Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1556.

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

Mr. PAUL. The question I have for Senate is, Has your government gotten out of control? Have the regulators become so numerous and so zealous that we can't even carry on the ordinary affairs of our government? We recently had a bridge where a boat ran into the bridge in Kentucky and one could no longer cross the bridge because it is not there. We have to wait for environmental regulations and environmental studies, which sometimes can be 4 and 5 years, before we can repair our bridges and our roads during an emergency. This is crazy. This goes on even in regular affairs, such as trying to replace a sewage plant in our State or throughout the United States. Do we want to live in a country where we have to stop and count how many barnacles are on our bridge before we decide whether to rebuild the bridge? Do we want to stop and count how many mussels are attached to the pier before we rebuild the bridge? In the end we are going to rebuild the bridge anyway, but we spend a year's time or more wasted on these studies but in the end we are going to rebuild the bridge. I will give an example. We have a small town in Kentucky that has a sewage plant, and the population of the town has outgrown the sewage plant. When it rains, the raw sewage goes into the river. I don't know any Republican or Democrat who wants raw sewage in the river. So we need a new sewage plant in the town. But what does the EPA say? They want to count the mussels. They want to count the mussels in the river and then they want to estimate will there be more mussels or less mussels after we build a new sewage plant. Guess what. When we build a new sewage plant, the raw sewage would not go in the river, which is what we all intend and in the end what will happen but, in the meantime, we waste time and money. This small town of about 300 people is going to have to spend $100,000 on an EPA study to hire someone to count the mussels. While they are counting the mussels, they are going to have to hire someone to count the Indian artifacts and look for Indian arrowheads. If they find an arrowhead, it may delay it indefinitely. We have gone crazy as a country. We all want some rules. We don't want anyone to pollute our neighbor's property, but the EPA is out of control. What we need to do is in emergencies or urgencies, when a bridge collapses or a roadway is washed away, we don't need to spend 1 year or 2 or 4 or 5 years doing an EPA study, which basically enriches some contractor that counts the mussels. We don't need to be counting the mussels in this stream. We need to get to repairing the bridge, which we are going to do anyway. We are just going to waste 1 year counting the mussels and paying some contractor $100,000 a year. So this amendment would allow States to opt out. The bridge we have out in Kentucky has two communities. Many people live in one community and have to drive to the other community. They can't get there because of the bridge. Do we want to wait 1 year because they have to count how many barnacles are on the bridge? This is a commonsense resolution that should pass, but I will tell you the way Washington works, the other side doesn't want my amendment to pass, even though it has common sense, so they are going to offer an alternative. Their alternative is to say something but do nothing. It is called a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. They will proudly proclaim we need to make it better, and, please, Mr. Regulator, make it better. But they will not change the law. Mine would actually change the law to allow communities to start rebuilding their bridge or repairing their road almost immediately, in the same location, free of the government regulations. We need to do this at all levels. This is a very small incremental step forward. It is something on which we should all agree. If we watch the vote later on today, we will find out we don't all agree and, instead, the other side is going to say: Say something; do nothing. This is something we need to, as a society, get started on because we are being killed by regulations. This is one small step on something that should be bipartisan. There are many more steps that need to be taken, because throughout our country millions of jobs are being lost from overzealous regulators. Millions of people's privacy and private property rights are being invaded by these regulators, and this is a very small incremental stop of the encroachment of these regulators. I urge support of my amendment 1556, and I yield back the balance of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, dependency often leads to indolence, lethargy, a sense of entitlement, and ultimately to a state of insolence. Egypt has been receiving welfare from the United States for nearly 40 years. America has lavished $60 billion on Egypt. They react with insolence and disregard by detaining 19 of our U.S. citizens. For several months now these citizens have been essentially held hostage, unable to leave Egypt. They are held on the pretense of trumped-up political charges, held in order to display them in show trials to placate the mob. The United States can respond in one of two ways: We can hang our head low; we can take the tack of Jimmy Carter; we can try to placate Egypt with concessions and offer them bribes in the form of more government aid; or America can respond with strength. Today the President should call the Egyptian Ambassador in and send him home with a message, a message that America will not tolerate any country holding U.S. citizens as political prisoners. Congress should act today to tell Egypt that we will no longer send our annual welfare check to them; that this year's $1.8 billion is not on the way. America could put Egyptian travelers on notice that the welcome sign in America will temporarily expire unless the Egyptian Government lets our people go; or America could hang her head, promise to continue the foreign aid to Egypt, and apologize for supporting democracy. Which will it be? So far, the signal sent to Egypt from the President and from the Senate has been weak or counterproductive. In late January the President's Under Secretary of State said to the administration that he wanted to provide more immediate benefits to Egypt; let's speed up the welfare checks. The President's budget this week still continues to include $1.8 billion for Egypt without a single word of rebuke or any demand that our U.S. citizens be released. The President went one step further when he actually increased foreign aid to the Middle East in his budget, and now the Senate refuses to hold a single vote to spend 10 minutes discussing why U.S. citizens are being detained in Egypt. One might excuse the Egyptians for not believing we will cut their aid. You cannot lead from behind. Senate leadership appears unwilling to address this issue head-on, so the Senate won't act to help our citizens this week. I hope that when Senators return home and talk to their constituents in their States, their constituents will ask these questions: Senator, why do you continue to send our taxpayer money to Egypt? Why do you continue to send our money to Egypt when they detain our citizens? Senator, why do you continue to send billions of dollars to Egypt when 12 million Americans are out of work? Senator, why do you continue to send welfare to foreign countries when our bridges are falling down and in desperate need of repair? Senator, how can you continue to flush our taxpayer money down a foreign drain when we are borrowing $40,000 a second? The money we send to Egypt we must first borrow from China. That is insanity, and it must end. Finally, Mr. Senator, I hope your constituents ask you this when you go home: When working families are suffering under rising food prices, when working families are suffering because gas prices have doubled, how can you justify sending our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to Egypt, to countries that openly show their disdain for us? When will we learn? You can't buy friendship, and you can't convince authoritarians to love freedom with welfare checks. America needs to send a clear and unequivocal message to Egypt that we will not tolerate the detention of U.S. citizens on trumped-up political charges or otherwise and that we will not continue to send welfare checks to Egypt, to a country that commits an injustice to American citizens. I ask unanimous consent today to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment on Egypt that would end all foreign aid to Egypt if our U.S. citizens are not released within 30 days. I think this is an important amendment which deserves discussion, and Egypt deserves to hear a message from the Senate that we will not tolerate this. I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 1541.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, some Senators are concerned that I may be delaying a vote in the Senate. This is not true. I offered yesterday to vote on my amendment with 10 minutes of discussion. I have offered to vote immediately at any point in time. I do think it is worth 10 minutes of our time and 10 minutes of America's time to discuss the plight of U.S. citizens in Egypt. I don't think 10 minutes is too much to ask to discuss, debate, and vote on whether Egypt should continue to get aid from us while detaining our citizens. Egypt is unlawfully preventing U.S. citizens from leaving that country. I don't think 10 minutes is too much to ask. We have sent over $60 billion in aid to Egypt over the years, and they now hold 19 U.S. citizens virtually hostage. Will we ever learn? Will we ever learn we can't buy friendship? Nineteen U.S. citizens who traveled to Egypt to help Egypt embrace democracy, to help Egypt to have an elective government, to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy and the success we enjoy having a democratic government, those Americans are now being prevented from leaving Egypt. Some of the prodemocracy workers are, in fact, seeking refuge in the U.S. Embassy. This is a tragedy and something we should make a clear and unequivocal statement about. Does Egypt wish to be part of the civilized world or do they wish to descend into the lawlessness of the Third World? Some have argued we don't need these provisions, that there are already provisions in place to prevent Egypt from getting aid. Apparently, the Egyptians aren't listening, and they need to listen very clearly. The amendment I proposed will end all aid to Egypt--economic and military. We give over $1.5 billion to Egypt every year, and we cannot continue to give aid to a country that is illegally detaining our U.S. citizens. Some have said the provisions we already have will take care of this. There are a couple problems. The Egyptians aren't hearing that message, so the message needs to be louder and more firm. We will not tolerate any country holding U.S. citizens as hostages or lawlessly. I think Egypt needs to know America means business, and that is what this debate is all about. I don't think it is too much to ask the Senate to consider this proposal on Egypt; let's spend 10 minutes and let's have a vote to send a message to Egypt. The question is, Will we ever learn? Will we ever learn we cannot buy friendship? Will we ever learn we cannot create Democrats out of authoritarians simply by buying them off? We have tried it. We have sent billions of dollars to Africa and asked authoritarians who rape and pillage and torture their own people, and we give them more money trying to convince them to be democratic. It doesn't work. We need to have a firmer hand and say there will be no more aid to countries that detain U.S. citizens, that don't allow their citizens to vote, and to countries that torture and rape and pillage their population. We have sent billions of dollars to Afghanistan, and it is an insult to Americans--particularly to American soldiers--that the President of Afghanistan has said if there were a war, he would side with Pakistan against the United States. Will we ever learn? We send money--billions of dollars--to these countries, and apparently they still dislike us, disrespect us, and say they will side with our enemies. There are now officials in Pakistan, which has gotten billions of dollars from us, saying Pakistan will side with Iran. Afghanistan is telling us they will side with Pakistan. So Pakistan will side with Iran, and what does the chump, the U.S. taxpayer, get? Send more money. No. 1, we don't even have the money. We are borrowing the money from China, and we are asked to send more money to people who disrespect us. I think that is an insult that should end. Will we ever learn? Will we ever learn we can't buy friendship? Will we ever learn authoritarians, no matter how much money we give them, will not become democratic? Egypt must be put on notice. The President is not leading on this issue. Just a few weeks ago, the President's Under Secretary of State, Robert Hormats, stated he wanted to make sure the administration assured the Egyptians that we want to provide them ``more immediate benefits.'' Do you think that maybe the President is sending the wrong message to the Egyptians? They are detaining 19 U.S. citizens and preventing them from coming home and U.S. citizens are holed up in our Embassy and the administration says we need to make sure the benefits get there immediately. The administration is bragging about sending more aid to Egypt. Just yesterday, the President came out with a new budget. Guess what. There is $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to be sent to Egypt. What kind of message are we sending them? I think the President is not leading the country and is not exemplifying what most Americans would want; that is, to send a clear and unequivocal message to Egypt that we will not tolerate this behavior or subsidize this behavior. Think of it. The American taxpayer is being asked to subsidize a government that is detaining U.S. citizens. The American taxpayer is being asked to subsidize Pakistan, that says they would side with Iran. The American citizen, the American taxpayer, is being asked to subsidize Afghanistan, that said they would side with Pakistan against us. All the while we are running trillion-dollar deficits, borrowing this money, and bankrupting our country. The Egyptians need to be sent a clear and unequivocal message. I think it is worth 10 minutes of the Senate's time to have a vote. I think it is worth it for the 19 U.S. citizens. If it were my child in Egypt working there for a prodemocracy group, I would want to think the Senate had 10 minutes of time. I would want to think the Senate can spare 10 minutes of time to send the Egyptians a signal that we will not tolerate this and they must let our citizens come home. The United States will not and should not stand for the detention of American citizens. The United States will not stand for imprisonment or travel restrictions on its citizens, and the United States should not send aid to a government that so casually accuses American citizens of political crimes. So while some will say I am holding up the business of the Senate, I argue this is the business of the Senate; that foreign policy was delegated--much of it--to the Senate, that we are abdicating our role, and that we as the Senate should send a clear and unequivocal message to Egypt. So I will continue to argue, despite much opposition, to have a vote to send a signal to Egypt that we will not tolerate the detention of U.S. citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, in response to that question, yes. The government owns the uranium. It has been sitting there for 50 years. It is my understanding that the Department of Energy or the President could at any time sign a statement saying that uranium can be enriched. It is completely under his prerogative and 1,200 jobs could be saved. These are good-paying jobs. Many of these are union jobs. These are people I would like to help in my State. It does not cost the government anything. It does not cost the taxpayers anything. In fact, it uses a waste product that is sitting on the ground. We had an agreement. We have worked with United Uranium Mine Workers. We have worked with Senators and Congressmen from different States to try to get this figured out. But all it takes is a signature from the Department of Energy to allow them to enrich this uranium. The Defense Department has written statements saying they could use this uranium. The GAO has said this is the best use of this waste product. But I believe the Secretary of Energy, through a stroke of the pen, could save these 1,200 jobs. That is what I am asking for help with.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to accommodate the President and these nominees. I think the chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, has made very good points about their qualifications. But I would be remiss if I did not rise in support of 1,200 jobs in Paducah, KY, which are threatened to be lost because the Department of Energy is refusing to address the situation. We have a company that has 1,200 jobs in Paducah, KY, which enriches uranium. For 50 years uranium has been accumulating, and it sits on the ground as a waste product. We could recycle this. It is a green project. It costs no taxes. In fact, it will actually bring back money to the Treasury. What I would like is help from the chairman as well as the President as well as Secretary Chu on this issue. I have written to Secretary Chu, and we have not heard back. This is very important to us. We are in the midst of a great recession, and 1,200 people are destined to lose their jobs. Once again, this does not cause any spending. It does not cost any taxes. Actually, if you would allow us to reenrich this uranium, it would bring money back to the Treasury. That is my reason for holding this. I would hope that we could find some reason and means to accommodate each other. Until that time, I would continue to object to these nominations.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, this is my only objection. If the Senator were to help me save these 1,200 jobs, we would erect a monument to him in Kentucky. This is a big deal for us. It does not cost anything. I would do everything within my power to make sure there is no objection on our side. I think it is the President's prerogative. I will help facilitate this process as soon as possible. This would be huge for us in Kentucky if we could save these jobs.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from Oklahoma on being a leader in trying to repair and restore our infrastructure. I think the Senator from Oklahoma has shown that this is a bipartisan issue. I rise today not only to support the bipartisan nature of rebuilding our infrastructure but also to address an urgent concern regarding what is happening in Egypt. I rise to introduce an amendment to suspend foreign aid to Egypt until they release our American citizens. The situation in Egypt over the past year has been tumultuous, and their people and government stand at a moment where they will choose their future. Will they stand for freedom? Will they choose to stand with the United States? The choice is entirely theirs, of course, but their recent actions are troubling and should give us reason to reconsider our significant aid to the Government of Egypt. What bothers critics of our foreign policy is the disconnect between hope and reality. Well-intentioned people vote to give aid to countries in hopes they will promote freedom, democracy, and the interests of the United States abroad. Too often, though, it does none of those things. Instead, it enriches dictators and emboldens governments that act against our interests. Right now American citizens who work for prodemocracy organizations in Egypt are being held hostage. There really is no other way to put it. These innocent American citizens are not being allowed to leave Egypt and are facing trial by a military government. This situation has been allowed to escalate by the Obama administration over the past several months, as authorities in Egypt have accelerated a cynical war against these prodemocracy forces--these individuals who are American citizens--in an attempt to gain support from radicals who are convinced that NGOs represent a Western plot to undermine Egypt. These extremists seek to impose their own agenda in Egypt and are determined to prevent Egypt's democratic process as much as possible. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt--the ones responsible for the transition--has demonstrated that they are not only willing but are in the process of using American citizens as scapegoats for the continual upheaval in Egypt. Their actions do not illustrate a significant democratic transition. In fact, they are encouraging and provoking distrust among the Egyptian people by making false allegations about the nature of these American citizens. In the aftermath of the Arab revolution and the toppling of the authoritarian Mubarak government, Egypt finds itself in critical need of support in order to build a functioning democratic system. Yet, in late December, Egyptian authorities abruptly raided the offices of several nongovernmental organizations working toward democratic development, seizing their computers and documents. This past weekend Egyptian prosecutors filed criminal charges against these innocent American citizens. This must not be allowed to stand. The American people should be concerned. We are subsidizing behavior, through U.S. taxpayer foreign aid to Egypt, that is leading to and allowing for the unjust detainment of American citizens in Egypt. Egypt is one of the largest recipients of foreign aid, totaling over $70 billion over the last half century. Egypt's ruling military has itself received $1.3 billion in foreign aid every year since 1987, and they have the gall to hold American citizens hostage. This must end. Not everyone in this body agrees on foreign policy or on the role of U.S. foreign assistance. But the reckless actions of Egyptian authorities in this matter should bring us together to form one undeniable conclusion: American foreign assistance dollars should never be provided to any country that bullies our citizens, recklessly seeks to arrest them on imaginary charges or denies them access to their most basic rights. Egypt must immediately stop the detainment and prosecution of these American citizens. If they fail to do so, then we have the moral obligation to immediately end their foreign aid. The time for action is now. I will offer an amendment to suspend Egypt's foreign aid until our American citizens are released. It is our duty as our people's representatives to ensure no more American taxpayer dollars will flow to Egypt until they rescind the charges against innocent Americans and allow them to peacefully leave the country. The American people are behind this, and I advise the Senate to consider that we should no longer send foreign aid to a country that is illegally detaining our citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment would strike the underlying bill and would replace it with an affirmation that we are not exempt from insider trading and that each Senator would sign a statement each year affirming they did not participate in insider trading. I think this is the way to go. I think the American people want to be sure we are not exempt. I think this is a good way to do it without creating a bureaucracy and a nightmare that may well have many unintended consequences.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment would say that those in the executive branch who decide loans and grants, if they have a self- interest in the company or if their family has a self-interest in the company, they should not be making decisions awarding grants and awarding loans. I think the idea that you should not make money off of government is an important one, but it is not just Congress that this should apply to; this should apply to the executive branch. We should not have hundreds of millions of dollars in loans--even billions of dollars in loans--dispensed by people who used to work for that company or whose family still works for the company. I yield my time.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I think the issue has already been addressed by previous amendments. I thank the chairman and the minority ranking member for their addressing this problem. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be withdrawn.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. This amendment will address some of the situations that are concerning the American people. I think the ability to serve in the Senate is a great honor. The ability to serve in the House of Representatives is a great honor. But I am somewhat sickened and somewhat saddened by people who use their office, who leave office and become lobbyists, who leave office and call themselves historians but basically leave office and peddle the friendships they have found here and the relationships to make money. I think it is hard to prevent people from being lobbyists. But I think if people choose to leave the Senate and leave the House of Representatives and become lobbyists, they should give up something. These people are making millions of dollars lobbying Congress. I think maybe they should give up their pension. Maybe they should give up the health benefits that are subsidized by the taxpayer. If someone is going to use their position as an ex-Senator or as an ex-Congressman to enrich themselves, maybe they should have to give up some of those perks they accumulated while in office. So this amendment would say that if you go out and become a lobbyist, you have to give up your pension and you have to give up your health benefits and you need to pay for them yourself. I think this is the least we can ask. I think we have a great deal of coverage now talking about people who are either lobbyists or not or whether they are historians. The bottom line is we have a lot of people peddling their friendship and their influence for monetary gain, and I do not think the taxpayers should be subsidizing that. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendments Nos. 1484, 1485, and 1487 en bloc.

Mr. PAUL. These amendments are recognizing what the authors of this bill have been discussing: that people should not profit off of their involvement in government; they should not profit off of special relationships; they should not profit off of special knowledge they gain in the function of serving the people. Currently, there are some large donors who have been giving to this administration who have profited enormously and disproportionately. This will allow this bill to apply to the administration, and I do not believe people who are multimillionaires and billionaires should use the apparatus of government, as was used in the loans that were given to Solyndra, by someone who is profiting off of their relationship and ties to the President, profiting off of people who used to work for these companies who are now employed in the administration and using these connections to get taxpayer money to go to private individuals. This is wrong and this should stop. I think this bill is a great vehicle for discussing how people in government are abusing their roles in government to make more money at the expense of the taxpayer. I think it should end. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1490.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today in defense of the Constitution. I rise today to condemn the President for making appointments that are unconstitutional and illegal. Recently the President appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. He did so by saying we were in recess. This is news to us because those of us in the Senate maintain that we were never in recess. The President has usurped a power never previously taken by a President and has decided unilaterally that he gets to decide when we are in recess. These appointments are illegal and unconstitutional, and I am surprised--I am surprised--that no member of the majority party has stood to tell the President so. I am not surprised that the President has engaged in unconstitutional behavior. His health care law is brazenly unconstitutional. His war with Libya was unconstitutional. He got no congressional authority. So, for a man who once gave lip service to the Constitution, the President now has become a President who is prone to lawlessness and prone to unconstitutional behavior. Our Founders clearly intended that the President have the ability and the power to appoint advisers, but they also separated that power and gave power to the Senate to advise and consent on these high-ranking officers in government. The President has gone an end-around on this and has done something that breaks with historical precedent. It goes against the notion of checks and balances. In fact, the notion that underlies the whole idea of recess appointments is mostly a historic relic. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 67 that the power was included so the Senate did not have to remain in session year round to deal with nominations. This was also done at a time when Congress would go out of session for months at a time for members to return to their farms and their businesses. Now Congress meets nearly year round. So, in other words, recess appointments should only happen rarely, in extreme occurrences, if at all. There also should be agreement that we are in recess, and there is no disagreement that we were in recess. There is a lot of talk about bipartisan cooperation on the other side of the aisle, but I am disappointed that not one Senator has stood to tell the President this sets a terrible precedent; that this is a usurpation of power that is bad for the country and bad for the idea of checks and balances. I am disappointed that not one Senator from the other side of the aisle has stood to oppose this President on this unconstitutional power grab. This is an opportunity for us to stand together in defense of the Constitution. I state now, unequivocally, if a Republican President tries to usurp his power, if a Republican President tries to define a recess and appoint people illegally, I will stand on the Senate floor and oppose him. This is not about being a Republican or a Democrat, it is about having respect for the Constitution. These lawless, illegal, and unconstitutional appointments fly in the face of the respect for our Constitution. This is an issue of separation of powers, of constitutional authority, and of Senate prerogative. It is sad that not one member of the opposition party will stand for the Constitution, will stand to the President. Make no mistake, this is a huge breach of precedent. If the President is allowed to determine when we are in recess, nothing prevents him from making recess appointments this evening at 8 o'clock or on the weekends. If this precedent is allowed to stand, nothing stops the President from appointing a Supreme Court Justice tonight at 8 o'clock. Is that the kind of lawlessness we want in our country? Are we going to completely abandon the advise-and-consent role of the Constitution and of the Senate? I ask today, is there not one Senator from across the aisle who will stand against this unconstitutional power grab? Is there not one Senator from across the aisle who will say to the President that these illegal appointments set a terrible precedent; that these appointments will encourage lawlessness; that these appointments eviscerate the advise-and-consent clause of the Constitution? I ask my colleagues from across the aisle: Where is your concern for the checks and balances? Where is your concern for the Constitution? I am greatly saddened by this action, and I hope the President will reverse course. I hope the majority party in the Senate will stand for the Constitution. But I am greatly disappointed in where we are in this debate. I yield back my time.

Mr. PAUL

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