Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for taking up legislation that I have introduced, along with my colleague in the House, Chairman Kevin Brady, to reverse yet another instance of Executive overreach by the Obama administration.

H.J. Res. 42 passed the House 236 to 189, with support on both sides of the aisle, including nearly unanimous Republican support, and I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to swiftly approve this legislation and to send it to the President's desk for his signature.

In the bipartisan Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Congress permitted but did not require States to assess State unemployment compensation or insurance program applicants for drug usage under two circumstances: workers who had been discharged from their last job because of unlawful drug use and workers looking for jobs in occupations where applicants and employees are subject to drug testing.

The unemployment insurance program is designed to facilitate swift reemployment by requiring applicants to be able to work and actively seek employment in order to be eligible. The 2012 job creation act noted that if a worker lost a job due to drug usage, that worker would have established him- or herself as not being fully able or available to work.

Further, under appropriate State-level programs, States could choose to restrict benefits for individuals who fail drug tests as well as to design programs to help them overcome their drug use and become work- ready. A number of States have responded to this opportunity. We are not helping anyone by leaving them in the position where they are dependent on and addicted to drugs.

In Texas, for example, the Texas Legislature passed senate bill 21, which not

only sought to secure the quality of job applicants, but it also provided help to those who needed it but would not have sought out that help otherwise themselves.

The wording of the 2012 job creation act clearly shows that Congress specifically intended to provide States the ability to determine how to best implement these programs for their citizens. However, the Obama Department of Labor substantially narrowed the law to circumstances where testing is legally required, not merely allowed. Such an arbitrarily narrow definition undermines the ability of States to conduct drug testing in their programs, as permitted by Congress. This regulation is overly prescriptive. It removes State discretion regarding implementation, and it ignores years of congressional concern on both sides of the aisle.

I thank Chairman Brady for taking the lead in the House on dealing with this overreach and for his leadership on H.J. Res. 42 to repeal this regulation.

This joint resolution has broad support, including from President Trump, Texas's Governor Abbott, Mississippi's Governor Bryant, Utah's Governor Herbert, and Wisconsin's Governor Walker. All are united in restoring the flexibility of the States to deal with the problem of drug use and drug addiction and to tailor their unemployment programs to meeting that problem.

This is yet another step in overturning the Obama administration's Executive overreach that has done so much damage. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this measure and to return discretion to the States and to the people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Texas Independence Day.

One hundred eighty-one years ago, 59 delegates met in Independence Hall at Washington-on-the-Brazos to risk everything to make freedom a reality for generations of Texans to come.

Today, I continue on a tradition started by the late Senator John Tower and carried on by Members of the Texas delegation to read the words of a 26-year-old Lieutenant Colonel, William Barret Travis, who at the time was under siege by the forces of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

On February 24, 1836, Travis penned the following immortal letter:

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World--Fellow

Citizens & compatriots--

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under

Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment &

cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man--The enemy has

demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison

are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have

answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still

waves proudly from the walls--I shall never surrender or

retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of

patriotism & of everything dear to the American character, to

come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving

reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or

four thousand in four or five days. If this call is

neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as

possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due

to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death.

Signed:

William Barret Travis.

That same love of ``life, liberty, and property of the people'' that spurred the Texans at the Alamo and throughout the revolution still lives in each Texan today.

I think it is particularly appropriate that right now this body will be confirming former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy. That is fitting to the spirit of freedom and independence of Texans.

Texans fought for it, they died for it, and we owe it to their sacrifice to carry the torch of freedom for future generations, and we will.

To all Texans: Happy Independence Day.

Mr. President, yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of the sinking of the USS Houston (CA-30), the ``flagship'' of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet, which fought bravely against the Imperial Japanese Navy Battle Fleet. During an engagement on March 1, 1942, the USS Houston and the Australian cruiser HMAS Perth were sunk at the Battle of Sunda Strait, suffering a combined loss of nearly 1,000 servicemen; the surviving sailors and marines became prisoners of war. After the war, it was revealed that they had been sent to Japan and then transferred to the mainland and used as slave labor for construction of the Thai- Burma Railway. Only 266 men from the Houston's complement of 1,008 and 214 of the Perth's complement of 681 returned home after the war.

The news of this horrific loss hit the Lone Star state hard, but with typical Texan gusto and determination, it prompted a mass recruiting drive for volunteers to replace the lost crew. On Memorial Day 1942, a crowd of nearly 200,000 witnessed 1,000 ``Houston Volunteers'' inducted into the Navy. An accompanying bond drive raised over $85 million, enough to pay for a new cruiser and an aircraft carrier, the USS San Jacinto. This historic event speaks to the American spirit and grit as well as our enduring alliance with Australia.

In honor of this occasion, we remember the brave men of Texas, and all of those from the Greatest Generation, who gave so much to preserve freedom

in the Pacific and fight for America. They fought for country and liberty in the face of impossible odds. These sailors, soldiers, and marines represent America's unbeatable determination.

Mr. President, in the final days of the Obama administration's second term, with all eyes focused on the President- elect, the temptation to try to take a dramatic action to seal a cherished policy legacy must have been almost irresistible. So it proved for President Obama on December 23, 2016, when he betrayed decades of robust bipartisan American support for Israel at the United Nations by abstaining from a completely biased resolution that condemns our close friend and ally Israel and condemns all the so-called settlement activity, defined as any construction in any territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.

U.S. policy for decades has been to stand up for Israel at the United Nations, a hot bed of anti-Semitism that discriminately condemns Israel more than any country in the world, particularly when resolutions are being offered up that are outrageously biased, that attempt to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, that prejudge the basis for negotiations, or that try to dictate terms to Israel.

We have seen this pattern of appealing to the United Nations from the Obama administration over and over with disastrous deals--the nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as the U.N. Convention on Climate Change, two international agreements that significantly threaten the security and prosperity of the United States. Both of them should have been submitted to this body, the Senate, as treaties.

But the President chose instead to try to impose them through the United Nations because he knew that they would never be ratified by the Senate, even when this Senate had a Democratic majority. So the Obama administration's strategy, instead, has been to curb American power by subjugating our national interests to the globalist agenda of the U.N., a policy that he is now attempting to extend to Israel.

Here are some of the main problems with UNSC Resolution 2334. First, it is an attack on Israeli sovereignty, as it falsely defines as illegal under international law building activity within Israel's own borders, which should be an internal Israeli issue. The historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel did not begin in 1967.

Let us not forget that the Six-Day War was a defensive war fought almost 50 years ago by the Jewish state against the Palestinians and their Arab enablers, who were gathering in a concerted effort to wipe Israel off the map. Against all odds, Israel won quickly and decisively and the map was redrawn to ensure that Israel was not endangered by its own borders, the weakness of which Israel's enemies had attempted to exploit.

Of course, the defeated party, the Palestinians, have not accepted this outcome. Israel has time and again invited them to negotiate a resolution--just one that involves Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state, something that the Palestinian Authority has over and over refused to acknowledge or accept.

Therein lies the bottom line for Israeli security. The pre-1967 lines proved indefensible. So rather than, as the Obama administration, treat them as some sort of gold standard, Israel's security interest has deemed them intolerable and any resolution to this issue should not be dictated by the United States or the United Nations but rather should be negotiated and decided upon directly by the sovereign nation of Israel and by the Palestinians.

Secondly, the resolution falsely claims that Israel's sovereignty over the eastern part of Jerusalem and areas that it controls after the Six-Day War, including Judea and Samaria, are supposedly ``occupied Palestinian territory''. This is nothing short of absurd. What that means is that, under the terms of the United Nations resolution that the Obama administration acquiesced to--indeed, there are considerable reports that the Obama administration, President Obama, and John Kerry actively encouraged and facilitated it--the Jewish Quarter, the Old City of Jerusalem, is illegal and illegitimate and not justifiably a part of Israel. Under the terms of that resolution, the location of holy sites for the Jewish people, including the most important holy site, the Temple Mount, is illegal and illegitimate to be a part of Israel. Under the terms of the resolution, the Western Wall, where Jews from all over the world go to pray, is deemed ``occupied Palestinian territory,'' illegal and illegitimate.

It is more than a little ironic that President Obama went to the Western Wall to place a yarmulke there, pretending to show respect to Israel, and yet his administration, in an outgoing act of contempt, declares the Western Wall not part of the nation of Israel.

This couldn't be further from the truth. It was also an affront to Jews around the world that the resolution was adopted on the eve of Hanukkah. For 8 days, Jews lit candles all over the world to remember the miracle that happened there, and to commemorate the heroic battle fought by the Maccabees that liberated Jerusalem and restored their right to worship freely and the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem. How ironic it is that on the eve of a celebration liberating Jerusalem and rededicating the Temple in Jerusalem, the Obama administration and the United Nations would declare that Jerusalem and the Temple are not legitimately part of Israel.

How disgraceful--the United States should be not be facilitating the adoption of a resolution that at its core attempts to distort and rewrite recent history as well as the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel that goes back thousands of years.

Third, the resolution will also help fuel the Palestinian diplomatic, economic, and legal warfare campaign against Israel, particularly because of its provision that calls on states to make a distinction in their dealings with Israel between pre-1967 Israel and Israel beyond the 1967 lines, encouraging boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel and potentially leading to Israelis and Americans being brought in front of the International Criminal Court.

Palestinian leaders are already promising to use this resolution to push the International Criminal Court to launch a formal investigation against Israel.

That was not an unintended consequence of this action. That was precisely the intent of the United Nations and the Obama administration--to facilitate assaults on the nation of Israel.

Yet even after this disgraceful United Nations resolution, it was clear that the administration was not yet done, with Secretary of State John Kerry delivering just days later a truly shameful speech attacking Israel. His speech, very much like Kerry's 2014 remarks likening Israel to an apartheid state, will only enflame rising anti-Semitism in Europe. It will encourage the mullahs, who hate Israel and hate America, and it will further facilitate ``lawfare,'' the growing assaults on Israel through transnational legal fora.

President Obama and John Kerry's actions were designed to secure a legacy, and in that, they have succeeded. History will record and the world will note that Barack Obama and John Kerry are relentless enemies of Israel.

Kerry's speech drew a stunning moral equivalence between our great friend and ally Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which is currently formed by a ``unity'' government with the vicious terrorists of Hamas.

Secretary Kerry declared the Hamas regime and Gaza ``radical'' in the same way that he declared the duly elected Government of Israel ``extreme.'' That moral equivalence is false, and it is a lie.

The IDF, defending the people of Israel, protecting people, and keeping them safe, is not the same moral equivalent of terrorists who strap bombs to their bodies and seek to murder innocent women and children.

Kerry declared the vicious terrorism sponsored by Hamas equal to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and he equated Israel's celebration of its birth with the Palestinian description of this event as the ``disaster.''

Unlike Barack Obama and John Kerry, I do not consider the existence and creation of Israel to be a disaster, and the Government of the United States should not be suggesting such a thing.

Kerry's speech attempted to lay out a historic and seismic shift toward the delegitimization of our ally Israel. It is a sign of their radicalism and refusal to defend American interests that Obama and Kerry chose to attack the only inclusive democracy in the Middle East-- a strong, steadfast ally of America--while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the Islamic terrorism that grows daily.

Unfortunately, President Obama still has 2 weeks left in his Presidency, and he may not yet be done betraying Israel.

Next week, on Sunday, January 15, France is convening a conference with 70 other nations designed to serve as an extension of the U.N. resolution and the Kerry speech--an all-out assault on Israel. I am deeply concerned that what is decided at this conference will be used to try to further impose parameters or even audaciously to recognize a so-called independent Palestinian state through another Security Council resolution. The Security Council is scheduled to meet on January 17--conveniently, 3 days before Obama and Kerry leave office.

Let me speak a moment to our friends and allies across the globe.

When the President of the United States, when the administration of the United States attempts to encourage you to support their positions in the United Nations, that can be highly persuasive. It has been an arena, a forum that Barack Obama has flourished in, even as he has shown condescension and contempt for the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States.

But to our friends and allies, let me remind you: The Obama administration is coming to an end on January 20. If you desire to continue being a friend to America, if you desire a continued close working relationship with America, then I call upon our allies: Do not join in attacking Israel on January 15 in France or on January 17 at the Security Council.

The new administration--President-Elect Trump--has loudly condemned the U.N. resolution and the Obama administration's complicity in its passage.

I would encourage our friends and allies not even to attend the January 15 conference, or, if they do choose to attend, to oppose and stand up and speak out against any further attempts to attack or undermine or delegitimize America or Israel.

I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for offering resolutions to repudiate this administration for their actions of the last few weeks. It says something when you see Republicans and Democrats in Congress coming together, united to say: This action by the Obama administration is beyond the pale.

Let me underscore again to our friends and allies, to our Ambassadors, to heads of state, to friendships and relationships that we value so much: Listen to the bipartisan consensus of Congress, and do not go along with the bitter, clinging radicalism of the Obama administration, attempting to lash out and strike out at Israel with their last breath in office.

As commendable as these resolutions are, I believe the Senate and the Congress need to go further--that we need to take concrete steps so that there will be repercussions and consequences for the United Nations and the Palestinians for their behavior. That is why I am working with my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham on introducing legislation, along with other Members of this body, designed to cut the funding to the United Nations--designed to cut U.S. taxpayer funding going to the U.N.--unless and until they repeal this disgraceful anti- Israel resolution.

We know, previously, that one way to get the U.N.'s attention is to cut off their money. We know from the failure of other U.N. organizations to recognize so-called Palestine as a member-state after American tax dollars were withheld from UNESCO for doing so in 2011 that the U.N. over and over values its pocketbook over its leftist values.

However unintentionally, President Obama's misguided foreign policy has led to an unprecedented rapprochement between Israel and America's Arab allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE. We have also seen hopeful signs of shifting positions at the United Nations, as countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Italy, and Australia have recently signaled that they may no longer vote reflexively in favor of the Palestinians.

Great Britain, although it voted for the resolution, has recently demonstrated an unprecedented degree of support for the Jewish state.

These changes represent a significant opportunity for the United States to bolster one of our most important allies, an opportunity we can preserve for the President-elect by not letting Mr. Obama squander it on the way out the door.

America should be leading the charge at the United Nations and around the world to rally burgeoning support for Israel, not trying to stab the Jewish state in the back.

Just over a week ago, I spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. I told the Prime Minister that, despite the disgraceful actions of the United Nations, America stands resolutely with the nation of Israel, that the American people stand with Israel, and that I believe there is a very real possibility that the extreme and radical actions of Obama and Kerry will, in fact, backfire.

It is not accidental that they waited until after the election to do this. They could have tried to do that this summer, but Obama and Kerry knew well that the American people do not support their attempting to attack Israel. So they waited until after the election.

They waited until they were on their way out the door.

Kerry, in his speech, said Israel cannot be both democratic and Jewish--one or the other, but not both.

This is an inanity that is deemed profound only in Marxist faculty lounges.

Israel is Jewish, it is democratic, and it is and should remain both. I believe that by revealing just how extreme they are, by removing the fake mask of support for Israel that Obama and Kerry have chosen to do in the last several weeks, it will help to galvanize support in this body and across the world for our friend and ally, the nation of Israel.

Israel is not only our friend and ally, but it is a partner of the United States. That alliance benefits the vital national security interest of America. Israel's military benefits the national security of the United States of America. The Israeli intelligence services benefit the United States of America. Israel's steadfastness against radical Islamic terrorism, which has declared war on both Israel and America, benefits the national security interests of this country.

It is Israel--the thriving, one and only Jewish state--that stands on the frontlines for America and, more broadly, Western civilization against the global threats we face. Our commitment to Israel must be restored and strengthened. I look forward to taking action with my colleagues--I hope on both sides of the aisle--in the near future to repudiate Obama's shameful attack on Israel, to repudiate the United Nations' efforts to undermine Israel, and to reaffirm America's strong and unshakable friendship and support for the nation of Israel.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment would expedite the export of liquid natural gas and would provide countries that are members of the WTO the same expedited process that is currently available to free- trade agreement countries.

There are now in the Department of Energy some 28 applications pending to export liquid natural gas. This should be an amendment that would bring together Republicans and Democrats. A recent study showed that allowing us to export LNG could create as many as 450,000 new jobs by 2035 that could produce GDP growth of up to an additional $73.6 billion and produce 76,000 more manufacturing jobs. It would aid our allies such as Ukraine, the Baltics, and Europe, and would weaken countries such as Russia that would use natural gas for economic blackmail.

I would urge all Senators to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 125

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 115

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.

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

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

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

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. 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.

I am.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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. 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.