tempore i am a dedicated institutionalist. i care deeply about this institution and i want it to work. our current majority leader has made important strides in putting the senate back on a path towards meaningful deliberation and constructive lawmaking aimed at the common good. but his efforts and those of other senators on both sides of the aisle who take the long view to seeking to build up this institution will not suffice unless each one of us is committed to instilling comity and respect as the core feature of everything we do. let us each move forward with a renewed sense of honor and respect and resolve not to tolerate misuse of the senate floor. a commitment to do our part to restore civility and constructive debate as defining characteristics of this body and a renewed willingness to work together for the good of all americans. thank you mr. president.

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president i thank the senior senator from utah for an excellent speech. and i entirely agree with his call for civility and decorum and respect. no member of this body should engage in ad hominem attacks directed at any other member of this body, be a republican or be a democrat. at the same time, i would note that it is entirely consistent with decorum and with the nature of this body traditionally as the world's greatest deliberative body to speak the truth. speaking the truth about actions is entirely consistent with civility. indeed, in a quote often attributed falsely to george orwell the sentiment has been expressed thusly -- in a time of

universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. i would make four brief points. first of all on friday i gave an unusual speech, a speech unlike any i have given in this chamber. it was not a speech i was happy to give. it is a speech to which the senior senator from utah is responding. i would note that in the course of that speech i described an explicit promise the majority leader had made to me and to all 53 republican senators. neither the majority leader nor the senator from utah nor the senator from tennessee has disputed that the majority leader in front of every republican senator made that promise looking me in the eyes, namely that there was no deal on the export-import bank that its proponents could offer it in the regular order and there would be no special preferences whatsoever.

we saw on friday that promise was false. in particular for the amendment on the export-import bank, first of all, it was not offered by its proponents, it was called up by the majority leader. very few of us get our amendments called up by the majority leader because he has priority of recognition. he can edge out any other amendment in this chamber. secondly the majority leader followed that by filling the tree. a procedural mechanism that he had often decried when the former majority leader employed is -- it to block other amendment. and third, the majority leader filed cloture on the export-import bank amendment a tool that he has used only once in his entire tenure as majority leader. those were extraordinary steps designed to force a vote to reauthorize the export-import bank and they were directly contrary to the promises the

majority leader made to all 53 republicans and to the press. my saying so may be uncomfortable but it is a simple fact entirely consistent with decorum and no member of this body has disputed that promise was made and that promise was broken. the senior senator from tennessee gave a learned speech on changing the rules of this body through appealing the ruling of the chair and i very much agree. when the former majority leader used the nuclear option, it was wrong to violate the rules. but the amendment tree does not come from the rules. the amendment tree comes from the precedents. and precedents are set precisely through appealing the ruling of the chair by a majority vote. indeed, i would note that previously many members of this body have voted in favor of overruling the ruling of the chair, including my friend the senior senator from tennessee who has voted four times in his

career to overrule the ruling of the chair. my friend the majority whip, who has voted five times in his career to overrule the ruling of the chair. and, indeed the distinguished majority leader who has voted 14 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the chair. i would note beyond that that as recently as april 2 2014, there was a third-degree appeal precisely like the one i have filed that was filed by senator vitter. the ruling of the chair was appealed and a significant number of republicans voted in favor of that appeal including the majority leader and including the majority whip. many republicans railed against the filling of the tree when the democratic leader was the majority leader. if it was an abuse of power then it remains so today.

indeed, i would note what the current majority leader said at the time which is the practical effect of filling the tree as to disenfranchise the people i and my members represent and more significantly a significant number of the people his members represent where their voices are simply not heard in the senate. beyond that let me say on the substance if you oppose filling the tree to silence the amendments of members be they in the majority party or the minority party, you should vote in favor of allowing my amendment to go forward. i would note the senator from tennessee was incorrect that it would allow unlimited amendments. it would add simply a third branch to the tree. not unlimited amendments. at the same time if you are resolved to stand with our friend and ally, the nation of israel, if you are resolved to stand with american hostages in

iran and if you are convinced that lifting sanctions on iran unless and until iran recognizes israel's rights to exist as a jewish state and releases four american hostages then you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on. needless to say if you oppose the export-import bank, you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on. and finally if you want other amendments on pressing issues, be they defunding planned parenthood, be they stopping sanctuary cities, be they passing kate's law or be they ending the congressional exemption from obama administration, you should -- obamacare you should vote in favor of allowing this amendment to be voted on. a great many members of this body have given long, eloquent speeches that the senate operates when each member has a right to offer amendments and even difficult amendments we debate and resolve them. that is the heart of this vote and i would encourage each member here to vote his

conscience or her conscience on both substance and on the ability of the senate to remain the world's greatest deliberative body. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak up to five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i've listened to the comments of my colleague, the junior senator from texas both last week and this week and i would have to say that he's mistaken. first of all if, in fact, the majority leader had somehow misrepresented to 54 senators what the facts are with regard to the ex-im bank, i suspect that you would find other voices joining that of the junior senator but i hear no one else

making such a similar accusation. and secondly, i would just say to my -- my colleague that there is an alternative explanation. there's an alternative explanation. as the majority leader has said time and time again any time 65 senators want to do something here in the senate sooner or later they're going to get their way. and, indeed, that represents the vote in support of the ex-im bank something i will end up voting against but where i realize that majorities will carry the day eventually. but if the rule that the junior senator from texas is arguing for is embraced we will lose all control of the senate schedule. there will be chaos and indeed, we won't be able to meet simple deadlines such as the one that exists on the 31st of this month with regard to the expiration of transportation funding. because even after we closed off

debate, any senator who wants to get a vote on an amendment will be entitled to do so and that can't be the rule. it's not the rule. it's never been the rule. and that's why what the junior senator is attempting to do is so extraordinary here. i will be opposing that and i hope all of our colleagues will join us in opposing that because ultimately what that will mean is that a determined 51 senators who want to raise taxes who want to pass obamacare 2.0 who want to pass a cab and trade bill or a carbon tax, those who want to pass dodd-frank 2.0 or any additional government spending they'll be able to do it. they'll be guaranteed an opportunity to get an amendment and be able to vote on that amendment and it will pass in the united states senate. y i don't think that's in the best interests of the united states senate. i don't think it's in the best interests of the 27 million people that the junior senator i

represent together and i certainly don't think that's in the best interests of this institution, which we all revere if all 100 senators have the opportunity to offer an amendment without restraint then there will never be any deadline, there will never be any conclusion, and we won't be able to do the simple work that we have been asked to do on behalf of the american people. and the final point mr. president, i know the senator, the junior senator feels passionately about this amendment, but the fact of the matter is we have a process that's been set up to review the iran deal that president obama and secretary kerry negotiated, and we're going to have a chance to examine it and debate it and review it over the next two months and then we'll have a chance to vote on it. there is a time and place for this vote, and i will no doubt support the same position that the junior senator is supporting. but it's not on this bill. it's not now and it's not at

the expense of breaking the orderly procedure that has made sure that everyone gets a chance to participate and i would just say in conclusion that there was no misrepresentation made by the majority leader on the ex-im bank. the only thing the majority leader promised was an opportunity to offer an amendment on a bill, and recognizing that if he denied that opportunity when 65 senators wanted it, not just one senator who we know can stop things around here, slow them down but 65 senators who would be bound and determined to use any available leverage until they got that vote. so i agree with what the majority leader has decided to do and how he's decided to handle it. i know that there are passionate views around here, but that doesn't justify changing the rules of the united states senate through such an extraordinary means so i hope our colleagues will join me in voting yet to ratify the ruling of the chair when that time comes rather than to overrule

it because as i said, to overrule the chair on something this important to the orderly consideration of the senate's business i think w >> the senate returns tomorrow. as always, you can watch coverage on our companion channel, c-span 2. >> the public's influence on policymaking. tags when an item is made for an open committee meeting at the commissioner level, that document should be made available publicly. that would provide an opportunity for everyone to comment on what we are doing

publicly. right now, people raise questions and do not know exactly what is being put forward. that is scattered. problematic in my point of view. i would rather people target what they would like to see fixed and not spend time on what they don't think needs attention. tags monday night on the communicators on c-span-two. >> a meeting with president obama and a keynote address at the u.s. chamber of commerce with a discussion of u.s.-that nigeria relations. this is the presidents first time traveling to the united states. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen.

i think he is re-reading his speech. i think i will follow suit. when we read our speeches, in the other room, the audience was so small. they were wondering why some of the governors -- [laughter] now, i will re-read my speech. the president of nasa rolla -- nasawara, and the former