brings us all together. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of and that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 224. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I note that this is a sad day for this body. When standing up to the Soviet Union, Democrats and Republicans were able to come together in support of Andrei Sakharov, and it worked. It made a difference speaking up for human rights. The senior Senator from California is correct that this was expedited, and she is correct as to why. As I said in this floor speech, the presence of President Xi in this country is precisely the reason that we should stand in unanimity in support of human rights. It is what makes it timely until a few minutes ago, when we had been informed that there were no objections on the Democratic side and Republican side. It saddens me. I know there are many Chinese Americans in the State of California, there are many Chinese Americans in the State of Texas, and across the country there are millions of Americans who care for human rights. Just this morning we sat on the floor of the House of Representatives and listened to Pope Francis talk about putting aside petty partisan differences and coming together with a voice of compassion. Dr. Liu is in a Chinese prison, and the senior Senator from California is standing and objecting to recognizing this Nobel laureate's bravery, is standing and objecting because presumably it would embarrass his Communist captors. I, for one, think as Americans we should not be troubled by embarrassing Communist oppressors. I note, as the senior Senator from California leaves the floor, that this is not an issue that is abstract to me. My family, like Dr. Liu, has been imprisoned by oppressive regimes. My father, as a teenager, was imprisoned and tortured in Cuba. He had his nose broken. He had his teeth shattered. He lay in the blood and grime of a prison cell in Cuba. My aunt, my Tia Sonia, was a few years later again imprisoned and tortured. This time by Castro. My father by Batista and my aunt by Castro was imprisoned and tortured by a Communist regime. It is a sad statement when the United States of America cannot stand up and say: You who are imprisoned unjustly, we stand with you. If any of us listened to a word Pope Francis said this morning, that is a word we should have heard--that we should be a voice of freedom, a clarion voice of freedom across this globe. What we saw on this Senate floor saddens me greatly. I understand the Democrats feel partisan loyalty to the White House, and this White House's Secretary Clinton said at the beginning of the administration that human rights are off the table. America no longer stands for human rights. We will coddle up with oppressors if they make cheap calculators to sell in our stores. I think they are values that transcend the mighty dollar, and it is entirely possible to deal with foreign countries and yet maintain our principles and speak with unanimity. A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to visit with Natan Sharansky, the famed Soviet dissident. He and I visited in Jerusalem. He talked to me about how, when he was in the Soviet gulag, the prisoners would pass from cell to cell notes: Did you hear what President Reagan said--``evil empire,'' ``ash heap of history,'' ``tear down this wall''? The leadership of the United States of America--mind you, it wasn't partisan leadership; it was clear bipartisan leadership in America--shined a light to the dark of those prison cells. I pray today that Dr. Liu, in his prison cell, does not hear word that the Democratic Senators are unwilling to stand with him. That is heartbreaking at a level rarely seen. It is one thing for us to disagree on partisan matters. We can have disagreements over the appropriate rate of capital gains taxes. But for standing with an oppressed Nobel Peace Prize laureate, for standing up to Communist oppression, that should not be a partisan divide. The objection raised by the senior Senator from California is deeply disappointing, and I intend to continue to press this issue because the voice of America, the voice for freedom that Pope Francis urged us to aspire to will not be extinguished. It is who we are that is essential to our character and to our integrity. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, Thursday, September 3, was the 10th anniversary of the death of William Hubbs Rehnquist, the former Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Rehnquist was an absolutely outstanding chief, one of the most influential Justices in the 225-year history of the Court. And the 10 years since his unfortunate passing have only served to increase the level of respect and admiration many have for him. This reverence is richly deserved, as Rehnquist spent over three decades--nearly two decades as Chief Justice--valiantly attempting to return the Court to this country's first principles, federalism being a primary one, in order to salvage our fundamental liberties. This is a goal the current Court would do well to remember and embrace. Of course, I am slightly biased in this matter. I clerked for Rehnquist, after all, and therefore spent an entire year learning at his side, while simultaneously embarrassing myself in his doubles tennis matches. But what is amazing about Rehnquist is how much esteem he was held in by those who often disagreed with him. Indeed, the respect he enjoyed from his colleagues was unparalleled. To give just one of many examples, Walter Dellinger, a former Solicitor General in the Clinton administration, wrote that ``Rehnquist was a great leader and effective administrator of the Supreme Court and the national judiciary. He ran a tight ship. . . . Every justice with whom I have spoken in recent years has noted that the court was functioning well under his leadership.'' Rehnquist didn't just treat his fellow lawyers well, either. He knew everyone's name who worked in the Court--from Justices, to police officers, to janitors--and he treated them all fairly and with dignity. Outside the Court, where he regularly strolled with his clerks, he would often graciously take pictures of tourists, who had no idea they had just asked our country's top judicial officer to assist with their family snapshot. These days, in the era of selfies, the tourists probably would not notice him at all. And Rehnquist would be fine with that. Humility was one of his defining characteristics. In remembrance of Chief Justice Rehnquist's passing, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a memorial article I wrote for the Harvard Law Review 10 years ago. This is not nearly as much as Rehnquist deserves, but it is more than a man like Rehnquist would ever request for himself. We miss you, Chief.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, let's start out with a little simple math: 58 to 42 is not a victory for the side with 42. Even in the case of ObamaCare--a truly disastrous piece of legislation which was forced through the Congress on purely partisan lines--that legislation received a majority. This isn't even close. Because not only has the Republican caucus held firm and unanimously rejected this catastrophic deal, we have also been joined by colleagues from across the aisle who are not blinded by partisan politics and understand the threat that is posed by President Obama's proposed nuclear deal with Iran. I want to take a moment to acknowledge them, as they are among those who know best how bad this deal is. First, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who has been a long-time advocate for the State of Israel. It is no secret Senator Schumer and I have had our disagreements on a great many issues, but I have been proud to stand with him for Israel and against this Iranian nuclear deal, and I was proud to stand with Senator Schumer when Congress voted unanimously on the legislation I introduced to ban a known terrorist--Hamid Aboutalebi, who participated in the 1979 Iranian hostage-taking--from becoming Iran's Ambassador to the United Nations. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has likewise come out against this catastrophic deal. Senator Menendez and I have worked together on a wide range of issues, including legislation to provide a Rewards for Justice reward last summer of $5 million for the capture or kill of the Hamas terrorist who murdered Israeli American teenager Naftali Fraenkel and his two teenage friends. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, whose name is on the legislation on which we are scheduled to vote this week. Certainly Senator Cardin knows as much about this deal as anyone, and his opposition should make all Senators, particularly Democratic Senators, take note. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, my colleague on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, who understands the threats to national security posed by this Iranian nuclear deal, I was honored to work with him and have his support for the resolution I introduced condemning Hamas's use of human shields during Israel's action in Gaza last summer--a disgusting terrorist tactic that was aided and abetted by Hamas's Iranian sponsors. Democrats should take note that the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, the former ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Democrat scheduled to be the next Democratic leader have all come out and valued national security above partisan loyalty. That ought to be reason to cause every other Democratic Member of this body to take a second assessment of their own decisions. I also want to mention Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who even though he plans, unfortunately, to vote in favor of this deal, maintains it should go to a vote and not go into effect by default because the minority can block cloture through a filibuster. In these dark times, it is at least encouraging to know there are still a handful of Democrats who, in the tradition of Scoop Jackson, JFK, and Joe Lieberman, are willing to put country in front of party, are willing to defend national security. That used to be a robust tradition on the Democratic side of the aisle. I would that there were more Scoop Jackson Democrats in the United States Senate. I would that there were more JFK Democrats in the United States Senate. I would that there were more Joe Lieberman Democrats in the United States Senate. It is also telling that not a single Republican was persuaded by the President and Secretary of State when they told us this is the only option; that it is this deal, this catastrophic deal, or war and that this is the very best deal we could have gotten. If that is so, we shouldn't have been negotiating in the first place. Indeed, as Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu noted, the one person telling the truth about this deal is Iran's President Ruhani, who observed that Iran has gotten everything they wanted from this deal because this deal is, as Prime Minister Netanyahu predicted, a very bad deal and a historic mistake. First and foremost, this terrible deal will not stop a virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli regime from getting a nuclear bomb. The so-called Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, declared that Israel--which he calls the Little Satan--would be nothing in 25 years and that those 25 years would be made miserable because of the heroic attacks of radical Islamic jihadists. America, he said, was the Great Satan. He didn't say this in 1979. He tweeted it yesterday. This is the Ayatollah Khamenei, the person with whom the administration is making a deal that facilitates his having nuclear weapons. He is being candid. He is telling us he intends to do everything possible to murder as many Israelis as possible and to murder as many Americans as possible. President Obama's deal, if it goes through, will allow Khamenei and his fellow mullahs to retain their centrifuges. They have established their ``right to enrich'' uranium. They have rejected attempts to inspect their sites with possible military dimensions related to their nuclear program. Indeed, this deal is without any credible inspection mechanism. Not long ago, the administration was promising the American people so-called ``anytime, anywhere inspections.'' Those inspections quickly morphed into inspections with 24 days' advance notice--plenty of time to ensure that the inspections will never uncover the cheating. But even more laughable, even more farcical, this deal doesn't rely on American inspectors; it doesn't rely on international inspectors. This deal trusts the Iranians to inspect themselves. It is not much of an exaggeration to say the inspection regime envisioned in this deal is simply picking up the phone, calling the Ayatollah Khamenei, and asking: Are you developing nuclear weapons? No. Very good; thank you. That is a regime designed to facilitate cheating, to facilitate surreptitious development of nuclear weapons with $150 billion to fuel and fund that development. Beyond that, the deal actually obligates signatories to assist Iran in developing their program, which, remarkably, the Secretary of State suggests will be used to try to cure cancer, and, even more remarkably, obligates signatories to assist Iran in defending against efforts by the nation of Israel to stop a nuclear weapons regime. That is a remarkable commitment Senate Democrats have signed on to. In addition, this terrible deal makes concessions to Iran completely unrelated to the nuclear program. For example, it provides sanctions relief for designated terrorists such as General Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force, who should have no association with the Iranian nuclear program whatsoever. Iran and the Iranian regime maintain that the nuclear program is not a military program. Then why is a military general covered in this agreement--this man, General Suleimani, who has blood on his hands from the IEDs that he funneled into Iraq that murdered and maimed hundreds of American service men and women? And even while Iranians such as Suleimani get relief, four Americans were cruelly excluded from this deal: Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American citizen imprisoned for 8 years in an Iranian prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel; former marine Amir Hekmati; Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; and Bob Levinson. It is a disgrace on our Nation that we agreed to any deal with Tehran before they were liberated. Finally, this terrible deal provides Iran with some $150 billion in economic relief, which will inevitably be used to finance the violent terrorist mayhem that has been a signature of the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution. It will, in effect, make the U.S. Government the leading international financier of terrorism. We haven't even voted yet on this deal, and we are already seeing the consequences play out in real time. Senior Iranian officials, including Suleimani, who is technically still under a U.N. travel ban, have traveled to Moscow to make arms deals with Vladimir Putin--arms that will flow to Iran's terrorist proxies, from Yemen to Gaza to Lebanon to Syria. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has gotten an economic lifeline in the form of a $1 billion line of credit. Senior Iranian officials have announced to the media they will redouble their support for Hamas because they ``reject the existence of any Israeli on this earth.'' If we want to understand who we are dealing with, that clarifies exactly what their intent is. In other words, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, just got a $150 billion windfall courtesy of the U.S. Government. The grim consequences of this activity can be seen on our TV screens as we witness hundreds of thousands of panicked refugees fleeing out of places where Iran's proxies are active. Of course, ISIS and its affiliates bear significant responsibility for this crisis. But make no mistake about it; Tehran's bloody fingerprints are all over it as well. From the Houthis to Hamas to Hezbollah, they are enabling and financing the radical Islamic terrorists who are making life, from North Africa to the Middle East, utterly untenable. They are murdering Christians and Jews and other Muslims who do not embrace their radical jihadist dream. This isn't complicated. The American people know this is a terrible deal. That is why President Obama has only been able to persuade a minority of their duly elected representatives to support it. It is why, as Secretary Kerry frankly admitted, they didn't even try to submit their deal to the Senate as a treaty, as they should have done. They prefer to jam it through by default or by Presidential veto-- anything to get what they believe will be a domestic political legacy. How typical it is of the Washington cartel that one-third of one House of Congress is trying to force this catastrophic deal on our country. Yet even in the face of 42 Democrats making a decision to value partisan loyalty over the national security of our country, over standing with our friend and ally the nation of Israel, and over protecting the lives of millions of Americans--even in the face of that--there are still serious steps we can take right now. There are two individuals in Washington, DC, who have the capacity still to stop this deal. Their names are Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House John Boehner. Corker-Cardin was, unfortunately, a very weak piece of review legislation, but it did have one small bit of teeth in it that ought to be used. Under Corker-Cardin, the review period does not start until the administration submits the entirety of the deal to Congress. That entirety is defined under Corker-Cardin to include any and all side deals. This deal has at least two side deals with the IAEA concerning inspections. It is the laughable inspection regime that trusts the Iranians to inspect themselves. Those side deals have not been submitted to Congress. Under the terms of Corker-Cardin, the review period has not started and does not start until the entire deal is submitted to Congress, and the President cannot lift these sanctions until the review period expires. So therefore, I call upon the leadership of my party--Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner--simply to enforce the terms of Corker- Cardin. The administration has not submitted the deal. Accordingly, we should not be voting on a resolution of disapproval because the Corker- Cardin clock never began to start, and under Corker-Cardin, until the clock starts, the sanctions can't be lifted. Republicans in this body should not be facilitating this President's yet again disregarding the law and doing so in contravention of the national security interests of this country. Two final observations: If and when we vote on this deal, for every Member of this body, I agree with my former colleague, former Senator Joe Lieberman, who said this may well be the most important vote any Senator casts in his or her career. I implore every Democrat who has come out in support of this deal, search your conscience. You can make a choice other than standing with your own party. You can stand up to your own party. Trust me; I have done it myself. It is not the end of the world. I implore every Democrat: Go home and pray. Go home and ask yourself how you will look in the eyes of the mother or father whose son was blown to bits by an Iranian IED that came directly from General Suleimani, on whom we are now lifting sanctions; how you will explain your vote that ``your son or daughter's life didn't matter enough to me, that I was willing to reward their murderer.'' I can tell you that is not a conversation I would ever like to have. I ask every Democrat who has said they support this deal to ask yourself that question. I ask you to ask the question how you will look in the eyes of the mothers and fathers and sons and daughters of those who will be murdered by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by the Houthis, by radical Islamic terrorists across the globe with the over $100 billion that this deal gives them. Osama bin Laden murdered nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Bin Laden never had $100 billion at his disposal. This deal gives people every bit as evil, every bit as consumed with bilious hatred resources, billions of dollars. And, if this deal goes through, we know to an absolute certainty that Americans will be murdered, Israelis will be murdered, and Europeans will be murdered. I ask every Democratic Member of this body to think before you cast a vote: How will you look in the eyes of the children of those who are murdered by terrorists who use the billions that this deal gives them to kill them? That is blood you can't wash your hands of. When you knowingly and willingly send billions of dollars to jihadists who have declared their intention to murder us, there is no excuse you can hide behind when they carry through on the intention using the billions of dollars you have given. And, if--God forbid--Iran ever acquires a nuclear weapon, the odds are unacceptably high they would, No. 1, use that nuclear weapon above our friend and ally the nation of Israel. For every Democrat who maintains he or she is a friend of Israel, you need to be prepared to explain how you facilitated a day that could see a nuclear warhead detonating over Tel-Aviv, murdering millions. When Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress, I participated in a panel discussion that my office organized with Elie Wiesel, a Nobel laureate who survived the Holocaust, and when Elie Wiesel says ``never again,'' it means never again. The one threat that could kill 6 million Jews again is a nuclear Iran. Listen to Elie Wiesel. The single-most dangerous thing Iran could do with a nuclear weapon is launch it from a ship in the Atlantic into the atmosphere and set off an electromagnetic pulse, or an EMP, that would take down the electrical grid and could kill tens of millions of Americans. To every Democrat, listen to those voices. Finally, if the Democrats refuse to put our national security interests first, then it will be incumbent on the next President to undo the damage. Any competent Commander in Chief should be prepared on the first day--on January 20, 2017--to rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian deal and to make clear to the Ayatollah Khamenei and to every other jihadist that under no circumstances will the nation of Iran, led by a theocratic Ayatollah who chants ``Death to America,'' be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Utah for an excellent speech. I entirely agree with his call for civility and decorum and respect. No Member of this body should engage in ad hominem attacks directed at any other Member of this body, be they a Republican or be they a Democrat. At the same time, I would note that it is entirely consistent with decorum and with the nature of this body traditionally as the world's greatest deliberative body to speak the truth. Speaking the truth about action is entirely consistent with civility. Indeed, in a quote often falsely attributed to George Orwell, the sentiment has been expressed thusly: ``In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'' I would make four brief points. First of all, on Friday I gave an unusual speech--a speech unlike any I have given in this Chamber. It was not a speech I was happy to give. It was a speech to which the senior Senator from Utah has responded. I would note that in the course of that speech I described an explicit promise the majority leader had made to me and to all 53 Republican Senators. Neither the majority leader, nor the Senator from Utah, nor the Senator from Tennessee has disputed that the majority leader, in front of every Republican Senator, made that promise, looking me in the eyes--namely, that there was no deal on the Export-Import Bank, that its proponents could offer it in the regular order and there would be no special preferences whatsoever. We saw on Friday that promise was false. In particular, on the amendment on the Export-Import Bank, first of all, it was not offered by its proponents, it was called up by the majority leader. Very few of us get our amendments called up by the majority leader because he has priority of recognition, he can edge out any other amendment in this Chamber. Secondly, the majority leader followed that by filling the tree--a procedural mechanism that he had often decried when the former majority leader employed it to block other amendments. Third, the majority leader filed cloture on the Export-Import Bank amendment--a tool he has used only once in his entire tenure as majority leader. Those were extraordinary steps designed to force a vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, and they were directly contrary to the promises the majority leader made to all 53 Republicans and to the press. My saying so may be uncomfortable, but it is a simple fact entirely consistent with decorum, and no Member of this body has disputed that promise was made and that promise was broken. The senior Senator from Tennessee gave a learned speech on changing the rules of this body through appealing the ruling of the Chair, and I very much agree. When the former majority leader used the nuclear option, it was wrong to violate the rules. But the amendment tree does not come from the rules, the amendment tree comes from the precedents, and precedents are set precisely through appealing the rulings of the Chair by a majority vote. Indeed, I would note that previously many Members of this body have voted in favor of overruling the ruling of the Chair, including my friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, who has voted 4 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair; my friend the majority whip, who has voted 5 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair; and, indeed, the distinguished majority leader, who has voted 14 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair. I would note beyond that, that as recently as April 2, 2014, there was a third- degree appeal precisely like the one I have filed that was filed by Senator Vitter. The ruling of the Chair was appealed, and a significant number of Republicans voted in favor of that appeal, including the majority leader and including the majority whip. Many Republicans railed against the filling of the tree when the Democratic leader was the majority leader. If it was an abuse of power then, it remains so today. Indeed, I would note what the current majority leader said at the time: ``The practical effect of [filling the tree] is to disenfranchise the people I and my members represent, and, more significantly, a significant number of the people his members represent whose voices are simply not heard in the Senate.'' Beyond that, let me say on the substance that if you oppose filling the tree to silence the amendments of Members, be they in the majority party or the minority party, you should vote in favor of allowing my amendment to go forward. I would note that the Senator from Tennessee was incorrect that it would allow unlimited amendments. It would simply add a third branch to the tree and not unlimited amendments. At the same time, if you are resolved to stand with our friend and ally the Nation of Israel, if you are resolved to stand with American hostages in Iran, and if you are convinced to not lift sanctions on Iran unless and until Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State and that they release four American hostages, then you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on. Needless to say, if you oppose the Export-Import Bank, you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on. Finally, if you want other amendments on pressing issues, be they defunding Planned Parenthood, be they stopping sanctuary cities, be they passing Kate's Law, or be they ending the congressional exemption from Obamacare, you should vote in favor of allowing this amendment to be voted on. A great many Members of this body have given long, eloquent speeches on how this body operates when each Member has a right to offer amendments--and even difficult amendments. We debate and resolve them. That is the heart of this vote, and I would encourage each Member here to vote his conscience or her conscience on both substance and the ability of the Senate to remain the world's greatest deliberative body. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, today is a sad day for this institution. The Senate operates based on trust. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, these 100 Senators have to be able to trust that when a Senator says something, he or she will do it, even if we disagree on substance--that we don't lie to each other. What we just witnessed this morning is profoundly disappointing. I want to describe the context of two preceding discussions. A number of weeks ago, when this Senate was considering trade promotion authority, a group of Senators gathered on this floor and blocked TPA for many minutes because they were pressing for the Export- Import Bank. They huddled on this floor and negotiated a deal in front of C-SPAN and in front of the world. Then, when they had their deal, TPA had the votes to pass. Shortly thereafter, we had a Senate Republican lunch, where I stood and asked the majority leader, very directly: What is the deal that was just cut on TPA and was there a deal for the Export-Import Bank? It was a direct question I asked the majority leader in front of all of the Republican Senators. The majority leader was visibly angry with me that I would ask such a question, and the majority leader looked at me and said: There is no deal. There is no deal. There is no deal. Like Saint Peter, he repeated it three times. He said: The only thing I told the proponents of the Export-Import Bank is, like any other Senator in this body, they could offer any amendment they liked on any amendable vehicle, but I gave them nothing. There is no deal. I gave them nothing. He was emphatic and he was repeated. Following that public discussion, Senator Mike Lee and I approached the majority leader afterward, in which he emphasized: There is no deal. I will do nothing. I oppose the Export-Import Bank. All I said is they can offer an amendment like any Senator can to any bill. I went back to my office and I sat down and I had a long discussion with my staff. My staff told me that afternoon: He is lying to you. That is what my staff said. We have been around the Senate a long time. He is not telling you the truth. What I told my staff that afternoon, I said: Well, I don't know if that is the case or not, but I don't see how, when the majority leader looks me in the eyes and makes an explicit promise--and by the way, looks into the eyes of every other Republican Senator and says that to every other Republican Senator--I don't see how I cannot take him at his word when he makes an explicit promise. As a result, I cast my vote in May in support of TPA because I support free trade, and I felt I had no choice but to assume that when the majority leader spoke to 54 Republican Senators and made an explicit promise, he wasn't lying to us. Well, as TPA moved on and it went to the House, it became abundantly clear there was a deal. There was a deal in the House for the Export-Import Bank. So the second time TPA came up, I voted no because of that corrupt deal. Now, I will note to the public that the majority leader and the Speaker of the House had repeatedly said: There was no corrupt deal. There was no corrupt deal. We made no deal. We made no deal. That is one element of the background context. Let me tell you a second element of the background context. A number of weeks ago, when we were debating the Corker-Cardin bill, the Iran review act, there were a number of amendments that Senators had filed. I filed an amendment that would actually put teeth in the Iran review act by requiring affirmative congressional approval before sanctions on Iran could be lifted. Other Senators filed very good amendments. Senator Marco Rubio filed an amendment calling for Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State before sanctions could be lifted. Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle did not want to vote on that amendment, and in response, the majority leader cut off all amendments. Now, I sat in the majority leader's office, and I urged the majority leader: Invoke cloture on Senator Rubio's amendment. Invoke cloture on Senator Rubio's amendment calling on Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist and setting that as a precondition of any lifting of sanctions. I argued vociferously with the majority leader that if the Democrats were so opposed to voting on that amendment, that was all the more reason, because it was important substantively. The majority leader said no, he would not do so, that invoking cloture on an amendment was an extraordinary step, and he would not do so. So he cut off every amendment. He filled the tree. It was striking a minute ago seeing the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, calling out the majority leader for filling the tree, for engaging in the same procedural abuse that Harry Reid did over and over and over again in this body. Now the Republican leader is behaving like the senior Senator from Nevada. What we just saw was not, Madam President, what the majority leader told you and me and every other Republican Senator. What we just saw was not that the proponents of the Export-Import Bank, like anyone else, could stand up and offer whatever amendment they like on any issue. What the majority leader did is, No. 1, he called up that amendment. He called it up himself. Why does that matter? Because, as the majority leader, he has priority of recognition. When he calls up an amendment, no one can stop him. He didn't just call it up; he filled the tree. Just like Harry Reid, he filled the tree, blocking everyone else's amendment. And, by the way, I agree with Senator Reid when he says the ObamaCare amendment is a cynical amendment. Of course it is. It is empty showmanship. We will have a vote on repealing ObamaCare. The Republicans will all vote yes, and the Democrats will all vote no. It will be at a 60-vote threshold. It will be an exercise in meaningless political theater. Mind you, when we had a fight in October of 2013 to actually stop ObamaCare and defund it, the majority leader, then the minority leader, was opposed to doing something with real teeth in it to stop ObamaCare. But an empty show vote--that is a good way of distracting from what is going on. You know, there is a profound disappointment among the American people because we keep winning elections and then we keep getting leaders who don't do anything they promise. The American people were told: If only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will be different. Well, in 2010, the American people showed up in enormous numbers, and we got a Republican majority in the House, and very little changed. Then the American people were told, you know, the problem is the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different. Well, in 2014, the American people rose up in enormous numbers and voted to do exactly that. We have had a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress now for about 6 months. What has that majority done? The first thing we did in December is we came back and passed a trillion dollar CRomnibus plan filled with pork and corporate welfare. That was the very first thing we did. Then this Republican majority voted to fund ObamaCare, voted to fund President Obama's unconstitutional Executive amnesty. Then leadership rammed through the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Which of those decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority leader? Not a one. Not a one. This Senate operates exactly the same-- the same priorities. Let me tell you why. It is not that this majority doesn't get things done. It does get things done. But it listens to one and only one voice; that is the voice of the Washington cartel--the lobbyists on K Street, the big money and big corporations. If you go to the American people and ask if reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank is a priority for you, the standard response for most of them would be this: The what? They don't even know what this is. Let me tell you what it is. It is an egregious example of corporate welfare. It is the American taxpayer being on the dime for hundreds of billions of dollars in loan guarantees given out to a handful of giant corporations. It is a classic example of cronyism and corporate welfare. By the way, among others, do you know what person had the clarity of thought on that? Then-Senator Barack Obama, who described it as a classic example of corporate welfare. That was when he was in the Senate. Now that he is in the White House, corporate welfare sounds pretty good. Now, just about all of the Democrats are supporting the corporate welfare with the exception of Bernie Sanders. I will give credit to Senator Sanders for standing up against corporate welfare. But as to every Democrat who rails against big money and the corruption of Washington, as to every Democrat who styles himself or herself a populist, their actions on this matter speak far louder than their words. When it comes to Republicans, Republicans also are listening to K Street and the lobbyists. Why? It is not complicated. The giant corporations that are getting special favors from the taxpayers hire an army of lobbyists who write campaign checks after campaign checks. And, by the way, these checks go to both Democrats and Republicans. It is career politicians in both parties who are kept in office by looting the taxpayer to benefit wealthy powerful corporations. The single largest recipient of loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank is the Boeing corporation. The Boeing corporation just had an earnings call where their CEO said--and I am paraphrasing: We'll be just fine without the Ex-Im Bank. It is not impacting us. There are plenty of private loan alternatives out there. But even though the market could provide, it is a lot easier to have compliant lawmakers rob from the public fist to enrich giant corporations. Do you know who doesn't have lobbyists? A single mom waiting tables. Do you know who doesn't have lobbyists? A teenage immigrant like my father, washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour, struggling to achieve the American dream. Do you know who doesn't have lobbyists? A factory worker who just wants to work and provide for his or her children. They don't have lobbyists, and so what happens? Career politicians in both parties gang up with giant corporations to loot their taxes to make it harder for people who are struggling to achieve the American dream. Coal miners, Madam President, in your State don't have lobbyists who are representing them here--the individual miners--while the majority leader teams up with the Democratic leader to take from their paychecks to fund giant corporations. It is wrong and it is corrupt. It saddens me to say this. I sat in my office. I told my staff: The majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 Republicans in the eye. I cannot believe he would tell a flatout lie, and I voted based on those assurances that he made to each and every one of us. What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican Senator but what he told the press over and over and over again was a simple lie. This institution should not operate at the beck and call of lobbyists in Washington. This institution, the majority and minority leaders arm in arm again, should not team up against the American taxpayers. It is why our children are going bankrupt. Now we are facing an enormous threat with this Iran deal. A nuclear Iran poses the greatest national security threat to this country. Yet the majority leader refused to do what he just did for the Export- Import Bank on Iran. He refused to invoke cloture. That was an extraordinary step. If he was telling us the truth when he said there was no deal, why would he do what he just did? Well, we now know that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, he is willing to say things that he knows are false. That has consequences for how this body operates. If you or I cannot trust what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other legislation as well, on how this institution operates. There are a host of amendments that the American people have focused on--issues such as defunding Planned Parenthood after the gruesome video. The majority leader doesn't want to vote on that. That is actually something the American people are focused on. He brought up his ObamaCare amendment as a smokescreen, because it is intended to fail. But you know, what he didn't bring up was my amendment to end the congressional exemption from ObamaCare--the corrupt deal that Harry Reid cut with President Obama to exempt Members of Congress. We ought to live under the same rules as everybody else. The majority leader doesn't want to vote on that because he doesn't want to end the cronyism for Members of Congress any more than end the cronyism for giant corporations that enrich themselves at the expense of the American people. There are a host of priorities for the voters who elected you and me. Madam President, I would ask you to think about when you were running for the Senate not too long ago. Do you recall any of your constituents ever saying: We want the Export-Import Bank. No, they want other things. They have other priorities, but those are not the priorities of the Republican leadership. Sadly, today we have government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists. That is not how the Senate is supposed to operate. A far more important amendment than bringing back this corporate welfare and cronyism is my amendment that provides that sanctions on Iran cannot be lifted unless and until Iran does two things: No. 1, it recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, and No. 2, it releases the four American hostages languishing in Iranian prisons. That is a far more important issue than enriching some more lobbyists on K Street and getting a few more campaign contributions. That is what we should be voting on. Accordingly, Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2301 to the McConnell amendment No. 2266, as modified.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair that the amendment is not in order.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, there are a number of Members of this body who in good faith are moving forward to reduce the Federal burdens on States, on teachers, on education. Yet at the end of the day, this bill still mandates specific testing requirements. This amendment is a straightforward amendment to remove the testing mandates and to leave the substance of any testing that occurs to the States. This leaves power over choices in education in the hands of teachers, in the hands of school boards, in the hands of States, in the hands of government that is closest to the people. We have seen with the bipartisan objection to Common Core that the last thing we need in education is unelected bureaucrats in Washington dictating what is being taught to kids at home. This amendment simply takes out the Federal mandates and empowers teachers, school boards, and parents to control the education of their own children.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today's decision in King v. Burwell is judicial activism, plain and simple. For the second time in just a few years, a handful of unelected judges has rewritten the text of ObamaCare in order to impose that failed law upon millions of Americans. The first time, the Court ignored Federal law and magically transformed a statutory ``penalty'' into a ``tax.'' Today, these robed Houdinis have transmogrified a ``Federal exchange'' into an exchange ``established by the State.'' This is lawless. As Justice Scalia rightfully put it, ``Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a State is `established by the State.' '' Justice Scalia continues: ``We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.'' I agree. If this were a bankruptcy case or any other case of ordinary statutory interpretation, the results would have been 9 to 0, with the Court unanimously reversing the Obama administration's illegal actions. But instead, politics intervened. For nakedly political reasons, the Supreme Court willfully ignored the words that Congress wrote, and instead read into the law their preferred policy outcome. These Justices have joined with President Obama in harming millions of Americans. Unelected judges have once again become legislators--and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not of men, and this transparent distortion is disgraceful. These Justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes. They have joined a team, and it is a team that is hurting Americans across this country. ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in America. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part- time work, have lost their health insurance, have lost their doctors. Millions of Americans have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, and it is a direct result of President Obama, of Democrats in the Congress, and of lawless Justices at the U.S. Supreme Court who have joined the team of the Obama administration. If those Justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office. That is the appropriate place to write laws--on this floor, not from that courtroom. I began my career as a law clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of the greatest Chief Justices ever to serve our Nation. I have spent the majority of my adult life litigating before the U.S. Supreme Court, both on behalf of the State of Texas and on behalf of private parties. What this Court has become is heartbreaking. If Chief Justice Rehnquist could see this Court today, he would be filled with sorrow at what has become of the Supreme Court of the United States. The obligation of fidelity to the Constitution and fidelity to law matters. We are not living in a platonic oligarchy with philosopher kings governing us who believe they get to write the laws, interpret the laws, and enforce the laws. That is not the American system of governance. At the same time, crocodile tears are flowing here in our Nation's Capital over the Supreme Court's decision to illegally rewrite ObamaCare, which has been a disaster since its inception. But one day of faux outrage from the Washington cartel won't fool the millions of courageous conservatives all across our country. They know that far too many career politicians--Democrats and Republicans--in this Nation's Capital are quietly celebrating the Court's decision. If they believe this issue is now settled so they don't have to address it, they are sorely mistaken. I have made repeal of this disastrous law a top priority since the very first day I entered into this body, and I have made its repeal central to my tenure in office. Republicans all across the country, including my friend the Presiding Officer, campaigned on repealing this law and were elected in a historic tidal wave year--historic majorities in both Chambers of this Congress and in statehouses all across the country. It is now up to us to keep our promises. I believe 2016 will be a national referendum on repealing ObamaCare. This law is profoundly unpopular. It is unpopular with Republicans, it is unpopular with Independents, it is unpopular with Democrats, it is unpopular with young people, it is unpopular with Hispanics, and it is unpopular with everybody it has hurt, and there are millions being hurt by this law. The Court adopted and put its stamp of approval on the IRS's blatantly unlawful reading of the statute to make subsidies and taxes applicable to individuals on Federal exchanges when Congress explicitly provided the opposite. Jonathan Gruber famously said Obamacare was built on exploiting the stupidity of the American people. Well, unfortunately the Supreme Court is now complicit in that deception. The Supreme Court has joined President Obama, whose statement ``if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan'' was rightfully noted as the lie of the year as millions of Americans lost their doctors. Now those rogue Justices are complicit in that lie, in setting aside their oath of office to lie to the American people. After today's ruling, ObamaCare will now be responsible for imposing illegal taxes on more than 11 million individuals and for burdening hundreds of thousands of businesses with illegal penalties on their workers, killing jobs and further slowing economic growth. You are a young person right now. You come out of school. You have student loans up to your eyeballs. You are struggling. You don't know if you are going to get a job. The dismal Obama economy means your future is bleak. You have no hope or optimism of actually getting a career, getting skills, moving towards the American dream. Well, today the U.S. Supreme Court has joined arm in arm with President Obama and the IRS in illegally imposing taxes on you--you, that young person starting your career, struggling to make your student loan payments. Working as a part-time employee making coffee doesn't pay those payments, and yet you are stuck with the individual mandate, which is a tax, so says the Supreme Court and so the Obama Justice Department argued. Right after President Obama told the American people it wasn't a tax, the Obama Justice Department said yes, it is a tax. The Supreme Court agreed. You, the single person, the single mom trying to feed your kids, are paying an illegal tax because of the lies emanating from Washington, DC. You, the teenage immigrant, as my father was 58 years ago, washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour--he couldn't speak English, but he was filled with hopes and dreams. He was filled with an aspiration for the American dream. Ours is the greatest Nation in the history of the world because people can start with nothing and achieve anything. That is the promise of America. ObamaCare is strangling that promise. You, the teen, are paying illegal taxes right now today because of President Obama's deception, because of the IRS's lawlessness, and because of the Supreme Court's judicial activism, violating their oaths of office. I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of ObamaCare. Mark my words. Following the election in 2016, the referendum that we will have, in 2017, this Chamber will return and we will repeal every word of ObamaCare. We will bring back economic growth, we will bring back opportunity, and then we will pass commonsense health reform that makes health insurance personal, portable, and affordable and that keeps government from getting between us and our doctors. We will recognize that this horrible experiment has failed. When millions of Americans lose their jobs, are forced into part-time jobs, lose their health care, lose their doctors, when millions of Americans see their premiums skyrocket, it is incumbent on Members of this body, it is incumbent on the Federal Government to fix the wreckage they caused, to fix the wreckage the Supreme Court has now embraced lawlessly. We will repeal ObamaCare, and I will fight with every breath in my body to make sure that happens in 2017. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I would note that he and I agree on a great many issues, although we don't agree entirely on this issue. But I want to take the opportunity to thank the Senator from Kentucky for his passionate defense of liberties. His is a voice this body needs to listen to. I would note that the Senator from Kentucky's father spent decades in the House of Representatives as a passionate advocate for liberty. Both his father's voice and the Senator from Kentucky's voice have altered the debate in this Chamber and have helped refocus the Congress and the American people on the critical importance of defending our liberty. I think protecting the Bill of Rights is a fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. And it is heartbreaking that over the last 6 years we have seen a Federal Government that not only fails to protect the Bill of Rights but that routinely violates the constitutional liberties of American citizens and routinely violates the Bill of Rights. I listened to the learned remarks and questions from the Senator from Utah, where he noted that under the justifications for the current bulk collection of metadata, it is the position of the Federal Government that they have the full constitutional authority not only to collect metadata but to collect the positional location of every American. If any of us carry our cell phone, wherever we go, it is the position of the Obama administration that the Federal Government has the full constitutional authority to track the location of every American citizen no matter where we are. That is a breathtaking assertion of power. I would note that we do not merely need to speculate that that is the Obama administration's position. Indeed, in a recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama administration argues that law enforcement could place a GPS locator on the automobile of any and every law-abiding citizen in this country and track the location of your automobile and my automobile with no probable cause, no articulable suspicion, no nothing. The Obama administration argued that the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights say nothing about the Federal Government placing a GPS locator on the automobile of private law-abiding citizens. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that position. It did not reject that position 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 or 7 to 2; the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that radical antiprivacy position of the Obama administration unanimously, 9 to 0. I am entirely in agreement with my friend the Senator from Utah that the right resolution of the issue before this body is for the U.S. Senate to pass the USA FREEDOM Act. I am an original sponsor of that bipartisan legislation. The USA FREEDOM Act does two things: No. 1, it ends the Federal Government's bulk collection of phone metadata for law-abiding citizens. I am entirely in agreement with my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, that the Federal Government should not be collecting the data of millions of law-abiding citizens with no evidentiary basis to do so. It is long past time to end this program, and the USA FREEDOM Act does that. At the same time, the USA FREEDOM Act maintains the tools to target terrorists. We are living in a dangerous world with the rise of ISIS and Al Shabaab and Boko Haram, not to mention Al Qaeda and radical Islamic terrorism across the globe. The threat to the American homeland has never been greater. It is critical that law enforcement and national security maintain the tools so that if there is a credible basis to believe that a particular individual is planning a terrorist attack, we can intercept their communications and we can prevent that terrorist attack before, God forbid, they murder innocent Americans in the homeland. Those critical words there are ``particular individual.'' What the Fourth Amendment envisions is not that law enforcement's hands are tied; law enforcement has tools to stop crimes. But as my friend the Senator from Kentucky has so powerfully observed, the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent general warrants. It was designed to prevent the government from assuming that everyone in the country is automatically guilty and we will seize your information. Rather, the tools of law enforcement and national security should be particularized based on the facts of the evidence. That is why I support the USA FREEDOM Act because it accomplishes both goals. It protects our privacy rights and the Bill of Rights of law-abiding citizens, but it ensures we have the tools to prevent acts of terrorists. I would note two points that are important. There are a number of Members of this body, including a number of Members of my party and the party of this Senator from Kentucky, who argue that the PATRIOT Act should be reauthorized with no changes, and they argue to do anything else would jeopardize our national security. There are two facts that are critical to assess to responding to that argument. No. 1, the Members of this body have received confidential classified briefings from the national security officers of this administration. We are not at liberty to convey the specific details of those briefings. But the Members of this body have been told, No. 1, the USA FREEDOM Act would provide effective tools so that we can prevent acts of terrorists. Indeed, they have gone further to say that it is entirely possible that under the USA FREEDOM Act, the national security team would have more effective tools to stop actual terrorists than they do today under the bulk metadata collection of law-abiding citizens. That is worth underscoring. The national security professionals advising this body have said the USA FREEDOM Act could well be more effective in providing the tools to stop terrorists than the current status quo. That argument needs to sit in for everyone arguing that we have to maintain the status quo to stop terrorism. If it is the case, as we have been told, that the USA FREEDOM Act could be more effective, that argument suddenly falls to the ground. Secondly, I address my friends in the Republican Party who have preferred to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Even if that is their preference, it is abundantly, abundantly clear that a clean reauthorization to the PATRIOT Act ``ain't'' passing this body and it certainly ``ain't'' passing the House of Representatives. I would note that the USA FREEDOM Act passed the House of Representatives 338 to 88. It was not a narrow victory. It was overwhelming. So even if Members of this body would prefer to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act in its entirety, the votes ``ain't'' there. So the choice they face is letting it expire altogether, losing the tools we have to prevent real terrorists from carrying out acts of terrorism or accepting a commonsense middle ground that vigorously protects the Bill of Rights while maintaining the tools to target the bad guys. I will say this: With my friend the Senator from Kentucky, I entirely agree that he is fully entitled to introduce his amendments to that bill. This body should engage in a full and open debate considering amendments, and the Senator from Kentucky should be able to propose reasonable commonsense improvements to the USA FREEDOM Act. We ought to debate them on the merits in a full and open process. There was a time not too long ago when this body was called the world's greatest deliberative body. Debate is what we are supposed to do on the merits. If the defenders of the PATRIOT Act right now are so confident of their position, they should be prepared to debate the Senator from Kentucky on the merits, to debate each of the Members of this body on the merits, and to arrive at the right policy that both protects our constitutional rights and ensures we have all the tools we need to protect the safety of American citizens against acts of terrorism. I will note standing here with the Senator from Kentucky and with the Senator from Utah at 11:40 p.m., I am reminded of the movie ``The Blues Brothers'' saying: Jake, we have got to get the band back together again. I am reminded of previous evenings standing here with this same band of brothers in the wee hours of the morning. I will make a couple of final observations in this question. The first is, the very first time I ever spoke on the Senate floor, when I was a brand-new freshman Senator, was during the last time the Senator from Kentucky was filibustering. Senator Rand Paul was filibustering against the Obama administration's policy of uncontrolled drone strikes and the refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge that the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from using a drone to target a U.S. citizen with lethal force if that citizen does not pose an imminent threat on U.S. soil. When the Senator from Kentucky began that filibuster that morning, he had asked if I might come out and support him. I told him at the time, as a newbie in this body, that I wanted to respect the institutions of the Senate, which included the tradition that the freshman Senator should stay quiet for a number of months before speaking. So initially I said: No, I am not going to come down; it is not yet time for me to speak on the Senate floor. Yet he stood there and 1 hour and 2 hours passed. I could not stand back without joining him in the support in that epic fight. That time I am reminded it was an anniversary of the Battle of the Alamo. So I had the opportunity to read to my friend William Barret Travis's letter from the Alamo and to give him the encouragement of Texans who gave their lives in defense of liberty and, indeed, at the time to read tweets that were sent in support of the Senator from Kentucky. I said many times I will go to my grave in debt to Senator Rand Paul for the first opportunity I had to speak on the Senate floor which was his epic filibuster. I would also note that following that filibuster, Senator Paul gave me two pieces of advice, both of which proved very helpful for a filibuster I was to do of my own several months later. Advice No. 1, he said, was wear comfortable shoes. I would note that I observed the last time Senator Paul did that, he did not follow this advice. He had not planned to speak as long as he had. He told me his feet hurt for 2 weeks. I will confess, it was to my great shame that I am wearing today my argument boots, which I wear every day on the Senate floor. But when I filibustered on ObamaCare, I shamefully left my boots in the closet and went and purchased black tennis shoes. As the hours wore on, I was very grateful I had abided by Senator Paul's good advice and wore the tennis shoes. I would note, as I am sitting here today, that the good Senator is wearing tennis shoes today. So I am glad to see he follows his own advice, and I have no doubt that his calves and thighs will thank him tonight and in the morning. The second bit of advice Senator Paul gave me was to drink very, very little water. That was advice he acknowledged likewise he had not followed in his own filibuster. I will note that not too long ago I was sitting in the President's chair presiding, and the entire hour I was there, there was a glass of water on Senator Paul's desk, and he did not drink a sip of it. I will note that was advice I endeavored to follow. It was good advice, and I am glad to see my friend is following it as well. This is an exceptionally important issue that this body should be focused on, the responsibility to protect the Bill of Rights and the constitutional rights of every American. The question I would ask my friend the Senator from Kentucky is, is there any excuse for this body not taking seriously our obligation to protect the Bill of Rights and the constitutional rights of privacy of every American?

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I will wrap up momentarily and then will be happy to yield to my friend from Oklahoma for his very reasonable time allocation suggestion. I would note that the Senator from Maryland suggested the problem of Congress affirmatively approving this is that it could be subject to delay; that Congress might not take it up. I would note for my friend from Maryland that I would certainly be amenable to a friendly amendment to my amendment that required expedited consideration of an Iran deal without the ability to filibuster but with the requirement that it receive the affirmative approval of both Houses of Congress. So the specific problems my friend from Maryland suggested could be avoided. We could put in a short but expedited time period, if necessary, but what is critical, I would suggest, is that Congress has to ultimately approve this; that we take responsibility. If the deal is a good one, then the majority of Congress should support it. If it is not a good one, then it will not receive the approval of the majority of Congress. So I would ask my friend from Maryland if that would be a friendly amendment that he would be open to in reaching a compromise.

Mr. CRUZ. I would note, Mr. President, the result of this amendment not being taken up is that Congress is abrogating our authority and responsibility to approve this deal. Because of the result of this bill as drafted, we can look in a crystal ball and know exactly what is going to happen. In a couple of months, the administration will come forward with the details of its terrible deal with Iran. This summer we are going to have debates in this body. A resolution of disapproval will be introduced, and it will not get 67 votes in this body. There will be enough Members of the President's own party who will stand with him no matter how terrible the deal is for our national security. Right now, with this legislation, the bad deal will go into effect--a deal that has the potential to result in the murder of millions of Americans. There are very few topics we address that come anywhere close to the gravity of this topic, and it is disappointing to see Democratic Senators putting partisan politics above our national security. We should stand together to protect America. The next 20 months are going to be very dangerous in this Nation. Yet I am encouraged that in 20 months America is going to embark on a different path. America is going to return to defending our Nation and defending our Constitution and defending the men and women across this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to sound a note of warning about the nation of Iran. Consider the following facts: The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has accused America of lying. We learned that the Iranian regime has been actively arming and supporting the anti- American Houthi rebels in Yemen since 2009. The Iranian regime held a parade of military equipment that featured chants of ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel.'' The Iranian regime unjustly detained American citizen, Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and charged him with espionage and other crimes, including ``propaganda against the establishment.'' The Defense Minister of Iran declared that IAEA inspectors would be barred from all military sites, even those known to have nuclear facilities. The Iranian Navy threatened a cargo ship sailing under the flag of the United States in the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian Navy seized another cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz sailing under the flag of our ally, the Marshall Islands. The Foreign Minister of Iran accused the United States and our allies of being the biggest danger to the international community. Great Britain informed a U.N. sanctions panel that Iran has an active nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms. The Iranian Navy harassed a U.S. warship and military plane off the coast of Yemen. These are not events from 1979 or 1983 or 1996. These are, in chronological order, the aggressive anti-American actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the last month. Every one of those occurred in the last month, at least these are the ones we know of that have been covered in the media. This relentless drumbeat of hostility has gone on unabated for 36 years, and it makes the legislation before this body, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, all the more critical. The bill's supporters insist it is the only way to ensure that Congress has its due say over President Obama's proposed Iran deal. I agree that it is of paramount importance to give Congress its proper role in an international agreement of this magnitude and to make clear that President Obama must persuade Congress and the American people to support his deal if he wants it to be binding, which is why I have been supportive of this process so far. But I am here to tell you that as the legislation stands, this legislation is unlikely to stop a bad Iran deal. The problem is an all-too-familiar one here in Washington, DC, which is that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act contains a provision inserted at the insistence of Senate Democrats which will allow Congress to appear to vote against the deal while tacitly allowing it to go into effect. The bill allows Congress to adopt a ``resolution of disapproval'' of President Obama's Iran deal. On the surface that sounds reasonable. From what we know publicly of the deal, I certainly disapprove of it strongly. But a resolution of disapproval under this legislation, even if it passed a 60-vote threshold, with grand claims of bipartisanship, would not be the end of the matter. The President would certainly veto it. Once he did, it would require 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House to override that veto. No wonder the White House has lifted its objection to this legislation. All the President would have to do to force a bad Iran deal on America is hold 34 Senators in the Democratic Party or 145 Members of Congress. If he could do that, a bad deal that undermines the national security of this country, that endangers our friend and ally, the nation of Israel, would go into effect. He could claim he was simply following the process Congress required. That is not an oversight. That is not an accident. This bill, as drafted, will provide some political cover to Senate Democrats to say they have voted to provide strict scrutiny and congressional approval of an Iran deal. Yet, as currently drafted, it is a virtual certainty that no matter how terrible this deal is, it will go into effect and this legislation is unlikely to stop it. Our first priority should be stopping a bad Iran deal that jeopardizes the lives of millions of Americans and millions of our allies. There is nothing more important this body can consider, not trade, not the budget. There is nothing more important. The first responsibility of this body is to protect the national security of this country, to protect the lives and safety of men, women, and children across this country. The President's Iran deal deeply jeopardizes the safety of Americans. From what we know publicly--and the details are still shrouded in considerable secrecy-- but from what we know publicly, under this deal, Iran will be allowed to keep its enriched uranium. It will be allowed to keep its centrifuges and reactors. It will continue its ICBM Program, the only purpose of which is to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States of America. Tehran will receive even more economic relief, reportedly including a $50 billion signing bonus. Who in their right mind would give a $50 billion signing bonus to Iran? It is worth noting that even under one of the strictest regimes of international sanctions, Iran was still able to marshall the resources to become one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. We can only imagine what Iran will do with this new source of funding, which will certainly flow to Hamas, to Hezbollah, and to the Houthis, as well as to their proxies in Latin America. I would note, if this deal goes into effect, and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars flow into Iran, including a $50 billion signing bonus, and that money is given directly to radical Islamic terrorists, the blood of the men and women and children who will be murdered by those terrorists will be directly on the hands of this administration. If we allow tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into the hands of terrorists, it places complicity for that terrorism on this administration. There is no topic more serious this body could consider than preventing the murder of Americans. The Iranians' behavior speaks for itself. They are, right now today, unlawfully imprisoning multiple American citizens--Pastor Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, as well as Jason Rezaian--under brutal conditions. They are withholding information on the whereabouts of Robert Levinson. They have killed Americans across the globe and they have plotted to kill us here at home. They are explicitly threatening to wipe our ally, the nation of Israel, off the map. Indeed, in the midst of this negotiation, the senior Iranian general said: The annihilation of Israel is ``non-negotiable''. Given that, there is no way on Earth we should be allowing billions of dollars to flow into a radical terrorist organization that has declared its object destroying Israel, which they call the ``Little Satan,'' and ultimately destroying America, which they call us the ``Great Satan.'' They are telling us they want to kill us, not 10 years ago or 20 years ago--they are telling us this right now. If history teaches any principle with abundant clarity, it is that if somebody tells you they want to kill you, believe them. They are not being subtle. Those are the people the Obama administration are putting on a path to having nuclear weaponry, the most fearsome weaponry known to man. Make no mistake. That is what this deal would do unless Congress steps in to stop it--not to have a show vote, not to pretend to disapprove but to actually stop a bad deal that jeopardizes our safety. To see how this scenario is likely to play out, we do not have to speculate. We need to look no further than to the recent history of North Korea. In October 1994, the Clinton administration reached another agreed framework with North Korea over that nation's nuclear program. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright insisted she had gotten a deal that would freeze the military components of the program and, through economic incentives and diplomatic outreach, entice the hermit kingdom to join the international community and reject their pursuit of nuclear weapons. At first, all seemed to go well as North Korea eagerly accepted the influx of hard currency, as well as the promised civilian nuclear reactors. Secretary Albright, accompanied by then-Policy Coordinator for North Korea Wendy Sherman, even visited North Korea in 2000 to celebrate the progress. Despite all of the diplomatic initiatives, despite all of the champagne toasts, the North Koreans were cheating, we now know, they were cheating on the framework from the get-go. When the George W. Bush administration figured it out, economic sanctions were reimposed. But they had no effect, neither did yet more additional rounds of negotiations while they continued and continued and continued to enrich. Kim Jong-il had gotten the resources he needed because the Clinton administration relaxed sanctions and allowed billions of dollars to flow into his hands. In 2006, North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon--two more tests to follow. In 2012, when Kim Jong Un came to power, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that Kim Jong Un might be a transformative leader. The State Department reportedly assured the President that he would be more concerned with economic improvements than with his inherited nuclear program. In less than 2 years, this, too, was proven wrong. Kim Jong Un has demonstrated no interest in reform. He has, instead, resolutely pursued his father's policy. Just last week, we learned from the Chinese that North Korea is well on its way to having some 40 nuclear weapons by 2016, as their ability to enrich uranium is significantly more sophisticated than had been believed. In addition, they are hard at work at their ICBM Program and may soon be able not only to threaten our regional allies but also to strike the west coast of the United States. With so many weapons in their arsenal, it seems only logical that this rogue regime may, in turn, offer some of those weapons for sale to the highest bidder. All of this proves the fallacy of the Clinton administration's repeated basic assumption; that the North Koreans would act in their best interests economically, for which, for Albright and Sherman, meant reaching a diplomatic agreement to achieve economic relief. Unfortunately, they were dead wrong. The result is the United States faces an escalating strategic threat in the Pacific. We are now in grave danger of history repeating itself with Iran. Wendy Sherman, the very same person who negotiated the failed North Korea deal, the Obama administration brought her back from the Clinton administration to be our lead negotiator with Iran. Think about that. The person who led the failed North Korea talks, the talks that led to North Korea getting nuclear weapons, is President Obama's lead negotiator with Iran, and her negotiations will certainly lead to the same outcome. Indeed, when Secretary Clinton brought Wendy Sherman back, Wendy Sherman promptly followed the exact same playbook for the negotiations that she had followed under the Clinton administration with respect to North Korea. You know, Albert Einstein famously said: ``The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' If we negotiate the same failed deal, we will get the same failed outcome. Iran has already enjoyed significant economic relief and legitimization on the international stage, while America's demands have dwindled from dismantling Iran's nuclear program to now merely curbing it around the edges temporarily and unverifiably. It may only be a matter of time before Secretary John Kerry, no doubt accompanied by Under Secretary Wendy Sherman, pays a courtesy call on Tehran to echo history and to show the world how ``civilized'' the whole arrangement is and only a matter of time until the Iranians cheat--just like the North Koreans--their way to a bomb. Yet the grim reality is that, as bad as the situation is with North Korea, with Iran it is qualitatively worse. The Kim dynasty are brutal, megalomaniacal dictators, but they do seem to be motivated, at least to some extent, by self-preservation, and so to some form, there is at least a possibility of rational deterrence. And therein lies the fundamental difference with Iran. The mullahs in Tehran are radical, Islamist zealots, for whom the eradication of the little Satan, Israel, and the great Satan, America, is a solemn religious duty. And with radical religious zealots, ordinary cost-benefit analysis doesn't apply the same way. With zealots who glorify death and suicide, deterrence doesn't work the way it works elsewhere. ``Death to America'' is not just a slogan; it is a religious promise. The risk that the Ayatolla will use the economic windfall of billions of dollars, courtesy of the United States, to pursue nuclear weapons that he would either use himself or give to terrorist surrogates to use is intolerably high. The consequences of this deal could very well be an Iranian nuclear weapon used in the skies of Tel Aviv, New York or Los Angeles. The consequence of this deal could very well be millions of Americans murdered. There is no more serious topic we could be addressing. Now, President Obama and his two Secretaries of State have had their chance to negotiate with Iran, and they have squandered it on the same approach that was so spectacularly unsuccessful with North Korea. They changed very little. They just replayed the same failed plan. Once again, assuming they can reason with a rogue regime, they are on the verge of sealing a deal that could result in the most significant threat to our Nation in the 21st century. The administration's claim that Tehran will not use their economic windfall to pursue a nuclear program or to support terrorism and that if they do, ``snapback'' sanctions will fix the problem are hardly reassuring, especially, as we know from the example of North Korea that the opposite result is far more likely. Having gotten what they wanted, the mullahs will string out the economic benefits for as long as they want and then, when they are ready, test a nuclear bomb. The Iranians know perfectly well what a very good deal this is for them. And they are doing what they can to prevent Congress from disrupting it. In March, I was proud to join with 46 of my colleagues in signing a letter written by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas that explained the constitutional role of the Senate in approving a treaty--or of both Houses of Congress--passing legislation into law, for any deal to be binding on the United States of America. Judging from their reaction, Tehran does not appreciate our free system of government. Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif responded that: The authors [of the letter] may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations. Speaking last week to an audience at NYU, Mr. Zarif reiterated his opinion that as a matter of international law, President Obama would have to abide by the dictates of whatever deal is struck and that Congress is powerless to stop it. He also said that he ``does not deal with Congress.'' As a matter of U.S. law, Mr. Zarif is wrong. It is true that in the nation of Iran, when you have a supreme leader, an ayatolla, with the ability to string you up or shoot you if you disagree, the word of the Supreme Leader is binding. But we have no supreme leader in the United States of America. We are bound by a Constitution and rule of law that keeps sovereignty in we the people. If Mr. Zarif wants a sanctions agreement, the only way to make that binding is to deal with Congress pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. But if we pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act as it stands right now, he won't have to. It is time to tell the American people the truth--enough games. This legislation is not a victory of Congress. This legislation, at best, will slow down, slightly, a terrible deal from being put into place. That is the very best outcome--a slight delay in the President's putting into effect a terrible deal that jeopardizes American security. It is not a guarantee that President Obama will have to submit this deal and honor the will of Congress. In fact, it provides a back-door path for a minority in Congress, one-third of Congress, to ensure that the deal goes into effect over the bipartisan will of the majority. And even worse, the President will be able to claim that he satisfied the terms that Congress itself set. That is hardly the message we want to send on Iran's nuclear program. And this issue is far too important to pass a bad bill simply to send a message. By prioritizing bipartisan compromise over our national security, we are endangering the safety and lives of Americans across this country. Now, I will note there is a silver lining. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will no longer occupy the Oval Office. In January of 2017, when a new President enters the White House, he or she will have full authority to rescind any international agreement with Iran that has not been ratified by the Senate or passed into law by both Houses of Congress. Any man or woman who is fit to be Commander in Chief of the United States of America should be prepared to rescind a bad deal with Iran on day one. No President of the United States should jeopardize the lives of millions of Americans or millions of our allies. Congress could act right now to stop a bad deal. We could come together and assert our constitutional role, and we can do so through a very simple mechanism. Right now, the current bill provides that if Congress doesn't override President Obama's veto, a terrible Iran deal goes into effect. I have joined with Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania in filing an amendment that simply reverses that default, which simply says: The President cannot lift sanctions on Iran unless the deal is affirmatively approved by Congress. That is the constitutional structure. That ought to be a provision supported--not by 51 Senators or even 60 Senators or even 67 Senators--by all 100 Senators. What a strange development in our modern polity that the Congress of the United States is content to effectively neuter itself. The Presiding Officer and I are both Members of the Republican Party. I feel quite confident that if a Republican President were in office, we would not be content to give up the constitutional authority and responsibility that is given to this body to ratify treaties or to pass law. And yet I am sorry to say, on the Democratic side of the aisle, our friends are perfectly content to forfeit their constitutional authority to the President. If this deal is a good deal on the substance--it most assuredly is not, but if it is--the President should be able to get congressional approval. Yet the reason that Senate Democrats are terrified of requiring congressional approval is they know full well you cannot defend a deal that allows Iran to keep tens of thousands of centrifuges, to keep enriched uranium, to keep developing their ICBM program, to keep remaining the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and to keep working to annihilate the nation of Israel. That is not defensible on the merits. One simple change would turn this legislation into something meaningful. One simple change that would say: The President is free to negotiate any deal he likes, but before it goes into effect, bring it to Congress and get the affirmative agreement of Congress. Don't have a fig-leaf vote and let the President's bad deal go into effect. That undermines our national security. Have a meaningful vote that requires the affirmative approval of Congress. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Cruz-Toomey amendment, which is a commonsense fix that will give this bill real teeth by removing the resolution of disapproval and, instead, would allow an Iran deal to go into effect only if Congress approves it. In the spirit of this legislation, it is purely procedural, and so it is germane to this bill. Yet Senate Democrats have blocked a vote on it. They have refused even to vote on this amendment. All this amendment does is ensure that the burden is on President Obama to persuade Congress and the American people that the deal is a good one or, at a very minimum, is not a terrible threat to the national security of the United States of America. This should be something on which we come together--not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Senators who have a responsibility to protect our constituents, to protect the American people, and to defend the Constitution. We should come together with one voice and say: We will not allow a bad Iran deal that ensures that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons that could be used to murder millions of Americans or millions of our allies. This should be unanimous. Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 1152 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 1191, that I be allowed to offer my amendment No. 1152.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about what has come to define the Obama administration, which is a consistent pattern of lawlessness that disrespects the Constitution, that disrespects the Congress, and that disrespects the people of the United States. In any administration, under any President, the person charged with being the chief law enforcement officer is the Attorney General. I have been blessed to work in the U.S. Department of Justice, and there is a long, bipartisan tradition of Attorneys General remaining faithful to the law and to the Constitution and setting aside partisan considerations and politics. Unfortunately, that tradition has not been honored during the Obama Presidency. Attorney General Eric Holder has been the most partisan Attorney General the United States has ever seen. The Attorney General has systematically refused to do anything to seriously investigate or prosecute the IRS for targeting citizens for expressing their First Amendment rights. Indeed, he has assigned the investigation to a major Democratic donor and partisan Democrat who has given over $6,000 to President Obama and the Democrats. Eric Holder has abused the office and has turned it, in many respects, into a partisan arm of the Democratic Party. He is the only Attorney General in the history of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress. So there are many, including me, who would very much like to see Eric Holder replaced. There are many, including me, who would very much like to see an Attorney General who will return to the bipartisan traditions of the Department of Justice of fidelity to law, and that includes most importantly the willingness to stand up to the President who appointed you even if he or she is from the same political party as are you. During the confirmation hearings, I very much wanted to support Loretta Lynch's nomination. Bringing in a new Attorney General should be turning a positive page in this country. But, unfortunately, the answers Ms. Lynch gave in the confirmation hearing, in my opinion, rendered her unsuitable for confirmation as Attorney General of the United States. That was a shame. Ms. Lynch's record as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York had earned her a reputation as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor, so it was my hope that we would see a similar approach and similar answers from Ms. Lynch at the confirmation hearing. Instead, she chose to embrace the lawlessness of the Holder Justice Department. When she was asked whether she would defend President Obama's illegal Executive amnesty, which President Obama has acknowledged no fewer than 22 times that he had no constitutional authority to undertake and which a Federal court has now enjoined as unlawful, she responded affirmatively, saying she thought the administration's contrived legal justification was ``reasonable.'' The nominee went on to say that she sees nothing wrong with the President's decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations that are explicitly barred by Federal law to nearly 5 million people who are here in this country illegally. When asked further who has ``more a right to a job, a United States citizen or a person who came to this country illegally?'' she responded, ``I believe that the right and obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here.'' Well, a very large majority of American citizens would beg to differ. Rule of law matters. When she was asked about the limits of prosecutorial discretion--the dubious theory President Obama has put forth to justify his illegal executive amnesty--she could give no limits to that theory. When asked if a subsequent President could use prosecutorial discretion to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25 percent, she refused to answer. When asked if a subsequent President could use that same theory to exempt the State of Texas--all 27 million people--from every single Federal labor law and environmental law, she refused to answer. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every single American without probable cause, she refused to answer. That extreme view was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church's or synagogue's choice of their own pastor or their own rabbi, she again refused to answer. Likewise, that extreme view was rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan-- appointed by President Obama--said at the oral argument that the Holder Justice Department's position that the First Amendment says nothing about the religious liberty of a church or a synagogue--Justice Kagan said, ``I find your position amazing.'' Well, I am sorry to say that Ms. Lynch was unwilling to answer whether she holds that same amazing position, that the First Amendment does not protect the religious liberty of people of faith in this country. When asked in her hearing if she believes the Federal Government could employ a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual posed no imminent threat, she refused to answer. When asked if she would be willing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS's targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views--something which President Obama said he was ``angry about and the American people had a right to be angry about''-- and when asked if she would appoint a prosecutor who was at a minimum not a major Obama donor, she refused to answer. This nominee has given every indication that she will continue the Holder Justice Department's lawlessness. That was her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wanted to support this nomination. I wanted to see a new Attorney General who would be faithful to law. But her answers made that impossible. I would note that there is a difference. Eric Holder began disregarding the Constitution and laws after he was confirmed as Attorney General. Ms. Lynch has told the Senate that is what she is going to do. That means each and every one of us bears responsibility. In my view, no Senator can vote for this confirmation consistent with her or her oath given the answers that were given. I would note that a particular onus falls on the new Republican majority. For several months, I have called on the Republican majority to block the confirmation of President Obama's executive and judicial nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until the President rescinds his lawless amnesty. I am sorry to say the majority leadership has been unwilling to do so. The Republican majority, if it so chose, could defeat this nomination, but the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed. I would note that there are more than a few voters back home who are asking: What exactly is the difference between a Democratic and Republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as Attorney General promising the exact same lawlessness? What is the difference? That is a question each of us will have to answer to our constituents when we go home. In my view, the obligation of every Senator to defend the Constitution is front and center why we are here. We have a nominee who has told the Senate she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on the authority of the President of the United States for the next 20 months. We are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness, more regulatory abuse, more abuse of power, more Executive lawlessness. Now more than ever, we need an Attorney General with the integrity and faithfulness of law to stand up to the President. Attorneys General in both parties, Republican and Democratic, have done so. When credible allegations of wrongdoing by Richard Nixon were raised, his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to investigate regardless of partisan politics. Likewise, when credible allegations by Bill Clinton arose, his Attorney General, Janet Reno--a Democrat--appointed Robert Fisk as the independent counsel to investigate those allegations. Eric Holder has been unwilling to demonstrate that same faithfulness to law, and unfortunately Ms. Lynch has told us that she, too, is unwilling to do so. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to insist on an Attorney General who will uphold her oath to the Constitution and to the people of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on an idea--an idea that every person has the right to freely speak, live, worship, work, and build flourishing lives for themselves and their families. And today I want to recognize a man who embraces those liberties and whose witness is exceptional. For a century, Mr. Mitzner has been a warrior for freedom. David Mitzner was born to Jewish parents in Poland, and during World War II he lost his family to the Holocaust. He survived 8 long years in a Soviet gulag. A Russian officer told the men at the labor camp, ``Here you're going to live, here you're going to die.'' David refused to accept that as his fate and fought to live. In 1949 he defied his captors and escaped the iron grip of communism to come to the United States. He arrived in New York with just $17 in his pocket. He didn't know English and didn't have any relatives to rely upon. He got his first job working for a hosiery manufacturer and today he is one of world's most successful private real estate investors whose projects span from Texas to Poland. He works with the same vigor, energy, and gratitude as he did when he stepped onto American soil 66 years ago. And at 100 years old, Mr. Mitzner still goes into the office to make sure his company continues to operate with uncompromising integrity and excellence. He has pioneered development in cities across the world, and particularly in Warsaw, his childhood home, which was nearly destroyed by communism. His fellow investors said it couldn't be done but he proved them wrong. As he often says, there are miracles all around us. David's life is a miracle and it is one that continues to overflow into all those who are blessed to know him. In closing, I want to recount a brief anecdote from the Passover Seder, which I had the privilege of celebration with David and the extended Mitzner family last year. It was very close to his 99th birthday, and I remember him saying, ``99 is nothing. When I turn 100, that will be something.'' David, you are now 100, and it is indeed something. Happy birthday, friend, and thank you for the legacy you have built, not merely on bricks and mortar, but on upon your fortitude and your faith.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 125

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this amendment would expedite the export of liquid natural gas and would provide countries that are members of the WTO the same expedited process that is currently available to free- trade agreement countries. There are now in the Department of Energy some 28 applications pending to export liquid natural gas. This should be an amendment that would bring together Republicans and Democrats. A recent study showed that allowing us to export LNG could create as many as 450,000 new jobs by 2035 that could produce GDP growth of up to an additional $73.6 billion and produce 76,000 more manufacturing jobs. It would aid our allies such as Ukraine, the Baltics, and Europe, and would weaken countries such as Russia that would use natural gas for economic blackmail. I would urge all Senators to support this amendment.