1990's. nationally the longest period of sustained private sector job growth on record and of particular interest to me our manufacturing sector has come back and come back strongly as manufacturers created nearly 800,000 jobs in the last four years, jobs that make up the foundation of our 21st century middle class and our economy. and our unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level since before the great recession. our growing private sector isn't just creating jobs now. they're also laying the foundation for the jobs of the future. as test scores continue to improve and high school graduation rates have reached record highs and as our president said, more americans are finishing college than ever before we are laying a path that ensures future generations of americans can thrive as well. but our work remains unfinished. although we are right to turn the page on the fiscal crisis here at home, crises do remain real in the lives of far too many americans.

families i listened to who continue to struggle to get into and stay in our middle class. for many in the middle class wages have remained stubbornly stagnant as incomes for the wealthy have continued to grow. at the same time, too many americans have just stopped looking for work altogether during the recession and haven't begun that job search again. simply put, we have a lot of work to do together to ensure that the middle class experiences the benefits of this recovery. on that note, i appreciated president obama's call for an agenda that would do a lot to strengthen our middle class and although this isn't what you will hear about in the news, many of his ideas should enjoy bipartisan support. i'd like to spend a few minutes on some of the areas i think are ripe for bipartisan collaboration and that would go a long way towards actually helping middle-class families and our nation as a whole. first, it's no secret to anyone that our country's infrastructure is badly outdated and in need of repair. from our ports and roads to our bridges and railways, we have

steadily racked up a national debt of investment that we will need to pay for. the only question is when and how we do it. historically infrastructure, fixing roads and bridges and ports and railways, has not been a partisan issue. it's been something that's a core function of our federal government from its very founding. it is in no small part what federal government was created to help do. last tuesday, the president laid out ideas for thinking more creatively about how to make these core investments from improving efficiency to bringing private capital off the sidelines, and i have been encouraged to hear republican colleagues discussing infrastructure as something where they can work with our president. so let's get this done. let's solve our highway trust fund challenges for good and make the long-term investments that will put people back to work and strengthen our nation's economic backbone. second the president's proposal to expand access to community

colleges is something i hope will spark a broader discussion about how to make higher education more accessible and more affordable. i understand there is real disagreements here about how best to pay for it or how wide its scope should be, but that's what we can and should work on together. we all know that higher education is essential to ensuring americans have the skills they'll need in this century, and we know that community colleges can and should play a central role in achieving that mission. in manufacturing in particular, community colleges like del tech in my home state play a central role in partnering with local businesses to create a talent pipeline that sustains a community and its economy. in delaware, the seed and the inspire scholarships give students who are willing to work hard the chance to go to college and to learn the skills than help -- that will help them to contribute to delaware's economy after they finish schooling. we can replicate delaware's example across the country and

find ways to work together that make community college and further higher education affordable and accessible, so let's work on this together. lastly, the president laid out some commonsense tax and work proposals to help give middle-class families more of a realistic leg up. expanding the tax credits for families with children and streamlining the child care support just makes sense to me, making it easier for middle-class families to save for their kids' college education and to save for retirement at the same time would go a long way toward helping families to plan for the long term. around the country, too many of our workplaces lack family and medical leave policies that appreciate what it really takes to raise a family and live a healthy life, and the president's proposal to work with states to improve their policies would be a great step and would help those communities that choose to to create policies that suit their own local situations. so let's work together on these ideas. let's do something for middle-class families in our

country. mr. president, with a republican congress and a democratic white house, we need to come together if we're going to get anything meaningful done. and as president obama made clear, we have a lot of important and difficult work to do. our economy has come a long way from the great recession but there is still work to do to strengthen our middle class. there is still work to do to broaden the opportunity that has always been at the heart of the american dream. we can move forward together, and it's my sincere hope that we will rise to that occasion, that we will seize this opportunity and do the critical work of building and sustaining our vital middle class. thank you and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i move to set aside the pending amendment and call up on behalf of senator gillibrand amendment number 48. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: the senator from washington ms. cantwell, for mrs. gillibrand, proposes amendment numbered 48 to amendment numbered 2. ms. cantwell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president this amendment amends the safe drinking water act to protect clean water drinking sources from hydraulic fracturing commonly known as fracking and from underground storage of natural gas. the safe drinking water act currently exempts underground injection of fracking fluids and underground storage of natural gas from regulation under the act. senator gillibrand's amendment repeals those exemptions and makes underground injection of fracking fluids and underground storage of natural gas subject to those regulations. so i know my colleague from new york has been on the floor many times, actually three times i think at various times in this debate trying to offer this amendment, and so i'm offering it on her behalf tonight. i'm sure that she will be

looking for time to come and discuss it further. at this time, i ask to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment number 55 on behalf of senator peters. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from washington ms. cantwell, for mr. peters proposes an amendment numbered 55 to amendment numbered 2. at the appropriate place insert the following -- ms. cantwell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president senator peters' amendment number 55, would require the e.p.a. to complete a study on the environmental impacts of petcoke, and my colleague has been here on the floor speaking on the tar sands issue in general because kalamazoo had one of the worst tar sands oil spills in the nation's history and he has been down here

talking about things that we need to do to protect people, not just in the state of michigan but throughout the united states, and one of the aftermath effects of this issue is also petcoke which my colleague from illinois has been down here speaking to, and this is a very big issue for midwest senators who have an amount of petcoke in their communities and want to see the proper environmental treatment of this. so i am thinking that senator peters will be back down to speak in more detail on amendment number 55, but i offer it on his behalf, and i think with that i will -- i see the senator from new jersey here and i think he is here to speak on another matter, but i will yield the floor at this time, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: mr. president i thank the distinguished ranking member of the energy committee to yield some time here, and i am not here for the purposes of legislation that we have been debating but i am here to take time on the senate floor on an occasion that i think is incredibly important to recollect, to commemorate and to talk about. 70 years ago today a soviet soldier evan martinochkin, arrived with his unit at the death camp at auschwitz and he said in an interview that he was instantly struck by the silence the smell of ashes and the emptiness but as they entered the gates evan and his unit were unaware of the atrocities, the war crimes that were to come to light over time.

today, mr. president i rise in memory of the 1.1 million persons who perished there 90% of them jews. i rise in recognition of 1.1 million lost dreams, lost hopes, the lost wisdom of 1.1 million that will never be shared never be known and the lost potential of a generation that perished in that camp between 1940 and 1945. ivan martinochkin and his unit entered the camp thinking that there would be a nazi ambush and then they noticed people behind barbed wire. it was hard to watch them, he said. i remember their faces especially their eyes, which betrayed their -- which portrayed their ordeal. ivan didn't know that the nazis had evacuated another 58,000

prisoners ten days earlier or the six million who were killed in camps across europe. he stood witness that day to the ultimate manifestation of man's inhumanity to their fellow man. 7,000 prisoners left behind. 600 corpses borne of hatred, intolerance, prejudice bigotry and a seething anti-semitism that is again rearing its ugly head in europe, the middle east and around the world. there has been an alarming increase in anti-semitic attacks and incidents in europe that remain a challenge not only to stability and to security but to our shared morality, our mutually ethical core as human beings. just two weeks ago on january 9 2015 this year, four members of

france's jewish community were murdered during a hostage chrysler at a kosher -- hostage crisis at a kosher supermarket following the terrorist attacks at the newspaper charlie hebdo. the european news agency for fundamental rights issued a 2013 report on anti-semitism in france germany hungary italy latvia belgium sweden and the united kingdom were 90% -- where 90% of europe's jews reside, where nearly 3/4 of respondents said that anti-semitism had worsened over the past five years where they live. in france, home to europe's largest jewish population, it's been reported that the number of french jews immigrating to israel in 2014 had doubled compared to 2013, and for the first time ever, more jews moved to israel from france than any

other country in the world. anti-semitic acts in european countries in 2014 included violent attacks death threats and the desecration of jewish homes, commercial property, cemeteries and places of worship. on may 24 of 2014, a gunman opened fire at the jewish museum of belgium in brussels, belgium and killed four people. on july 29 molotov cocktails were thrown at the synagogue in warpetol germany which had been burned to the ground by the nazis during the 1938 kristol kristolnacht and had only been rebuilt in 2002. and we have all been shocked by the recent disturbing, stereotypical anti-semitic utterances of the president of turkey and those around him. the president of turkey said in

february of 2013 today the image of the jews is no different from that of the nazis. speaking at a campaign rally in the black sea province of urdu, he said -- quote -- the terrorist state israel has attacked gaza once again hitting innocent children who were playing on a beach and the crowd chanted down with israel. he said the world's media is under the influence the world's media is under the influence of israel. he has said -- quote -- wherever jews settle, they make money and claimed during the 2013 desi park protests, that the europeans in what he stereotypically referred to as the -- quote -- interest rate lobby were banking the antigovernment campaign with the ultimate goal of dividing turkey from within. and a turkish rider aligned with

president erdowan called for turkish jews to be taxed to pay for gaza reconstruction. he said -- quote -- "the reconstruction of gaza will be paid for by jewish businessmen." and he went on to say "the penalty for failing to pay the tax should be the revocation of the jews' business license and the seizure of his property. this is the kind of antisemitism that we hear in the turkey today. around the world the numbers are shocking. based on the global survey the a.d.l. concluded that 1. 1.09 billion people harbor antisejm i can attitudes. 39% had never heard of the holocaust. if the world doesn't stand together in never forgetting and our schools teachers, parents communities do not join together

in the fundamental principle of never forgetting how can we prevent this from never happening again? how can we work together to confront the antisemitism that enables hatred, violence, murder and genocide around the world? we can only ask what tomorrow might bring. we cannot know what the future will hold but we have learned from the past. what we remember today 70 years after the liberation of auschwitz is that the united states and the american people will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the israeli people and jewish communities across the world in ensuring never again. and this means confronting modern day antisemitism, whether from the world's leaders from ivory tower academics or from

economic belligerence pushing the boycott divestment in sanctions movement. we must fight back against any and all efforts to delegitimize the israeli state the jewish people and the jewish religion. as i have said many times on many occasions the holocaust was the most sinister possible reminder that the jewish population in exile has lived under constant threat. is the definitive reminder that antisemitism can appear anywhere and its horrors galvanized international support for the state of israel. but let's be very clear. while ashoa has a central role in israel's identity, it is not and never has been the reason behind israel's founding and it is not the main justification for its existence. the extreme characterization of this mistaken view is that

western powers established israel in 1948 based on their own guilt, at the expense of the peoples who already lived there. and, therefore the current state is illegitimate and according to religious cleric like supreme leader hamani, who attain his own regional aspirations for hegemony, should be wiped out of the face of the map. this argument is not only in defiance of basic human dignity but in plain defiance of history, in defiance of what we remember today. it is in defiance of ancient history, as told in biblical text and through archaeological evidence. it ignores the history of the last several centuries. and it stands in stark contrast to what we remember today. several thousand years of history lead to an undeniable conclusion -- the reestablishment of the state of israel in modern times is a political reality with roots

going back to the time of abraham and saro. at the end of the day the argument for israel's legitimacy does not depend on what we say in speeches, what we say on occasions like this. it has been made by the hard reality of history. it has been made by the men and women who made the desert green by nobel prizes earned by groundbreaking innovations and enviable institutions, by lives saved, democracy defended, peace made and battles won. there can be no denying the jewish people's legitimate right to live in peace and security in a homeland to which they have a connection for thousands of years. and there can be no denying the suffering, the senseless slaughter of a generation and all that the world realized we had lost when ivan m are tinoshkin and his unit walked walked through those gates and

liberated auschwitz and erased from all time the most devastating genocide in all of history. as we commemorate the victims of the holocaust let us never forget. but let us be very clear as we look around the world today that the struggle is not over. combating antisemitism is not only a jewish issue of the past, it is a matter of basic civil and human rights today now, in the present. like those russian soldiers 70 years ago, i have stood personally at the gates of auschwitz burki in haw and i felt the impact and the horror and the silence and the emptiness and i felt the lives lost. it is a moving experience that should compel all of us to collectively reflect on how we must transform the lessons we should have learned into

concrete acts to prevent history from repeating itself again. now is the time to renew the vow "never again," and with even greater resolve. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president before i speak i ask unanimous consent that mary future and carter burrell detailees from the department of justice be

given the privileges of the floor during the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: now i ask to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president we americans are so fortunate to enjoy the blessings of liberty. we protect our rights as individuals and we have a legal system that demands that government officials respect those rights and respect the law. historically some nations have lost their freedoms in revolutions. in others, a leader gradually undermines the rule of law. once the rule of law is dismantled the road to dictator dictatorship is easily trampled. in a country under the rule of law, government officials are bound by that law.

when the framers wrote our constitution they feared that the federal government might grow too strong. they divided and limited the powers among three branches. they made sure to preserve state power to serve as a check on the federal power and they also provided that where the federal government had the authority to make uniform laws contrary state laws gave way. and to make sure that everyone would be subject to the law they entrusted the president of the unitedthe president --the president with the duty to -- quote -- "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- end of quote. president obama has repeatedly failed to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. he has repeatedly violated the

constitution. his administration has not conformed its conduct to law. so his administration, therefore, has undermined the rule of law. often, patterns repeat. the president proposes legislation that the american people do not want, so the congress naturally refuses to enact it. the president then decides that he will take executive action, as if congress had enacted that law. another pattern is that he claims the authority to take various actions but fails to produce an opinion from the department of justice that coherently supports his authority. that creates a terrible lack of accountability. we have also seen the president

pick and choose which laws he will enforce claiming that the ability to make individual enforcement decisions extends to failing to enforce the laws in millions of instances. and the president has simply failed to take notice when the supreme court has ruled that he has exceeded his powers. i know that my colleagues think that these are serious charges -- and they are -- so let me outline a number of instances where the president or his administration acting acting at his discretion, has failed to follow the constitution or the laws. regrettably, i will only be able to touch on some of the examples. the president has attempted to unconstitutionally limit the powers of states through

obamacare. he threatened the states that did not expand medicaid would lose their existing medicaid funds. the supreme court ruled 7-2 for the first time that a condition on federal spending was so coercive to the states as to be unconstitutional. another president might have been careful after such a rebuke by the highest court in the land to be mindful of state power. after all it included one of the justices that the president himself appointed to the supreme court. but not this president taking notice of what the court said. president obama's e.p.a. then turned around and has not followed the rule of law. it wrongly recognizes no limit to federal power or to its own

power despite the fact that congress rejected his cap-and-trade proposal, his e.p.a. issued greenhouse gas regulations that would require states to develop plans that meet e.p.a.-established emissions standards. once e.p.a. approved them, e.p.a. would then order the states to enforce the standards. supporters of e.p.a. argued that the threat from pollutants under the clean air act a category in which they erroneously include carbon dioxide justified e.p.a.'s action. but the end justifies the means is an argument that is totally at odds with the concept of rule of law. e.p.a.'s approach is

unconstitutional. just as a state cannot be coerced by federal spending programs it cannot be command deared to enact -- commandeered to enact federal dictates. this is a well-established rule of the 10th amendment. otherwise the states would lose their sovereignty. responsibility and therefore accountability would be blurred as voters could not tell which level of government to blame for unpopular policies. among those who recognize that e.p.a. has acted unconstitutionally is the president's own liberal constitutional law professor laurence tribe of harvard. it wrote that it was his own view that the e.p.a. is -- quote -- "asserting executive power far beyond its lawful

authority." end quote. he also wrote -- quote again -- "frustration with congressional action cannot be justified" -- "cannot justify throwing the constitution overboard." end quote. president obama also acted unconstitutionally when he made what he said were valid recess appointments even though the senate was not in recess. although presidents had been making recess appointments for more thank 200 than 200 years the president's use of the power was, once again unprecedented. he was armed with a justice department opinion that laughably argued that the president could ignore when the senate said that it was in session to make such appointments. the supreme court rejected the

president's so-called recess appointments unanimously. that meant, of course, that both of the justices that president obama appointed rejected his claim that he could determine when the senate was in recess, even though the constitution makes it very clear and it also rejected the justice department's arguments that supposedly allowed the president to make that recess appointment in violation of the constitution. but the president like the old french kings learns nothing and forgets nothing when it comes to respecting the limits of presidential power. despite the lodging of the power in the constitution to congress

alone to enact uniform laws of naturalization the president decided to enable millions of people who entered the country without documents to remain without congressional approval. in fact, at a recent judiciary committee hearing we heard testimony that the administration's misuse of parole authority under this directive would allow many individuals who are here illegally to obtain green cards without congress changing a word of the immigration laws. and this follows the president's earlier decision when congress would not pass the dream act to give benefits to undocumented aliens as if that bill had been enacted into law. in both of these instances the supposed justification for

noncompliance with the law is that the need is so great. this is a siren song that supporters of the rule of law must reject. texas and a number of other states have already filed suits challenging the immigration order's constitutionality, as well as its violation of the administrative procedures act. in an unrelated case, the federal district court has already found parts of the order to be unlawful. the president also has claimed enforcement discretion in failing to enforce other federal criminal laws. the controlled substances act prohibits marijuana possession nationwide and under the supremacy clause of the constitution, state laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. normally the federal government

sues states that enact such laws but when colorado and other states legalized marijuana, the obama administration directed federal law enforcement to refrain from using its resources to enforce federal law in those states. it did not make individualized prosecutorial decisions decisions but a very blanket refusal to enforce federal law contrary to the oath. nebraska and oklahoma have sued colorado as those neighboring states argue that they face a significant increase in marijuana and other drug-related harms as a result of colorado law. to make matters worse, attorney general holder is expanding his refusal to apply federal marijuana laws to indian

reservations. those reservations depend upon federal law enforcement. he plans to allow tribes to petition unelected local prosecutors to decide whether the same nonenforcement of marijuana laws policy will apply to those reservations. apart from the rule of law question it must be kept in mind that these reservations are in states that still want to see marijuana illegal. and, as a matter of policy, rates of illegal drug use are higher on the indian reservations, with all of the associated health and crime consequences. again, this goes to the heart of the rule of law. does anyone believe that if a state decided that gun dealers could sell guns without conducting the federally required background checks, that

the obama administration would ignore those states? anyone who approved what president obama has done under the guise of enforcement discretion will have no cause to complain about a future president's decision to allocate scarce resources. for instance, he could decide that the obamacare individual mandate, which is constitutional according to the supreme court only because it is a tax, will not be enforced against anyone who did not buy government-approved health insurance. president obama has also violated the law when he released five taliban fighters who were detained the guantanamo in exchange for an american sergeant. as the nonpartisan government accountability office concluded

the failure to notify congress 30 days before such transfer and to provide a justification that that was a violation of law. now, i've asked the justice department for justification that they prepared for this move by the president. to this day the president refuses to produce to me, the just department's opinion that purports to legally justify this action contrary to law passed by congress. the american people can draw their own conclusions, whether that means a well-reasoned legal argument exists that the president could legally act as he did. the rule of law ensures that government officials and agencies obeyed the law. under the constitution, federal agencies can only exercise the

power that congress gives them. they cannot do whatever they want. now, that's obvious to any high school government class. but in the obama administration where too many agencies do not believe in limited government, agencies are lawlessly exceeding their power. this lawlessness is a major reason why polls show that americans believe the federal government is overregulated. let's take a look at e.p.a. again. not only has e.p.a. violated the constitution exceeded its powers under the clean air act that agency is violating a core federal statute the administrative procedures act. the administrative procedures act sets forth the process by which agencies can issue regulations and conduct other administrative business.

for instance, under the a.p.a., an agency can issue a regulation that is binding on citizens with penalties for noncompliance only if that agency pursues notice and comment rule making. this process consistent with notions of due process and fairness requires that any agency to issue a proposed rule seek public comment respond to public comment and modify the proposed rule to reflect those comments when it issues a final rule. the process is this way to ensure accountability, to ensure transparency and input from regulated entities. courts can strike down the regulation if the agency fails to comply with the administrative procedures act. they can also strike down the

regulation where the agency exceeds its statutory powers and where the agency's interpretation of law that is said to justify the regulation does not reflect a legitimate reading of the statute. courts give great greater deference to agencies' interpretation of statutes that are taken after proceeding through notice and comment process. e.p.a. recently violated the administrative proceeding act in my own state of iowa. e.p.a. wrote letters to iowa municipalities setting forth specific requirements that said they said must be followed to meet their obligations under the clean water act. the cities challenged the e.p.a. because the two letters

effectively imposed new regulatory requirements. they argued that e.p.a. could not impose regulatory obligations simply by letter but needed to proceed by notice and comment rule making, administrative procedure act requirements. they also argued that so-called informal guidance imposes subtle pressures on regulated entities to comply even if e.p.a. does not call its actions a regulation. the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit agreed and struck down the requirements e.p.a. imposed on those cities just by issuing letters. however, the e.p.a. has since publicly stated, as a lot of

government agencies do, that the e.p.a. would only comply with a ruling in the eighth circuit. so you have a situation where you have a national law and it's just the actions of e.p.a. are struck down in just the eighth circuit. that's so that law is going to be applied one way in the eighth circuit and the other way in the rest of the states. in other words e.p.a. has proclaimed that it intends to continue to impose these illegal requirements on municipalities in those states outside the eighth circuit and that is in clear violation of the e.p.a. e.p.a. is not alone in failing to comply with the administrative procedures act. the department of education issued what it termed informal

guidance concerning campus sexual assault last year without public input. i hope you see a pattern here whether it's by letter to e.p.a. by iowa municipalities or whether it's something called informal guidance by the department of education. these are all terms trying to get around the legal requirements of the administrative procedures act to get things done faster by these agencies because following the rule of law is kind of an encumbrance that they don't want to go through. now in regard to what the department of education did at a help committee hearing the assistant secretary for civil rights stated that she expected colleges and universities to comply with that guidance.

that was not a regulation under the administrative procedures act. of course that meant that what the department was calling informal guidance was really a regulation that could only be issued after engaging in notice and comment rule making. when senator alexander -- he's the chairman of the committee now -- he asked her who gave her the authority to issue the guidance she responded incredibly -- and i emphasize incredibly -- quote -- "well with gratitude you did when i was confirmed." so you get confirmed by 100 members of the united states senate and you can do whatever you want to regardless of law. no. this is the united states, where we operate under the rule of law in the constitution. it is not france in the age of

louie xiv where government officials say le moi or, i am the state, in other words. senate confirmation means only that a person has been legally installed in a job. but once confirmed the agency official can only act in in accordance with the laws governing her agency. i support the department's overall goal of holding accountable those who commit campus sexual assault but it has to be done lawfully and by issuing so-called guidance that by her own admission she expected colleges and universities to follow the department exceeded its lawful powers. separate from excluding the public from having any say in the rules that have governed their conduct bureaucrats have

many incentives, too many incentives to ignore the administrative procedures act. can you imagine formal rule making takes time. a formal notice of proposed rule making is followed by the public's comment period. then the agency responds to comments and modifies a proposed rule before it's made final. the office of management and budget reviews the regulation and can block or modify it. office of management and budget makes agencies justify the cost and benefits of their rules. o.m.b. also requires the agency to show reduced burdens under the paperwork reduction act. and also that the agency prepare a federalism impact statement for those proposed rules. agencies that want to regulate without oversight can subvert

the whole process of issuing binding rules under the cover of quote, unquote informal guidance. it is so much faster for bureaucrats to issue dictates to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. and by avoiding the administrative procedures act these unelected agencies violate the whole separation of power. they act legislatively in violation of the limited authority congress provides a particular agency. then they are free to issue even more rules restricting the freedom of american people and increasing the role of unelected bureaucrats and telling other people what to do. reductions in freedom are ultimately manifestations of a failure to follow the rule of

law. we're already headed in that direction. the supreme court has before it a case now from the labor department where one of the issues discussed at oral argument was whether that agency was required to proceed by notice and comment rule making rather than through interpretive rules. we shall see then whether the court addresses that issue or focuses instead on what level of deference a court gives when agencies change their position without proceeding through administrative procedure act rule making. but even if the issue of the necessity of engaging in notice and comment rule making is not addressed in that case, the court before long will reach that question. when it does, i believe it will find that the obama

administration has been doing -- what it's been doing is clearly illegal. president obama's claim of executive power these claims are unprecedented. he is creating a general precedent of the presidency unrestrained by law. when franklin roosevelt was inaugurated in the darkest days of the great depression, he called on congress to act to respond to the emergency as well as giving him powers to address it. he did issue executive orders such as declaring a bank holiday, but he did not say that he had a phone and a pen and that he would do whatever he felt was necessary regardless of whether congress acted or not. rather he said that if the

powers congress gaifer him -- gave him to address the emergency were inadequate, he would ask congress to provide him with the powers congress would give a president in the event of a foreign invasion. now those are extensive powers, but he was determined to ask congress for power not to act unilaterally because the ends justifies the means. he wanted to use all the powers available under the constitution not exceed those powers. not only does the constitution further government compliance with the rule of law through the separation of powers, it also sets up an executive branch that can act to check itself. executive officials have their own legal powers that the president cannot interfere with.

they can also refuse to carry out illegal presidential orders. we have a very good example from the dark days of watergate. the nixon administration exceeded its powers too. when that happened, there were administration officials who pushed back, pushed back against their own president who appointed them. the appropriate justice department officials told president nixon he would haul him into federal court if there were evidence of his criminality. attorney general elliot richardson and deputy attorney general rucklehouse resigned rather than fire the watergate special prosecutor as the president had ordered. people of conscience do

sometimes resign or threaten to do so, and that increases public pressure on the president to obey the law. who the in the obama administration has ever stood up against his lawlessness? no one, as far as i know. no one has resigned from the justice department as it has become a rubber stamp for wild claims of presidential power that exceed the constitution and that violate the laws. what lawyer in the e.p.a. or any other department has stopped her agency from acting unconstitutionally by exceeding the powers that congress has specifically delegated under various statutes? what lawyer has stopped an agency from violating the administrative procedures act by issuing binding rules on the public without public comment? i regret to say that the congress up to now has too often

been complicit with presidential assaults on the rule of law. when president obama eviscerated the core senate prerogative of advice and consent by making unconstitutional recess appointments not a single democrat in this body objected. this is where the real harm of excessive partisanship manifests itself. time and again the previous majority in this body refused to take action against any presidential action that violated the law if they agreed with the policy being pursued by the president. now, this sort of nonactivity is not why the constitution created the congress. whatever its flaws an active congress that defends its legislative prerogatives and conducts effective oversight of

executive illegality is vital to preserving liberty. in one historical the process of transformation from democracy to dictatorship was completed when the parliament voted itself out of existence. the framers did not intend a congress to sit idly by as the president violates the constitution and the laws. in federalist 51 james madison wrote that the separation of powers was vital to the preservation of liberty. and he noted that checks and balances would be effective in keeping each branch within its proscribed constitutional role because each had in his words -- quote -- "the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist

encroachments of the others. ambition must be made to counteract ambition," end of james madison's quote. recently, the senate has failed to counteract unlimited executive actions. that must change and as a result of the last election should change. will it change? i sure hope so. so i trust that under our new leadership, the senate will take action for the government to control itself and to restore the rule of law that has been so badly damaged in recent years. because if you take the spirit of the declaration of independence and remember prior to that declaration the colonies decided that they did not want one person george iii making making -- one person making decisions affecting millions of

people on this side of the ocean. so they were very careful when they declared independence and they wrote a constitution a few years later to make sure that they carried out the spirit of the declaration of independence, that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. not by our government. but by nature or by our creator. and so they put into this constitution assurances so there could never be a george iii again and separated all the power so one person didn't have all the power. and now we see one person trying to exercise the power of several branches of government as george iii tried to do. so we're over that hurdle. all we've got to do is make sure

that the checks and balances of government work the same checks and balances that every high school kid learns in government class, to make sure that one person doesn't do it and that our liberties are protected by a government that operates under the rule of law. and that constitution is our rule of law. i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment so i may bring up amendment 245 on behalf of senator barrasso. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from alaska ms. murkowski for mr. barrasso proposes amendment numbered 245 to amendment number 2. at the appropriate place -- ms. murkowski: request that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. daines: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: madam president i request unanimous consent to set aside the current amendment and call up amendment number 246. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none, without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. daines, proposes an amendment numbered 246 to amendment number 2. at the appropriate place ipssert the following following: daines mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: as a lifelong sportsmen, i have a deep aprex for our public lands. hunting, fishing and hiking on our public lands are important parts of many montanans' way of

life. traditions that i have enjoyed for my life. in fact, i've enjoyed the traditions with my kids. it is an important -- it is important that our state's outdoor heritage is protected for future generations. that's why protecting and increasing access to our public lands is so important. the land and water conservation fund has been instrumental in increasing access to our public lands, growing opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protecting wildlife. and there's great potential for the program to be used to improve the management of our existing federal lands. in fact, there is much improvement to be made to make federal land management more effective. my amendment will express the sense of congress that the land and water conservation fund plays an important role in improving wildlife habitat and

increasing outdoor recreation opportunities on federal as well as state land. it will also convey that reauthorizing the land and water conservation fund should be a priority for congress and should include improvements to the structure of the program to more effectively manage existing federal land. montana's outdoor heritage is of great importance to our state's economy and thousands of montanans' way of life. we must work to improve programs like the land and water conservation fund so they work better for montanans and all men's. -- americans. supporting and improving the land and water conservation fund will help us ensure that this legacy is continued for future generations. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: