[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 140 (Monday, September 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6963-S6972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





          TSA OFFICE OF INSPECTION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 719, which 
the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 719, an act to require the 
     Transportation Security Administration to conform to existing 
     Federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator 
     positions, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with McConnell (for 
     Cochran) amendment No. 2689, making continuing appropriations 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
       McConnell amendment No. 2690 (to amendment No. 2689), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell motion to refer the House message on the bill to 
     the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions, McConnell 
     amendment No. 2691, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2692 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 2691), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2693 (to amendment No. 2692), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until the 
cloture vote on the motion to concur with an amendment in the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 719 will be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Wednesday night is the deadline. On 
Wednesday night, the authority of the government of the United States 
to do business ends. The funding for our government ends. It is a scary 
time. We don't want that to happen--most of us--because we know it will 
be catastrophic. There will be people who will suffer if we fail to do 
our job.
  Now, this isn't the first time we have been up against a deadline. We 
have faced them before, and many times we have to buy a little extra 
time to negotiate the budget. That is understandable. In this 
circumstance, though, we actually have announced candidates for the 
Presidency of the United States who are calling for a government 
shutdown.
  What happens when our government shuts down? Well, it is pretty 
obvious. Agencies stop doing business as usual. What we find, though, 
is that the impact goes far beyond just that simple statement.
  I went back to Illinois this last weekend, and I went for a visit to 
Scott Air Force Base. It is the largest single employer in the State of 
Illinois and downstate.
  In 2013--the last time we had a government shutdown--the junior 
Senator from Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, wanted to shut down our 
government to protest ObamaCare. So he successfully closed down the 
government and found other Republicans who would join him in that 
effort, and it went on for a long period of time.
  In 2013, at Scott Air Force Base, one of the most important defense 
facilities in our country, in Belleville, IL, we saw two-thirds of the 
civilian workforce--that is about 3,400 people--sent home immediately 
without pay. Those who were required to report for duty, including all 
of the base's 5,000 military personnel, would have been given IOUs 
rather than paychecks. Scott Air Force Base families were forced to 
limit their spending and stretch their savings while the Senator from 
Texas gave speeches on the floor about Dr. Seuss. I am not making this 
up.
  This had an impact on the entire region of Southwestern Illinois. 
Scott Air Force Base has a $1.6 billion economic impact on the local 
area, including supporting thousands of indirect jobs. Every part of 
this regional economy felt the impact of this decision to shut down the 
government 2 years ago--gas stations, restaurants, small businesses, 
contractors, everybody.
  Now, this brinksmanship goes far beyond flowery speeches on the floor 
and press attention. The last shutdown hurt the gross domestic product 
of the United States of America. Consumer confidence drops when the 
government shuts down. We saw $2 billion in lost productivity from 
furloughed employees.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen said:

       We have a good recovery in place that's really making 
     progress and to see Congress take actions that would endanger 
     that progress, I think that would be more than unfortunate. 
     So to me that's Congress' job.

  The CEO of JPMorgan Chase, a man named Jamie Dimon, speaking of the 
last Republican government shutdown, said, ``Washington has really 
slowed American down.'' I agree. And if that were the only thing that 
was happening, it would be bad enough. But there is more.
  Today I went to a neighborhood in Chicago, the All Saints Episcopal 
Church in Ravenswood. They are doing a restoration on this beautiful 
church built back in the 19th century. I met with the pastor there. We 
were at the food pantry of this church. This Episcopal Church tries to 
help neighborhood residents who are struggling to find enough to eat.
  We had a little press conference with the local Congressman, Mike 
Quigley and Jan Schakowsky, and people who represented the food 
pantries of Chicago in that area. They are worried about a shutdown and 
what a shutdown means to them. How would it affect the All Saints 
Episcopal Church food pantry and the men and women who go in there on a 
regular basis to pick up some canned goods to get by? Here is what it 
means. Many of these people are on food stamps. We call it the SNAP 
program now. The SNAP program, on average, gives a person food worth $7 
a day, so the notion that people are going out for steak dinners on 
food stamps is not quite accurate.
  Sara--and I won't use her full name--who is 81 years old, came up to 
talk about what life is like for her. She was a hard-working person, 
stricken with cancer in 2002, which recurred in 2004, and she had to 
quit working. She has a walker now and she gets around, but all she has 
is her Social Security check and food stamps. That is how she survives 
from week to week and month to month.
  What happens when there is a government shutdown? They cut off food 
stamps. Did that happen last time? No. The last time the Senator from 
Texas shut down the government, it didn't happen because President 
Obama had a surplus in his recovery fund and he took the surplus and 
put it in the food stamps so there would be no interruption of service. 
You see, most of the recipients of food stamps are children. Single 
moms raising kids and not making enough money supplement their income 
with food stamps and buy food for their kids. Food stamps are also used 
by elderly people like Sara who are struggling on a fixed income.
  This time is different. If these Presidential wannabes who are 
determined to shut down the government this time are successful, we are 
going to have problems right away. It turns out the only surplus left 
in the food stamp or SNAP benefit fund is about $3 billion. That will 
keep the program going for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, they cut off the 
food stamps. What does that mean? Well, for a lot of people it means a 
lot of suffering--primarily for the poorest people among us.
  Did anyone notice last week what happened in Washington? The city was 
transformed by the visit of Pope Francis. Congress was in awe of this 
man who came and spoke to us in very human terms about what he thinks 
would be our obligation, not just as elected officials but as human 
beings. One of his highest priorities is that we have some caring and 
sensitivity for those who struggle--the poor, the people on food 
stamps.
  So for all the applause and all of the posing for pictures that went 
on last week with the Pope, here we are this week discussing a 
government shutdown. Here we are this week discussing whether we are 
going to cut off food stamps for poor people in America.
  It is a sad reality to think of what a government shutdown would do 
in human terms to those wonderful folks working at Scott Air Force Base 
in Belleville, IL, or to Sara who will go into the All Saints Episcopal 
Church food pantry and try to get by, as food stamps are cut off.
  Why? Why would we do that? How can we possibly be serving this 
Nation--this great Nation--by stalling our economy and hurting innocent 
people and punishing those who are serving our country in uniform and 
otherwise?
  Some think it is a grand strategy--a great political strategy. It may 
move

[[Page S6964]]

them up from the smaller debate to the big-time debate when it comes to 
running for President. To me it is an indication we have lost our way.
  In June, I joined with the other leaders on this side of the aisle in 
sending a letter to the Republican leader saying: Please, don't wait 
until the end of September to face this budget reality. Sit down now--
back in June--with the President, with the leaders on the Republican 
side and the Democratic side. Let us compromise in good faith. Let us 
meet our responsibilities.
  Well, that is what we face. As Senator Reid said a few minutes 
earlier, there is a suggestion that maybe as a parting gift to Speaker 
Boehner we will extend the budget temporarily until December 11, 2 
weeks before Christmas, just days before the Hanukkah season--that we 
would extend the budget until then and then, once again, be up against 
the deadline and the prospect of shutting down our government.
  We can do better. We should do better. We need to make certain we 
keep faith with the people who send us here. We need to make certain we 
do our job--not just to send a continuing resolution to the President 
but to resolve this issue. We should not be threatening a government 
shutdown now or in December when we know how devastating that can be.
  I hope Congress gets busy taking care of the work we were sent here 
to do. I think it is time for those bipartisan budget negotiations. It 
is beyond time. Now is the time for Congress to act responsibly to 
develop a budget that allows America to thrive.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about an amendment I plan 
to offer in a little while, once somebody comes from our side or the 
other side because they would like to be here to talk about it with me, 
as I understand it--maybe even to object to it, maybe to agree with it. 
But I wish to speak about the amendment, if I could, for a moment.
  Right now, we are debating the continuing resolution. This would be 
to continue a level of spending from now until December 11. There are a 
bunch of changes in that from last year's spending, but it is basically 
a continuation of the previous year until we can work out our 
differences. It is not the way to govern around here. What we should be 
doing instead is having individual spending bills come up. There are 12 
different appropriations bills.
  The ideal way to handle this is the way it used to be done, which is 
that the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees deal with these 
individual spending bills. For instance, one is for Commerce, the State 
Department, and the Justice Department. One is for the Department of 
Health and Human Services, and one is for the Department of Defense. 
When we do that, what happens is we have oversight hearings, and we 
have Congress playing its rightful role of saying: Are these agencies 
doing the right thing? Are these programs working or aren't they 
working? We might increase spending with a program that is actually 
working well, decrease spending from another program, and eliminate a 
third program that is not working well at all. That is what Congress is 
supposed to do. That is our job here.
  Under the Constitution, Congress was given the power of the purse, 
meaning that every dime has to be appropriated by the Congress. What 
has happened over the years--particularly in the last several years--is 
that Congress has not moved forward on these appropriations bills 
because they have been blocked. In this case, this year we have been 
trying to bring up appropriations bills and the other side, the 
Democrats, have been blocking even considering an appropriations bill.
  We have had this debate here on the floor. Many of us have heard it. 
But the bottom line is the committees have actually done their work and 
reported out 12 different appropriations bills. So 12 bills are ready 
to come to the floor. By the way, most of these bills have been 
reported out with huge bipartisan majorities. I saw one the other day. 
It was 24 to 3, for instance. I know the Presiding Officer has been 
involved in some of these issues over the years. It is typical, 
actually, that appropriators do their jobs. Senator Mikulski, Senator 
Cochran, and others work out the differences, but we simply can't get 
them voted on on the floor.
  People may say: Why can't you? Well, because it requires 60 votes. We 
have to overcome a 60-vote hurdle in order to even proceed to the 
legislation. So we haven't been able to vote on a single appropriations 
bill before September 30, which is the fiscal year-end and which is 
coming up this week. It is no way to run a railroad, much less a 
government--by the way, the government that has the biggest budget of 
any government in the world, the government of the greatest nation in 
the world. We can't even bring these individual spending bills up here 
for a debate and a vote. It is just wrong.
  Again, when we don't do that, what we don't have is the oversight. I 
would think both sides would want to have oversight over these agencies 
and departments so we understand what is working and what is not 
working and so that those tax dollars are spent wisely. That is the 
kind of stewardship that we are responsible for. As taxpayers, as 
representatives of taxpayers, we should want to be sure those dollars 
are spent in a way that is most effective. Yet, without having these 
appropriations bills, it is just impossible to do. Instead, we are 
faced with this possibility of on September 30 not having any of what 
is called discretionary spending, which is not all of the spending of 
government, but it is the spending that Congress appropriates every 
year, and having the possibility of parts of government actually not 
being able to operate because September 30 is the fiscal year-end. It 
is just the wrong way to do business.
  So the amendment I am going to offer later this afternoon is an 
amendment that simply says: Let's adopt a new bill, new legislation 
that says: Let's end government shutdowns.
  How would we do it? We would say that as of September 30, if there is 
any bill that is not passed, any one of the 12--remember that this year 
none of the 12 were passed--none of them. But on any year, if any one 
of those were not passed, then we would simply continue the spending 
from the previous year, but there would be a reduction in that spending 
over time. After 120 days there would be a 1-percent reduction, giving 
120 days to work with the Appropriations Committee to say: OK, we know 
you don't want to see the spending cut, and we know you have priorities 
you would like to fund, but it is going to be cut 1 percent after 120 
days, then 1 percent after the next 90 days, 1 percent after the next 
90 days, and 1 percent after the next 90 days. So we get to a point 
where we have to see a reduction in spending every year, which is not 
necessarily a bad thing because Congress spends more than it takes in 
every year. But if appropriators and others here in Congress don't want 
to see that, they would have to get their act together and actually 
pass appropriations bills. Once an appropriations bill is passed, the 
End Government Shutdowns Act would not apply.

  This seems to me to be a really logical bipartisan commonsense 
solution to the problem that we are facing here. Again, the problem is 
Congress is not doing its work. We are not getting these appropriations 
bills done. It is not for lack of work in the committees this year. 
Again, all 12 bills were reported out of committee. I believe the same 
is true in the House. Yet we cannot get here on the floor of the Senate 
the 60 votes needed to come up with the ability to proceed to these 
appropriations bills. It is called a filibuster. They are being 
filibustered. We are not even debating them. This is just wrong. I 
think, again, the way to get around that is to say: OK, if you want to 
try to block these bills, what is going to happen is we are going to 
have automatic spending from last year with no increases--in fact, 
decreases--and decreasing more over time, until Congress gets its act 
together and actually passes this legislation.
  This idea is so commonsense that when we had a vote on it a couple of 
years ago, when I was able to bring it

[[Page S6965]]

up for a vote--and we will see tonight whether I am permitted to do 
that--we actually had 46 Senators support it. Now, not everybody 
supported it on the Appropriations Committee. Some of them obviously 
had concerns about it. Not every Republican supported it. There were a 
few Republicans who didn't support it. By the way, one Republican who 
didn't support it last time is now a cosponsor of the legislation 
because she has looked at it, she has understood the system is not 
working, and she has been persuaded it is the right way to go. It was 
bipartisan last time. Senator Tester and I were the two cosponsors of 
it.
  So I hope I will have the opportunity to offer that amendment here 
this afternoon because I think it makes all the sense in the world. As 
we are debating a continuing resolution again, the so-called CR--which 
is the wrong way to govern--let's also pass as part of that a new 
discipline, a new idea, a new approach that says: Let's not do this 
again. Let's not ever have the threat of a government shutdown hanging 
over us. Instead, come September 30, if an appropriations bill isn't 
done, fine, continue the spending from last year, with a slow 
ratcheting down of that spending. I think that makes all the sense in 
the world. It takes away this political football that is being thrown 
back and forth. It takes away the specter for our economy, for our 
businesses, and for our families of not knowing whether they are going 
to have this government operation continue after September 30 in 
whatever area is affecting our economy or those businesses or those 
families. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I think it provides an 
incentive for Congress to get its work done. And Congress should be 
doing every year all 12 appropriations bills--doing the oversight that 
goes into that, deciding what gets more money, what gets less money, 
what gets thrown out altogether. It doesn't make any sense.
  In the huge bureaucracy of the vast Federal Government, not every 
program is perfect. Let's be honest; a lot of them need reform. If we 
don't have this process of the power of the purse--the leverage of the 
power of the purse to be able to say ``Prove this program is working,'' 
and when it doesn't, ``We are going to pull the funding away''--you 
lose the ability for Congress to be an effective partner with the 
executive branch and the judicial branch the way our Founders set it 
up.
  Again, Congress alone has the power of the purse. Every dime has to 
be appropriated by this Congress, and Congress is not doing its job. 
This amendment, if we put in place this new practice, would be a 
tremendous help to get Congress back on track. It wasn't too long ago 
that this happened. I have been here almost 5 years now or 4\1/2\ 
years. We haven't had a single year where all the appropriations bills 
were done. In fact, very few appropriations bills have been voted on at 
all. This year not a single appropriations bill--zero--has come to the 
floor of the Senate because they have been blocked. They have all come 
out of committee now, but not a single one is allowed to get voted on 
here in the Senate.
  I do hope that my own leadership on the Republican side will keep 
bringing these bills up. At least then we have an opportunity to talk 
about them--what is in the bills and why it is a good idea for us to 
have the oversight. Again, the reforms to these programs--the spending 
cuts, the spending increases for programs that are working well, the 
elimination altogether of programs that aren't working--we should at 
least have the opportunity to discuss them and talk about it.

  I was hopeful we would see a colleague from the other side of the 
aisle show up or a member of the Appropriations Committee. I was told I 
could give this little talk at 5, and I had the opportunity to offer 
this amendment. I will have to come back later and offer it again.
  I don't know if my colleague from Iowa is planning to speak----
  Mr. GRASSLEY. No.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, earlier I had the opportunity to talk a 
little about the amendment I am about to offer. This is an amendment to 
the underlying bill, which is a continuing resolution. The amendment 
has to do with a piece of legislation called the End Government 
Shutdowns Act.
  Excuse me.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 5 
minutes in order to finish the conversation that we started earlier 
this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I talked about the fact that here we are, 
once again, without the appropriations bills done and forced to do a 
continuing resolution from now until December 11, and that is because 
later this week, on September 30, when the fiscal year ends and comes 
to a close, we will not have done the appropriations bills. It is not 
that we haven't done one or two or three; we haven't done any of them, 
and there are 12 of them.
  I think it is time for us to take a new approach; that is, to have an 
end government shutdowns discipline put before this Congress which 
says: Any time you get to this point with any of the appropriations 
bills--including now where we have all of them--that we instead have a 
continuation of last year's spending but that it ratchets down over 
time to provide an incentive for all of us in Congress--Democrats and 
Republicans alike, the Appropriations Committee, and all of us--to get 
our work done and to do our job under the Constitution. The power of 
the purse is exclusively delegated to the Congress. It will help us to 
get our job done if we had this by having the end government shutdowns 
discipline in place.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment No. 2702, the end government 
shutdowns amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if I understand the Senator's suggestion 
correctly, his amendment would create an automatic continuing 
resolution to fund the Federal Government in the event an annual 
appropriations bill is not enacted by the time the fiscal year expires. 
That may sound harmless enough, but what we are saying is that not only 
is the power of the Senate suspended and put on hold but the 
obligations of the committee system are put under a threat--that unless 
you complete action on legislation that is referred to the committee of 
jurisdiction by a certain time, you are out of business, and whoever 
wants to offer an amendment as a substitute gets to offer that and pass 
it on a majority vote. We are already required to have three-fifths of 
the Members vote to cut off debate in order to be sure that all 
Senators--not just a bare majority--get to decide the decisions of the 
Senate and get to actively participate in the process by offering 
amendments.
  My friend's amendment abolishes offering any other alternatives for a 
full debate--unlimited debate--which is why the Senate is here, to cool 
down the passions of the moment. A Senator might have a good idea and 
want to change a law, repeal a resolution, deny access to Federal funds 
for this, that or the other that goes to a State that is very 
important, and their interests are just as important.
  This is a terrible amendment, and it ought to be rejected. I hope the 
Senator will withhold offering the amendment. We can have hearings on 
this and see what other Senators may think about it, but at first 
blush, this seems like this is an amendment whose time has not come. We 
are not ready to dismantle the rules of the Senate piece by piece. 
Well, we have the right of unlimited debate, and Senators can talk as 
long as they wish to. We don't have to go through a rules committee to 
get permission or get permission from any other Senator. These are 
direct responsibilities of individual Senators selected by their States 
to stand up for their interests, not to go to Washington and cave in on 
something that might be a good-sounding amendment

[[Page S6966]]

or might have the passions of the moment behind it so that there 
appears to be a wave of support, but until you have a chance to 
seriously consider the individual issues involved, until three-fifths 
of the Senate decides to cut off debate--I strongly object to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
and my colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I look 
forward to talking to him more about this. As I said earlier, 46 
Senators supported this in the past, including all but two or three 
Republicans, by the way, and one of them is now a cosponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
under rule XXII be waived with respect to today's cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I wish to 
have 1 minute in order to debate the matter that is before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I stand with the Senator from Mississippi. 
We may be from opposite political parties, but I certainly agree with 
him that the suggestion by the Senator from Ohio does not serve the 
best interests of this country.
  Imagine if his proposal went through and we were faced with 
inadequate funding for medical care for our veterans. I am sorry to say 
the Senator from Ohio has suggested that we would have last year's 
level of funding with potentially a 4-percent cut. It would be the same 
for fighting fires and the National Institutes of Health. There would 
be a 4-percent cut in medical research.
  I think what we are doing, if we accept this approach, is giving up 
our responsibility that the taxpayers sent us to carry out; that is, to 
make careful choices when it comes to budgets.
  I just want to be on the record supporting my colleague from 
Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I hadn't planned to have a debate on 
this, but I am happy to have one. Let me just be very clear. This is 
about putting the Appropriations Committee in business, not out of 
business. This is not about cutting spending; it is about forcing 
Congress to get its work done.
  Here we sit about to pass a continuing resolution because none of the 
12 appropriations bills has been voted on because each of them has been 
blocked in the Senate. The committee has done its work. Yet we can't 
get them to the floor. Yet we have the other side saying: Gosh, this 
would somehow hurt the process.
  How can the process be hurt any worse? We want the process to work, 
and that is why 46 of us, on a bipartisan basis, have supported this 
idea. What it says is, if at the end of the day, on September 30, 
appropriations bills have not been passed, then we would simply 
continue the spending from last year, and, yes, over time we would 
ratchet it down, giving 120 days for the committee to get its act 
together that it did not in the previous year when it was supposed to, 
to get these bills done, to do the oversight, and to make the decisions 
about NIH, as the Senator has said, and to make the decisions about our 
veterans.
  If we truly want to help our veterans, a CR is not the way to do it. 
The way to do it is to let the VA bill come to the floor, have a 
debate, and take the committee's good ideas--and, by the way, it came 
out of committee with a large bipartisan vote. That is how we should be 
legislating. That is our job. The power of the purse resides 
exclusively with us. Yet once again this year we are not doing our job. 
It is not that we are just doing a couple of appropriations bills; we 
are not doing a single appropriations bill. I think it is time for us 
to change course and that is what this legislation is about. I am 
simply saying that in the process of passing the CR, which we now have 
to do, set up a discipline for the future that provides an incentive 
for us to get our work done so the good work being done by Senator 
Cochran and others--including Senator Mikulski--in the Appropriations 
Committee can come to the floor for a vote, and we can get back to 
governing.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to waive the 
mandatory quorum?
  Mr. DURBIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     719 with an amendment, No. 2689.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Pat 
           Roberts, Johnny Isakson, Michael B. Enzi, Cory Gardner, 
           John Barrasso, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Thad 
           Cochran, Chuck Grassley, Kelly Ayotte, Susan M. 
           Collins, Deb Fischer, Richard Burr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
719 with amendment No. 2689, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 77, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 271 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Boozman
     Coats
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Blunt
     Corker
     Graham
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 77, the nays are 
19.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.
  The Senator from Texas.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2690

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I move to table the McConnell amendment No. 
2690 for the purpose of offering my own amendment No. 2701, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S6967]]

  

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, there is a reason the American people are 
fed up with Washington. There is a reason the American people are 
frustrated. The frustration is not simply mild or passing or ephemeral; 
it is volcanic. Over and over again, the American people go to the 
ballot box. Over and over again, the American people rise and say: The 
direction we are going does not make sense; we want change. Over and 
over again, the American people win elections--in 2010, a tidal wave 
election; in 2014, a tidal wave election. Yet nothing changes in 
Washington.
  I would like to share with the Presiding Officer and the American 
people the real story of what is happening in Washington, why it is 
that our leaders cannot stop bankrupting this country, cannot stop the 
assault on our constitutional rights, cannot stop America's retreat 
from leadership in the world. It is a very simple dynamic when you have 
two sides allegedly in a political battle, one side that is 
relentlessly, unshakably committed to its principles and the other side 
that reflectively surrenders at the outset. The outcome is 
foreordained.
  I will give President Obama and the Senate Democrats credit. They 
believe in principles of Big Government. They believe in this 
relentless assault on our constitutional rights. They are willing to 
crawl over broken glass with a knife in between their teeth to fight 
for those principles. Unfortunately, leadership on my side of the aisle 
does not demonstrate the same commitment to principles.
  How is it, you might wonder, that a preemptive surrender is put in 
place? Well, it all begins with a relatively innocuous statement: There 
shall be no shutdowns. That is a statement leadership in both Houses--
Republican leadership in both Houses has said: We are not going to shut 
the government down.
  You can understand--to folks in the private sector, folks at home, 
that sounds pretty reasonable, except here is the reality in 
Washington. In today's Washington, there are three kinds of votes. No. 
1, there are show votes--votes that are brought up largely to placate 
the voters, where the outcome is foreordained, where most Republicans 
will vote one way and most Democrats will vote the other. Republicans 
will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in 
both Houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on 
the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose.
  We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. 
Leadership told us: You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else 
do you want?
  We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. Indeed, it 
did not.
  The second kind of vote is a vote that simply grows government, 
dramatically expands spending, and expands corporate welfare. Those 
votes pass because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican 
leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career 
politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing 
government and in particular handing out corporate welfare to giant 
corporations. Oh boy. If you have the lobbyists on K Street pushing for 
something, you can get 60, 70, 80 in this Chamber because Republican 
leadership loves it and Democrats are always willing to grow 
government.
  Then there is the third kind of vote--votes on must-pass legislation. 
In an era when one side--the Democratic Party--is adamantly committed 
to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of 
Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real 
consequence in this Chamber. They typically fall into one of three 
categories: either a continuing resolution, an omnibus appropriations 
bill, or a debt ceiling increase. All of those three are deemed must-
pass votes. If you actually want to change law, those are the only 
hopes of doing so. But, as I mentioned before, you have one side who 
has preemptively surrendered.

  Republican leadership has said they will never ever shut down the 
government, and suddenly President Obama understands the easy key to 
winning every battle: He simply has to utter the word ``shutdown'' and 
Republican leadership runs to the hills. So President Obama demands of 
Congress: Fund every bit of ObamaCare--100 percent of it--and do 
nothing, zero, for the millions of Americans who are hurting, millions 
of Americans who have lost their jobs, who have lost their health care, 
who have lost their doctors, who have been forced into part-time work, 
the millions of young people who have seen their premiums skyrocket.
  President Obama: You can do nothing for the people who are hurting.
  Senate Democrats say: We don't care about the people who are hurting. 
We will do nothing for them.
  Here is the kicker. President Obama promises: If you try to do 
anything on ObamaCare, I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the 
entire Federal Government and shut it down.
  Republican leadership compliantly says: OK. Fine. We will fund 
ObamaCare.
  President Obama then understands he has got a pretty good trump card 
here he can pull out at any time. So next he says: OK. Republicans, 
fund my unconstitutional Executive amnesty. It is contrary to law. It 
is flouting Federal immigration law. But you, Republicans, fund it 
anyway or else, I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire 
Federal Government and shut it down.
  Republican leadership says at the outset: OK. We will fund amnesty.
  Now we turn to Planned Parenthood. Barack Obama--this will surprise 
no one--says: Fund 100 percent of Planned Parenthood with taxpayer 
money.
  Mind you, Planned Parenthood is a private organization. It is not 
even part of the government. But it happens to be politically favored 
by President Obama and the Democrats.
  Planned Parenthood is also the subject of multiple criminal 
investigations for being caught on tape apparently carrying out a 
pattern of ongoing felonies. In ordinary times, the proposition that we 
should not be sending your or my Federal taxpayer money to fund a 
private organization that is under multiple criminal investigations--
that ought to be a 100-to-0 vote. But, as I mentioned before, Barack 
Obama is absolutely committed to his partisan objectives. He is like 
the Terminator. He never stops. He never gives up. He moves forward and 
forward and forward.
  So what does he say? If you don't fund this one private organization 
that is not part of the government, that is under multiple criminal 
investigations, I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire 
Federal Government and shut it down.
  What does Republican leadership say? Well, it will surprise no one. 
Republican leadership says: We surrender. We will fund Planned 
Parenthood.
  You know, President Obama has negotiated a catastrophic nuclear deal 
with Iran. Republican leadership goes on television all the time and 
rightly says: This is a catastrophic deal. The consequences are that it 
is the single greatest national security threat to America. Millions of 
Americans could die.
  I would suggest that if we actually believed the words that are 
coming out of our mouths, then we would be willing to use any and all 
constitutional authority given the Congress to stop a catastrophic deal 
that sends over $100 billion to Ayatollah Khamenei. Yet President Obama 
says he will veto the entire budget if we do, and, to the surprise of 
nobody, Republican leadership surrenders.
  You know, I will draw an analogy. It is as if at a football game, the 
beginning of the football game the two team captains go out to flip the 
coin. One team's coach walks out and says: We forfeit. They do it game 
after game after game right at the coin flip.
  Leadership says: We forfeit. We surrender. We, Republicans, will fund 
every single Big Government liberal priority of the Democrats.
  If an NFL team did that over 16 games, we know what their record 
would be; it would be 0 and 16. You know, I am pretty sure the fans who 
bought tickets and who went to the game would be pretty ticked off as 
they watched their coach forfeit over and over again.
  You want to understand the volcanic frustration with Washington? It 
is that Republican leadership in both Houses will not fight for a 
single priority we promised the voters we would fight for when we were 
campaigning less than a year ago.
  You know, this past week was a big news week in Washington. The 
Speaker

[[Page S6968]]

of the House, John Boehner, announced he was going to resign, and there 
was lots of speculation in the media as to why the Speaker of the House 
resigned. I am going to tell you why he resigned. It is actually a 
direct manifestation of this disconnect between the voters back home 
and Republican leadership. Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell 
promised there will be no shutdown. Therefore, they will fund every 
single priority of Barack Obama.
  We are right now voting on what is called a clean CR. I would note it 
is clean only in the parlance of Washington, because what does it do? 
It funds 100 percent of ObamaCare, 100 percent of Executive amnesty. It 
funds all of Planned Parenthood, and it funds the Iranian nuclear deal. 
It is essentially a blank check to Barack Obama. That is not very clean 
to me. That actually sounds like a very dirty funding bill, funding 
priorities that are doing enormous damage.
  In the Senate the votes were always there for a dirty CR, a CR that 
funded all of Barack Obama's priorities. The Democrats will all vote 
for it--heck, of course they will. They have the other side funding 
their priorities. Of course, every Democrat will vote for that over and 
over and over and twice on Sunday. The simple reality on the Republican 
side is when leadership joins with the Democrats, about half of the 
Republican caucus is happy to move over to that side of the aisle. So 
the votes were always preordained.
  The motion I made just a moment ago was a motion to table the tree. 
You remember filling the tree. It is something we heard a lot about in 
the previous Congress. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, did it all 
the time.
  Senators on this side of the aisle stood over and over and said: It 
is abuse of process. In fact, we even campaigned with our leadership 
saying: We are going to have an open amendment process. Yet what has 
happened here is that Majority Leader McConnell has taken a page out of 
Leader Reid's playbook and filled the tree. I moved to table the tree, 
and what you then saw was leadership denying a second.
  What does ``denying a second'' mean? Denying a recorded vote. Why is 
that important? When you are breaking the commitments you have made to 
the men and women who have elected you, the most painful thing in the 
world is accountability. When you are misleading the men and women who 
showed up to vote for you, you don't want sunshine making clear that 
you voted no. A recorded vote means each Senator's name is on it.
  Now, why did I move to table the tree? Simply to add the amendment 
that I had, which, No. 1, would have said that not one penny goes to 
Planned Parenthood, and No. 2, not one penny goes to implementing this 
catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal unless and until they comply with 
Federal law--the administration complies with Federal law--and hands 
over the full deal, including the side agreements with Iran. What you 
saw was that Republican leadership desperately does not want a vote on 
that.
  Tomorrow I intend to make that motion again. And when I make that 
motion again, I would encourage those watching to see which Senators 
are here to give a second or not and to vote yea or nay.
  I would note that when you deny a second, which is truly an 
unprecedented procedural trick--it used to be that was a courtesy that 
was afforded to all Senators. Indeed, in the opposing party routinely 
over and over when a Democrat or Republican asked for a second, 
everyone raised their hand. But leadership has discovered: We can do 
this in the dark of the night.
  But I would encourage those watching to see, No. 1, when this motion 
is offered again, who shows up to offer a second and who either doesn't 
raise his hand or just doesn't come to the floor.
  One of the ways you avoid accountability is you are somehow somewhere 
else doing something very important instead of actually showing up for 
the battle that is waging right here and now.
  But I would also encourage people to watch very carefully what 
happens after that. After that you have a voice vote. A voice vote is 
still a vote. Let's be clear. Standing on the floor, there were two 
Senators--Senator Lee and I--who voted aye, who voted to table the tree 
and take up the amendment barring funding for Planned Parenthood and 
barring funding for this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.
  The remaining Senators on the Republican side--Leader McConnell, Whip 
Cornyn, Senator Alexander, and Senator Cotton--those four Senators 
loudly voted no. It is still a vote, even though it is not a recorded 
vote. It is a vote on the Senate floor.
  So why did Speaker Boehner resign? Well, I mentioned to you that the 
votes were always cooked here. The Democrats plus Republican leadership 
and the votes they bring with them ensure plenty of votes for a dirty 
CR, a CR that funds ObamaCare, that funds amnesty, that funds Planned 
Parenthood, that funds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. But the 
House was always the bulwark.
  The Presiding Officer will remember in 2013 when we had a fight over 
ObamaCare. The Presiding Officer was serving in the House at the time. 
In that fight we never had the votes in the Senate. Actually, the 
Senate was under control of the Democrats. They were going to do 
everything they could to defend ObamaCare regardless of the millions of 
people who were hurt.
  But the House was the bulwark in that fight, and in particular there 
was a core of 40 or 50 strong, principled conservatives who cared 
deeply about honoring the commitments they made to the men and women 
who elected them. That was always the strength we had in that fight.
  You know, it has been interesting reading some of the press coverage, 
speculating that there would be some magic parliamentary trick that 
would somehow stop this corrupt deal. Well, in the Senate there are no 
magic parliamentary tricks. When you have the Democrats plus Republican 
leadership and a chunk of the Republicans, those votes can roll over 
any parliamentary trick you might use. Even with the Blood Moon we just 
had, there are no mystical powers that allow you to roll over them.
  But in the House we still have those 30, 40, 50 strong conservatives. 
So how is it that Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell could promise 
there will never, ever be a shutdown? Because, I believe, Speaker 
Boehner has decided to cut a deal with Leader Nancy Pelosi, the leader 
of the Democrats, that this dirty CR is going to be passed out of the 
Senate and is going to go to the House. The Speaker is going to take it 
up on the floor and pass it with all the Democrats--just as Leader 
McConnell did--and a handful of Republicans who will go with Republican 
leadership. A very significant percentage of Republicans will vote no. 
But here is the problem: Speaker Boehner has done that more than once. 
In this instance, there were too many Republicans who were tired of 
seeing their leadership lead the Democrats rather than lead the 
Republican Party.
  I believe if Speaker Boehner had done that--had passed a dirty CR 
funding Planned Parenthood, funding this Iranian nuclear deal--he would 
have lost his speakership. A Member of the House had introduced a 
motion to vacate the Chair because House Republicans were fed up with 
their leader not leading--at least not leading their party, leading the 
Democratic Party.
  So Speaker Boehner faced a conundrum. If he did what he and Leader 
McConnell promised, which is to fund all of Barack Obama's priorities, 
he would have lost his job. And so what did he do? He announced that he 
is resigning as Speaker and resigning as a Member of Congress. That is 
unsurprising, but it also telegraphs the deal that he has just cut. It 
is a deal to surrender and join with the Democrats. Notice he said he 
is going to stay a month. He is going to stay a month in order to join 
with the Democrats and fund Barack Obama's priorities.
  Now let's talk about some of the substantive issues that we ought to 
be talking about. Let's start with Planned Parenthood. In the past 
couple of months, a series of videos have come out about Planned 
Parenthood. To some of the people watching this, you may never have 
seen the videos. Why is that? Because the mainstream media has engaged 
in a virtual media blackout on them: ABC, NBC, CBS, the last thing they 
want to do is show these videos.
  If you watch FOX News, you can see the videos. But the mainstream 
media, in the great tradition of Pravda, wants

[[Page S6969]]

to make sure the citizenry doesn't see what is in these videos. I would 
encourage every American--Republican or Democrat--regardless of where 
you fall on the right to life, even--and, in fact, especially--if you 
consider yourself pro-choice--to just watch these videos. Go online and 
watch them and ask yourself: Are these my values? Is this what I 
believe?
  These videos show senior officials from Planned Parenthood laughing, 
sipping chardonnay and callously harvesting and selling the body parts 
of unborn children over and over and over. One senior official was 
caught on video laughing and saying she hopes she sells enough body 
parts of unborn children to buy herself a Lamborghini. Again, I would 
suggest to just ask yourself: Are these my values?
  In another video a lab tech describes a little baby boy--unborn, 
aborted, about 2 pounds, his heart still beating. She was instructed to 
insert scissors under his chin to cut open the face of this little boy 
and harvest his brain because the brain was valuable. Planned 
Parenthood could sell the brain.
  This is something out of ``Brave New World.'' These are human beings. 
That little boy had a heart that was still beating, had a brain that 
was being harvested. He had a soul given to him by God Almighty. He was 
made in the image of God.
  We are now a nation that harvests the body parts of little baby boys 
and girls. It is the very definition of inhumanity to treat children 
like agriculture, to be grown and killed for their body parts, to be 
sold for profit. There is a reason that the media and the Democrats 
don't want these videos shown, because anyone watching these videos 
will be horrified.
  But they are not just horrific; they are also prima facie evidence of 
criminal activity. There are multiple Federal statutes--criminal 
statutes--that Planned Parenthood appears to be violating, perhaps on a 
daily basis. The first and most direct is a prohibition on selling the 
body parts of unborn children for a profit. Federal criminal law makes 
that a felony with up to 10 years of jail time.
  Now these videos show them very clearly selling body parts. They also 
show them bartering a price. They will argue it wasn't for a profit. 
But you watch these videos. You watch the undercover buyer saying: How 
much will you give me for them? And you see the Planned Parenthood 
official saying: Well, how much can I get? I don't want to bargain 
against myself.
  On its face, that is evidence of bargaining for a profit. If you want 
the highest price you can get, it is not tied to your costs. It is tied 
to whatever dollars, whatever revenue you can bring in. Planned 
Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country. As another 
one of these videos reflects, it is a volume business--Planned 
Parenthood--taking the lives of unborn children and then selling them--
apparently for profit. It is also a Federal criminal offense to alter 
the means of an abortion for the purpose of harvesting the organs of 
the unborn child. That is a separate criminal offense. On video after 
video, you see Planned Parenthood officials saying: OK. What parts 
would you like? We can perform a different abortion depending on what 
parts you want us to harvest. On the videos they essentially admit to 
this crime. They are filmed in the act.

  There is the third criminal offense that provides that you cannot 
harvest the organs of an unborn child without informed consent from the 
mother. Yet again these videos seem to indicate that Planned Parenthood 
treats informed consent as a technicality that is sometimes complied 
with and sometimes ignored.
  Now, I will say as an aside that ordinarily, when a national 
organization is caught on film committing a pattern of felonies, the 
next steps are predictable: The Department of Justice opens an 
investigation; the FBI shows up and seizes their records. Everything on 
those videos suggests those felonies are still occurring today.
  What does it say about the Obama Justice Department that no one on 
the face of the planet believes there is any chance the Justice 
Department would even begin to investigate Planned Parenthood? What 
does it say about the most lawless partisan Department of Justice that 
there is this group that is a political ally of the President, so that 
is apparently all that matters. If it is an ally of the President, it 
doesn't matter that they are videotaped committing a felony. The 
Department of Justice will not even look at it.
  I am an alumnus of the U.S. Department of Justice. I was an Associate 
Deputy Attorney General. I spent much of my adult life working in law 
enforcement. The Department of Justice has a long, distinguished record 
of remaining outside of partisan politics, of staying above the 
partisan fray, of being blind to party or ideology and simply enforcing 
the law and the Constitution. I am sorry to say that under Eric Holder 
and Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice has completely besmirched 
that tradition.
  No one remotely believes the Obama Justice Department will even begin 
to investigate this pattern of felonies. You don't see Democrats 
suggesting it. No one in the media suggests it. And by the way, if this 
were a Republican administration and the entity that admitted to a 
pattern of felonies was a private entity that supported Republicans, 
you would see on CBS, NBC, and ABC an indictment clock every night. You 
would see the anchors saying: When will this investigation be opened? 
When will they be indicted? Instead, the media pretends these videos 
don't exist.
  In the face of what appears to be a national criminal enterprise, we 
are faced here with a much simpler question: Will we continue to pay 
for it? Will we continue to pay for it with your and my tax dollars? 
Will we send $500 million a year to a private organization to use to 
fund this ongoing criminal organization?
  What is the position of the Democrats? Hear no evil, see no evil. 
They do not care. What Democrat do you see calling for the enforcement 
of criminal laws against Planned Parenthood? What Democrat do you hear 
saying, at a minimum, let's not send taxpayer money to fund this? Not 
one. Not a single Democrat stood up and said that.
  Let me ask you, Mr. President, what happens if Planned Parenthood 
gets indicted? Because even though the U.S. Department of Justice under 
President Obama has become little more than a partisan arm of the 
Democratic National Committee, there are State and local prosecutors 
who are investigating Planned Parenthood right now. If Planned 
Parenthood is indicted, will the Democrats maintain their wall of 
silence and say: We are going to continue to fund them under 
indictment. By all indications, that answer is yes. We haven't heard a 
single Democrat say: Well, if they are indicted, then we will stop.
  The response from our leadership is that we can't win this fight. 
That is their response. They say: Well, we can't win the Planned 
Parenthood fight. Why? Because we don't have 60 votes; because we don't 
have 67 votes. If that is the standard, then the Republican leadership 
standard is that we will do only what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi 
approve of. That is what it means.
  You want to understand why the American people are frustrated? We 
were told: If only we had a Republican House of Representatives, then 
things would be different. In 2010, millions of us rose up in 
incredible numbers and won an historic tidal wave election. The 
Presiding Officer was a youth pastor, called to minister, yet he stood 
up and said: My country is in crisis. I am going to step forward and 
serve. The 2010 election was historic, yet very little changed.
  Then we were told: OK. We have a House of Representatives, but the 
problem is the Senate. As long as Harry Reid is majority leader, we 
can't do anything. Over and over again Washington gray beards would go 
on television, and in gravelly tones they would say: You cannot govern 
with one-half of one-third of government. The House of Representatives 
is not enough, but if we had the Senate, then things would be 
different. The problem is Harry Reid.
  The Presiding Officer will recall during the fight over ObamaCare a 
number of Members of this body--Republicans--said: No, no, no, no. We 
can't fight on ObamaCare. We have to wait until we have a Republican 
Senate to fight. So the American people obliged. In 2014, millions of 
us rose up for the second tidal wave election in a period of 4 years. 
We won nine Senate seats.

[[Page S6970]]

We retired Harry Reid as majority leader. We won the largest majority 
in the House of Representatives since the 1920s.
  It has been now over 9 months since we have had Republican majorities 
in both Houses, and I ask: What exactly have those Republican 
majorities accomplished?
  I have asked that question all over the country in townhalls. I have 
never been at a townhall where the response, spontaneous, was not 
absolutely nothing. That is true in every State I visit.
  And sadly, my response over and over again is: You know, it's worse 
than that. I wish the answer were absolutely nothing. It would have 
been better if the Republican majorities had done absolutely nothing 
because what, in fact, have they done? Well, the very first thing that 
happened, right after that election in November, is we came back to 
Washington, and Republican leadership joined up with Harry Reid and the 
Democrats and passed a trillion dollar CR omnibus bill that was filled 
with pork, corporate welfare, and grew government, grew the debt.
  Then Republican leadership took the lead in funding ObamaCare. Then 
Republican leadership took the lead in funding Executive amnesty. Then 
Republican leadership took the lead in funding Planned Parenthood. And 
then, astonishingly, Republican leadership took the lead in confirming 
Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.
  Now, I ask: Which one of those decisions is one iota different from 
what would have happened with Harry Reid and the Democrats in charge of 
this Chamber? Those decisions are identical.
  And I would note, by the way, with Loretta Lynch, the Republican 
majority could have defeated that nomination. The Senate majority 
leader could have done so. She looked at the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, and she looked at the Senate, and when asked how she would 
differ from Eric Holder's Justice Department--the most lawless and 
partisan Justice Department we would ever see--and she said: No way 
whatsoever. When asked to point to a single instance in which she would 
be willing to stand up to President Obama to stop his lawlessness, to 
stop his abuse of power, she could not identify any circumstance in 
which she would ever stand up to the President who appointed her. 
Attorneys general from both parties have done that, for centuries.
  Now, with Eric Holder, the Senate could be forgiven because his 
lawlessness manifested primarily after he was confirmed. With Loretta 
Lynch, she told us beforehand. She looked us in the eyes and said: Hey, 
I am going to do exactly what my predecessor has done. And Republican 
leadership confirmed her anyway.
  Is it any wonder the American people are frustrated out of their 
minds? We keep winning elections, and the people we put in office don't 
do what they said they would do.
  Now, some people across the country ask me: Is Republican leadership 
just not very capable? Are they not that competent or are they 
unwilling to fight? Mr. President, it is neither. They are actually 
quite competent, and they are willing to fight. The question becomes 
what they are fighting for.
  There is a disconnect right now. If you or I go to our home State and 
to any gathering of citizens and we put up a white board and we ask the 
citizens in the room to give the top priorities they think Republican 
majorities in Congress should be focusing on, and we wrote the 20 
priorities that came from the citizens of Oklahoma or the citizens of 
Texas or, for that matter, the citizens of any of the 50 States, those 
top 20 priorities--at least 18 of them--would appear nowhere on the 
leadership's priority list.
  On the other hand, if you drive just down the street in Washington to 
K Street--K Street is the street in Washington where the lobbyists 
primarily reside, where their offices are--and you get a gathering of 
corporate lobbyists that represent giant corporations and ask them 
their top priorities, the list that comes out will not just bear 
passing similarity but will be identical to the priorities of the 
Republican leadership. That's the disconnect.
  Do you know why we are not here fighting on this? Because not giving 
taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood is not among the priorities of the 
lobbyists on K Street, so leadership is not interested in doing it. 
That is the disconnect.
  Leadership does know how to fight. Just a couple of months ago, in 
dealing with the Export-Import Bank, we saw leadership in both Chambers 
go to extraordinary lengths with Herculean procedural steps to 
reauthorize a classic example of corporate welfare--hundreds of 
billions of dollars of taxpayer-guaranteed loans to giant corporations. 
Now, for that, leadership is incentivized because those corporations 
hire lobbyists and those lobbyists distribute checks, typically by the 
wheelbarrow.
  There is no incentive greater in this body than getting reelected, 
and the view of leadership is that you get reelected by raking in the 
cash. How do you think we have gotten an $18 trillion national debt? 
Because the way you reach bipartisan compromise in this body today, in 
the broken world of Washington, is you grow and grow and grow 
government, and you sit around in a room and say: I will spend for your 
priority, your priority, your priority--another trillion dollars and we 
are done.
  The only people to lose are your children and mine. The only people 
to lose are the next generations who find themselves mired deeper and 
deeper and deeper in debt. I think of my little girls Caroline and 
Catherine. They are 7 and 4. If we don't stop what we are doing, your 
children and my children will face a debt so crushing they will not be 
able to spend in the future for the priorities of the future--for their 
needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next 
generation confronts. They will spend their whole lives simply working 
to pay off the debts racked up by their deadbeat parents and 
grandparents. No generation in history has ever done this to their 
children and grandchildren. Our parents didn't do it to us. Their 
parents didn't do it to them. The reason is the corruption of this 
town, and it boils down to a simple proposition: The Democrats are 
willing to do anything to push their priorities, and the Republicans, 
the leadership, are not listening to the men and women who elected us.

  But it is actually an even deeper problem than that. On the 
Democratic side, the major donors that fund the Democratic Party, they 
don't despise their base. The billionaires who write the giant checks 
that fund President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrats on that 
side of the aisle don't despise the radical gay rights movement or the 
radical environmentalist movement or all the people who knock on doors 
and get Democrats elected. The simple reality is a very large 
percentage of the Republican donors actively despise our base--actively 
despise the men and women who showed up and voted you and me into 
office. I can tell you, when you sit down and talk with a New York 
billionaire Republican donor--and I have talked with quite a few New 
York billionaire Republican donors, California Republican donors--their 
questions start out as follows. First of all, you have to come out for 
gay marriage, you need to be pro-choice, and you need to support 
amnesty. That is where the Republican donors are. You wonder why 
Republicans will not fight on any of these issues? Because the people 
writing the checks agree with the Democrats.
  Now mind you, the people who show up at the polls who elected you and 
me and who elected this Republican majority--far too many of the 
Republican donors look down on those voters as a bunch of ignorant 
hicks and rubes. It is why leadership likes show votes.
  It wasn't too long ago when the Washington cartel was able to mask it 
all with a show vote or two, and they told the rubes back home: See, we 
voted on it; we just don't have the votes.
  When I was first elected to this body, many times I heard more senior 
Senators saying some variation of the following: Now, Ted, that is what 
you tell folks back home. You don't actually do it.
  Here is what has changed. The voters have gotten more informed. They 
now understand the difference between show votes and a real vote. They 
understand the vote we had 1 week ago on Planned Parenthood was 
designed to lose, to placate those silly folks who think we shouldn't 
be sending taxpayer funds to a criminal organization that is selling 
the body parts of unborn children. But on the actual vote that could

[[Page S6971]]

change policy, leadership has no interest in fighting whatsoever.
  In the past couple of weeks, one of my colleagues sent me a letter 
that really embodied the leadership message. This letter said: 
``Explain to me how you get 67 votes to defund Planned Parenthood. If 
you can't produce 67 votes, I won't support it.'' If that is our 
standard, then we should all be honest with the men and women who 
elected us: We do not have 67 Republican votes in this Chamber, and 
there is no realistic prospect of our getting 67 votes any time in the 
foreseeable future. If the standard is, unless we get 67 votes, 
Republican leadership will support no policy issue, then each of us 
when we run should tell the voters: If you vote for me, I will support 
whatever policy agenda Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi decide because that 
is my standard. If I don't have 67 votes--do you ever recall Harry Reid 
and the Democrats saying: How can we get Republican votes? No. Their 
side is absolutely committed to their principles. You don't see them 
holding back at all.
  If the standard is, how do we get 67 votes, name one thing that 
leadership will fight for. Well, the answer I mentioned, the three 
types of votes are they will fight for big government, they will fight 
to grow government, and they will fight to expand corporate welfare. 
Well, that can indeed get 67 votes. But I have never been to a townhall 
once where citizens said to me: The problem is we don't have enough 
corporate welfare. I need more subsidies for Big Business. If 100 
percent of the agenda of Republican leadership is more subsidies for 
Big Business, what the heck are we doing in the Senate in the first 
place? That certainly wasn't why I ran, and I know it wasn't why you 
ran either. You don't have to win every fight, you don't have to fight 
every fight, but you do have to stand for something.
  Let's look beyond Planned Parenthood for a minute. Let's look to 
Iran. Of all the decisions the Obama administration has made, there may 
be none more damaging than this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. If 
this deal goes through, there will be three consequences: No. 1, the 
Obama administration will become, quite literally, the world's leading 
financier of radical Islamic terrorists. Now, when I said that a couple 
months ago, President Obama got very, very upset. He said it was 
ridiculous that I would say such a thing, but despite attacking me 
directly, President Obama didn't actually endeavor to refute the 
substance of what I said.
  So let's review the facts: Fact No. 1, Iran is today the world's 
leading state sponsor of terrorism. That fact is undisputed even by 
this administration. Fact No. 2, if this deal goes through, over $100 
billion will go directly to Iran to the Ayatollah Khamenei. Fact No. 3, 
if that happens, billions of those dollars will go to Hamas, to 
Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to radical Islamic terrorists across the 
globe who will use those billions to murder Americans, to murder 
Israelis, and to murder Europeans.
  It is worth remembering, 14 years ago this month, the horrific 
terrorist attack that was carried out on September 11. Osama bin Laden 
hated America, but he never had billions of dollars. He never had $100 
billion. The Ayatollah Khamenei hates America every bit as much as 
Osama bin Laden did, and this administration is giving him control of 
over $100 billion. Imagine what bin Laden could have done. Look at the 
damage he did with 19 terrorists carrying box cutters. Now imagine that 
same zealotry with billions of dollars behind it. The consequences of 
this deal could easily be another terrorist attack that dwarfs 
September 11 in scale, that kills far more than the roughly 3,000 lives 
that were snuffed out. Who in their right mind would send over $100 
billion to a theocratic zealot who chants ``Death to America''?
  A second consequence of his catastrophic deal is that we are 
abandoning four hostages--four American hostages--in Iranian jails: 
Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American citizen whose wife Naghmeh lives in 
Idaho. I have visited with Naghmeh many times. Pastor Saeed has two 
little kids who desperately want their daddy to come home. Pastor Saeed 
was sentenced to 8 years in prison for the crime of preaching the 
Gospel. Just last week was the 3-year anniversary of Pastor Saeed's 
imprisonment. Reports are that he is being horribly mistreated, that 
his health is failing, and yet President Obama cannot bring himself to 
utter the words ``Pastor Saeed Abedini''--$100 billion to the Ayatollah 
Khamenei, and Pastor Saeed Abedini remains in prison.
  Also in prison is Amir Hekmati, an American marine the President has 
abandoned. Also in prison is Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post 
reporter--I note to the reporters in the Gallery, a colleague of 
yours--abandoned by President Obama in an Iranian prison, thrown in 
jail for doing his job, reporting on the news--and Robert Levinson, 
whose whereabouts remain unknown.
  Why is the President refusing to even utter their names?
  The third consequence of this deal is this deal will only accelerate 
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
  The administration claims the deal will prevent Iran from acquiring 
nuclear weapons. Why? Because they promised not to do it. We have 
learned from Iran, they break their promises over and over and over 
again. And what we do know is that they will have an extra $100 billion 
to develop nuclear weapons. Now, I will say the administration 
laughingly suggested: Well, they will use that on infrastructure, to 
rebuild their roads, to rebuild their energy industry. Right now they 
are sending vast sums to Hamas and Hezbollah, funding terrorism across 
the world, and they have those same infrastructure needs. With another 
$100 billion, you don't think they are going to funnel an awful lot of 
it to developing nuclear weapons?
  I would point out, it is not by accident that the Ayatollah Khamenei 
refers to Israel as the Little Satan and America as the Great Satan. 
This is the one threat on the face of the Earth that poses a real 
possibility of millions of Americans being murdered in the flash of an 
eye.
  Everything I am saying the Republican leadership has said over and 
over again. Yet Republican leadership refuses to enforce the terms of 
the Iran review legislation--Federal law that the administration is 
defying by not handing over the entire deal. I have laid out a clear 
path, a detailed path that leadership can follow to stop this deal, and 
leadership refuses to do so. Instead, we had a show vote that was 
designed to lose, and it did exactly what we expected. The Democrats, 
by and large, put party loyalty above the national security of this 
country, above standing with our friend and ally the nation of Israel, 
above protecting the lives of millions of Americans.
  If we truly believed what so many of us have said, that this poses 
the risk of murdering millions of Americans, is there any higher 
priority? The most powerful constitutional tool Congress has is the 
power of the purse. If we had the ability to stop this deal--and we 
don't--and millions of Americans die, how do we explain that to the men 
and women who elected us?
  I am not advocating that we fight willy-nilly. I am advocating that 
we fight on things that matter. Don't give $500 million to Planned 
Parenthood, a corrupt organization that is taking the lives of vast 
numbers of unborn children and selling their body parts, in a criminal 
conspiracy, directly contrary to Federal law. Don't give $100 billion 
to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who seeks to murder millions. In both 
instances, those are defending life. Yet Republican leadership is not 
willing to lift a finger. If only all the people who might be murdered 
by a nuclear weapon could create a PAC in Washington and hire some 
lobbyists, maybe leadership would listen to them. But the truckdriver 
at home, the waitress at home, the schoolteacher at home, the pastor, 
the police officer, the working men and women--the Washington cartel 
does not listen to them.

  I will note where this deal is headed. In December, when this dirty 
continuing resolution expires, leadership is already foreshadowing that 
they plan to bust the budget caps. Why? We talked about it at the 
beginning. Barack Obama has discovered that when he says the word 
``shutdown,'' the Republican leadership screams, surrenders, and runs 
to the hills. Obama, understanding that quite well, says: If you don't 
bust the budget caps, I will shut the government down.
  In this bizarre process, Republican leadership will blame whatever 
Obama

[[Page S6972]]

does on other Republicans. You noticed how much energy leader McConnell 
devotes to attacking conservatives? You notice how much energy Speaker 
Boehner devotes to attacking conservatives? Just yesterday the Speaker 
of the House went on national television, and on national television he 
directed an obscene epithet at me personally. He is welcome to insult 
whomever he likes. I don't intend to reciprocate. But when has 
leadership ever shown that level of venom, that level of animosity to 
President Obama and the Democrats who are bankrupting this country, who 
are destroying the Constitution, who are endangering the future of our 
children and grandchildren, who are retreating from leadership and the 
world, and who have created an environment that has led to the rise of 
radical Islamic terrorists?
  One of the dynamics we have seen in fight after fight is that Harry 
Reid and the Democrats sit back and laugh. Why? Because it is 
Republican leadership that leads the onslaught, attacking 
conservatives, saying: No, you can't, and we will not do anything to 
stop ObamaCare. No, you can't, and we will not do anything to stop 
amnesty. No, you can't, and we will not do anything to stop Planned 
Parenthood. No, you can't, and we will not do anything to stop Iran 
from acquiring nuclear weapons.
  If Republican leadership really believes we can accomplish nothing, 
then why does it matter if you have a Republican House or Senate? Every 
2 years come October, November, we tell the voters it matters 
intensely. To paraphrase the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, what 
difference does it make if the standard for Republican leadership is, 
anything that gets 67 votes we will support. That means Harry Reid and 
Nancy Pelosi remain the de facto leaders of the Senate and the House.
  I would note, by the way, if leadership goes through with their 
suggestion to bust the budget caps, they will have done something 
astonishing. Historically, the three legs of the conservative stool 
have been fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national 
security conservatives. Between Planned Parenthood, Iran, and the 
budget caps, leadership will have managed to abandon all three. No 
wonder the American people are frustrated. No wonder the American 
people do not understand why leadership isn't listening to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's postcloture time has expired.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be 
extended.
  The Democrats are objecting to my speaking further, and both the 
Democrats and Republican leadership are objecting to the American 
people speaking further.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________