Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 115

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I come first of all in celebration, in celebration that the Senate is finally working again. In just 27 days we have seen more amendments voted on on the floor of the Senate than under the Democratic majority in the entire year of 2014. We once again have a Senate where Republicans and Democrats can offer their amendments, can debate their amendments, and can vote them up or down. One of the resounding consequences of the election in November is the American people were tired of the Democratic do-nothing Senate. We have a Senate that has shown up to work. The bill we are voting on, the underlying bill, is an example of what the priorities should be in the Senate. The Keystone Pipeline bill ought to be a no-brainer. It ought to be an example of bipartisan cooperation. Indeed, one of the very first things I did 2 years ago when I was newly elected to this body was join with 10 Senators, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, in sending a bipartisan letter to the President saying approve the Keystone Pipeline now. Why? No. 1, it will produce jobs, tens of thousands of high-paying jobs. No. 2, it will increase tax revenue. It will increase revenue for the Federal Government, for State and local governments. That revenue can be used to pay down our national debt to provide for our vital needs. No. 3, it will enhance our national security by allowing us to move toward North American energy independence rather than being dependent on foreign nations for oil, nations whose interests are very different and sometimes hostile to our own. No. 4, building the Keystone Pipeline is unequivocally better for the environment. Indeed, I have joked: If you are a bearded, tattooed, Birkenstock- wearing, tree-hugging, Green Peace activist, you should love the Keystone Pipeline, because if the pipeline is not built, it means we will continue to bring our oil in on overseas tankers and on rail, both of which are far more dangerous for the environment than a pipeline, both of which we know to a certainty that as long as there are tankers on the oceans there will be spills, as long as there is rail there will be spills. Moreover, if the pipeline is not built north-south, it is not as though our friends the Canadians are simply going to leave the oil where it is, they are going to build the pipeline east-west, and instead of allowing it to be refined in America where it produces high- paying jobs here up and down the gulf coast, the alternative is it would be refined in Asia and China in far dirtier refineries that pollute the environment even more. So this ought to be a no-brainer. This ought to be an example of where Republicans and Democrats come together in agreement. But, sadly, it is not, and it is not because the modern Democratic Party has made a decision between two traditionally favored children of the Democratic Party. The modern Democratic Party has made a decision that they care more about the campaign donations from California environmentalist billionaires than they do about the jobs for union members. I suggest that the 100 Senators who are elected to the Senate ought to be fighting for the hard-working men and women. We ought to be fighting for the union members, for all of the men and women who want good, decent-paying jobs, who want to provide for their kids, and who are tired of the stagnation of the Obama economy. Only last week we heard the President give his State of the Union Address, where he talked about how swimmingly the economy is going. Well, you know, he was right. If you happen to be one of those California environmentalist billionaires, if you happen to be in the top 1 percent--the millionaires and billionaires whom the President demagogues--then you have indeed become richer under President Obama. Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our economy than in any year since 1928. Those who walk the corridors of power in the Obama administration have gotten fat and happy. Yet for working men and women, union members, their lives have gotten harder and harder and harder. We have, today, the lowest labor-force participation since 1978. Median income in this country has stagnated for two decades. Yet what is the Democratic Party doing? Marshalling every vote it can to vote against union members, to vote against hard-working men and women, to stand with the big dollars coming out of California. What a sad, sad statement of priorities that is. So let me commend majority leader Mitch McConnell for bringing up an open process, allowing Democrats amendments. I would be happy to vote on Democratic amendments all day long and Republican amendments on the merit. Let me commend the majority as well for focusing on the issues that matter to the American people--namely, bringing back jobs and economic growth and opportunity. Now, in the course of this open amendment proceeding, I have submitted three different amendments. One would get rid of the longstanding anachronistic ban on exporting crude oil that was put in place in the 1970s. It makes no sense in the current environment and is hurting jobs and economic growth. A second would obviate the need for having this fight every time a cross-border pipeline was built. It would streamline the process for building pipelines so we could move ahead with economic growth. Both of those amendments, I believe, are sound policy. I think they are supported by the interests of Americans across this country. After long conversations with my friends and colleagues, Senator Murkowski and Senator Hoeven, we have agreed that we are going to have committee hearings in the coming months focusing on both of those issues, laying out the facts and the data to make clear that these are unambiguously good--whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent or a Libertarian--if you want jobs and economic growth. These reforms are sound reforms to bring back jobs, economic growth, and opportunity. Amendment No. 15 The third amendment I have submitted, which I am hopeful we will vote on either today or tomorrow, is an amendment to expedite exports of liquid natural gas. That is what I wish to speak about for just a few minutes. The amendment that I am presenting will expedite LNG exports to World Trade Organization members, removing unnecessary delays that have been caused by the arbitrary Department of Energy approval process. Currently, countries under free-trade agreements with the United States enjoy a streamlined, expedited approval process to import our LNG. For projects to FTA countries, current law deems those ``in the public interest'' and they get a permit ``without modification or delay.'' Yet those without such an agreement must, instead, submit to an arduous case-by-case nonstandardized process that ends up discouraging LNG trade and related investments. It ends up killing jobs. For projects to non-FTA countries, right now there are no time limits and no standardized process by which the Department of Energy determines whether or not the project is ``in the public interest'' for receiving a permit. The amendment I have offered would open the doors of trade to more than 160 countries in the World Trade Organization to receive this same expedited treatment that we currently have in place for free-trade countries. This is particularly important not only for economic development, not only for jobs, not only for growth but also for the enormous geopolitical advantages that it will present to the United States. In the past several years we have seen the consequences of the Obama- Clinton foreign policy. We have seen the United States receding from leadership in the world, and we have seen other nations--foreign nations--step into that void and use energy as a weapon, as a cudgel-- whether it is Venezuela or Iran or Russia. Allowing expedited LNG exports strengthens our hands against those who would be enemies of America, and it strengthens the hands of our friends and allies. Here at home, according to a 2013 study, in the United States LNG exports could create up to 450,000 new jobs by 2035. So we will see, when Republicans and Democrats vote on this amendment, where each Senator stands on whether we should allow the private sector to create up to 450,000 new jobs. Every Democrat who votes no can expect to go back to his or her State and face constituents--face the union members who would like to get some of those 450,000 new jobs--and explain why he or she voted against that hard-working man or woman having a job. Over the same time, GDP growth could generate anywhere from an additional $15.6 billion up to $73.6 billion. By 2035 the net gain in manufacturing jobs could mean up to 76,000 new jobs. A lot of the Members of this body like to talk about manufacturing, like to talk about the steel industry, the car industry. It used to be that the backbone of the American middle class was the blue-collar jobs where you could work with dignity, where you could provide for your family, and where you could provide for your kids. Every Senator who votes no to LNG exports because they want to continue receiving money from the California billionaires had better be prepared to return home to their States, look into the eyes of the manufacturing workers, and explain why he or she voted against 76,000 new manufacturing jobs. Geopolitically, let's take Ukraine. All of us sat not long ago in the House of Representatives for a joint session when the President of Ukraine addressed us both. We stood over and over--standing, quite literally, alongside Ukraine. If we want action to match those words, then every Senator should vote yes on this amendment. Ukraine currently relies on natural gas for 40 percent of its energy needs. More than 60 percent of the natural gas that Ukraine gets and depends on comes from Russia, and Russia uses that natural gas as a club to extract economic blackmail on Ukraine. Last spring I traveled to Ukraine, Poland, and Estonia. As I visited with leaders throughout Europe, these friends of ours said over and over: Help us free ourselves from energy blackmail from Russia. As of today, the Department of Energy has approved nine export permits to non-free-trade agreement countries within the past 2 years. Twenty-eight applications are currently pending stacked up on the desk, going nowhere. The increased energy production from allowing us to export the resources we have to friends and allies who want and need it would spur investment and create thousands of jobs for America. It would be a boon to countries such as Ukraine. It would be a boon to Europe, and it would be a boon to the Baltics, which are watching what is happening in Ukraine and wondering: Are we next? It would be a boon to friends of ours, such as Germany, who likewise depend on Russia for significant energy needs. Today this body faces a pivotal question. Will we lead the world into a new generation of American prosperity and energy prosperity led by the American energy renaissance we are experiencing or will we instead shut off our borders, erect walls, and allow our friends and allies to be dependent on tyrants such as Putin or Maduro. We need to come together in a bipartisan manner to say we support jobs, we support economic growth, and we support standing united alongside our friends and allies in defense of freedom. I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 15.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this is an amendment to allow expedited export of liquid natural gas to WTO member countries. It would have benefits to our country in terms of jobs and economic growth as well as substantial geopolitical benefits to our allies. I expect to debate this further in the coming days.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a fearless leader, and one I am blessed to call a friend. Chip Roy. Chip reluctantly agreed to travel from Texas to Washington--frequently leaving his beautiful wife Carrah and his two precious children, Charlie and Virginia--to help build and lead one of the most talented and principled conservative teams on Capitol Hill, and to Make D.C. Listen. He did. He will continue to lead in Texas, now just from a different front. My good friends in Texas, especially newly elected Attorney General Paxton and Governor Abbott, are fortunate to have such a principled fighter for liberty assuming the role as First Assistant to the Attorney General. I look forward to many opportunities to continue working side-by-side to champion the rights of Texans, and all Americans. Chip is a man of conviction. His passion is matched only by his unceasing faith. I am confident he will continue to shine a light on the truth and to serve the Great State of Texas and this Nation with the utmost dedication to the Constitution and to the Lord Almighty. I will always be grateful for the many days--and nights--Chip dedicated to critical fights here in the Senate, from protecting citizens' Second Amendment rights, to securing our borders, to leading a national debate on the harms of Obamacare. Chip knows DC well, but he knows the American people better, and his courage to help change the way Washington does business to put our fellow Texans and Americans first is a rare gift that will continue to live on. This is simply the beginning, as we both continue to battle to protect our God-given rights, to secure a future filled with opportunity for our beloved children, and to keep America the land of the free. May we continue to make Texas a beacon of liberty. Chip, thank you for your tireless service, especially in the wake of your courageous battle against cancer. Thank you for your uncompromising principles. Thank you for your continued friendship. For, as Proverbs 27:17 says, ``As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.'' Your leadership has, and will continue to, make all who are privileged to know you stronger. May God continue to bless you, and the Great State of Texas.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, would the majority leader yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, 1 month ago President Obama announced unprecedented Executive amnesty, in direct conflict with the immigration laws passed by Congress. Tonight is the first opportunity that Congress has to express its disapproval. A dozen Democrats have publicly criticized the Executive amnesty. Tonight, both Democrats and Republicans will have the opportunity to show America whether they stand with the President, who is defying the will of the voters, or with the millions of Americans who want a safe and legal immigration system. This point of order is targeted not to the entire omnibus but specifically to the DHS funding that the President has announced will be spent unconstitutionally. If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote yes. If you believe President Obama's amnesty is consistent with the Constitution, then vote no. Accordingly, I raise a constitutional point of order against Division L of the pending House amendment, on the grounds that it violates the following provisions of the Constitution: the separation of powers embodied in the vesting clauses of article I, section 1, and article II, section 1; the enumerated powers of Congress, stated in article I, section 8; and the requirement that the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed as stated in article II, section 3. It is incumbent on this body to resolve those constitutional questions and to honor and protect the constitutional authority of the United States Congress. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I am.

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

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, anyone watching Congress right now would have little reason to think that an historic election occurred only a few weeks ago. Washington, DC, sadly, continues to remain deaf to the American people. Washington, DC, continues to refuse to listen to the American people. Even though millions of voters rose up just 1 month ago to protest how President Obama and the Senate Democrats were running Washington, business as usual is continuing inside the marble halls of the Congress. What is happening here? Last night we saw chaos in the U.S. House of Representatives as they were there until late in the night, voting on a bill that the vast majority of the Members had never even sat down to read. Yet somehow, at the last minute, just in the nick of time, with an arm twisted here and a nudge there, it passed the House. Now it is here in the Senate. Before the Senate today is a $1.1 trillion bill full of Christmas presents for the lobbyists and special interests here in Washington. I know it is Christmastime, but it is not our job to be playing Santa to K Street. This bill is not designed to help working Americans. It is designed to pay off all the promises made to lobbyists who funded campaigns over the past year. It is designed to make sure that a whole lot of folks can fly home and ensure that more campaign dollars will be coming in the coming weeks. Before the Senate is a bill that continues to fund the train wreck that is ObamaCare, and does nothing to provide relief to the millions of men and women who are hurting, who are suffering, who lost their jobs, who lost their health care because of this disaster. And before the Senate is a bill that does nothing--absolutely nothing--to stop President Obama's illegal and unconstitutional amnesty. That is why I rise to speak here today. The President's Executive amnesty is lawless and unconstitutional. To be clear, the dispute over Executive amnesty is not a dispute between President Obama and Republicans in Congress. It is a dispute between President Obama and the American people. In this last election President Obama said something that was absolutely correct. He said his policies were on the ballot all across this country. The President was right. This election was a referendum on amnesty. I spent roughly 2 months on the road campaigning for Senate candidates all over the country, one after the other, in race after race. Front and center was: If you elect Republicans, we will stop President Obama's amnesty. The American people's verdict on that referendum was not ambiguous. Over and over again voters in States across this country decided not to send back the incumbent Democrats, but to elect a new Republican. I recall 2 years ago when the Presiding Officer and I were freshmen. There were nine Democratic freshmen that year and just three Republicans. Today there are 12 Republican freshmen--12 new Senators, a quarter of the Republican conference--elected as the result of a referendum on amnesty. The people have spoken loudly. Yet, sadly, President Obama has reacted to the voters in a way that, frankly, is unprecedented in American history. Previous Presidents, particularly second-term Presidents, have been repudiated by the voters, and there is a way Presidents typically responded: They react with humility. They react acknowledging the American people, trying to course correct. Sadly, President Obama didn't do that. Instead, he came out angry and defiant. He came out and declared to the American people: It doesn't matter, in his view, what the American people say. And it doesn't matter, in his view, what the Congress, elected by the American people, says. He is instead going to unilaterally decree amnesty for some 5 million people who are here illegally. We are going to have a vote in time on this omnibus bill. But critical in that vote should be a vote on President Obama's illegal amnesty. We should consider the constitutionality of his actions. Every Senator in this body should be put on record whether he or she believes it is constitutional for a President to disregard--to ignore--Federal immigration laws, and grant blanket amnesty to millions in defiance of both the laws on the books and the voters. This President believes he can unilaterally alter laws he disagrees with. There is a form of governance where one man or one woman can make the laws, can change the laws, can enforce the laws. It is called a monarchy. There are countries on Earth right now that have monarchies that vest the legislative and executive power in one person. I would note Americans historically are not unfamiliar with monarchy. We fought a bloody revolution to free ourselves from a tyrannical monarch. And when our Framers drafted our Constitution, it was designed, as Thomas Jefferson put it, to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government. The danger we are facing here right now is profound insofar as it concerns amnesty, and is even greater as it concerns the checks and balances in our government and the protection of individual liberty. Because a President who can set aside the law, who can pick and choose which law to follow and which law to ignore, is no longer a President. That should concern all 100 Senators here. If President Obama can decide I don't agree with the immigration laws, so I will not enforce them, I will unilaterally change them--I promise you there is going to come another President--another President with different policy views. And the next time it may not be immigration laws that he or she is changing, it may be tax laws or environmental laws or labor laws. I fervently believe we need tax reform, labor reform, and environmental reform, but there is a proper way to do it. The proper way to do it is this body debating and making legislative changes to the laws, not one President by dicta setting aside the law. A Presidential temper tantrum is not an acceptable means of discourse. One of the characteristics of a monarch is he or she need not compromise. The President has justified this illegal amnesty by saying he told Congress what he wanted, and Congress refused to give it to him. Well, the relationship in our constitutional Republic between the President and the Congress is not the relationship between a parent and a child. The President does not get to demand of Congress: Here is the policy I want. Either give me what I want, or I will decree it to be so and ignore the law. That is the President's bargaining position. The President wants to reform immigration. And let me be clear: We need commonsense immigration reform. I support commonsense immigration reform. But the way it works in our constitutional system is if you want to change the laws, you have to work with the other branches. And that means you have to compromise. It means the President doesn't get everything he wants. And this is a President who is barely willing even to talk to Congress, much less to compromise on anything. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69: A monarch decrees, dictates, and rules through fiat--which is what President Obama is attempting to do right now. When the President embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on Congress to wield the constitutional power this body has as the elected people's representatives to stop it. The Congress representing the voice of the people who just spoke resoundingly in an election should use every constitutional tool available to prevent the President from subverting the rule of law. When the President usurps the legislative powers and defies the limits of his authority, it becomes all the more imperative for Congress to act. And Congress should use those powers given to it by the Constitution to counter a lawless executive branch, or this body will lose its authority. If the President will not respect the people, Congress must. Second, let me ask a question. Why are we here today in a lameduck? Why is there a session of Congress the second week of December with so many Members voting who the American people just said they no longer want to be represented by? Why are there so many Members getting ready to land at cushy law firms and lobby jobs in industry and trade associations? All of our colleagues, a whole bunch of them, we are going to see them again--except they will have more expensive suits, more finely tailored, and come with an army of lobbyist aides with them. Both the House and the Senate are filled with people who won't be here next year. And that is not of accident, because these bodies are voting to fund a $1 trillion spending bill, and those Members who were defeated or retiring aren't accountable to anybody. They won't have to answer for this. But it is even worse. I mention this omnibus is a payoff to K Street. That is where a lot of these retiring Members are going to go. So what a perfect way to start your job is to ensure that you come with goodies for the rich and powerful. Look, the American people are disgusted by the way Washington works. Washington under the Obama administration takes care of the rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, and ordinary working men and women are left in the dark. People who have been hurt the most under the Obama economy have been the most vulnerable among us. They have been young people, they have been Hispanics, they have been African Americans, they have been single moms. And yet, I am sorry to say, in this current Senate there are very few advocates for the people who are really hurting. Let me give one example. One of the elements of this bill is the so- called expatriate health insurance plan fix that this omnibus exempts from ObamaCare. Now what is this about? Well, American insurance companies that sell insurance policies to expatriates--Americans living abroad--are subject to all of the oppressive mandates of ObamaCare. All of the mandated coverage mandating things--like maternity care for women who are no longer in childbearing years--all sorts of mandates that drive up the costs. And they are also subject to the crushing impunity taxes. So what has happened? Insurance companies have come to Congress and said: It is not fair. It is hurting our business, it is hurting our jobs. It is amazing. Get enough lobbyists together, and suddenly you get bipartisan agreement. This provision has Republicans and Democrats together saying we should carve a special exemption for the big insurance companies. There are a lot of things about this body that they don't teach in civics class. There are a lot of things in this body that would horrify the typical junior high or high school student learning about how government operates. One of them is something called the hotline. An awful lot of legislation gets passed on the hotline. That is, someone introduces legislation, sends around an email and says, unless you object, this will be treated as automatically passed. All sorts of items get done on the hotline without this body ever debating it, ever considering amendments, ever taking it to the floor. Well, this ex-patriot insurance amendment was hotlined. Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, want to shoot it through in the lame duck in the quiet of night. Now listen, I think there are some good arguments on its merits for this ex-patriot bill. It is not unreasonable to recognize that ObamaCare is costing jobs, and it is hurting. But I will tell you the way a hotline works is any single Senator can object. So I objected. Let me tell you why. I said listen, this may make sense, but we shouldn't do it with no amendments, no debate, in the dark of the night. We should do this on the floor of the Senate, with a debate and with amendments. In particular, I want to take the opportunity to ask my friends and colleagues who are Democrats, who are supporting this exemption, if you think these provisions of ObamaCare are so onerous, so damaging, are killing so many jobs, why won't you provide an exemption for the people that live in your State? If it is right that these are harmful, why discriminate against the people living in your State? I want to take it up on the floor in a context where you could offer amendments to say, listen, it is all fine to take care of the big insurance companies, but how about somebody stand up for single moms--single moms who are in vast numbers being forced into part-time work, forced to work 28, 29 hours a week because in ObamaCare the threshold that kicks in is 30 hours a week? How about somebody stand up for the average working men and women. But I will tell you what. The single moms, the African-American teenagers, the legal immigrants--they don't have fancy lobbyists. There is no provision in the past several months that I have been more heavily lobbied over than this ex-patriot bill. I had an insurance company CEO on the phone with me. I had Senators on the phone and lobbyists on the phone all saying, look, take care of this provision. I responded very reasonably. I said look, we could take it up in just a couple of weeks. In January, with a new Congress, we could take this up, we can debate it, we can consider it. But if we are going to be making exemptions for ObamaCare, how about if we not start with the richest and most powerful corporations? How about instead we start with working men and women, put working men and women first because they are the ones paying the biggest price. Yet I am sorry to tell you this is a great illustration of how Washington works. When it couldn't get hotlined in its own bill, what happened? It magically appeared on the omnibus, tacked on at the last minute because they knew it would go just right through Congress in the dark of night--how profoundly corrupt. Listen, if you are a Fortune 100 company, you should feel thrilled because you can marshal armies of lobbyists to get special carve-outs for you. But if you are a steelworker out of work, if you are a single mom, if you are a Hispanic teenager trying to get her first job to start climbing the economic ladder and moving towards the American dream, you know what; you don't have a high-paid lobbyist, and unfortunately, this Senate is not listening to you. We need to change that. We need to change that. Another provision of this omnibus is a special carve-out for Blue Cross Blue Shield. Blue Cross Blue Shield is a very fine company. Blue Cross Blue Shield spent more than $15 million on lobbyists this year. Now it is all fine and dandy that Blue Cross Blue Shield gets a carve-out. What about working men and women? Under the Harry Reid Senate, do you know how many bills we have debated on the floor to provide meaningful relief to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, lost their health care, have been forced into part-time work, who face skyrocketing insurance premiums and lost their doctors? Zero, not a single one, because working men and women don't have $15 million to hire fancy lobbyists. And the corrupt culture of Washington listens to the lobbyists and not the people. Let me be clear on this. This is a bipartisan bill. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate, has shut this institution down and has ceased working for working Americans. But Republicans share in that sin, share in that embrace of corporate welfare. Enough with the corporate welfare. God bless big companies that provide jobs. We don't need to be providing corporate welfare. How about instead we have fundamental economic reform that brings back growth, that helps small companies start and grow and create jobs. How about we stop playing favorites and picking winners and losers, and instead how about Washington listening to the American people? Another provision in this bill--another bit of corporate welfare--is Brand USA, a travel promotion company. That is one of the current majority leader's pet projects because it helps promote casinos in his home State. Last I checked, casinos were very profitable endeavors that didn't need the taxpayers helping them out, didn't need the Congress serving your hard-earned dollars and handing it out to promote casinos. Another example is the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It is also reauthorized in this bill. Most people haven't heard about it, but let me tell you what it does. Over the past few years, OPIC has approved a $20 million loan to help luxury cars be built in Eastern Europe. Coincidentally, the man who owns the company is a donor to President Obama and Vice-President Biden. OPIC has also backed hundreds of millions of dollars for solar farms in South Africa. It has also helped finance the Ritz Carlton in Istanbul. It has backed $150 million in insurance for Citibank to open branches in Pakistan, Jordan, and Egypt. How is it that one of the largest banks in the world cannot get its own insurance? Why should taxpayers take on that risk? They shouldn't. Also spread throughout this bill are all kinds of provisions mandating what kind of vehicles the U.S. Government may buy for use, limits on how much the car can weigh, rules on how it must be powered, where the corporation is based and put together. They all together work to give U.S. corporations that produce expensive electric cars an advantage. Instead of saving the taxpayer money, this bill is pushing the government to purchase Chevy Volts and Teslas, instead of other more affordable cars. Yet another problem in the lameduck was seen in a bill we considered earlier today, the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA had a lot of good provisions in it. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I introduced amendments that were accepted and included in the bill, including one that is near and dear to my heart, a provision that finally, finally, finally, allows the 14 innocent souls who were murdered by Nidal Hassan of Fort Hood to be eligible for the Purple Heart. It has been far too long that this administration has declared that terrorist attack to be workplace violence. That was a good provision. There are other good provisions in that bill. Yet in the last minute, a giant chunk of legislation got added to the Defense authorization that had nothing to do with defense. Instead it was a giant land grab. Once again it was bipartisan--Democrats and Republicans coming together and saying, let's have the Federal Government seize a bunch of land. So the Defense authorization bill added 250,000 acres of new wilderness designation. The Defense authorization bill resulted in 400,000 acres being withdrawn from productive use. It added three new wild and scenic river designations, three new studies for additional designations. Some of these provisions may have been sound on their own, but there was a reason they weren't brought up on their own. There is a reason they weren't debated on the floor of the Senate--because they couldn't withstand the scrutiny. So instead, the way corrupt Washington works, they were stuck on to a Defense authorization that was deemed must- pass, and suddenly the Federal Government takes roughly one-half million acres of land out of productive use, out of use by the citizenry. You know that is disrespectful to the men and women in the military. It is a disservice. We shouldn't be using the Defense authorization as a tool for congressional pork. I will make an additional point about President Obama's amnesty. In all likelihood, in a matter of hours or a matter of days, the Senate is going to pass this massive pork-filled mess of a bill, a $1 trillion- plus amnesty that is paying off lobbyists throughout this land. Yet leadership from both parties--Republican leadership in both the House and Senate have promised this bill is designed for Congress to stand up to President Obama's illegal amnesty. They have said repeatedly that in just a few weeks help is on the way. In just a few weeks Republicans will be the majority in this body and in just a few weeks we will have a new majority leader. The new majority leader, my friend the senior Senator from Kentucky has said: If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act. We're considering a variety of options. But make no mistake. When the newly elected representatives of the American people take their seats, they will act. I take the soon-to-be majority leader at his word. The Speaker of the House has said: ``Come January, we'll have a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and we'll be in a stronger position to take action.'' The Speaker went on to say that the current plan is ``the most practical way to fight the President's action.'' Again, I take him at his word. When the Republican leaders promise this bill is all designed so that come January and February--just a few weeks from now--we will see both Houses stand together and make clear that when the continuing resolution expires for the Department of Homeland Security, this body will not appropriate money to DHS to carry out President Obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive action, I take them at their word, because the alternative would be that elected leaders are saying something to the American people they don't believe and they don't intend to follow through with. And I very much hope that is not the case. Indeed, I am reminded of Reagan's famous admonition: Trust but verify. So I take them at their word, but I would note that a whole lot of citizens across this country feel a little bit like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football. Where in fight after fight, leadership in Congress says: We will fight next time. Not this time--no, no, no--the wise thing to do is fight in a month, fight in 2 months, fight in 3 months--not now. It always seems to be when the month or 2 months or 3 months happens, the same statement is made: No, no, no--not January, maybe March. No, no, no--not that. How about June? No, no, no. How about September? There has been a time when Charlie Brown has kicked the football and fallen on his rear end one too many times. So when our leaders in both Chambers say as a commitment, we will fight, and we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty, I take them at their word. But I am confident that the American people will hold them to their word. The American people may not be quite so trusting, as am I, because they have seen far too many Members of Congress say one thing and do another. We will learn soon enough if those statements are genuine and sincere. We will learn in just a few weeks if leadership intends to follow through on the promises they have made over and over again. I would note that over the course of this election, Republican Members of the House, Republican Members of the Senate campaigned all over this country and they said two things repeatedly. They said No. 1, if you elect us we are going to do everything humanly possible to stop the train wreck that is ObamaCare, and they said, No. 2, if you elect us, if you give us a Republican majority in the Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal action. All over the country, that is what Republican candidates said, and it is the reason they told the American people to elect a Republican majority. My admonition to my friends--especially to the newly elected Republicans--is very simple: Do what you said. Simply do what you said. Virtually every Republican on this side of the Chamber told the men and women in his or her State: If you elect us, we will stop President Obama's amnesty. We must do what we said because it is profoundly unfair. This amnesty is unfair to millions of legal immigrants who followed the rules and waited years in line yet see those who came illegally being rewarded nonetheless by the Obama administration. This Executive amnesty is profoundly unfair to the 92 million Americans who are not working right now and to all the working men and women struggling to just put food on the table to feed their kids. This Executive amnesty is profoundly unfair, especially to the African-American community, which is facing historic unemployment. If Congress acquiesces and does not stand up and assert the prerogative of this institution to legislate, to pass laws, and prevent the President from ignoring the laws on the books, then we will have ceded our authority not just on immigration but across the field. It is incumbent on all of us to defend the Constitution, and it is my hope that the Senators who take an oath to uphold the Constitution will honor that oath more than party allegiances. I will note that in recent weeks no fewer than a dozen Democratic Senators have publicly criticized President Obama's illegal Executive amnesty. I welcome that criticism. It is nice to see that sort of candor coming from Democratic Senators, but, as my wife is fond of telling me, talk is cheap. If those dozen Democratic Senators who criticized President Obama's Executive amnesty as illegal and unconstitutional mean what they say, then the only responsible action is to use our legislative authority to stop it. I hope my Democratic colleagues will put partisan politics aside-- even those who may agree with President Obama's amnesty--and say that the way to change the immigration laws is to work with Congress and compromise. You may not get everything you want, but we have a system of checks and balances. It is striking--in many ways the simplest and best explanation of what the President has done came from ``Saturday Night Live.'' The week after the President's illegal amnesty, ``Saturday Night Live'' reprised the classic ``Schoolhouse Rock--How a Bill Becomes a Law.'' They had a giant dancing, singing bill come out and say: ``First I go to the House, then I go to the Senate, and if I'm lucky, the President will sign me and I become a law.'' Then on ``Saturday Night Live,'' President Obama walked out onto the steps of the Capitol and pushed the bill down the steps of the Capitol. He pushed the bill down the steps of the Capitol four separate times, and then out walked an Executive order smoking a cigarette, as it so happens, and it simply said: ``I'm an Executive order. I pretty much just happen.'' Do you know what? ``Saturday Night Live'' is exactly right. The President is ignoring the basic checks and balances of our Constitution and trying instead to decree the law. That is unconstitutional, and a portion of this bill that has been sent over from the House of Representatives funds the Department of Homeland Security to carry out that unconstitutional action. Therefore, Madam President, I am now offering and raising a constitutional point of order against division L of this bill on the grounds that it violates the following provisions of the Constitution: the separation of powers embodied in the vesting clauses of Article I, Section 1 and Article II, Section 1; the enumerated powers of Congress stated in Article I, Section 8; and the requirement that the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed, as stated in Article II, Section 3. It is incumbent on this body to resolve those constitutional questions and to honor and protect the constitutional authority of the United States Congress.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the words of Cicero are powerfully relevant 2,077 years later: When, President Obama, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end to that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now? Do not the nightly guards placed on the border, do not the watches posted throughout the city, does not the alarm of the people and the union of all good men and women--does not the precaution taken of assembling the Senate in this most defensible place--do not the looks and countenances of this venerable body here present, have any effect upon you? Do you not feel that your plans are detected? Do you not see that your conspiracy is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge that everyone here possesses of it? What is there that you did last night, what the night before--where is it that you were--who was there that you summoned to meet you--what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted? Shame on the age and on its lost principles. The Senate is aware of these things; the Senate sees them; and yet this man dictates by his pen and his phone. Dictates. Aye, he will not even come into the Senate. He will not take part in the public deliberations; he ignores every individual among us. We gallant men and women think that we are doing our duty to the Republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks. You ought, President Obama, long ago to have been led to defeat by your own disdain for the people. That destruction which you have been long plotting ought to have already fallen. What shall we, who are the Senate, tolerate President Obama, openly desirous to destroy the Constitution and this Republic? For I passed over old instances, such as how the IRS plotted to silence American citizens. There was once such virtue in this Republic that brave men and women would repress mischievous citizens with severe chastisement than the most bitter enemy. For we have a resolution of the Senate, a formidable and authoritative decree against you, Mr. President. The wisdom of the Republic is not at fault, nor the dignity of this Senatorial body. We, we alone--I say it openly--we, the Senate, are waiting in our duty to stop this lawless administration and its unconstitutional amnesty. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor a great teacher today. His name is Alan Dershowitz. For half a century he was a professor at the Harvard Law School. He retired in December of 2013. From all those students who were so fortunate to learn from him, including myself, let us say thank you. Professor Dershowitz joined Harvard Law in 1964--at the tender age of 25--and during his time there, he trained more than 10,000 students in more than 100 semesters to be critical thinkers, lawyers, judges, and leaders. Aside from being an incredible teacher, he is known as many things: advocate, columnist, novelist, and intellectual. He is a passionate liberal, and yet he pressed all his students-- conservative and liberal alike--to make the very best arguments they could, based on logic, reason, and precedent. Like Professor Kingsbury in ``The Paper Chase,'' he didn't suffer fools. If you couldn't back up your position in his class, if you emoted rather than reasoned, you were in trouble. He and I became friends, ironically, because we disagreed so much. In class, he would offer withering critiques of opinions authored by conservative Justices, Scalia and Thomas especially, and I was often moved to disagree. Heated arguments followed, which Professor Dershowitz always seemed to relish. I am grateful for his patience and indulgence. As with countless law students before and after, Professor Dershowitz made me a much better lawyer. He didn't just teach; he also practiced, in trial courts and the Supreme Court, taking on ``impossible'' cases and winning one after another. Truly, it was a privilege to learn from someone practicing at the very top of his field. Although a man of the left, he did not shy away from disagreeing with his liberal colleagues when principle compelled it. A passionate advocate for free speech, he fearlessly took on the political correctness of campus speech codes. No conformist, he. And there has been no fiercer advocate for Israel. His passion, his persuasiveness, his willingness to take on all comers, has made him an incomparable voice for the Jewish State. Professor Dershowitz is an intellectual powerhorse who could have done anything in his life, and he made the deliberate decision to teach. He chose to share his brilliance and pass it on. He chose to invest in the future of others instead of only himself. I am so grateful that I could be among the thousands of students Professor Dershowitz taught. He has made and continues to make a real difference. Courage and principle are rare today. Professor Dershowitz has them both.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, many months ago the American people were astonished to learn the Federal Government was collecting bulk metadata from personal cell phones of millions of law-abiding citizens. This legislation protects the Constitutional rights of privacy under the Fourth Amendment while maintaining important tools to protect national security and law enforcement. This is bipartisan legislation that enjoys the support of the intelligence community as well as the tech community. The bill is not perfect, but in my view we should take it up and consider reasonable amendments on the floor to make it better. But it is imperative that we stand together, united, protecting the Bill of Rights.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I intend to, yes.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, we have a crisis in this country. We have a crisis at our southern border that is producing some 90,000 unaccompanied children coming into this country. These kids are being victimized. These kids are being physically and sexually abused by violent coyotes and drug cartels. The American people understand we have a crisis, and the American people want action. The House of Representatives understands we have a crisis. The House of Representatives has acted. Yet I am sorry to say the majority leader and the Democrats in this body refuse to allow any action to address this crisis. The crisis at the border is the direct consequence of President Obama's lawlessness. Just 3 years ago, in 2011, there were roughly 6,000 unaccompanied kids coming into this country, and then in 2012, a few months before the election, President Obama unilaterally granted amnesty to some 800,000 people who entered the country illegally as children. The predicted consequence is that if you grant amnesty to those who enter illegally as children, it creates an enormous incentive for more and more children to enter illegally. As a result, we have seen the numbers go from 6,000 unaccompanied kids 3 years ago to approximately 90,000 this year, and next year, the Department of Homeland Security predicts, there will be 145,000 little boys and little girls illegally smuggled, victimized, and brutalized. This needs to stop. We need leadership in Washington. We need leadership in both Houses of Congress. We need leadership from both Republicans and Democrats. Yet not only do President Obama and the Senate Democrats refuse to do anything to solve this problem, but, I am sorry to say, it is even worse. In recent weeks President Obama told the American people he intends to grant even more amnesty. The first illegal amnesty of some 800,000 people was not enough, so in his view we need more. He intends to illegally grant amnesty to 5 or 6 million more people. Mark my words: The President of the United States intends to illegally grant amnesty. Amnesty is coming. Yet we heard in recent days that the President has decided to delay that action until just after the election. There are a lot of cynical policies in Washington, DC. Yet this has to rank very near the top. For the President of the United States to say he understands the American people don't want amnesty, but since there is an election coming up, he intends to pass the policy which they don't want, don't believe in, and which subverts the rule of law just after the election so that the Senate Democrats can campaign and say they had nothing to do with it--what does that say about what the President thinks about the American people? That he thinks they are not paying close enough attention to understand that this election is a referendum on amnesty? That he thinks they won't remember by the time the next election happens? Well, here is the bottom line: Amnesty is the wrong approach that created the crisis. The only way to solve this crisis and protect and prevent those little boys and little girls from being physically and sexually abused is to end President Obama's amnesty and prospectively stop the promise of amnesty that is causing these kids to come here illegally. I introduced legislation in the Senate to do exactly that, and the House of Representatives, to their credit, stood up and led. They stayed in session an extra day before the August recess to come together and pass the legislation I had introduced in the Senate. They passed it by a vote of 216 to 192, with 4 Democrats joining the Republicans to stop President Obama's amnesty in order to actually solve the crisis at the border. Yet what happened in the Senate? In the Senate the majority leader refused to allow a vote on the provision and sent the Senators home for August while doing nothing to address the problem. The reason is simple: Although President Obama and Senate Democrats are afraid of the voters holding them accountable for amnesty, it should be lost on nobody watching that what is happening in the Senate is that the 55 Senate Democrats serving in this body affirmatively want amnesty. If only this body would just do its job. If we would simply pass the legislation the House has already passed, prospectively taking amnesty off the table--and by the way, this bill does nothing, zero, to the so- called DREAMers who are already here. It doesn't address that issue. This issue addresses the promise of amnesty in the future. As long as these children believe they will get amnesty, they will keep coming here illegally. They will keep being victimized and abused. Unfortunately, the majority leader has employed a procedural trick called filling the tree. It is a trick this body is now quite familiar with because it is what the majority leader has done over and over to shut down every single amendment from every Member of this body. To be fair, majority leaders in both parties have used this trick in the past. The previous six majority leaders used the procedural trick of filling the tree a total of 40 times. The current Democratic majority leader has used it almost 90 times since 2006. The current majority leader has used it more than double what his six previous predecessors did. Roughly two-thirds of the time this procedural trick has been employed, it has been by the majority leader of this body. What does that do? What that does is it says legislation in this body will shut down the right of amendments for every Senator. What it says to the 26 million Texans is that their views don't matter because neither Senator Cornyn nor I will be allowed to offer any amendments. It says to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Maryland, the States of New York and California: Your views don't matter. Why? Because the majority leader has stripped your Senators of the right to offer any amendment on any topic whatsoever. The majority leader has done that nearly 90 times--including on this continuing resolution, including on the basic bill that funds the government because the Senate has failed to appropriate the funds that we should be doing otherwise. This is wrong. It is fundamentally wrong. The American people deserve a vote. If Senate Democrats want to embrace amnesty, let them do so openly and in daylight. Stop hiding. People are frustrated with Washington because they recognize politicians say one thing here and one thing at home. How many Senate Democrats, particularly in red States, go home to their States and say amnesty is a terrible thing and then come back here and facilitate the President illegally granting amnesty. How about we have some honesty. How about we have elected Members of this body say and do the same in Washington that they say and do back home. Don't hide. How about we all tell the truth. And the truth is the 55 Senate Democrats want amnesty, but they don't want the voters to know. They are celebrating that President Obama has said: Fear not, the amnesty is coming, but we will wait until after the election. That cynicism is fundamentally inconsistent with the obligation every Member of this body owes to our constituents. So I am pleased we will get a vote--despite the majority leader's best efforts--on amnesty, because momentarily this body is going to have the opportunity to vote, and I predict most, if not all, Senate Democrats will vote in favor of President Obama's amnesty. I have a lot higher opinion of the American people, of the voters, than it seems the President does. I think the American people understand what is going on and I don't think they are going to be fooled by the President delaying his illegal amnesty until after the election. So we are going to get a vote on this matter. Amendment No. 3852 For that reason, I move to table Reid amendment No. 3852 for the purposes of offering the Cruz-Sessions amendment No. 3859, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would note that the objection from my friend from Hawaii observed that this legislation has not gone through the Judiciary Committee, and that is true. It is true, of course, because the Senate is expected to adjourn this week as Senators return to their home States to campaign for elections. If it were to go through the Judiciary Committee, it would mean it would not pass in time to prevent Americans fighting right now with ISIS from coming back and murdering other Americans. There is an urgency and exigency to this situation. This is also legislation the Senate considered before. As I noted, it was bipartisan legislation. Joe Lieberman, Scott Brown, Hillary Clinton are all in one accord. It is unfortunate the Democratic Senators chose to object to this, to prevent this commonsense change in law. I would note when it comes to constitutional concerns, I don't know if anyone in this Senate has been more vigorous or more consistent in terms of defending the constitutional rights of Americans than I have endeavored to be during my short tenure. I will yield to no one in passion for defending constitutional liberties, but I note there is an existing law that has been on the books for many decades covering the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. It is current law right now that if someone goes and joins a foreign nation and takes up arms against America, that act has long been recognized as constituting a constructive renunciation of U.S. citizenship. As for the question of due process, existing law provides due process that an individual who goes and takes up arms with ISIS-- and all this does is treat ISIS, a nonstate terrorist group, on the same footing as taking up arms with a foreign nation against America. It is a recognition of the changed circumstances of this world that many of the gravest threats facing this country are not coming from nation states but are coming from terrorist groups that sadly some Americans are choosing to join forces. The existing law has considerable due process protection such that anyone who is determined to have affirmatively renounced his or her citizenship has a right to challenge that in Federal district court and a full proceeding under existing due process standards to have that matter resolved. The question is very simple: Would any reasonable person want an American who is right now in Iraq, who is right now training with ISIS, who is right now taking up arms, who is right now participating in crucifying Christians, who is right now beheading children, who is right now participating in beheading two American journalists, who is right now standing arm in arm with virulent terrorists who have pledged to take jihad to America--would anyone in good conscience of either party want that person to be able to come back and land at La Guardia Airport with a U.S. passport and walk unmolested onto our streets? The obvious answer is no. It saddens me we could not see Republicans and Democrats come together, and it saddens me that in an election year the Democratic Senator, who is up for reelection, chose to block this commonsense legislation rather than to work together to protect the American citizens. I hope in time we see less election-year politics and more service to the men and women whom all of us are obliged to protect. I yield the floor

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to ask that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to come together and unanimously pass legislation to address the threat of American citizens fighting for ISIS and bringing our statutory system into the 21st century to protect the national security interests of our Nation. As the American people are now painfully aware, the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has emerged as the new face of the radical terrorist threat that has bedeviled the West in recent decades. This virulent jihadist group--so extreme they got kicked out of Al Qaeda, which I will note is not easy to do--is rampaging across Syria and Iraq in a campaign of oppression and genocide, including the relentless targeting and murder of Christians, of Jews, of Muslim minority sects, Yazidis--indeed, any who do not share their radical Sunni theology. While other terrorist organizations have been content with a parasitic relationship with state sponsors of terrorism--notably Syria and Iran--ISIS has a new agenda, which is to establish its own state or caliphate. They now control a territory about the size of Indiana with oilfields they can exploit on the black market to the tune of some $1.5 million a day. Their ranks have grown in the last 3 months alone from roughly 10,000 to now more than 30,000. Unlike some regional jihadists, ISIS also represents a direct and growing threat to our citizens here at home, and increasingly to our homeland itself. Just this week there were news reports of an online posting urging individual jihadists in the United States to attack targets such as Times Square, the Las Vegas strip, and even locations in my home State of Texas, with homemade pipe bombs. This is not the first time we have heard such threats, but we have to take them seriously. ISIS has made no secret that its goal is not simply to establish a caliphate in the Middle East; its desire is to impose Sharia law on the Muslim population and to exterminate any religious minorities, and that desire is not confined by geography. When the leader of ISIS, Abu al-Baghdadi, was released from a detention camp in Iraq in 2009, he reportedly remarked to Army COL Kenneth King, ``See you in New York.'' This danger, this evil intends to come home to America. ISIS has in recent weeks graphically demonstrated their eagerness to murder American civilians by beheading two journalists, gruesomely demonstrating on the world stage their hatred for America. This is not a situation where if we simply leave ISIS alone, they will leave us alone. This is a case where America's national security interests demand a serious response, which should be both to attack ISIS directly and take them out in its claimed caliphate, as well as to defend against the attacks ISIS is planning to execute here at home. The Obama administration's approach to this crisis has unfortunately lacked a clear focus on that issue. It doesn't help that ISIS is surrounded by regional chaos borne out of a Syrian civil war, and ISIS has exploited the inherent political weakness in Iraq. However, while both the crisis in Syria and the upheaval in Baghdad are unfortunate, concerning situations, we cannot allow resolving them to become preconditions to any military action we might need to take against ISIS. All too often, the Obama administration proposals threaten to become embroiled in the midst of these political crises. For example, they have made training and equipping the Free Syrian Army a cornerstone of their plan to fight ISIS. But just this week, the leader of the Free Syrian Army reportedly announced he would not participate in the fight against ISIS unless we pledged to join in his fight against Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. While this is certainly understandable from his perspective, resolving the Syrian civil war is not our mission nor the job of the military and we should not be making the Free Syrian Army, whose focus is Assad, central to the American plan of defending our Nation against the jihadist threat of ISIS. The administration's ISIS policy is also marked by internal confusion that further demonstrates a lack of focus on what should be our clear mission. The President has repeatedly insisted that there will be no American boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, as he wants any action to be led by others, even while he increases U.S. personnel in the country by a few hundred here and a few hundred there. Earlier this week, his top general, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted there were circumstances under which he would change his advice to the President to recommending ground troops--a suggestion that was subsequently echoed by the Chief of Staff of the Army and even Vice President Biden. The American people need and deserve greater clarity on what exactly our military mission is, and how what the President envisions relates to the advice his Department of Defense is giving him. The disconnect between what we know or do not know about the Americans fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria is equally concerning. Estimates range from about one dozen, according to one Pentagon spokesman, to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's reassertion of about 100 Americans fighting with ISIS in this week's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Either way, Secretary Hagel agreed with my characterization of the risks posed that Americans will take U.S. passports after fighting with ISIS, after training with ISIS, to come back and commit unspeakable acts of terror here at home. Secretary Hagel agreed that risk was significant. It seems only prudent to address that threat. I am, therefore, going to be asking for unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2014, which will make fighting for ISIS, taking up arms against the United States, an affirmative renunciation of American citizenship. I should note the Expatriate Terrorist Act is very similar to the bipartisan legislation proposed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown in 2010 to address Americans who were joining Al Qaeda overseas, notably the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, or here at home Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to blow up a car bomb in Times Square. The Expatriate Terrorist Act thus has applicability beyond the immediate threat of ISIS. It is an important adjustment of our existing laws governing the renunciation of citizenship. To reflect the threat posed by nonnation terrorist groups, as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said concerning the Brown-Lieberman legislation: United States citizenship is a privilege. It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers-- Or in this case, foreign terrorists-- are clearly in violation of that oath which they swore when they became citizens. The Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2014 is only a very modest change to current law. It is one small step in a larger and necessary effort to refocus our ISIS strategy that I urge President Obama to consider immediately. We also urgently need to address the question of border security on our southern border so our failure to defend ourselves does not become a weakness that ISIS and other terrorists exploit to carry out unspeakable acts of terror here at home. The American people expect Republicans and Democrats to join together to speak in one uniform voice when it comes to protecting the national security and when it comes to protecting the lives of Americans here at home. If we do not pass this legislation, the consequence will be that Americans fighting alongside ISIS today may come home tomorrow with a U.S. passport, may come home to New York or Los Angeles or Houston or Chicago. Innocent Americans may be murdered if the Senate does not act today. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 554, S. 2779. I further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I don't have the precise cutoff date in my mind, but the point that is being raised is these children don't fall under the precise terms of DACA, but they believe they will get amnesty. I would respond to my friend from Illinois, does my friend from Illinois believe these children who are coming today should get amnesty, yes or no?

Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRUZ. The Senator from New Jersey talked about legislation that was debated and voted on a year ago--legislation that I believe, if passed into law, would only make the problem worse, would only increase illegal immigration, would only exacerbate the problem. I, as do most Americans, want to see commonsense immigration reform, but not reform that fails to secure the border, that grants a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally, and that incentivizes further and further illegal immigration. But that legislation was a year ago. The President of the United States tells us we have a humanitarian crisis on the border today-- right now, not a year ago, today--with little boys and little girls being subjected to physical and sexual violence and being victimized. The question I would ask my friend from New Jersey is: Why is it that neither President Obama nor the Senate Democrats have introduced any legislation or allowed a vote on any legislation whatsoever that would actually solve the problems? Now, the President did introduce a $3.7 billion social services spending bill, less than 5 percent of which went to securing the border and none of which went to the underlying amnesty that is causing this crisis. That was a bill designed to deal with the symptoms to care for the kids once they come, but that bill assumed that tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of kids would continue to come, continue to be victimized. So the question I ask of my friend from New Jersey is: Why have the Democrats not allowed a vote on anything to solve the problem and prevent these little boys and little girls from being victimized this year and next year and the year after that?

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I wish to make two final comments to conclude this exchange. My friend from New Jersey admitted that Senate Democrats introduced nothing--zero, nada--to do anything to fix this humanitarian crisis. Indeed, the majority leader dismissed the Senate and sent the Senators home for the month of August, perfectly content to let the crisis continue, to let tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of children be victimized. He suggested instead the solution was Presidential action, unilateral action. There was a time when the Senate believed we had a responsibility to legislate, to actually pass laws to address challenges. Yet under the Senate Democrats, we have a do-nothing Senate. That is why over 350 bills passed by the House of Representatives are sitting on Harry Reid's desk, because this body no longer votes on meaningful legislation to address the challenges facing this country. My friend from New Jersey suggested that the reason the legislation the House of Representatives passed prohibiting the President from illegally granting amnesty--the reason it is not going to come up for a vote is because he said it is a bad idea. Well, I recognize the Senator from New Jersey may well think that. Indeed, the Senator from Illinois may well think that. But no one who is paying attention to the Senate thinks that is the reason it is not coming up for a vote. If it were objectively a bad idea--if it were a bad idea and the Democrats agreed on that, bringing it up for a vote would be very simple. We would bring it up for a vote. The Democrats have 55 Democrats in this body. They could all vote it down and it would be defeated. If the point were on the merits it is a bad idea, bringing it up for a vote would be very straightforward. The reason the majority leader is fighting so hard to prevent a vote is that a great many of the Members in his caucus are doing everything in their power to convince their constituents back home they don't support amnesty. As we travel the country, the most frequent thing we hear all throughout the country is that the men and women in Washington aren't listening to us. Something happens. I don't know if it is the water or what it is, but they get to Washington, they stop listening to us, and they don't tell us the truth. They are lying to us. We hear this from Republicans, from Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, all across this country. There is a reason why the popularity of Congress rivals that of Ebola, because the American people recognize the people in this body aren't telling them the truth. There is one reason and one reason only that Majority Leader Reid does not want to vote on this legislation: because he wants to allow Senators in red States--the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from Alaska, even the Senator from Colorado, even the Senator from New Mexico--he wants to allow them to tell their constituents, No, I don't support amnesty. And the reality is, of the 55 Members of this Senate who are Democrats, who caucus with the Democratic Party, today it has been conclusively demonstrated that all 55 support President Obama's illegal amnesty and are responsible for his promised amnesty of 5 million to 6 million more people right after the election. If that were not the case, we would have seen one Democrat show up and speak out to the contrary. Not a single Democrat showed up. There is a reason we don't have a vote, because if we had a vote, it would force Members of this body to be on record. The Senator from New Jersey is entitled to make the case on the merits why he thinks amnesty for 5 million or 6 million or 12 million is a good idea. He is entitled to make that case, and if his constituents agree with him, he will keep getting reelected. But far too many Senate Democrats want to pretend they disagree, and a vote makes that impossible because if we had a vote, we would see all 55 Senate democrats vote in favor of amnesty. They are right now hiding behind their leadership because they don't want that vote. They don't want their constituents to understand they support amnesty. So, instead, they shut this body down. The American people are frustrated. They are disgusted with the Senate that won't do its job, that won't allow votes, that won't consider legislation to address the problems in this country, and that consistently lies to the voters. I will tell my colleagues on my side of the aisle, I am happy to have as many votes as we like. It is interesting. The Senate majority leader today seems to view as his principal obligation protecting his Members from hard votes. I wish to point out the concept of a hard vote only makes sense if there is a disconnect between what a Senator says at home and what he or she does in Washington. Votes are hard if we have Democratic Senators who go home to their States and tell their constituents: I am really conservative and I don't agree with that crazy stuff President Obama is doing. Then they come here and vote lockstep with the majority leader and the President. Then votes are hard. I will tell my colleagues from my perspective, I don't consider votes hard. In 2 years, what I have tried to do in the Senate is very simple--2 things: Do what I said I would do, and tell the truth. The 26 million Texans I represent, I believe, understood the principles I am defending when they elected me. And whether we have 1 vote or 10 or 100 or 1,000, it doesn't surprise the men and women back home, because what I say in Texas is exactly the same as what I say on the floor of the Senate, and it is the way I have tried to vote since I arrived here. The reason the majority leader has 350-plus bills sitting on his desk is because a substantial number of Senate Democrats tell their constituents one thing and vote a different way. This is all predicated on deception. So I am glad for this exchange because this exchange has shined light and made clear to the voters that, No. 1, amnesty is coming and President Obama intends to grant amnesty to 5 million to 6 million people right after the election; and No. 2, all 55 Senate Democrats bear direct responsibility for President Obama's illegal amnesty because all 55 Senate Democrats are standing in lockstep, preventing legislation that would stop that amnesty. That clarity is good. It allows accountability. It allows decisionmaking to be made by we the people. The one thing I would encourage of my Democratic friends is, given that reality, go home and be honest with your constituents. All 55 of you go home and say: Yes, I stand with President Obama. I stand with majority leader Harry Reid in support of amnesty. Those are not the views of the American people, but they are the views of every Democratic Senator in this body. We have a natural check when elected officials ignore the views and values of the people for whom we work in the place where sovereignty resides in our system: We the people. I yield the floor, and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield?