[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6699-S6752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as the chair of the Appropriations 
Committee, I rise to oppose the continuing resolution the House passed 
last week

[[Page S6700]]

on a party-line vote of 230 to 189. On behalf of all of the people of 
Maryland and all of the people of the United States, I am so 
frustrated; they should have a government that they can count on to 
operate, that they could count on to work as hard as they do; they 
should be able to count on having the government they pay for. However, 
what we have here is a manufactured crisis, with histrionics and 
theatrical politics attempting to bring us to the brink of a shutdown. 
It is shutdown, slam-down politics.
  The CR that was sent over to us is loaded with political ideology. 
What does it do? First it wants to defund the President's Affordable 
Care Act and take health care away from those who need it. It also is 
designed to create a crisis over the debt ceiling and undermine the 
full faith and credit of the United States. Our President has been 
clear that he will veto any bill with these toxic political riders. He 
is right, and we will support him.
  Much will be said in the media over the next several days about 
something called the continuing resolution. Well, here we go again 
using Washington-speak that nobody in America understands. Here we go 
with budget-speak. And the American people are saying: What are they 
trying to accomplish? Well, let me explain it in a straight-talk way.
  A continuing resolution is a straightforward, simple act where we 
extend the government's funding beyond October 1 to a date certain. It 
is meant to continue the funding. It is always, historically, meant to 
be, No. 1, short-term and, No. 2, a stopgap measure as we work on 
getting final resolution of budgetary and fiscal matters. It is also 
designed to keep the U.S. Government open and functioning while we work 
out our difficulties.
  So that is what a continuing resolution is meant to be. It was never 
meant to be a vehicle for controversial, provocative, poke-it-in-your-
eye and stick-it-to-you controversial legislation. It was never meant 
to be a negotiating chip for a grander bargain to resolve issues, nor 
was it ever designed to be a weapon in the fight over the size and role 
of government. That is for the authorizing committee. That is what we 
do in our appropriations committees at the subcommittee level. That is 
what Senator Murray in her Budget Committee worked on when we passed 
the budget. That is where those fights come in, not at the end of the 
fiscal year.
  Here we have the same old tricks and techniques we have seen year 
after year since President Obama was elected. They not only want to 
throw sand in the gears of the Obama administration, they want to throw 
cement into the gears of the functioning of government. Well, I think 
that is outrageous.
  The House continuing resolution is a manufactured crisis driving us 
toward a shutdown. We have plenty of real crises in our country. How 
about the crisis of sustained chronic unemployment at 7 percent or 
higher in many of my communities or in certain sectors, such as 
construction, or in the rural parts of my State? There is also a real 
crisis for those who need health care. There is a real crisis for those 
who are seeking higher education and can't afford it. And look at our 
crisis in the foreign policy arena.
  On the very day the President is speaking at the U.N. to project 
American power, the other side is trying on the Senate floor to make us 
powerless to function. If they want to project American power, they 
should be willing to show that the greatest parliamentary, deliberative 
body in the world can be parliamentary and deliberative in solving our 
problems. If they want to project power, it starts here, showing we can 
govern ourselves. We start by acting right and focusing on solving real 
problems with real solutions and getting off of this brinkmanship.
  The President has said he will veto it, so the riders are veto bait. 
This is all designed to use a lot of time and a lot of resources. I was 
elected to the Senate to be a legislator, not a prop for a political 
farce. This is not Gilbert and Sullivan, this is the real deal.
  The American people are fed up with these manufactured crises, and so 
am I. So let me give my view about where we want to go. And who is the 
``we?'' I believe it is not only the Democrats in the Senate, but I 
believe there are pragmatists on both sides of the aisle who want to 
find a sensible center where we can achieve fiscal stability, begin to 
draw down our public debt but also have an opportunity to be progrowth 
in our country, where we focus on important issues of national 
security, rebuilding America with infrastructure, rebuilding our human 
infrastructure in terms of our educational system and also our research 
and development, coming up with the new ideas that will lead to the new 
jobs in the new century. The way we want to do this and the way I am 
suggesting is the way the American people would like us to vote.
  The other party would like us to have a continuing resolution until 
December 15. That is one more gimmick to bring us to Christmas Eve, 
where we will have a lot of theatrics and jingle bells-jingle bells 
while we try to solve our situation.
  I want a short-term CR. I would like one between now and November 
15--not long term, not something just to dilly and dither. I am tired 
of dilly and dither. So I suggest a short-term CR for sometime around 
mid-November. The purpose of that would be that we would use that 
opportunity to get to a vote in December that would be on the funding 
of all of our bills, arrived at by a vote here, a conference committee 
with the House, where our spending would be sensible, it would be 
affordable, it would meet compelling human need, the national security 
issues of the United States, and would rebuild our infrastructure.
  This isn't hard, but in order to get that, we need to clear out the 
toxic political items in the CR. So I want a clean CR. A clean CR means 
getting rid of the political riders of defunding ObamaCare and striking 
the debt limit rider.
  Second, we need to have a shorter date. My recommendation would be 
around November 15 because the longer term CR means more autopilot 
functioning of government--in other words, more government dysfunction. 
November 15 keeps the pressure on both sides of the aisle to get the 
job done.
  What is getting the job done? First of all, we would like to cancel 
sequester, and we would like to cancel sequester in a balanced way. 
What is sequester? We have to come up with about $110 billion in debt 
reduction. We can do that through additional strategic cuts. As an 
appropriator, I am willing to look at them. Secondly, revenue. What 
about those loopholes Mitt Romney talked about? Let's bring some of 
those back and examine them. Let's look at some of the items in 
mandatory spending. This is the way we can enact our bills, invest in 
and protect our country.

  Our Nation faces long-term fiscal challenges. It does demand action 
from the Congress. But the place for those negotiations is not in a 
continuing resolution. It belongs in the Budget Committee. And the six 
Republican Senators who are planning to filibuster this week are the 
same ones who threatened and blocked the budget the Senate passed going 
to conference in the House. So they blocked the budget. Then they blame 
us because we don't have a budget. Go figure.
  The House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the appropriators, 
have marked up annual funding bills. We are ready to make sure we can 
do our work, but we need the Budget Committee to give us a top line. We 
can't get to conference because Republicans have objected. Now they 
want to have a simple stopgap that leads to a showdown and a shutdown.
  If we don't come together, we will have very serious consequences. If 
we do not enact a clean continuing resolution by October 1 that enables 
us to get to a sensible outcome in early December, the government will 
shut down. Doesn't that look great for the United States of America. We 
say to emerging democracies all over the world, Look at us.
  We need to show we can govern.
  It has not only consequences in the way we are viewed in the world; 
it provides uncertainty for business, it will be terrible for our 
economy, and it will have a direct impact on jobs. Business will not 
know what the government is going to do and so they don't know what 
they can do, so they will not be spending to create jobs. All we are 
doing is creating more chaos.
  We want to be sure the Small Business Administration approves loans--
they need to be open to do that--that rural housing development and 
farm

[[Page S6701]]

loans are able to go out so we can help where that is needed.
  We need to make sure crucial lifesaving discoveries at NIH happen. 
Right now if we have a shutdown, people will not be able to be admitted 
to the National Institutes of Health clinical trials and programs 
because they don't know if they will be continued.
  Weather forecasters will be told they are not an essential service.
  We are now looking at the impact on Federal law enforcement.
  I could go item by item. I will talk more about these items as time 
goes on.
  I will conclude by saying during this last year on both sides of the 
aisle the Appropriations Committee has functioned well. I thank not 
only my subcommittee chairmen--I see Senator Durbin, who chairs the 
defense subcommittee--but I also wish to thank the Republicans. My vice 
chairman of the committee, Senator Shelby of Alabama, supported me at 
every step of the process. We functioned with civility, intellectual 
rigor, and open amendments during the committee process. It was 
transparent. We had ``yes'' votes, we had ``no'' votes. But everybody 
had their day and everybody had their say. We were able to move our 
process forward, although we disagreed sometimes on the funding level 
for this or the funding level for that. But we came to a conclusion. I 
wish to thank them for their cooperation in the process.
  Now we are here, where we could take the next step. Yes, we have to 
debate some of those line items. We do need to debate some of those 
programs. But we can't move forward unless we resolve the shutdown 
showdown.
  Let's pass a continuing resolution that takes us to mid-November. 
Let's make that continuing resolution a clean CR, which means let's get 
rid of the political riders. Our goal in December is that we pass an 
omnibus bill that is affordable, sensible, meets compelling human 
needs, national security needs, our human infrastructure, and also lays 
the groundwork for new jobs by funding research and development, at the 
same time to cancel sequester, because we have arrived at it in a 
balanced way where, yes, we can make additional strategic cuts, where 
we also need to look at some of the items of mandatory spending, and 
let's look at some revenue. I think we can do it.
  If we want to project American power, the way to do that is right now 
show that we can govern. Let's not get ourselves into a box where we 
are heading to a showdown. Let's not get ourselves in a situation where 
we end up with a shutdown. This will not be a way that builds 
confidence, builds our economy, and makes America continue to be as 
strong as it can be.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is my understanding that under 
unanimous consent the Senator from Texas is to be recognized, but I ask 
if he would allow me 5 minutes to follow the Senator from Maryland and 
then yield the floor to him.
  I thank the Senator from Texas.
  Madam President, I stand in support of the statement made by the 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We have served 
together in the House, now in the Senate. I am happy to serve with her 
in the capacity as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
the largest in dollar amount that has this responsibility.
  I think what she has spelled out on the floor is very straightforward 
and very honest.
  We were challenged in the Senate to come up with a budget resolution 
this year. Many of our critics said, You have come up with excuses; now 
come up with a budget resolution. And we did. Six months ago we passed 
a budget resolution, and then we asked for consent to go to a 
conference committee with the House to work out our differences. Time 
and time again Senators on the other side of the aisle objected to our 
meeting with the House to work out our differences. They had a 
different reason every day. The net result was we couldn't have the 
conference committee to reach an agreement with the House on how much 
we would spend.
  Then Senator Mikulski told each of us in our appropriations 
subcommittees: Do your work. Sit down with your Republican member and 
come up with a spending bill for next year that gets rid of 
sequestration and that is sensible. And we did. Time and again we 
worked these out on a bipartisan basis, brought them through committee, 
ready for floor action. The first bill came to the floor, 
transportation. Senator Patty Murray brought it to the floor. We wanted 
to bring this first spending bill to the floor. Let's debate it, let's 
get it done. The Republicans objected to considering this 
appropriations bill on the floor. They objected to a conference 
committee on a budget, they objected to the spending bills, and here we 
are at the eleventh hour, approaching October 1, without the money to 
continue the functions of government. We are facing a slowdown this 
week, and we are going to begin what may not technically be a 
filibuster but at least is a delay in meeting our responsibility to 
fund our government.
  Some have said--the House Republicans and others--if you do not stop 
President Obama's health care reform act, we will shut down the 
government. That isn't fair. As Senator Mikulski has said, there are 
people across America counting on the functions of our government. This 
notion that we are somehow going to shut down the government with this 
political threat is unacceptable--unacceptable to the American people 
and unacceptable to this great institution.
  Senator Mikulski is correct: We ought to have a short-term CR so we 
can sit down, roll up our sleeves, and finally finish this business. 
Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, people are fed 
up with this do-nothing Congress that doesn't address the real issues 
American families are facing across our Nation. We need to roll up our 
sleeves and get it done. To have long speeches that go on for hours, 
delaying the funding of our government, jeopardizes the most basic 
functions of what we need to achieve right here. We need to come 
together on a bipartisan basis. A filibuster, delay, long speeches may 
get the attention of the media for a few minutes but won't solve 
America's problems.
  The last point I want to make was her strongest point. The President 
is at the United Nations this week meeting with leaders around the 
world to try to bring about a more peaceful world in a very dangerous 
climate in many places. He wants to let people know that America will 
use its leadership and its power to come together to make this a better 
world. And what message is coming out of the United States Senate? That 
we are divided, we are fighting with one another, we are facing 
filibusters, and on and on. This isn't what America should be 
projecting.
  Let's project the kind of unity and the kind of determination that 
has made this a great nation. Let's fund our government; let's solve 
our problems; let's stop the obstruction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to ObamaCare. I 
rise today in an effort to speak for 26 million Texans and for 300 
million Americans.
  All across this country Americans are suffering because of ObamaCare. 
ObamaCare isn't working. Yet fundamentally there are politicians in 
this body who are not listening to the people. They are not listening 
to the concerns of their constituents, they are not listening to the 
jobs lost or the people forced into part-time work, to the people 
losing their health insurance, to the people who are struggling.
  A great many Texans, a great many Americans feel they don't have a 
voice. I hope to play some very small part in helping provide that 
voice for them. I intend to speak in opposition to ObamaCare, I intend 
to speak in support of defunding ObamaCare, until I am no longer able 
to stand, to do everything I can to help Americans stand together and 
recognize this grand experiment 3\1/2\ years ago is, quite simply, not 
working.
  I also say at the outset that I am particularly honored to be 
standing side by side with my friend and colleague Senator Mike Lee 
from Utah. Senator Lee has shown visionary leadership in standing and 
taking the mantle of leading the effort to defund ObamaCare and to 
challenge this train wreck of a law, and Senator Lee has been repaid at 
times with vilification from official Washington.

[[Page S6702]]

  In my judgment there is no Senator in this body, Republican or 
Democrat, who is more principled, who is more dedicated, who is more 
fearless and willing to fight for the principles that make this Nation 
great than is Senator Mike Lee. It is a singular privilege to serve 
with him and to stand side by side with him and so many others in this 
body, and, even more importantly, so many millions of Americans all 
across this country.
  There is a problem in Washington, and the problem is bigger than a 
continuing resolution. It is bigger than ObamaCare. It is even bigger 
than the budget. The most fundamental problem and the frustration is 
that the men and women in Washington aren't listening. If you talk to 
the man and woman on the street, that is the message you hear over and 
over again: Why don't they listen to me? Why don't they hear what we 
have to say? They aren't listening to the millions of people, 
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, across the spectrum 
who say our elected officials get to Washington and they stop listening 
to the people.
  We just had a 6-week recess during August where a substantial 
percentage of Members of Congress chose not to hold townhalls during 
the 6 weeks we had to be back in our home States, not even to give 
their constituents a chance to say their views, because it is very easy 
when those of us who are in elected office have been here for a long 
time to believe Washington knows better; to believe that all the 
solutions are found in Washington, DC, and the rest of the country is 
better--as they say of small children--seen but not heard.
  We need millions of people to get an answer. Millions of people are 
asking for accountability, for responsibility, for truth from their 
elected officials, truth about how ObamaCare is failing the men and 
women of America. It is time, quite simply, to make DC listen. That is 
a point I intend to make over and over, because it is fundamentally 
what we are trying to do. We are trying to gather the American people 
to make DC listen.
  The whole debate we are having is not over strategy. It is not about 
process. It is not about procedure. If you read the papers it looks 
like it is. If you read the papers it is all sorts of confusing cloture 
on the motions to the what-the, to the which-the. To anyone outside of 
DC, their eyes glaze over. Even to anyone in Washington, DC, their eyes 
glaze over.
  This is also not about pollsters. It is not about pundits or 
consultants or those who are making money back and forth on the 
political process. They have always been with us, and I am confident 
they will remain with us for all time. The problem is DC is not 
listening. The problem is our elected leaders are not listening to 
their constituents.
  Everyone in America understands ObamaCare is destroying jobs. It is 
driving up health care costs. It is killing health benefits. It is 
shattering the economy. All across the country in all 50 States--it 
doesn't matter what State you go to, you can go to any State in the 
Union, it doesn't matter if you are talking to Republicans or Democrats 
or Independents or Libertarians--Americans understand this thing is not 
working.
  Yet Washington is pretending not to know. Washington is pretending to 
have no awareness. Instead we have politicians giving speeches about 
how wonderful ObamaCare is. At the same time they go to the President 
and ask for an exemption from ObamaCare for Members of Congress.
  If ObamaCare is so wonderful, why is it that its loudest advocates 
don't want to be subject to it? I will confess that is a very difficult 
one to figure out.
  DC is using a rigged process to keep ObamaCare funded, to keep this 
job-killing bill funded. What they want to do fundamentally is ignore 
the men and women of America and keep up with business as usual. People 
wonder why Congress has such low approval ratings. I remember when all 
100 of us were in the historic Senate Chamber for a bipartisan meeting. 
Multiple Senators stood and expressed frustration with the low approval 
ratings that Congress has. It varies--sometimes, 10, 12, 14 percent--
but it is always abysmal.
  Some suggested the reason was that we are not legislating enough. We 
just need to pass some more laws and the American people will be happy. 
I have to admit, that does not comport with just about anything I have 
ever heard in the State of Texas. That doesn't comport with anything I 
have ever heard from constituents. I am going to suggest the most 
fundamental reason Congress remains in the low teens in approval 
ratings is because Congress is not listening to the American people.
  Every poll that has been done for years, when we ask the American 
people what is their top priority, the answer is consistently jobs and 
the economy--over and over, jobs and the economy. That is national. 
That is in your State, my State. That is in all 50 States. Jobs and the 
economy is the answer you get. It is also not partisan. You can ask 
Republicans, ask Democrats, you can ask Independents. They say we need 
jobs, we need economic growth back.
  Yet I will tell you, Madam President--you and I have both served in 
this institution some 9 months, not very long, but in the time we have 
been here we have spent virtually zero time even talking about jobs and 
the economy. It doesn't make the agenda. It apparently is not important 
enough for this body's time. We spent 6 weeks talking about guns, 
talking about taking away law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment 
rights, and we spend virtually no time talking about fundamental tax 
reform, about regulatory reform, about getting the economy going. And 
politicians wonder why it is that Congress is held in such low esteem. 
This is unfortunately a bipartisan issue, on both sides.
  We need to do a better job of listening to the people. If the top 
priority of the American people is jobs and the economy, I am going to 
suggest the top priority of Congress should be jobs and the economy.
  Madam President, you and I should both be scratching our heads, 
trying to think about a time when we weren't talking about jobs and the 
economy because, I tell you, we certainly have not gotten it taken care 
of yet. The American people are frustrated because their elected 
officials do not listen.
  When we are home on the campaign trail, we say we listen. Yet 
something about this Senate floor, something about Washington, DC--I 
don't know if it is the water, something in the air, the cherry 
blossoms, but people get here and they stop listening to the American 
people.
  As I traveled throughout the State of Texas--I spent the month of 
August and the beginning of September traveling virtually every day on 
the road throughout Texas and across the country listening, hearing the 
stories. The American people are hurting. This is a difficult time. The 
very rich, they are doing fine. In fact, they are doing better under 
President Obama than they were before. But hard-working American 
families are struggling and their life has become harder and harder and 
harder.
  ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this country. The American 
people want to stop this madness, and so do I. In Washington, we pass 
million-dollar bills, billion-dollar bills no one has ever read, often 
without even voting on them. We call it unanimous consent. It is only 
unanimous because they don't let anyone know.
  In Washington, we spend $2 trillion more than last year and then tell 
voters we saved money. The system is deliberately designed to hide what 
we are actually doing.
  In this debate right now over ObamaCare and the continuing 
resolution, voting to pass bills is called procedure, as if it doesn't 
matter. We pretend it doesn't matter. It does matter. Our leaders right 
now demand approval for bills before they are amended: Everyone come to 
the floor, vote for the bill. Then we will amend it to make it say the 
opposite of what it says right now, but you have already voted so don't 
worry about it. We are told to agree to the bills without even knowing 
what the final product will be and that is what is happening right now. 
Our leaders in both parties are asking us to support a bill, to cut off 
debate on a bill without even knowing what is in it.
  It is as the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once observed: 
Pass it to find out what is in it. That is how Washington does 
business.
  Let me tell you how this is likely to unfold. Senate majority leader 
Harry

[[Page S6703]]

Reid has said he intends to offer an amendment to determine the future 
of our health care system and based on the public press reports--and I 
would note you have to rely on the public press reports because this 
body doesn't know, but based on the public press reports, that 
amendment is going to fully fund ObamaCare. It is going to strip the 
language the House of Representatives passed to defund ObamaCare and 
listen to the American people.

  The central vote the Senate will take on this fight will not occur 
today and it will not occur tomorrow. The first vote we are going to 
take on this is a vote on what is called cloture on the motion to 
proceed. Very few people not on this floor have any idea what that 
means and even, I suspect, a fair number of people on this floor are 
not quite sure what that means. That will simply be a vote whether to 
take up this bill and to begin debating this bill. I expect that vote 
to pass overwhelmingly, if not unanimously. Everyone agrees we ought to 
take this up, we ought to start this conversation.
  The next vote we take will occur on Friday or Saturday and it will be 
on what is called cloture on the bill. That is the vote that matters. 
Cloture on the bill, the vote Friday or Saturday, is the vote that 
matters.
  Why is that? Because that vote is subject to a 60-vote threshold. If 
Republicans vote with Democrats, then this body will cut off debate on 
the bill. Cloture is simply cutting off debate. It is saying we are not 
going to talk about it anymore, we are silencing the voice of the 
Senate, we are silencing the voice of the people, and we are cutting 
off debate.
  Why does that matter? Because once cloture is invoked, the rules of 
the Senate allow the majority leader to introduce the amendment to fund 
ObamaCare and then to have it pass with just 51 votes, not 60--51. As 
the Presiding Officer is well aware, there are more than 51 Democrats 
in this body. Postcloture, after this body has voted to cut off debate, 
the Democrats can vote on a straight party-line vote to fund ObamaCare. 
Madam President, I am going to let you in on a dirty little secret. 
When that happens, every Republican, if we get to that point, will vote 
against it and every Republican will then go home to his or her State 
and say: Look, I voted against ObamaCare.
  That is actually the preferred outcome, to have a vote but yet to 
have the result be business as usual continue in Washington. It is a 
little bit akin to the World Wrestling Federation, wrestling matches 
where it is all rigged. The outcome is predetermined. They know in 
advance who is going to win and lose and it is all for show. There are 
some Members of this body, if we could have 100 show votes, saying here 
is what we are for, but mind you, none of them are actually going to 
change the law, none of them are actually going to occur, none of them 
are going to make one iota of difference to the American people because 
they will never become law, but we will get to vote over and over again 
in proving how committed we are to principle A, B, C, D or E, that 
curiously would make a significant number of Senators happy.
  Our constituents deserve more--no more fake fights, no more hiding 
our votes, no more games, no more trying to fool the American people. 
We need to make DC listen--make DC listen. I want to stand and fight 
for the more than 1.6 million Americans who signed a national petition 
against ObamaCare and to the millions more who did not because they 
were told by a politician it is not possible--don't even try to fight 
because it is not possible.
  I am reminded of a children's story. My wife Heidi and I are blessed 
to have two little girls, Caroline and Catherine, ages 5 and 2, and one 
of their favorite children's stories, actually from when I was a kid, 
is ``The Little Engine That Could''--the train going up that said over 
and over again, ``I think I can. I think I can.''
  I have to say, if we listen to a lot of Members of this body, the 
message would be simple. That little engine can't. What they say to 
that train when it starts at the bottom of the hill is, no, you can't.
  I think I can. I think I can.
  No, you can't. No, you can't. We can't win. You can't stop ObamaCare. 
It cannot be done. It is impossible. There is nothing we can do.
  Are millions of Americans out of work? Yes. Are millions of Americans 
struggling? Yes. Are millions of Americans seeing their health 
insurance premiums skyrocket? Yes. Are millions of Americans at risk of 
losing their health insurance because of ObamaCare? Yes.
  But Washington tells our constituents: No, no, never mind. It can't 
be done. It cannot be done. It is impossible. The rules of Washington 
say this cannot be done.
  And we wonder why this body has such low approval among the people. 
When we go out and tell the American people it cannot be done, there is 
nothing that can be done to stop ObamaCare, what we are saying is we 
are not willing to do it. We are not willing to stand and fight.
  We are willing to give speeches. Oh, yes, if we want to have a speech 
contest, we can line up and fall over backward who can give the best 
speech against ObamaCare. But when it comes to actually standing and 
fighting, when it comes to actually having the opportunity to listen to 
the American people, an awful lot of Members of this body, at least so 
far, have not shown up to battle.
  There are a lot of folks in the Washington establishment who do not 
want to hear from us. The chattering class is quick to discipline 
anyone who refuses to blindly fall in line. That is the way Washington 
plays. There are rules. We are not supposed to speak for the people. 
There is a way things are done in Washington and make no mistake, DC 
depends upon Americans not paying attention.
  They know most Americans are quite reasonably working too hard to 
provide for their family. They are too busy spending time with their 
friends and family. They are too busy working to try to make sure their 
family is provided for. They are going to church. They are dealing with 
the day-to-day burdens of life. You know what they have learned? The 
American people have learned when we get involved, even then it seems 
as though Washington politicians rarely listen.
  I believe that can change. I am standing here today to salute, to 
celebrate the American democratic system. I am standing here today to 
suggest that if Senators listen to their constituents, if we listen to 
the American people, the vote would be 100 to 0 to defund 
ObamaCare. Even those Senators who voted for it who might have believed 
it would work. Many of us would have disagreed. Had I been here, not 
surprisingly, I would have voted against ObamaCare 3\1/2\ years ago. A 
number of Members in this body voted in favor of it. Regardless of how 
Members voted 3\1/2\ years ago, one of the great virtues of life is 
learning, looking at the evidence, looking at the facts, and seeing 
when something is not working.

  Look at the labor unions. Three-and-a-half years ago the labor unions 
were enthusiastically supporting ObamaCare. Why? Because they heard the 
promises. They heard it was going to work, and that it would be a 
bonanza for all. They believed the promises, and that is 
understandable. Yet one of the things we have seen this year is one 
labor union after another after another saying: Whoa. This thing isn't 
working. This thing is hurting us. This thing is hurting our Members.
  (Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)
  By the way, the people whom it is hurting are hard-working men and 
women and hard-working American families. They are the ones getting 
hammered.
  James Huff, the president of the Teamsters, has said ObamaCare is 
destroying the 40-hour workweek. It is destroying the backbone of the 
American middle class. That is not me saying that, that is not any 
politician from Washington saying that, that is the Teamsters.
  We should submit the question to the American people: Do the American 
people want to destroy the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the 
American middle class? That is not a close question. People talk about 
how we are a 50-50 Nation and how there is a tight partisan divide. I 
don't believe it. I think on questions such as that there is an 
overwhelming majority of Americans who say of course we should not 
destroy the 40-hour workweek. Of course we shouldn't break the backbone 
of the American middle class.

[[Page S6704]]

  If more politicians listened to the people, we would respond and 
avert this train wreck. Yet the politicians of Washington tell us: 
Don't worry about it. ObamaCare is going to be peachy keen. The Senate 
is too busy to do anything to avert this train wreck.
  Mind you, the Senate is not too busy to exempt ourselves from it. We 
know enough to say: We don't want to be a part of this thing. The 
American people know it can't be done. Nothing can be done. We need to 
accept it.
  Americans have never been people who accept failure. Americans have 
never been people who accept impossibility. If we look to a ragtag 
bunch of colonists in the 18th century, the idea that we would stand up 
to Great Britain, the British Army--the most mighty military force on 
the face of the planet--was impossible. It can't be done. I guarantee 
that all of the pundits we see going on TV and intoning in deep 
baritone voices: This cannot be done--if we were back in the 18th 
century, they would be writing messages in dark ink and sending it by 
carrier pigeon, saying: This cannot be done. You can't stand up to the 
British Army. It can't be done. It is impossible. Accept your 
subjugation. Accept your taxation without representation. Accept that 
this is impossible.
  If we fast forward to the Civil War--a time of enormous pain, 
anguish, and bloodshed in the United States--there were a lot of voices 
then who said the Union cannot be saved. It cannot be done. Accept 
defeat. I suspect those same pundits, had they been around in the mid-
19th century, would have written the same columns: This cannot be done.
  If we go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany--look, we saw it in Britain. 
Neville Chamberlain told the British people: Accept the Nazis. Yes, 
they will dominate the continent of Europe, but that is not our 
problem. Let's appease them. Why? Because it can't be done. We cannot 
possibly stand against them.
  In America there were voices who listened to that; I suspect the same 
pundits who said it couldn't be done. If this had happened in the 
1940s, we would have been listening to them. Even then they would have 
made television. They would have gotten beyond the carrier pigeons and 
letters and they would have been on TV saying: You cannot defeat the 
Germans.
  If we go to the late 1960s when a President, John F. Kennedy, told 
this country: We are going to send a man to the Moon--when John F. 
Kennedy told this country we are going to send a man to the Moon, there 
were a lot of people who said: It cannot be done. It is impossible. It 
cannot be done. Yet John F. Kennedy had the vision to say Americans can 
do things--whatever we set our minds to.
  If we go to the late 1970s and 1980s, we were in the midst of the 
Cold War. I remember growing up in the Cold War. I remember being told 
the Soviet Union cannot be defeated. It cannot be done. We have to 
accept malaise. We have to accept second-class citizenship. They have a 
lot of weapons. We cannot possibly stand up to the Soviet Union.
  There was a President--a President whom I admired deeply, President 
Ronald Reagan--who had the temerity to say: What is your strategy on 
the Cold War? Answer: We win, they lose.
  At the time those same Washington founts of wisdom said: It can't be 
done. No, no, no, we can't win. Winning is a two-dimensional strategy. 
We need to be much more nuanced than that. We need to push for detente, 
whatever that means. We need to push for something short of actually 
winning.
  So we get to ObamaCare, and what do all of those voices say? It 
cannot be stopped. It can't be done. We cannot defund it. By any 
measure ObamaCare is a far less intimidating foe than those I have 
discussed, with the possible exception of the Moon. The Moon might be 
as intimidating as ObamaCare. Yet those same voices of Washington give 
the same message that they have said over and over and over again, 
which is the opposite of the message of the little engine that could: 
No, you can't. It can't be done. No, we can't.
  What should we have instead of you know what? We hear echoes from the 
past battles. We ought to have a vote where we can go to our 
constituents and say: By golly, we really, really, really dislike 
ObamaCare. Can we add a couple of more reallys? I want to make it clear 
that it is really, really, really.

  We wonder why our constituents look at us and say: What on Earth are 
you doing? Do you actually care that we are losing our jobs? Do you 
actually care that we can't find a job? Do you care that our small 
businesses are not growing? Do you care that health insurance premiums 
for people who are struggling are skyrocketing? Do you care that more 
and more Americans are losing their health insurance?
  We don't need fake fights. We don't need fake votes. We need real 
change. We need a better economy. We need more jobs. We need more 
freedom. And what is critical in doing that is stopping ObamaCare 
because Americans should not have to worry about what Washington is 
doing to them, what Washington is doing to make their life harder, what 
Washington is doing to take away their job, what Washington is doing to 
drive up their health insurance premiums, what Washington is doing to 
jeopardize the health insurance they have now.
  I cannot tell the Presiding Officer how many times across the State 
of Texas I have had men and women come up to me--some with disabilities 
and some in wheelchairs--and say: Please, stop this bill. Stop 
ObamaCare because I don't want to lose my health insurance. It is 
jeopardizing the health insurance coverage I have now.
  We all remember when President Obama told the American people: If you 
like your health insurance, you can keep it. Now at the time that 
sounded good. Any of us who liked our health insurance wanted to keep 
it. We liked that promise. That is the kind of promise we like from our 
candidates and our officeholders.
  Yet as I mentioned earlier, one of the great faculties of higher 
reason is the ability to learn--the ability to learn from evidence and 
facts. We have learned that promise did not, in fact, meet reality 
because the reality is millions of Americans are at risk of losing 
their health insurance.
  A few weeks ago UPS sent a letter to 15,000 employees and it said: We 
are terminating spousal health insurance because of ObamaCare. Their 
husbands and wives were told: Sorry, your health insurance is gone. 
Remember, the promise was: If you like your health insurance, you can 
keep it. For those 15,000 UPS employees--for their husbands and wives--
that promise has been disproved by reality. This body would step up and 
stop ObamaCare if we did just one thing: if we listened to our 
constituents. So together that is what we have to do: Make DC listen.
  A lot of folks in Washington are angry we are even having this fight. 
A lot of folks in Washington are angry--it is fascinating how many 
politicians in Washington think this isn't even worth our time. I will 
point out, as is usually the case--almost always the case--the Senate 
floor is largely empty. Everyone's schedules are apparently busy enough 
that standing and coming together to stop ObamaCare doesn't make it 
onto the priority list. We ought to have all 100 Senators on this floor 
around the clock until we come together and stop ObamaCare. If they 
talked to their constituents, that is what they would like. If they 
would talk to their constituents, their constituents would say: What 
possibly do you have to do that is more important than getting the 
economy moving again and bringing back jobs? What possibly do you have 
to do that is more important than stopping me from losing my health 
insurance or stopping me from losing my health care? That is what I 
hear from my constituents over and over again. I am confident the 
Presiding Officer hears it from his constituents. Every one of us hears 
it from our constituents because that is what Americans are saying in 
all 50 States. We should not have to worry about what the next rule, 
the next regulation, or the next tax is that is going to be handed down 
from the DC ruling class.
  ObamaCare alone has produced over 20,000 pages of regulation. I am 
confident the Presiding Officer has not read 20,000 pages of ObamaCare 
regulations. I can tell the Presiding Officer I have not read 20,000 
pages of ObamaCare regulations. I would wager all the money in my bank 
account there is no Member in this body who has read 20,000 pages of 
ObamaCare regulation.
  Yet what is Washington telling small businesses all across the 
country? You

[[Page S6705]]

are bound by 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulation, and more and more is 
coming. There is another 3,000 pages added every 6 months. So it is 
going to keep coming and coming and coming.
  I remember doing a tele-townhall several months ago, and a woman who 
owns a small business asked: How do I comply with all of these 
regulations? How do I comply with the burdens of ObamaCare? It was 
quite striking. She said: I don't even know where to start. I will 
confess that I felt embarrassed because I said: Ma'am, I don't know how 
to tell you that.
  The complexity is so much that it is causing more and more small 
businesses to stay small--avoid ObamaCare altogether. They can't 
decipher the rules and regulations so they don't. If they have under 50 
employees, they can get out from under it.
  I cannot tell you how many small businesses are not hiring right now. 
If they have 30 or 40 employees, they are not subject to ObamaCare, but 
if they get the fiftieth employee, that fiftieth employee better be one 
heck of an employee, because the instant he or she shows up on the 
payroll, boom, the entire business is subject to 20,000 pages of 
regulations and crushing costs.

  To the men and women at home today who are out of a job, I point out 
to you that if it were not for ObamaCare, every small business that has 
an opportunity to expand right now and is not expanding because of 
ObamaCare--that is a job you are not able to get.
  Do you want to know why the job economy is so bad, why there are so 
few jobs, why we have the lowest workforce participation in decades in 
the United States? Small businesses generate two-thirds of all new jobs 
in the economy, and small businesses have been hammered under ObamaCare 
unlike ever before.
  If we listened to our constituents, we would step forward and act to 
avert this train wreck. The only way that will happen is if the 
American people demand it, if together we make DC listen. That is what 
this fight is about. It is about ensuring that the American people have 
a voice, ensuring that those who are struggling, those who are without 
a job, those who are afraid of losing their health insurance--that 
Washington listens to them, that Washington acts on their needs.
  Anyone who wants to know why this body is held in low esteem only has 
to look out to the empty chairs. If you are out of a job, wondering 
what the Senate is doing to get our economy moving, to help small 
businesses create new jobs so you can go to work and provide for your 
family, the answer is displayed right in front of you.
  If you are concerned about the health care for yourself, for your 
family, if you are seeing more and more people losing their health 
insurance and you are saying: ``What about my family? What if I lose my 
health insurance because of ObamaCare?'' and you ask what the Senate is 
doing to listen to you, the answer, right now, is an empty Chamber.
  Our system was based on a profound notion: that sovereignty resides 
with the American people, that every one of us--sometimes people in the 
Senate behave as if they have no bosses, as if they are autonomous 
rulers. And Washington is a little bit of a town that treats the people 
in Washington--they behave like kings and queens of their own fiefdoms. 
Yet every one of us has a whole lot of bosses. In my instance, I have 
26 million bosses back home in Texas. Who are the 26 million Texans 
whom I work to represent? Those who supported me and those who did not. 
It is my job to represent every one of them, to fight for every one of 
them. The most fundamental problem, bigger than ObamaCare, is the 
problem that Washington has stopped listening to the American people.
  It is quite striking that in discussions about ObamaCare among 
elected officials, we hear more complaints about ``I don't like all the 
phone calls I am getting from my constituents'' than we do about 
ObamaCare. It is apparently an imposition on some Members of this body 
for their constituents to pick up the phone and express their views. It 
is viewed as somehow illegitimate. How dare they? Apparently, standing 
on those steps and taking the oath of office invests 100 people with 
somehow greater wisdom, greater insight, more brain cells. Our 
constituents--there is a tendency in this town, particularly as time 
goes on, to view our constituents as an annoyance.
  Today--just today--I have heard multiple Senators complaining: too 
many phone calls from my constituents. What a remarkable complaint. 
What a remarkable complaint.
  Mr. President, you and I have both worked in the private sector. In 
the private sector, if your boss picked up the phone and called, I 
suspect neither you nor I sat at our computer playing Solitaire when 
our boss picked up the phone and called. Neither one of us said: Boss, 
I am too busy. Boss, I don't want to listen. You may have some 
priorities for the business but not me. I know better than you.
  None of us did that. Because in the private sector, there is a quick 
and immediate response. If you tell your boss in the private sector: 
Hey, boss, my time is too important for you; I don't care about your 
priorities; I am not going to listen to you, I suspect that will be 
your last day at that place of employment.
  Why is Washington broken? Because you have 100 people, a significant 
number of whom, on a daily basis, tell their boss, tell their 
constituents: I am too busy for you.
  Don't even bother to call my office because it just ties up my staff. 
It is annoying. I know better than you do. I know the priorities better 
than you do.
  What a broken system. What a broken system. We work for the people. 
Why are the people unhappy with Washington? Why are they disgusted with 
Washington? Because Washington is not listening to them. There is a 
game instead that is focused on maintaining the status quo. Staying in 
office--that is what is important because it is apparently very 
important to be invited to all the right cocktail parties in town. I 
will confess, I do not go to a whole lot of cocktail parties in town. I 
am pretty sure you do not either. But there are Members of this body 
for whom that is very important.
  At the end of the day, we do not work for those holding cocktail 
parties in Washington, DC. We do not work for the intelligentsia in the 
big cities who write newspaper editorials. We work for the American 
people. We work for single moms. We work for young people. We work for 
seniors who are struggling. We work for Hispanics, for African 
Americans. We work for every American who believes in the American 
dream.
  This body is not listening to the people. Indeed, the very fact that 
over 1.6 million Americans have signed a petition, have picked up the 
phone, have been calling offices in this great Chamber is viewed as an 
inappropriate imposition. What an indictment of this body that we think 
it is somehow illegitimate that the American people would ask us not to 
focus on irrelevant priorities. It is not like the American people are 
calling, saying focus on some parochial issue. By the way, phone calls 
are not coming from our districts saying: Senator, please take more of 
the American people's tax money and send it back to our district. We 
would like some more pork.
  Those are not the calls. Those are not the calls we are getting. The 
calls are from people who are saying: Listen, jobs and the economy is 
my No. 1 priority. Why isn't it Congress's? Jobs and the economy 
matter. Why? Because if you are working, if you are working in a good 
job, you are providing for your family. It makes it easier for families 
to stay together. Moms and dads--it makes it easier for them to raise 
their kids, raise them with good values. It makes it easier for them to 
provide a good education for their kids.
  When you have one job, it lets you begin to climb the economic ladder 
to a better job and a better job and a better job. That is the American 
spirit. Yet we have tens of millions of people in this country out of 
work. Every month we get the reports from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics that say even more people have given up looking for work.
  The odd way our unemployment statistics work, that makes the number 
the newspapers report go down. Because when a few hundred thousand 
people say: All right, I give up, it is so hopeless, I will never find 
a job, that, curiously, results in the unemployment number going down 
because the number that gets reported in the papers is a measure of a 
percentage of how many

[[Page S6706]]

of the people looking for work are unable to find it.
  I am going to suggest that people giving up is even worse. What a sad 
testament, given the American spirit, the American spirit that we can 
do anything we set our minds to, that anyone--the great blessings of 
this Nation have been fundamentally that it does not matter who you 
are, it does not matter who your daddy was, it does not matter whether 
you were born into great wealth and privilege and advantage or whether 
you were born into humble means, anyone in this country can achieve 
anything based on hard work, perseverance, and based on the content of 
your character. What a tremendous, unique blessing that is in the 
United States of America. The reason this ObamaCare fight matters so 
much is that is imperiled right now. In order for anyone with nothing 
to achieve anything, they have to be able to get a job to start. They 
have to get on to the first rung of the economic ladder to have a 
chance of getting to the second or the third or the fourth or the 
fifth.
  Just a week ago the Wall Street Journal had a long article about the 
``lost generation,'' about young people coming out of school in the 
last few years who have not gotten their first job or who have gotten a 
part-time job. Because of ObamaCare, their employer does not want to 
hire them for 40 hours a week, so they get hired for 29 hours a week.
  Think about young people. If they do not get that first job, they are 
not going to get the second, they are not going to get the third. The 
impact for young people right now that ObamaCare is having is 
absolutely devastating. What this Wall Street Journal article was 
saying is that the economic data shows that impact will be with them 
their entire lives; that when they start off their career not gaining 
skills, not working, not climbing the economic ladder, that delay will 
stick with them forever.
  What a travesty. Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage? Where 
are the Senators standing here saying: What a travesty that young 
people are being denied a fair shot at the American dream because of 
what we have wrought because of ObamaCare. That should unite all of us. 
If we were listening to the American people, that would be where our 
attention would lie.
  Fundamentally, what this week is about is that we need to make DC 
listen, make them listen to the single mom working at a diner, 
struggling to feed her kids, who has just been told she is being 
reduced to 29 hours a week. Who is speaking for that single mom right 
now? Who is talking about how ObamaCare is forcing more and more people 
into part-time employment? And, by the way, she does not get health 
insurance. Instead, forced into 29 hours a week, what does that single 
mom do? She gets a second job. So now she is working two jobs, with 29 
hours a week for both of them. Now she is away from her kids even more. 
She does not have health insurance at either job now. But she has to 
travel from one to the other. She has to deal with two conflicting 
schedules because one job wants her to work Tuesday, and the other job 
wants her to work at that same time on Tuesday. She has to go to both 
of her bosses. Both of them say: You need to be there Tuesday 
afternoon. Who is speaking for that single mom right now?
  On Friday or Saturday of this week we will vote on cloture. Anyone 
who votes yes for cloture, anyone who votes to cut off debate on this 
bill, is voting to allow Senate majority leader Harry Reid to fully 
fund ObamaCare. That is a vote that I think is a profound mistake. It 
is a vote that I hope all 46 Republicans will stand united against. It 
is a vote that, in time, I hope more than a few Democrats will stand 
against.
  To fix the problems in this country, this does not have to be a 
partisan issue. Many of the President's most vocal supporters have 
started coming out against ObamaCare. Why? Because the facts show it is 
not working, because if you get beyond the team mentality in 
Washington, if you get beyond the partisan focus in Washington and you 
ask, is this thing good for the American people, it is very hard on the 
merits to make the case that it is.
  It is very hard. It is quite interesting that in the course of this 
debate there have been more than a few newspaper articles, more than a 
few attacks from our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and 
also from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle.
  I told my wife that I now pick up the newspaper each day to learn 
just what a scoundrel I am and just what attacks have come, some on the 
record and some--actually the ones that are often even better are the 
anonymous ones. I have to say there is no courage like the courage in 
Washington of the anonymous congressional staffers. I have chuckled at 
more than a few of them. You know, it says something when Members of 
this body, the congressional staffers, and members of the media want to 
make this about personalities. They want to make this about a battle of 
this Senator versus that Senator, this person versus that person, so it 
is all personal. It is like reading the Hollywood gossip pages. That is 
how this issue is covered. It is not by accident because one of the 
ways Washington has discovered for not listening to the people is 
distraction. Distract the voters with smoke and mirrors.
  This fight is not about any Member of this body. This fight is not 
about personality. Look, most Americans could not give a flying flip 
about a bunch of politicians in Washington. Who cares? You know, almost 
all of us are in cheap suits and have bad haircuts. Who cares? What the 
American people care about is their own lives. What the American people 
care about is giving their kids a better future. What the American 
people care about is having a job with a future, not a job where they 
are working 29 hours a week, where they are punching a clock, where 
they feel as though they are just going through the motions, but a job 
where they say: Hey, I have a career. I can see the next step. I can 
see the future for my family. That is what the American people care 
about.
  So regardless of the rocks that will be thrown--and they will 
continue to be thrown--I have no intention of engaging in that game, no 
intention of speaking ill of any Senator, Republican or Democratic, 
because it is not about us. Anyone who is trying to make this a battle 
of personalities is trying to change the topic from the topic that 
should matter: whether ObamaCare is helping the American people.
  If we focus on the substance, the evidence is overwhelming. This law 
is a train wreck. Every day the headlines come in: more jobs lost, more 
people losing their health insurance, more premiums going up, more 
people pushed into part-time work. Yet every day the Senate goes about 
its business and says: We are too busy to listen to the American 
people.
  There are different games, to be sure, that go on on both sides of 
the aisle. Many of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle 
right now endeavor to convince the American people: Pay no attention to 
your lying eyes; ObamaCare really is terrific. That is not going 
terribly well. But on the Republican side of the aisle, there is a lot 
of energy and attention focused on saying: Well, yes, ObamaCare is 
terrible, but under no circumstances could we ever do anything about 
it. That is beyond us. We are destined to lose. So what we are 
interested in on the Republican side of the aisle is let's cast a show 
vote--2, 3, 10--as many votes as possible to say: ObamaCare is really 
bad. We cannot fix it.
  You know, that problem--it crosses that middle line. Whether you are 
telling your constituents it is really working out well despite the 
objective facts to the contrary or whether you are telling your 
constituents: I agree, it is a terrible thing, but I cannot do anything 
to fix it, in both cases you are not listening to the people. That is 
something we need to correct. All of us, all 100 of us--we need to 
listen to the people. Together, we need to make DC listen. If we do 
not, the frustration will grow. If we do not, the disillusion with 
Washington will grow. If we do not, the approval rating of Congress 
will keep going down, keep going down, keep going down. The only way to 
fix this problem is to demonstrate that we understand--we understand 
the fact that we are not driven by partisan ideology; that we are 
driven by doing our jobs and listening to the American people.
  It is my fervent hope that over the course of this week, over the 
course of this debate, that all 46 Senators on the Republican side will 
unite and that

[[Page S6707]]

more and more Democrats will come together and say: Listen, we have an 
obligation to our constituents. That is an obligation we are going to 
honor.
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. LEE. I would ask my distinguished colleague, the Senator from 
Texas, a series of questions with regard to this concept to make DC 
listen. It is interesting that we are having this discussion right now 
at a time in our history when never has it been easier for so many 
people throughout the country with so few resources to be heard by so 
many.
  In the past, you had to own a newspaper or perhaps in more recent 
years you had to own a radio station or a television company or 
something like that to be heard by a lot of people. But these days 
pretty much anyone can gain access to a telephone or the Internet, they 
can send an e-mail, they can submit a post. It is one of the things 
that have made possible a groundswell of people--just a few minutes ago 
the Senator mentioned 1.6 million Americans just in the last few weeks 
signing a petition asking for Congress to make a decision to protect 
the American people from the harmful effects of ObamaCare.
  They want government funded, just as we want government funded. They 
want government to be able to continue to do the things government 
does. They want people to be able to rely on government to protect 
them, to protect our borders, to protect our sovereignty, protect our 
homeland against those who would harm us. They want government to be 
able to carry out its basic functions and its responsibility. They want 
their government funded. But they do not want that held hostage by 
something else. They do not want that funding tied to the funding of 
ObamaCare in the sense that they want to keep government funded but 
they want us to defund ObamaCare.
  The House of Representatives shows that at least that side of DC, 
that side of the Capitol was listening. I applaud the Speaker of the 
House and the other leaders in the House of Representatives who did 
that. That suggests to me that they were listening on that side of the 
Capitol. They had many millions of Americans calling out on the 
telephone, through mail, e-mail, every conceivable medium for relief 
from this bill. They listened. They listened because they understand 
that the American people are being hurt by this. They ask the same 
questions the Senator from Texas and I and others have asked: How many 
more Americans will have to lose their jobs because of ObamaCare before 
Congress acts? How many more Americans will have to see their wages or 
their hours cut as a result of this ill-conceived law before we do 
something about this? How many more people will have to lose access to 
health coverage before Congress does something?

  Just last Friday we saw Home Depot--one of America's great companies, 
one of America's great success stories, one of America's great 
employers--announce that 20,000 employees will be losing their health 
coverage. How many more stories like this will we have to hear before 
Congress does something to protect Americans from the harmful effects 
of this law--a law that was passed a few years ago without a single 
Republican vote in the House of Representatives; a law that was passed 
a few years ago without a single Republican vote in the Senate; a law 
that was passed--all 2,700 pages as it was then constituted--without, 
as far as I know, many, if any, Members of this body or the other body 
in the Capitol having had the opportunity fully to read it. Since then, 
of course, it has expanded. We have had an additional 20,000 pages of 
regulations promulgated, increasing rather exponentially the impact of 
this law. The popularity of the law has not improved with time, just as 
the complexity of the law has not become less problematic in the 
intervening 3\1/2\-year period.
  So as we look at this, we think about the fact that it is important 
for Congress to listen to the American people. Again, today it has 
never been so easy for so many Americans with so few resources at their 
disposal to make sure that they are, in fact, heard. So we have to ask 
ourselves the question--I have to ask the Senator the question: How 
long will it be before Congress acts?
  I am pleased that the Senator referred to the opportunity crisis, the 
economic opportunity crisis in America. He referred to the economic 
ladder in this country. You know, I think it is an interesting fact and 
we need to consider that--according to one recent study published I 
believe just in the last few weeks--for the first time in American 
history, 40 percent of those born in America, into the bottom quintile 
of the American economy, the bottom 20 percent of income earners in 
this country--40 percent of the bottom 20 percent will remain in the 
bottom 20 percent throughout the duration of their lifetime. To my 
knowledge, that has never happened in this country. To my knowledge, 
this undercuts what has long been a very distinguishing, enviable 
characteristic of the United States. It is what has made this the 
greatest civilization the world has ever known--the fact that this is a 
country where regardless of where you were born on the economic ladder, 
regardless of the circumstances in which you came into this world or 
came into this country, you could make it. In fact, your chances of 
doing so were relatively strong. Yet 40 percent of those people, we now 
understand, will stay there throughout the duration of their lives.
  Another study came out, also a few weeks ago, indicating that in 34 
States and the District of Colombia, an individual or a family is 
actually likely to see a dip in their well-being, a dip in their 
standard of living if, instead of receiving welfare benefits, they 
decide instead to shed those benefits and go on to an entry level job. 
That is sad. That is sad because that suggests that our government--as 
well-intentioned as many of those programs might be, they will have set 
in place a series of conditions that trap people, especially parents, 
into a vulnerable, poor condition.
  If there is one thing that I think parents feel somewhat universally, 
it is a degree of risk aversion. People do not like to take risks that 
could jeopardize their ability to provide for their children. If we set 
up a set of conditions in which people, in order to maintain their 
level of certainty that they might have while surviving under a system 
of welfare benefits provided by the Federal Government--if they become 
locked into that, locked into poverty in perpetuity because of that, 
that is disconcerting because the risk is always too high to make that 
jump to an entry level job. Without the entry level job, there will 
never be the secondary job, there will never be the first raise or the 
second raise or the first, second, or third promotion. Without those 
things, there is no ladder. Without those things, there is an 
opportunity lost and people remain on the bottom rungs of that very 
ladder.
  We see at the top rung a system of crony capitalism that sometimes 
has the impact of keeping some people and some big businesses 
artificially held in place at the top of the economic ladder at the 
expense of others, at the expense of would-be competitors who are 
driven out or held out from the beginning from the competitive 
marketplace through the oppressive intervention of the government, 
through the government's favoritism, and through the government's 
ability sometimes, regrettably, to choose winners and losers in the 
marketplace.
  You see where most Americans are, right in the middle of the ladder. 
On the middle rungs you see people working, trying to get by from day 
to day. They are able to survive, able to provide for the basic needs 
of their families. But they would like to do better. They would like to 
be able to provide a more comfortable living for their families.
  They find very often that no sooner do they find an increase in their 
income than that same increase has been gobbled up by a combination of 
oppressive taxes, oppressive regulations, and a devastating impact of 
inflation. When those things happen, we find people are unable to make 
their way up that economic ladder.
  We find ourselves at a precipice of sorts. We find ourselves about to 
embark on a very bold experiment in which we rather dramatically expand 
the role of the Federal Government, injecting it more directly, more 
completely, more dangerously into one of

[[Page S6708]]

the most personal aspects of most people's lives, into the health care 
industry. This is an industry that comprises a very significant portion 
of our Nation's economy in an area in which people feel strongly about 
their own right, about their own innate, inherent need and desire to 
maintain a degree of control that is not subject to the will and whim 
of government bureaucrats in Washington.
  At the same time the government is doing that, the government will be 
consuming an increasingly large share of the resources moving through 
our economy, making it even harder for people who are trying to get by 
to do so and to do so without undue interference from the government.
  This is an issue that is important to so many people. This is an 
issue that reminds people of the fact that whenever government acts, it 
does so at the expense of our own individual liberty. It does so at the 
expense of our ability to live our lives as we would live them. It does 
so very often at the expense of the American economy. It does so very 
often at the expense of economic opportunity for Americans, you see, 
because when we expand government, we expand its cost. We make 
ourselves as a country less free. We leave ourselves with fewer 
alternatives.
  Is there a role for government to play in health care? Absolutely. Of 
course there is. No one disputes that. Are there improvements that can 
be made to our health care system? Certainly there are.
  But a 2,700-page law that was passed after Members of Congress were 
told they had to pass it in order to find out what is in it, that has 
expanded since then to include within its penumbra 20,000 pages of 
regulatory text, a law that has become less and less popular as time 
has gone on--this has become very difficult. We find this becomes less 
and less something that the American people support.
  I would ask if Senator Cruz feels that the American people have every 
right to speak out on this. Specifically does the Senator feel the 
American people have every right to expect that those of us serving in 
the Senate will do everything we possibly can, even casting difficult 
votes, even casting procedural votes that might be difficult to cast or 
difficult to explain? Do they have every right to do that even if it 
causes great inconvenience for them and for us in the process of 
complying with their wishes?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Utah for that very good question. 
The answer is absolutely yes. That is the foundation of our Nation. If 
you look at the history of government in the world, it hasn't been 
pretty. The history of government for most of the existence of mankind 
has been a story of oppression, a story of rulers imposing their will 
on their subjects. For millennia, we were told that rights come from 
government. They come from kings and queens, and they are to be given 
to the people by grace, to be taken away by the whim of the ruler. That 
has been the state of affairs for most of the history of humanity.
  The founding of our Nation embodied many revolutions.
  The first revolution was a revolution that was a bloody revolution 
fought with guns and bayonets. But even more important than that 
revolution was the revolution of ideas that occurred. The revolution of 
ideas that began this Nation was twofold.
  First, America began from the presupposition that our rights come 
from God. It is for that reason the Declaration Of Independence begins: 
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal,'' that we are endowed--not by a king, not by a queen, not even 
by a President--but ``endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of 
Happiness.''
  That is and was a revolutionary idea, and it led to the second 
revolutionary aspect of the founding of our Nation which was that we 
inverted the concept of sovereignty. For millennia sovereignty began at 
the top. It was the ruler who was called the sovereign. The word 
sovereignty derives from that notion. Of course, the sovereign is where 
sovereignty resides.
  The American Framers turned that notion on its head. We said: There 
is no sovereign. Sovereignty resides with we the people. That is why 
our Constitution begins ``We the People,'' because this Nation wasn't 
founded by rulers, it wasn't founded by elected officials, it wasn't 
even founded by States. It was founded by we the people, the American 
people. That is the only place sovereignty has ever resided in the 
United States of America.
  The Constitution, in turn, was created to lend power to government, 
not to give it, to lend it and to lend it, I would suggest, only in 
good behavior. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as chains 
that bind the mischief of government, that sovereignty is an idea we 
need to get back to.
  I am going to suggest that for some time now the Senate has not 
behaved as if we the people are sovereign. For some time the Senate has 
not behaved as if each of us collectively has 3 million bosses. For a 
long time the Senate has behaved as if the rules that matter are the 
rules in Washington, DC. That is why the most important objective of 
this week is to make DC listen. The most important objective of this 
week is to reassert that sovereignty is with we the people, that calls 
from our constituents and townhalls are not a pesky annoyance. It is 
the core of our job. It is the core of our job to listen to the 
sovereign, which is we the people.
  Right now we the people are hurting. If you get outside Washington, 
DC, you ask them about ObamaCare over and over, and the answer you get 
is: This thing isn't working.
  A few weeks ago I hosted a small business roundtable in Kerrville, 
TX. Kerrville is a delightful town in central Texas. It is in the 
beautiful hill country. If anyone wants to come to Texas, I would 
encourage you. Kerrville is a great destination in Texas.

  This was a small gathering in a restaurant, about 20 small business 
owners. I asked each of them and I said: Let's go around the room. If 
each of you could introduce yourself, share a little bit about 
yourself, and then share a concern that is weighing on your heart. 
Share something you are praying about, share something you are worried 
about, share something you are focused on right now.
  It was a totally open-ended question. They could have talked about 
any issue under the Sun. They could have talked about Syria, guns, they 
could have talked about anything.
  We went around the table one after the other after the other. Over 
half of the small business owners around that table said to me: Ted, 
the single biggest obstacle I face in my business is ObamaCare. Hands 
down, not even close, there is nothing that comes close.
  It was striking. Of those 20, there were probably 4 or 5 of them who 
relayed some version of this same story. One was the fellow who owned 
the restaurant we were meeting in. He said: You know, we have a great 
opportunity to expand our business. I have an opportunity to make the 
restaurant even bigger, expand it, and from a business perspective, 
this opportunity looks good. But he said: You know, we have got between 
20 and 30 employees. If we expand the business we will go over 50. And 
if we go over 50, we are subject to ObamaCare. If that happens, I will 
go out of business. So you know what. I am not pursuing the expansion. 
I am not going to do it. We are going to stay the size we are.
  One person after another around the table said the same thing. They 
had 30 employees, 35, 40 employees. They had great opportunities to go 
open another location, expand into a new aspect. One after the other 
said: We will not do it, because if we get over 50 employees, ObamaCare 
will bankrupt us.
  I want you to think about each of those 4 or 5 businesses and the 10 
or 20 jobs that each of them didn't create, isn't creating right now 
because of ObamaCare. Then I want you to multiply that by thousands or 
tens of thousands of small businesses all across this country that 
could be creating jobs. I want you to think about all the people right 
now who are home wanting to work.
  There are, by the way, I will note, some politicians who suggest that 
some people in this country are lazy and don't want to work. I don't 
believe that. I think Americans want to work. Americans want the self-
respect that comes from going to the office, from working, from 
providing for your family, from working to achieve the American dream.
  Do some people give up? Sure. Can you give in to hopelessness? Yes. 
When

[[Page S6709]]

you keep banging your head against a wall over and over again, trying 
to get a job, and you don't get anywhere, it is only natural for people 
to feel despair. I want you to think of the millions of jobs we could 
have but for small businesses that are not growing, not expanding, not 
creating those jobs.
  Another small business owner around that table owned several fast 
food restaurants. She had a problem. She owned enough fast food 
restaurants that she had over 50 employees. I will mention the 
restaurant business and the fast food business side in particular is 
quite labor dependent. I doubt if there is a sector in this economy 
that has been hurt more than the labor in the fast food business. But 
her problem was she had enough stores so she was over 50 employees, so 
that strategy wouldn't work for her. She described how she has already 
forcibly reduced the hours of every one of her employees to 29 hours 
per week.
  I will tell you this woman almost began to tear up. She was 
emotional. She was not happy about this, to put it mildly. She said: 
Listen, we have been in business a long time. Many of these employees 
we have known 10 or 20 years. These are single moms. These are people--
look, if you are working in a fast food restaurant you are not at the 
pinnacle of your career. You are struggling to pay the bills. These are 
single moms who are working hard and they can't feed their kids on 29 
hours a week. But, you know, they can't feed their kids if I go out of 
business either. If we are subject to ObamaCare, we go out of business.
  Why 29 hours a week? Well, just like the 50-employee threshold, 
ObamaCare kicks in and counts an employee if he or she works 30 hours a 
week. One of the things that is forcing small businesses all over the 
country to do is to force their employees out of good full-time jobs 
into 29 hours a week because they don't get hammered with the costs and 
burdens of ObamaCare.
  I will mention another small business owner who I think will 
particularly hit home with the Presiding Officer because I know the 
issues that resonate with him. This is an individual who manufactures 
hunting blinds--actually very interesting. They are hunting blinds that 
are camouflaged to look like trees. They are really very clever 
creations. He described how he has been forced to move his 
manufacturing overseas, to move it to China. So right now he is 
manufacturing in China.
  He said: Listen, I want to manufacture here in the United States. 
That matters to me. I care about that.
  He said this would be 150 to 200 good manufacturing jobs here in the 
United States.
  The Presiding Officer and I both come from States where there are a 
lot of people who are struggling and who would love to see 200 more 
manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing used to be a tremendous strength of 
our economy, but the manufacturing sector has been hammered in recent 
decades. Yet this small business owner said that because of ObamaCare, 
if he brought his manufacturing back to the United States, his workers 
would all be subject to ObamaCare and he couldn't be competitive in the 
business. It would drive him out of business.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider each of those small business 
owners and multiply it by the millions of small business owners across 
this country--the millions of small business owners who aren't growing, 
the millions of small business owners who are forcibly reducing their 
employees' hours to 29 hours a week, the millions of small business 
owners who are considering moving operations overseas or have already 
because of ObamaCare. Why is the economy gasping for breath? Why are 
people not able to get jobs? Because ObamaCare is killing jobs, and the 
Senate should listen to the people. We need to make DC listen.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Senator. Does he acknowledge that he 
understands, as I do, that as this monstrosity goes into effect October 
1 and as it has all of these really devastating impacts on individuals 
and small businesses, under a special illegal rule from the Obama 
administration, Congress and Washington get an exemption; they get a 
special pass; they get a special deal no other American gets under the 
law?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator for his question, and he is absolutely 
right. There are many scandalous aspects of ObamaCare: how it was 
passed--on a brutal partisan vote rammed through with late-night deals 
that have earned rather infamous nicknames, such as the ``Cornhusker 
kickback,'' which has sadly become part of modern political lore; and 
the ``Louisiana purchase,'' with all due respect to my friend from the 
great State of Louisiana, who was not involved in that. And one of the 
most sorry aspects of ObamaCare is the aspect Senator Vitter refers to, 
which is that President Obama has chosen, at the behest of majority 
leader Harry Reid, at the behest of Democratic Members of the Senate, 
to exempt Members of Congress and their staff from the plain language 
of the statute.
  When ObamaCare was being passed, Senator Chuck Grassley--a towering 
giant in this body; a strong, principled conservative--introduced a 
commonsense provision to ObamaCare that said: If you are going to force 
ObamaCare on the American people, if you are going to create these 
health insurance exchanges and you are going to force millions of 
people into these exchanges, then Congress should not operate by better 
rules than the American people. So he introduced a simple amendment 
designed to treat Members of Congress just like the American people so 
that we didn't have this two-class system.
  It has been reported--I was not serving in this body at the time--
that amendment was voted on and accepted because Democratic Senators 
believed the bill would go to conference and in the conference 
committee they could strip it out and it would magically disappear. But 
then, because of the procedural games it took to pass it, they didn't 
have the opportunity to do that, and suddenly, horror of all horrors, 
this bill saying Congress should be bound by the same rules as the 
American people became the law of the land.
  So what happened? Majority leader Harry Reid and Democratic Senators 
had a closed-door meeting with the President here in the Capitol where 
they said, according to public news reports: Let us out of ObamaCare. 
We don't want to be in these exchanges.
  One would assume they are reading the same news reports the rest of 
us are reading--that ObamaCare is a train wreck, that it is not 
working--and the last thing Members of Congress wanted to do was to 
have their health care jeopardized. And the President directed his 
administration to exempt Members of Congress and their staff, ignoring 
the language of the statute, disregarding the language of the statute 
and saying: You guys are friends of the administration. We are taking 
care of you.
  I want to take a minute, in response to this question, to commend the 
Senator from Louisiana. Senator Vitter introduced an amendment to 
reverse this exemption, and it was a bold amendment. It was an 
amendment that said we as Members of Congress should be subject to the 
same rules as the American people. We shouldn't be treated by special 
or different rules for us. Indeed, the amendment of Senator Vitter said 
Members of Congress should be subject to ObamaCare, our staff should be 
subject to ObamaCare, and members of the administration--the political 
appointees of the Obama administration, who, by the way, are not in the 
exchanges--should be too. So if the President and Cabinet appointees 
and his political officials want to go into communities and tell 
everyone how wonderful ObamaCare is, then let them do so from personal 
experience. Let them do so not being exempted but subject to the same 
exchanges and subject to the same rules the American people are.
  The reason I wish to commend the Senator from Louisiana is his 
introducing that amendment prompted a response that, I will suggest, 
brought disgrace and disrepute on this body. It prompted a political 
response that targeted the Senator from Louisiana personally.
  Now, we have all heard the saying ``politics ain't beanbag,'' but the 
nastiness with which the Democratic majority responded to Senator 
Vitter for daring to say that the Washington ruling class should be 
subject to the same rules as the rest of America was extraordinary even 
for Washington, DC.

[[Page S6710]]

In fact, I would note that the majority leader and the junior Senator 
from California, as I understand from public news reports, proposed a 
response to the Vitter amendment that said any Senator who votes for 
the Vitter amendment--regardless of whether it passes but simply if you 
cast a vote in favor of it--he or she will lose their health insurance.
  I have to admit that when I first heard of this proposed amendment, I 
shook my head in amazement. I had never heard of such a thing, and I 
suggested to a friend who is a law professor that that would make a 
marvelous law school final exam. Imagine this amendment being passed 
into law and asking your law students to catalog all of the myriad ways 
in which such a proposal would be unconstitutional. In fact, I made 
this point to the law professor I was talking to. I said: If you as a 
private citizen came to any Member of the Senate and said: Senator, if 
you vote the way I want you to, I am going to pay you thousands of 
dollars that you can deposit into your personal bank account, you, Mr. 
Law Professor, Mr. Private Citizen, would promptly and quite rightly be 
prosecuted for bribery. It is a criminal offense. It is a felony.

  If, on the other hand, you or any other American citizen went to a 
U.S. Senator--went to Senator Vitter--and said: Senator Vitter, if you 
don't vote the way I want, I am going to take thousands of dollars out 
of your personal bank account, I am going to extract them forcibly from 
your personal bank account, well, as I told the law professor, then you 
would be guilty of extortion and would be charged and no doubt 
criminally convicted because under the black letter definition, that 
conduct--threatening to pay someone individually thousands of dollars 
or take thousands of dollars away from them as a direct quid pro quo 
for how a Member of Congress votes--constitutes either bribery or 
extortion.
  Now, let me be clear: No Member of this body is guilty of bribery or 
extortion. Why? The simplest reason is because the Constitution's 
speech and debate clause protects all of us, such that given their 
action was proposing an amendment themselves, there is a constitutional 
immunity. So I am not suggesting that anyone is guilty of bribery or 
extortion. But I am saying that if any private citizen who didn't 
happen to be a Member of the Senate did the exact same thing as the 
suggested content of their amendment, he or she would have committed a 
felony under the plain text of those definitions.
  So I want to commend Senator Vitter for shining a light on basic 
fairness, for enduring the vilification that was unfairly directed his 
way, and for making the point that outside of Washington is simple 
common sense.
  I would suggest that if any of us were to get a gathering of our 
constituents together, if we were to get a gathering of constituents 
from the opposing party and ask this question at any townhall gathering 
in our States: Do you believe that Members of Congress should be 
exempted from ObamaCare, that we should have a special rule, that we 
should disregard the language of the statute and not be subject to 
ObamaCare the way the American people are, the answer would be 
overwhelmingly no. And it doesn't matter where in the country you are 
or what your party is.
  I thank Senator Vitter for having the courage and the principle to 
highlight this particularly unfortunate aspect of ObamaCare.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will be happy to yield for a question without yielding 
the floor.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator also acknowledge that given that history 
on this issue, given that illegal rule to exempt Congress, to have a 
special bailout, a special subsidy for Congress that the Obama 
administration is putting into law without valid authority, and given 
that we are debating and acting on a spending bill this week, we should 
be voting on that? We should get a vote on my amendment and the Cruz 
amendment together to block that illegal rule this week?
  The majority leader said he had no problem with a vote on that, in 
theory. He said that last week. He should allow a vote on this crucial 
amendment, which will be filed to the bill, which will even be a 
germane amendment on this spending bill this week, before this illegal 
congressional exemption rule goes into effect. Would the Senator agree 
with me?
  Mr. CRUZ. I agree enthusiastically.
  Senator Vitter highlights one of the many reasons why every 
Republican in this body should vote against cloture on the bill on 
Friday or Saturday and why I believe a great many Democrats should vote 
against cloture as well.
  As we understand it, we are told the amendment process on this bill 
is going to be rigged. The amendment process on this bill is going to 
be that once debate is cut off, there will be a bill simply to fund 
ObamaCare in its entirety, to delete the House language, and that other 
amendments will not be allowed. The amendment of the Senator from 
Louisiana will not be allowed, the amendment repealing the medical 
device taxes will not be allowed, and the amendment getting the IRS out 
of the business of ObamaCare will not be allowed. Instead, it will be a 
rigged playing field.
  The only way to prevent that rigged playing field is for Senators to 
stand together and vote no on cutting off debate on Friday or Saturday 
when we have that vote. If we stand together and vote no, that forces 
this body to deal with the problem; otherwise, we know how the Kabuki 
dance ends. If cloture is invoked, if debate is cut off on the bill, 
very shortly thereafter the majority leader has publicly announced he 
will introduce an amendment to fully fund ObamaCare. That will require 
just 51 votes. So every Republican will get to vote no and tell his or 
her constituents they voted no. Yet magically and wonderfully it will 
pass because it will be a straight party-line, partisan vote, and other 
Senators will be silenced.
  I think Senator Vitter is absolutely correct, we should vote on the 
Vitter amendment. Indeed, I would like to see the Vitter amendment 
broadened. Another member of our conference indicated that if the 
Vitter amendment were brought up, he would offer an amendment to expand 
it to all Federal employees. I think that is a terrific rule.
  Right now, Federal employees earn substantially more than the private 
sector does. I don't think there is any entitlement to take our tax 
dollars and to live in a privileged condition being a Federal employee. 
If Members of this body are going to go on television and tell the 
American people: ObamaCare is great, it is good, it is terrific, it is 
so great, then they should be eager to live under it.
  You can't have it both ways. Either ObamaCare is a train wreck, in 
which case we ought to listen to the American people and fix it, or 
ObamaCare is wonderful and terrific and fantastic and all of the great 
adjectives the proponents of the bill have used, in which case Members 
of Congress, staff, and Federal employees should all eagerly embrace 
it.
  I very much agree with Senator Vitter that it is critical we vote on 
the Vitter amendment, and it is critical we make clear to the American 
people there are not two sets of rules. There is not a ruling class in 
Washington that somehow gets treated differently.
  Let me talk for a minute about congressional staffers. Behind closed 
doors this issue generates a lot of passion. There are a great many 
congressional staff members who are dedicated public servants, who have 
often taken substantial salary cuts to come to Washington to serve this 
country, who work brutal hours. Among congressional staff, just like 
among Members, the idea that they would be subject to ObamaCare deeply 
concerns them. It concerns them on the money side and it concerns them 
on the quality of care and health insurance that they will be able to 
get on the exchanges.
  To make it real, I note there are multiple members of my staff who 
have had very serious, even life-threatening health issues for whom the 
limited health insurance, the subpar, the poor quality health insurance 
that many fear will be available on the exchanges is not a passing 
concern, not an academic concern, not a concern that let's put in 
talking points, it is very real for a great many congressional staff, 
including staff in my office. If the Vitter amendment passes and 
Congress is subject to the same rules as the American people, there may 
well be quite a few

[[Page S6711]]

congressional staff who tender their letters of resignation and leave.
  I have had one staff member already indicate she would retire after 
many years of service, and the possibility of being put on ObamaCare 
was a real factor in that decision.
  If we lose some good talent from Congress, that will be a shame and a 
hardship for every office. But what does that say? If ObamaCare is such 
a disaster that congressional staffers--and, mind you, a lot of these 
congressional staffers who may tender their letters of resignation are 
staffers working for Democratic Senators who drafted ObamaCare, who 
fight for ObamaCare every day. What does it say that staffers would be 
willing to quit because the quality of health care under ObamaCare 
would be so poor that they would rather go somewhere else than be 
subject to those laws? I think that speaks volumes.
  Neither Senator Vitter nor I in the long term has any interest in 
seeing congressional staff and Federal employees on ObamaCare, but it 
does have the value of highlighting how bad it is.
  If this body is content to leave the American people stuck in 
ObamaCare, then we ought to be subject to the same rules. If we are not 
willing to live under those rules, if we say, Wow, ObamaCare scares the 
heck out of us and we don't want to be subject to it, then the proper 
answer is not to vilify the Senator from Louisiana or any other Senator 
in this body. The proper answer is to step in and say to the American 
people--in fact, let me suggest something that would have a powerful 
clarifying impact on this body.
  If only Senators would behave as if their constituents were at least 
as important as their congressional staff; if only Senators were to 
behave as if their constituents were at least as important as they 
are--to be honest, our constituents are more important. Our 
constituents are our bosses. They are the reason we are fighting. The 
fact that this body is so torn apart by the notion that each of us 
would be subject to ObamaCare and subject to the same rules the 
American people are highlights how broken Washington is. That shouldn't 
be controversial. That should be obvious.
  Let me suggest to every Member of Congress, to every staffer who is 
dismayed--and, to be honest, saying they are dismayed is an 
understatement, to describe the degree of deep concern and even panic 
about this. Let me suggest to every Member of Congress and every 
staffer who is feeling that panic, direct that panic not to our own 
skins; direct that panic to the American people. Direct that panic to 
the single mom working at the diner, working two 29-hour-a-week jobs 
who is facing the consequences of ObamaCare.
  Under ObamaCare, this President is getting ready to force millions of 
people onto exchanges where they are very likely to lose their health 
insurance.
  In the privileged corridors of Washington, the risk of losing your 
health insurance, boy, that gets people worried. And it should. But it 
should worry us even more for all the people across this country.
  The majority leader and Members of Congress can get a sitdown with 
the President of the United States. But 26 million Texans, most Texans 
can't get a sitdown with the President of the United States.
  If you are powerful, you can get a special exemption. We have seen 
the President exempting every big corporation in America. Giant 
corporations, he said, for a year it doesn't apply to you. The language 
of the law explicitly applies. There is no year delay of the language 
of the law.
  For over 200 years we have operated as a nation of laws, not men. We 
have operated as a nation that says if that is what the law says, then 
it kicks in January 1 and not a year from now.
  What did the President say? No. Big companies have come to us. My 
friends in big business, I am going to give you a year-long exemption.
  If ObamaCare were so terrific, why would the President be wanting to 
delay it until after the next election? The year-delay timing is not 
entirely coincidental. The employer mandate was supposed to kick in 
January 1 of next year, and the President unilaterally and contrary to 
law delayed it one whole year until after the November 2014 elections.
  If the representations that so many Members of this body make to the 
American people were true that ObamaCare is terrific, is wonderful, 
then I would think the President would be eager to have it kick in 
before the election. If it were a good thing, you would want the good 
stuff to happen before the election and not after the election. The 
fact that it was moved for big businesses is an indication of how badly 
this law has failed.
  But it is not just big businesses that have got an exemption. Members 
of Congress. Senators can get a closed-door meeting with the President 
of the United States. With much fanfare, the President came to the 
Capitol, met with the Democratic Caucus, and as was widely reported 
they asked for a special exemption and they got it. How about the 
American people? They can't go in.

  One of the reasons people are so unhappy with Washington is they get 
a sense that there are special rules that apply. Wall Street gets 
special exemptions, the big banks get special exemptions. Dodd-Frank 
sets up rules that hammer small banks, hammer community banks, hammer 
the little guy. But what happens to the big guys? They keep getting 
bigger. Why? Because they get rules made in Washington that favor the 
big guy over the little guy. And you wonder why there is such 
dissatisfaction in this country. But if you have political friends in 
this administration, you too can get an exemption.
  Labor unions have more and more been expressing their dismay about 
ObamaCare as they have realized in practice the thing isn't working. 
Recently the labor unions came to the Obama administration and said, We 
want an exemption too. Big businesses got an exemption, Members of 
Congress got an exemption. Shouldn't labor unions, shouldn't union 
bosses get an exemption? And with much fanfare the administration 
reportedly told them, No.
  I am going to make a prediction right here and now. If the Congress 
does not act, if we don't show leadership in defunding ObamaCare, if we 
don't stand together in imposing cloture on Friday, if we don't act to 
avert this train wreck for the American people, before the end of this 
President's term we are going to see him grant an exemption for labor 
unions. That has been the pattern. Friends, political buddies--they get 
a slap on the back. They get special treatment.
  It wouldn't have been great politics to grant the labor unions an 
exemption right now, right in the middle of this debate. Right when you 
have over 1.6 million people signing a national petition, right when 
Congress is debating it--gosh, it would have looked bad to grant an 
exemption then.
  It is a little reminiscent of the President's remarks regarding Mr. 
Putin that were caught on tape before the last election--I forget the 
exact language, but, Tell Vladimir I will be able to work with him a 
lot more after the election.
  I don't think it takes any stretch of the imagination at all to 
understand that, give it a little time, let the pesky people who are 
sort of worked up a little bit on ObamaCare dissipate. Then we will 
quietly do the exemption for labor unions.
  Let me note the point ``quietly.'' One of the self-described fact 
checkers--and we may talk long enough that I talk a little bit about 
fact checkers, because that is a particularly pernicious bit of yellow 
journalism that has cropped up that lets journalists be editorial 
writers and pretend they are talking about objective facts, and 
basically conclude as a factual matter--not as a matter of opinion--and 
anyone who disagrees with them is objectively lying.
  One point that one of the so-called fact checkers in the Washington 
Post took issue with was an observation I made that President Obama is 
quietly granting exceptions.
  I note that the exception for big business was announced in a blog 
posting by a midlevel political appointee in the Treasury Department, 
if I remember right, on a Friday. I may be wrong on the day but I think 
it was on a Friday. In Washington language, by any measure, when you 
announce a major policy that impacts the whole country that exempts 
giant businesses from your rule that you are jamming on the American 
people and you don't do it from the White House, you don't do it from 
the President, you don't do it as

[[Page S6712]]

an announcement, you don't take questions on it, you simply put a blog 
posting from a midlevel staffer, that counts as ``quietly.''
  It hasn't been quiet since then because everyone happened to notice. 
So my prediction right now is if we get past this, if the forces in 
this body who defend the status quo--and, wow, are there a lot of 
forces that defend the status quo. There are a lot of people with a 
vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If they prevail, if 
ObamaCare goes into effect before the end of this President's 
administration, mark my words, you will see an exemption for labor 
unions just like the exemption for big business, just like the 
exemption for Members of Congress.
  What are we left with then? We are left with a system where ObamaCare 
is a rule for, as Leona Helmsley so famously described them, the little 
people. For everybody who doesn't have power and juice and connections 
in Washington, for everyone--look for the men and women at home, maybe 
you have an army of lobbyists working for you. Maybe you have Senators' 
cell phones on your speed dial. Maybe you can walk the corridors of 
power. In that case you too get an exemption. But if you are just a 
hard-working American, if you are just trying to provide for your 
family, if you are just trying to do an honest day's work, make your 
community better, raise your kids, set a good example, then the message 
this President has sent--and sadly the message the Senate has sent--is 
you don't count. We are going to treat everybody else better than you.
  That is exactly backward. It is the hard-working American we work 
for, not the lobbyists with tassels on their loafers who wander the 
halls but the single mom in a diner. They are the people who are 
losing.
  I wish to talk about the harm to jobs and economic growth that is 
coming from ObamaCare. Americans continue to suffer from high 
unemployment and severe underemployment. Instead of helping job growth, 
ObamaCare's mandates and costs are causing businesses to stop hiring 
workers, to cut employees' hours, and they are increasing the costs to 
operate businesses. Small businesses in particular are being hammered 
by ObamaCare.
  Here are some recent statistics on unemployment and underemployment. 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report for August of 2013, 
there are 11.3 million unemployed persons. The unemployment rate, the 
official unemployment rate is listed at 7.3 percent. Yet college 
graduates over 25 face just a 3.5-percent unemployment.
  Former Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards used to talk 
about two Americas. I didn't agree with a lot of things John Edwards 
said as a political candidate, but I actually agreed with that notion, 
and it is a tragic notion, that there are two Americas. There are two 
Americas, A, between the ruling class in Washington and everyday 
Americans, but there are also two Americas right now between those of 
wealth and privilege and power and everybody else. If you are lucky 
enough to be a college graduate, your unemployment rate is 3.5 percent. 
That is pretty good. The people who are getting hammered, who are 
losing under ObamaCare, are the most vulnerable among us. They are 
young people, Hispanics, African Americans, single moms. For Black 
teens the unemployment rate is over 10 times higher than it is for 
college graduates--38.2 percent.
  Let me ask, when small businesses are not hiring, when small 
businesses are laying off people, when small businesses are forcing 
employees to work 29 hours a week, whom do you think that is impacting? 
It doesn't impact titans of industry. The rich and powerful are not 
losing their jobs. They are not finding themselves forced into part-
time work.
  We talked about the fast food business. The fast food business, that 
industry is being hammered. You want to talk about what a tremendous 
avenue for employment the fast food industry has been, particularly for 
the first and second job someone has. When we look at the unemployment 
rate of African-American teens of 38.2 percent, the fast food industry 
has been such a great avenue for advancement for minority teenagers.
  I note I do not view that from the perspective of abstract numbers on 
a piece of paper. I view that from a very personal perspective, because 
55 years ago, when my father came from Cuba, he was 18, he was 
penniless, and he couldn't speak English. But he was lucky. He was 
lucky to get to America. He was lucky to be able to apply for a student 
visa, to be accepted to the University of Texas, to flee the Batista 
regime, where he had been imprisoned and tortured as a kid. By the time 
he was a teenager, my father had endured more than the vast majority of 
Members of Congress will ever experience.
  I will note with that background it does make the back-and-forth of 
Washington pretty mild by comparison. If someone says something mean 
about you in the newspaper, it may not be altogether pleasant, but it 
is pretty darned mild compared to being beaten and almost killed in a 
Cuban jail as my dad was 55 years ago.
  When he landed in Austin--if I could, Mr. President, I would ask you 
to put yourself in his shoes--not literally, because I think your feet 
are bigger than his, but figuratively. When my dad landed in Austin, he 
couldn't speak English. He didn't know anybody. Imagine being in a 
strange land where you cannot speak English, you have $100 sewn into 
your underwear that my grandmother put there. The first thing he needed 
was a job, so he went to look for a job.
  The problem is if you are an 18-year-old kid from Cuba and you cannot 
speak English, there are not a lot of jobs you can get. If you can't 
speak English, it is pretty hard to get a job where you have to deal 
with customers who are going to expect you to speak English. At that 
point he didn't have a lot of skills. He was a teenager. So his first 
job was washing dishes. He made 50 cents an hour.
  Why did he get that job? Because you didn't have to speak English. 
Even though he did not have a lot of skills as an 18-year-old kid, he 
was perfectly capable of taking a dish, putting it under very hot 
water, scrubbing it and setting it aside and he did it over and over.
  When my father was here, he had no means of support other than 
washing dishes. So what he did, one of the reasons he wanted to work in 
a restaurant, is that restaurants would let you eat while you were 
working. It was one of the perks of working in a restaurant; the 
employees were able to eat. My father had no money for food. He barely 
had money to pay for a tiny little apartment. In fact, he started in 
the dorms, I believe, and tuition. That was it. He didn't have money to 
buy food, so what my dad did is he ate at work. Since he liked to eat 7 
days a week, he worked 7 days a week. He would go in and he only ate 
during those 8 hours. During the 8 hours he was working washing dishes, 
he would eat like crazy, I mean he would just feed his face. Because 
when he left, the next 16 hours he wasn't eating anything, wasn't 
buying food until the next 16 hours he showed up at work. That was the 
next time he was going to eat.
  Some people may look at a dishwashing job paying 50 cents an hour and 
turn up their nose at it and say: Who really cares about people in jobs 
like that? Sometimes this Senate behaves like that. Who cares about 
people in jobs like that?

  But after some time my father learned English. I will tell you how he 
learned English. He did a couple of things. No. 1, my father signed up 
for Spanish 101. When he was a freshman at UT, he signed up for Spanish 
101. You might say: Why would a native speaker take Spanish 101? That 
seems a little dumb.
  What my father would do is sit in the classroom and basically try to 
reverse engineer everything. So the professor would say milk is leche, 
and he would write it down and say leche is milk. He would try to sit 
and listen, and as the teacher was teaching Spanish he would try to do 
everything backward and try to figure out what the English was.
  The other thing my dad would do, on Saturdays, he would go to movies. 
In fact, when I was a kid, we would go to movies all the time together. 
It was one of the things we loved to do together, still do. My dad used 
to go to movies on Saturday and he would sit there and watch the same 
movie in English typically three times. He would just sit there and 
watch it. When he first came there to Austin, he would

[[Page S6713]]

watch a movie three times and have no idea of what was going on the 
first, second or third time. But then he would do it again and do it 
again.
  The human brain is a miraculous thing. As he would watch the movie 
two or three times, by the second time you start picking up context, 
start picking up what was going on and start following the plot. By the 
third time he would start following it even more. So relatively quickly 
my father learned English.
  I note he had a pretty exquisite incentive to learn English. His 
incentive to learn English was if he didn't, he was going to flunk out 
of school because he was taking his classes in English. He took mostly 
math classes and math was the sort of thing you did not need as much 
language as you do in other topics. But if he didn't learn English 
pretty fast, he was going to flunk out of the University of Texas.
  Once he learned English, he managed, at the restaurant he was working 
at, to get a promotion. He got a promotion to be a cook. Being a cook, 
that was good. Look, being a cook was a lot better than being a 
dishwasher. It paid a little bit more. I don't know how much he got 
paid being a cook, but it paid better than 50 cents an hour. He had to 
speak enough English, so when someone came in and ordered, let me get a 
steak and potatoes, he had to know what that was and not give them 
scrambled eggs. So he learned enough to be a cook and respond to the 
orders.
  The place he cooked was a place called the Toddle House. It was a 
place where the cooks were in front of the people. It doesn't exist 
anymore, but my father described it as a sort of Denny's. Imagine 
Denny's combined with Benihana. The menu was similar to Denny's, but 
the cook was in front of you so you could see him. So my dad learned to 
flip pancakes. Let me tell you, as a kid on Saturday or Sunday morning 
and your dad is making pancakes, it is very cool when he can flip 
them--you could make him flip them high in the air and catch them. But 
he could do that.
  I will credit my father; he invented--this wasn't for the restaurant, 
but he did it anyway--he invented green eggs and ham. He did it two 
ways. No. 1, the easy way, is he put green food coloring in the eggs, 
chopped up ham in it. ``Green Eggs and Ham'' was my favorite book when 
I was a boy. The food coloring is a little bit cheating, but if you 
take some spinach and mix it into the eggs, the eggs turn green.
  My dad worked as a cook to finish his way through the University of 
Texas. In 1961, my dad graduated, got a math degree. At his next job, 
he was hired as a teaching assistant. He began taking graduate classes 
in mathematics at the University of Texas and he got hired as a 
teaching assistant teaching undergrads math. A teaching assistant was a 
better job than washing dishes or being a cook. It paid more and it had 
more forward advancement. So he enjoyed being a teaching assistant.
  He had all sorts of clever final exam questions that he would give. 
He taught college algebra. I remember one of his final exam questions 
was: You have a triangle with sides 11, 20, and 9. Compute the area.
  You get students who would write pages and pages, trying to put all 
these various equations together, trying to figure out the area. Almost 
all of them were wrong. It is a basic rule of geometry, for a triangle 
the sum of any two sides has to be longer than the third side or else 
they don't actually meet. A triangle with sides of 20, 11, and 9--11 
and 9 add up to 20. That is a straight line. The area is zero. So he 
enjoyed kind of coming up with clever final exam questions. That was 
one of them.
  But from there, after being a teaching assistant, he applied for and 
got a job with IBM as a computer programmer. This was, I think, 1962, 
1963. It was in the early 1960s. From there he got the skills as a 
computer programmer. He worked in the oil and gas industry. 
Subsequently, with my mother, he went on to start a small business, a 
seismic data processing company in the oil and gas business.
  So when I was a kid, as I grew up, my parents were small business 
owners. When I talk about small businesses, similar to a great many 
Americans, the majority of Americans, it is not a hypothetical. I have 
grown up as the son of two small business owners, seeing the hard work, 
the challenges of trying to run a small business. In fact, I saw my 
parents' business go bankrupt when I was in high school. I saw the up 
sides and the down sides of being in a small business. It ain't easy.
  If my father had not been able to get that first job washing dishes 
and making 50 cents an hour, he never would have gotten his second job 
as a cook. If he hadn't gotten his second job, he wouldn't have gotten 
his third job as a teaching assistant. If he hadn't have gotten that 
job, he wouldn't have been hired by IBM. If he hadn't been hired by 
IBM, he wouldn't have started his own business.
  Earlier, the Senator from Utah talked about opportunity and the 
American dream. When we look at a statistic, such as the fact that 
African-American teenage unemployment is 38.2 percent, we are talking 
about a generation of young people who are not getting that first job. 
They are not getting the equivalent today of that job of washing dishes 
and making 50 cents an hour. They are not getting the job of flipping 
burgers in the fast food business because the impact of ObamaCare on 
the fast food business is so devastating that it is not hiring workers. 
The travesty is that they do not get to flip burgers. Flipping burgers 
is honorable work. It is not necessarily the fulfillment of someone's 
life's ambition, but it is so frequently a stepping stone to the next 
job and the next job and the next job.
  As a young kid, one of the things you have to learn is basic work 
skills, such as how to show up on time. A lot of teenagers are not very 
good at showing up on time. They don't understand how to show up on 
time. Even some U.S. Senators have not figured that out. Yet, if a 
young American doesn't get a job or learn to work with his coworkers, 
customers, their boss, how to show up on time, to be courteous, 
respectful, diligent, and responsible, he or she can't learn the skills 
it takes to achieve in any job.
  Some time ago I tweeted a speech Ashton Kutcher gave. It was actually 
a terrific speech. It was a speech at one of those award shows where he 
talked about the value of hard work. One of the things I remember he 
said was this: In my life, opportunity looks an awful lot like hard 
work. That was a great message. It was a great message to young people. 
Part of the reason I tweeted it out and to salute him--I have watched 
his TV shows and his movies, but I don't know him personally--was 
because he can speak to millions of young people who would never listen 
to me. I salute him for carrying a message about hard work, diligence, 
and working toward the American dream.
  The greatest travesty of what is happening with ObamaCare is a 
generation of young people are being denied a fair chance at the 
American dream. If we look at economic growth, according to the Bureau 
of Economic Affairs, GDP growth over the last four quarters has been an 
abysmal 1.6 percent. The historic average since World War II is 3.3 
percent. Our economy is stagnant, and ObamaCare is a big part of the 
reason.
  So I ask the Presiding Officer, where is the urgency in this body? 
When the Presiding Officer goes home and talks to the men and women in 
West Virginia--or the men and women in Texas--he must hear that they 
are hurting. They understand that 1.6 percent economic growth is 
unacceptable and it is hurting the American people. Where is the 
urgency in this body? Where is the urgency to say: We have to stand and 
do something to turn it around.
  Jobs are being lost because of ObamaCare. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
survey of small businesses in 2013 found that 71 percent of small 
businesses say ObamaCare makes it harder to hire workers. The study 
also found that two-thirds of small businesses are not ready to comply 
with ObamaCare rules.
  Why do we care about small businesses? Look, on one level, we care 
about the entrepreneurs--the Horatio Algers and the people working 
toward the American dream--but even more fundamentally, small 
businesses produce two-thirds of the new jobs in this country. If small 
businesses are suffering, jobs are suffering and America suffers.
  ObamaCare is an absolute disaster for small businesses. Forty-one 
percent of small business owners have held off on plans to hire new 
employees, and 38

[[Page S6714]]

percent say they are holding off on plans to grow their businesses in 
direct response to the law.
  By the way, the most egregious parts of ObamaCare still have not 
kicked in. Forty-eight percent of small business owners say ObamaCare 
is bad for business. Less than 10 percent say it is good for business.
  Jamie Richardson of White Castle explained how ObamaCare is impacting 
her business: In the 5 years prior to the health care law, we were 
opening an average of eight new White Castle restaurants each year. In 
2013 we plan to just open two new locations. While other factors have 
slowed our growth, it is the mounting uncertainty surrounding the 
health care law that brought us to a standstill.
  I want the Presiding Officer to think about that for a second. They 
were opening eight White Castle restaurants a year--I like their little 
burgers--and that dropped to two. So six a year over the last 4 years 
amounts to 24 White Castle restaurants. No. 1, just as a consumer--and 
I am a big fan of eating White Castle burgers--that is 24 places we 
can't go to get a White Castle burger. But that is not the real 
hardship. The real hardship is all the jobs that are lost from those 24 
restaurants that didn't open. Every one of those stores would have 
multiple shifts with managers, cashiers, or kids just mopping the 
floor. All those jobs would have been on the economic ladder toward the 
American dream.
  Even within a fast food restaurant there has been tremendous 
opportunity for investment. Maybe you get hired mopping a floor because 
you don't have any other skills or, like my dad, washing dishes because 
you don't have any other skills. If you work a little while, maybe you 
can move over to the fries and then to the griddle. You can move to the 
cashier desk and learn how to count change. A lot of kids don't know 
how to count change. Sadly, because of the educational challenges we 
have, a lot of kids don't have the skill to count change yet. They can 
learn that. Then, if you demonstrate hard work, perseverance, and 
customer service, maybe you will get promoted to assistant manager, 
then manager, and then who knows.
  Just a few weeks ago I had dinner with a number of franchisees who 
own fast food restaurants for one particular very well-known hamburger 
chain. I listened to their stories. I start most meetings, if they are 
small enough that this is feasible--like the Kerrville small business 
gathering--by asking them to go around and share an issue that is of a 
concern to them. I remember one gentleman, an African-American 
gentleman, who described exactly that path. He described how he got 
hired in an entry-level position at a fast food restaurant, developed 
skills, advanced, and then he was hired as an assistant manager and 
then as a manager. After that, he saved up and bought his own 
restaurant.

  It was interesting. There were people--and some of the franchise 
owners had pretty extensive backgrounds. I think there was one fellow 
who had 27 fast food restaurants. So there were some people who were 
very successful businesspeople.
  I remember this African-American gentleman who had relatively 
recently saved up to buy his first restaurant that he owned and the 
pride he justifiably felt--and the pride I felt. I mean, what an 
incredible country. What was interesting is that he described the exact 
same challenges as the fellow who owned 27 restaurants and was far 
wealthier and had a far bigger business.
  What all of them said as we were going around the table was that 
ObamaCare is devastating. They didn't say it was sort of a little 
problem. They didn't say it was making life more difficult. They said: 
It is devastating. It is going to put us out of business. We don't know 
what to do. This is a disaster for our business.
  A March 2013 Federal Reserve report on current Federal economic 
conditions explains that employers in several Federal Reserve districts 
cited the effects of the ObamaCare act as reasons for planned layoffs 
and reluctance to hire more staff.
  In May 2013 Moody's economist Mark Zandi noted a slowdown in small 
business hiring due to ObamaCare.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in the second quarter of 2013 small 
business survey, found that Washington policies continue to hamper 
hiring and growth, with over a quarter of small businesses saying they 
had lost employees in the last year. They cited health care as the very 
top concern.
  Concern about ObamaCare has increased by 10 points since June of 2011 
and by 4 points just last quarter. Seventy-one percent of small 
businesses say the health care law makes it harder to hire. Only 30 
percent say they are prepared for the requirements of the law--
including participation in the marketplaces.
  Among small businesses that will be impacted by the employer mandate, 
one-half of small businesses say they will either cut hours to reduce 
full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time 
workers to avoid the mandate. Twenty-four percent say they will reduce 
hiring to stay under 50 employees.
  I want to repeat those numbers because those numbers are deeply 
troubling. Among small businesses that will be impacted by the employer 
mandate, one-half--50 percent--say they will either cut hours to reduce 
full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time 
workers to avoid the mandate. We are not talking about a few small 
businesses, we are talking about half of them. Twenty-four percent say 
they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees. That is a disaster 
for small business, it is a disaster for jobs, and it is a disaster for 
American families who are struggling.
  The outlook for hiring remains grim. The majority--61 percent--of 
small businesses do not have plans to hire next year.
  A Grand Rapids, MI, company reported that they had to lay off over 
1,000 people due to the ObamaCare medical device tax. Let's think about 
that. In Grand Rapids, MI, there are 1,000 people out of a job directly 
because of ObamaCare. Now let's think of their spouses and their kids. 
One of the major breadwinners in their family lost his or her job 
because of ObamaCare.
  On September 18, 2013, the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic announced 
that it would cut jobs and slash 5 to 6 percent of its $6 billion 
annual budget to prepare for ObamaCare. This is not just impacting fast 
food restaurants, this is impacting everyone. The Cleveland Clinic has 
a $6 billion annual budget, and yet they are forced to fire employees. 
The Cleveland Clinic is Cleveland's largest employer.
  Every 4 years during the Presidential election, both parties purport 
to care passionately about what happens in the great State of Ohio. 
Both parties focus and descend on Ohio--and a handful of other swing 
States--as the center of the universe. Yet, as we sit here now in 
2013--not a Presidential election--somehow the concern about what is 
happening to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio has diminished. The Cleveland 
Clinic is Cleveland's largest employer, and it is the second largest 
employer in the State of Ohio after Walmart.
  I would suggest that if all of the folks from this body and the 
political parties who descend on Ohio every 4 years are genuinely 
concerned about what is occurring in Ohio in a non-Presidential year we 
should see the floor of this Senate filled with Senators concerned 
about the impact ObamaCare is having directly on Cleveland and the 
State of Ohio.

  Cleveland Clinic is responsible for 80 percent of the economic output 
of northeast Ohio, according to a 2009 study. It is the largest 
provider in Ohio of Medicaid health coverage for the poor, the program 
that will expand to cover uninsured Americans under ObamaCare.
  The Cleveland Clinic has close to 100 locations around the State. 
They employ 3,000 doctors. Its main campus is recognized worldwide for 
its cancer and cardiovascular treatments.
  (Ms. WARREN assumed the Chair.)
  Madam President, some Members of this body might say: Well, these are 
hard times. Everyone is struggling, so maybe the Cleveland Clinic is 
responding to economic challenges. Who is to say what the Cleveland 
Clinic is doing has anything to do with ObamaCare? Well, the answer to 
that is, who is to say? The Cleveland Clinic is to say. A spokeswoman 
for the Cleveland Clinic said:

       To prepare for health care reform, Cleveland Clinic is 
     transforming the way care is delivered to patients.

  She added that $330 million would be cut from the clinic's annual 
budget.

[[Page S6715]]

  You want to talk about direct job losses from ObamaCare, go to 
Cleveland, OH, go to those working at the Cleveland Clinic, go to those 
depending on the Cleveland Clinic for health care, and that is one very 
real manifestation of the train wreck that is ObamaCare. According to 
the Star-Ledger, in a story printed on September 12, 2013, Barnabas 
Health, which employs over 19,000 people, is laying off employees. Why? 
Well, according to Barnabas Health, the reason is ObamaCare. According 
to a spokeswoman for Barnabas Health:

       Healthcare reform, in combination with Medicare cuts, more 
     patients seeking outpatient care and decreasing patient 
     volumes--as a result, we have made the difficult decision to 
     reduce our workforce. Decisions like this are never easy and 
     we are working with these employees to help them look for 
     other opportunities within the Barnabas Health system.

  This is not us putting words in their mouth. This is people on the 
ground in the States dealing with the very real struggles and the 
disaster that is ObamaCare.
  The problem we face in Washington is that our elected officials are 
not listening to us. We need to make DC listen. We need to make elected 
officials in both parties listen to the very real hardship that is 
coming from ObamaCare.
  I would like to share a number of real constituent letters concerning 
ObamaCare. So this is not me speaking. As I said at the outset, the 
reason Congress is held in such disrepute, so little approval, is 
because for many years now elected officials in both parties have 
refused to listen to the people, and there is a sense of despair that 
no matter what the American people say, our elected officials will not 
listen because they are more interested in themselves, they are more 
interested in getting an exemption for Members of Congress from 
ObamaCare than they are on fixing the problem for the American people. 
And that level of disillusion is not irrational. It is based on a very 
real problem. Yet I am inspired that if and when the American people 
stand and make their voices heard, our politicians will have no choice 
but to listen.
  I remember early on--Madam President, you and I are relatively new in 
this body. We have been here 9 months. I remember early on standing at 
this very desk along with my friend Senator Rand Paul in his historic 
13-hour filibuster on drones. I remember when Senator Paul began that 
filibuster, many Members of this body viewed what he was doing as 
curious, if not quixotic, as a strange issue that most Members of this 
body, frankly, were not concerned about. We saw something incredible 
happen during that time, which is the American people got engaged, got 
involved, began speaking out, and it transformed the debate. As a 
result of the American people's involvement, it transformed the debate.
  If you want Washington to listen, the only way that will happen is if 
it comes from the American people. So let me read some letters from 
American people who do not have the opportunity to come to the Senate 
floor. I hope in a very small way to provide a voice for them.
  A small business from Alice, TX, wrote, on August 9, 2013:

       We, the undersigned employees . . . are growing 
     increasingly concerned with the apparent disregard for small 
     businesses and the middle class that is on display by the 
     United States government. We are trying to figure out how we 
     are going to cope with the 14% increase in health insurance 
     premiums we are facing, despite the fact that we have a lower 
     average employee age and loss ratio than we have had at any 
     point in our 21-year history. The increase is because of 
     insurance companies preparing for new taxes and unreasonable 
     requirements within ObamaCare.
       On top of struggling to find the means to cover our own 
     group of employees, our government now makes it clear that 
     part of the massive amount of taxes we pay a year will be 
     used to cover 75% of health insurance costs for Members of 
     Congress AND their staffers. As waivers are granted daily, 
     shielding . . . big business, unions, government agencies, 
     and various other Affordable Care Act supporters, it is clear 
     the burden will rest firmly on middle class small businesses 
     like us. . . .
       We strongly encourage our elected officials to place a 
     higher importance on public service than self-service.

  Let me read that sentence again: ``We strongly encourage our elected 
officials to place a higher importance on public service than self 
service.''

       We are hurting badly because of this, as are many 
     disillusioned businesses with whom we communicate in our 
     industry. Headlines nationwide report hiring freezes and 
     layoffs due to increased costs on businesses large and small. 
     The weight is too heavy at the worst time, and in result the 
     economy will soon break. We urge Congress to defund or repeal 
     the Affordable Care Act with no further delay. . . .

  That is not me speaking. That is from a small business in Alice, TX. 
I would note, that is not even the CEO speaking. That is a letter 
signed by the employees of that small business because they are 
hurting.
  But let me note, it is not limited to the State of Texas. I guarantee 
you, there are people hurting in every one of the 50 States, every one 
of the States we represent. A commercial real estate broker from 
Chesapeake City, VA, wrote, on September 20, 2013:

       I also wanted to share with you how ObamaCare is affecting 
     my business. I am a commercial real estate broker in Virginia 
     and am already feeling the effects of this disastrous bill. I 
     am currently in the process of analyzing an apartment 
     portfolio for sale for a client and recently the occupancy 
     has dropped dramatically in this class C low-income 
     community. The community is not subsidized as these tenants 
     are paying out of pocket for the rent. Most of the tenants 
     work in fast food, janitorial, and low paying service related 
     jobs. A great deal of them has had their hours cut to 29.5 
     hours per week and cannot pay the rent. Our occupancy has 
     dropped as well as the income. Our management company has 
     reached into the City of Richmond for rent assistance for 
     these tenants but to no avail. Not only are these people 
     going to be forced into government housing but my client will 
     realize a smaller equity harvest. This is a disaster, and it 
     affects everyone.
       As you can see by this scenario, many are affected by this 
     bill. Also, a class A franchisee with a national restaurant 
     chain whom I represent is experiencing the pain from this 
     bill. They are being forced to sell off to a larger 
     franchisee because they cannot afford to comply with the 
     requirements. I wish the American people understood how 
     severely the economy will be impacted. Thank you for fighting 
     the good fight. We are behind you.

  Let me read again two sentences from that letter from a commercial 
real estate broker in Chesapeake City, VA: ``Most of the tenants work 
in fast food, janitorial, and low paying service related jobs. A great 
deal of them had their hours cut to 29.5 hours per week and cannot pay 
the rent.''
  So they are losing their housing. I want you to think for a second 
about the spiral that comes from this. If you have someone who is 
working as a janitor, if you have someone who is working flipping 
burgers, if you have someone washing dishes, as my dad did, and they 
have their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, as so many people 
across this country are having happen because of ObamaCare, they cannot 
provide for their family on that, so they cannot pay the rent, as these 
people cannot. But not being able to pay the rent means some of them 
may move to government housing. And what is the answer? Look, they are 
losing their hours because of ObamaCare. The answer is not: Well, let's 
give them a rent subsidy. Let's tax people even more. First let's pass 
rules and laws and regulations that prevent people from getting decent 
jobs. Then let's jack up the taxes even more so we can pay them to 
subsidize their rent and subsidize their housing because they cannot 
afford to pay their rent, they cannot afford to pay their housing 
because of a law we passed that forcibly reduced their hours. That is 
the path to destruction in this country.
  Far better that we get back to our founding principles, far better 
that we get back to what has made America great, which is our free 
enterprise system--a robust, free enterprise system that encourages 
small businesses to grow and to prosper, that encourages people working 
a job as a janitor to work hard and get a promotion and climb that 
ladder, to pay their own rent, to pay for their own food for their 
kids, to work and to advance.
  These cries are coming from all across the country. Yet Washington is 
not listening. We need to make DC listen.
  A small business owner from Port Clinton, OH, wrote, on September 19, 
2013:

       I strongly urge you to stand up for the middle class and 
     small business and vote to DEFUND ObamaCare. As a small 
     business owner, we have always offered health insurance. 
     After meeting with our health insurance representative, we 
     learned that the lowest coverage level of ObamaCare offered 
     is estimated to be about $400 a person, twice what we pay now 
     for excellent coverage. . . .

[[Page S6716]]

       With big business and government being exempted from this 
     policy, again the SMALL BUSINESS OWNER and individual are 
     left with all the costs for everyone else. This could well 
     end up closing our business and then there will be 15 more 
     individuals collecting from the government.

  A constituent from Nacogdoches, TX, wrote, on May 29, 2013:

       I need a little help here! Can you explain something to me? 
     My health insurance premiums for my wife, three children and 
     myself were $850 or so back in 2010. After ObamaCare was 
     passed my premiums are now $1400 or so. This January, when 
     ObamaCare is implemented it is estimated by Blue Cross 
     Blue Shield I could see a 25% increase in premiums. That 
     will be almost $1,800 a month for premiums plus on my HSA 
     plan my deductible is $10,000. If my calculator is 
     correct, that is $21,600 per year out of my pocket before 
     the insurance company pays a penny.
       I also own a small business and have four others on our 
     group plan. If this cost increase is across the board with 
     the others as well, my business will stop the benefit of 
     insurance and each will be on their own to get coverage. I 
     understood this health care overhaul would be a benefit. From 
     where I am sitting it is only a burden. If you can, please 
     repeal this before it gets worse.

  We are hearing these voices from Americans all over the country, both 
Republicans and Democrats in this body. All we need to do is listen to 
the people. A veterinarian from Montgomery, TX, wrote on February 20, 
2013:

       I would like to bring to your attention a troubling 
     development. I am a veterinarian, and in the past had to use 
     a group health care policy offered by the American Veterinary 
     Medical Association. I am currently under my husband's 
     insurance. However, a number of my colleagues use one of the 
     various plans AVMA offers. The AVMA insurance is being 
     canceled at the end of the year. This decision is due 
     directly to ObamaCare. Here is the text of that notification. 
     Group Health and Life Insurance Trust Programs and New York 
     Life attributes the program's demise to regulatory 
     requirements put in place as a result of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act signed by President Obama 
     in 2010.
       Company officials told trustees that the challenges of 
     complying with provisions of the law that take effect in 2014 
     are the primary reason New York Life opted to quit the 
     association health insurance market entirely. New York Life 
     has underwritten the American Veterinarian Medical 
     Association Trust medical coverage for the past 20 years.
       A number of veterinarians are contract labor, called relief 
     veterinarians. These vets contract out on a daily or weekly 
     basis to fill in for doctors at various clinics when someone 
     takes a vacation or during seasonal business increases. Many 
     of those vets do not have access to health care in any other 
     way. This is a travesty. Perfectly good plans are being 
     discontinued due to a perfectly awful law. This health care 
     law is directly contributing to people losing their health 
     care.
       My husband and I made long-term plans to potentially retire 
     early and use an AVMA plan until eligible for Medicare. We 
     also had the safety net of the AVMA insurance if something 
     happened with this job. For me, AVMA's decision is currently 
     an inconvenience. However, it removes an option for me in the 
     future. My colleagues on the other hand will likely be forced 
     into inferior health care or pay penalties through no fault 
     of their own.

  We all remember President Obama told the American people: If you like 
your health insurance plan, you can keep it. Even in these cynical days 
of politics, promises should mean something. For this woman and her 
husband, that promise is a hollow failure. She is losing her health 
insurance because of ObamaCare. That is not me saying that, not some 
politician saying that. That is from her own words.
  The rules of the Senate will not allow her or any other small 
business owner to walk onto the Senate floor and speak out, to say: Why 
am I losing my health insurance? Why am I struggling? Why is my 
business going under? So I am doing my very best to in some small way 
help provide a voice for those people who are struggling, those people 
who are hurting.
  But if this body were operating the way it should, there should be 
100 voices; 100 of us, Democrats and Republicans, should be standing 
side by side reading letter after letter like this. You know what. 
These are our bosses. These are the people we work for. They are 
struggling.
  These letters I am reading are not ideological letters. They are not 
coming from a partisan perspective. They are people who are seeing on 
the ground this law is not working.
  Yet DC does not listen to them. The Democrats in this body tell 
America: ObamaCare is great. ObamaCare is terrific. I am sorry you lost 
your health care, but ObamaCare is terrific. The Republicans in this 
body, sadly more than a few of them, say: We will take lots and lots of 
symbolic votes against ObamaCare, but there is nothing we can do. If 
every Republican Senator stands together and votes no on cloture this 
Friday or Saturday, there is something we can do. We can stand and say: 
We are listening to the American people. This law is not working and 
people are suffering.
  They are not interested in political games. They are not interested 
in show votes. They are not interested in the fact that if the majority 
leader succeeds in cutting off debate on this bill and there is a 51-
vote threshold on an amendment to fund ObamaCare, at that point every 
Republican will happily vote no. That may be solicited from the 
personal political perspectives of the Republicans in this body, but it 
does not benefit the American people one iota. It does not benefit the 
American people. It does not stop ObamaCare. It does not fix the 
problem. That is what we should be doing.
  A constituent from Euless, TX, wrote on July 3, 2013:

       I have been disabled since 1997 and on a fixed income. My 
     wife lost her job of 16 years in 2008 and was not able to 
     find a good job so she was forced to take her Social Security 
     last year at age 62. She is 41-year type I diabetic and her 
     medical costs are expensive. Luckily, I was paying for 
     medical and long-term disability insurance when I was 
     working, which allowed me to continue the medical insurance 
     with a company even after I became disabled.
       I got a letter in May of this year informing me that I was 
     going to lose that medical coverage come 2014. Since we are 
     both on a fixed income, it will be impossible for us to 
     maintain our mortgage and to start paying for all of our 
     health costs. Repeal ObamaCare.

  These are voices from the people. This is a disabled man, a senior 
couple who is suffering, who is losing their health insurance because 
of ObamaCare. Every one of us has an obligation to listen to people.
  Look, I understand in Washington, in a football game we all cheer for 
our respective team. I cheer when the Houston Texans win a game. I am 
not generally thrilled, having grown up in Houston in the 1970s, when 
the Pittsburgh Steelers win a game, because I remember as a kid year 
after year seeing the Steelers sadly trounce the Oilers and the great 
Earl Campbell when the Steelers had one of the greatest football teams 
ever to play the game. I understand that. It is a good thing to cheer 
for your team.
  In politics sometimes we cheer for our team too. So I understand the 
great many Democrats who take the view: Well, a Democratic President 
signed the law, Democrats passed the law on a straight party vote so we 
have got to cheer for our team. You know, I will note that more than a 
few Democratic Members of this body privately, when they are behind 
closed doors, are worried about what is happening to ObamaCare. They 
are seeing the problems. But yet publicly they are still cheering for 
their team.
  This is not a team sport. This is life and death. There is a 
fundamental divide between the people and Washington. We need to make 
DC listen, listen to the people.
  Mr. PAUL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. PAUL. You know, Senators do not always ask for advice from other 
Senators. I thought I would come down and make sure the Senator had 
comfortable shoes on, make sure he is getting enough to eat--try not to 
eat on television. That is a little free advice that sometimes shows 
up.
  But my question relates to ObamaCare. I think the Senator has done a 
good job of bringing attention to something I think is going to be a 
real tragedy for the country. As we get involved with this, there is so 
much talk about tactics and this or that, whether now is the right 
time, when is the right time to do this, but I think the question is, 
do we need to talk about something that is going to affect 16 percent 
of our economy, one-sixth of our economy? Do we need to bring up an 
issue? Do we need to draw attention and try to stop something that 
could be damaging to the people precisely it is intended to help?
  I think it is personally not a good idea to shut down government. I 
think it is also, though, not a good idea to fund ObamaCare. Can they 
both go together? Can you do one without the

[[Page S6717]]

other? Some, like the President, have said: Oh, Republicans, they just 
want 100 percent of what they want or they are going to shut down 
government.
  Well, can you say something so patently false and get away with it, 
is my question. The President wants 100 percent of what he wants. He 
wants ObamaCare as he passed it with only Democrats. He wants it never 
to be changed. He wants no compromise. He wants what he wants or he is 
willing to shut down the government. That is what this debate is about.
  ObamaCare was passed with only Democrats, no Republican input, no 
Republican votes. When people are saying there are problems, his own 
people are saying there are problems. The Teamsters have said there is 
a problem. Authors of the bill are saying it is a train wreck. The 
former President came out this week and said: It is going to hurt the 
people it was intended to help.
  So we have got all of these people saying: For goodness sakes, slow 
this train down. Stop this train. Stop this train wreck of ObamaCare. 
All everybody cries about is: Oh, somebody wants to shut down the 
government. The President does not want to compromise.
  What we are talking about is, we do not want to spend money on 
something that is not going to work and hurt the people--precisely the 
people it was intended to help. But the thing is, how do we fix it? 
What do we do? Can we scrap the whole thing? Well, the Democrats 
control one body, we control the other body, they control the 
Presidency.
  Historically what would happen, and what I think the American people 
would like to see is, we stand up, as the Senator from Texas is, and 
say what we are for. We are for a different solution. We are for 
competition. We are for the free markets. We are for bringing health 
care to everyone with a lower price. We went through this whole debacle 
of giving people ObamaCare and it is going to be expensive. Everybody 
is going to pay more.
  Many people still will not have insurance. The ones who do have 
insurance are going to pay more. So what would we like? Why are we here 
today? Why is the Senator from Texas here today? To say to the 
President: We need to talk. What does the President say? He says: My 
way or the highway.
  When the American people said they want dialog between Republicans 
and Democrats, how do we get there? We have to stand for what we 
believe in so they will come and talk. Does it mean we are going to get 
100 percent of what we want? No. But if we do not stand for what we 
believe, how will we have any dialog? How will we get to compromise? 
How do we get them to talk to us? We are not asking for 100 percent of 
what we want, but we are asking for a dialog. How do we get the dialog 
unless someone is willing to stand and say: Enough is enough. When we 
look at this, if we want to ever get to the point of getting to 
compromise, the only way we get there is by standing and saying we 
believe in this.
  It isn't about us demanding 100 percent of what we want. But right 
now, if you look at this objectively, the President is getting 100 
percent of what he wants--ObamaCare passed only by Democrats, not one 
Republican vote. Really, how do we get to what the American people 
want, which is dialog and compromise? We have to look at a deadline. We 
have a deadline.
  My question to the Senator from Texas is whether he wants to shut 
down the government. Is that his intention or is it the President's 
intention to shut down the government or is it that perhaps when 
deadlines come forward, that is a good time for dialog because no one 
ever seems to talk at any other time?
  I would ask the Senator from Texas, what are his intentions? Does he 
want to shut down the government or would he like to find something to 
make ObamaCare less bad? I know we would both like to repeal it, but 
would the Senator accept anything in between?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his very fine 
question. Let me say at the outset before I respond directly to the 
question that I remember not too many months ago standing on this same 
Senate floor in the midst of the Senator's historic filibuster. I will 
say it was one of the proudest moments of my life. Indeed, during that 
filibuster on drones, that was the first time I had ever spoken on the 
Senate floor.
  I have observed multiple times that I will go to my grave in debt to 
Rand Paul, to have the opportunity for the first time--and there will 
only be one first time that anyone gets to speak on this floor--to have 
that first time be in support of that tremendous filibuster that 
mobilized and unified the American people.
  I will note that one of the things I remember the Senator shared with 
me afterward was the advice he just gave a minute ago. I remember 
asking: What do you think? The Senator was pretty weary at the end. His 
comment at the time was, well, I wish I had worn more comfortable 
shoes. I will confess I thought about that. That struck me as pretty 
good advice.
  I am going to make an embarrassing admission right now. I will get to 
the question in a second, but I wanted to make an embarrassing 
admission first. For many years, when I was in private practice and 
when I was solicitor general, I wore a particular pair of boots, my 
argument boots. They were black ostrich boots. Litigators are kind of 
superstitious, so anytime I went into court to argue a case I wore my 
argument boots. I had them resoled four or five times.
  When I had the great honor of serving in this body, of being sworn 
into the Senate, when I was sworn in standing on the steps just in 
front of us, I wore my argument boots. I have worn them every day 
since. I don't believe there has been a day on this Senate floor that I 
haven't worn my argument boots.
  I had a choice with which I was confronted, which was do I follow 
through and wear my argument boots or do I listen to the very sage 
counsel from my friend from Kentucky and go with more comfortable 
shoes. I will embarrassingly admit that I took the coward's way out. I 
went and purchased some black tennis shoes. Actually, I think they are 
the same model the senior Senator from Utah Orrin Hatch wears on a 
regular basis. I am not in my argument boots, and I will confess I do 
feel pretty embarrassed by that. I am pretty sure, since we are on the 
Senate floor and C-SPAN is covering it, that this may not be covered by 
the priest-penitent privilege, but I do feel it is a question of sorts.
  The question Senator Rand Paul asked was an excellent question. His 
question was whether I or anyone here wishes to shut down the 
government. The answer is absolutely not. We should not shut down the 
government. We should fund every bit of the government, every aspect of 
the government, 100 percent of the government except for ObamaCare. 
That is what the House of Representatives did. The House of 
Representatives--232 Members of the House, including 2 Democrats--voted 
to fund every bit of the Federal Government, 100 percent of it, except 
for ObamaCare.
  I would note that last night on the floor of the Senate, I asked the 
majority leader to consent to passing the continuing resolution the 
House passed, passing it into law. Had the majority leader not stood 
there and said: I object, the continuing resolution would be passed 
into law and the government would not be shutting down. The majority 
leader had every opportunity to not shut down the government.
  Let me be absolutely clear. We should not shut down the government. I 
sincerely hope Senator Reid and President Obama do not choose to force 
a government shutdown simply to force ObamaCare on the American people. 
That would be a mistake. Instead, what we should do is listen to the 
American people. Make DC listen.
  Mr. PAUL. Would the Senator yield for one quick question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a quick question without yielding 
the floor.
  Mr. PAUL. Since we are making it clear, the Republican message and 
alternative here is not to shut down the government; our desire is to 
have no ObamaCare. We desire not to have it. We think he went in the 
wrong direction. But we don't control the government. We don't control 
the government. We don't control the Senate. It is controlled by the 
opposition party. We don't control the Presidency.
  My question to the Senator is, If he can't get everything he wants, 
if he

[[Page S6718]]

can't defund ObamaCare, which is exactly what he and I both agree on, 
and millions of people across America want us to get rid of ObamaCare, 
if the Senator can't, if he stands today and argues and cannot get rid 
of it, will he accept a compromise? Will he work with the President and 
will he work with the majority leader if they are willing to come and 
say: You know, you are right. We messed up on a bunch of this. There 
are a lot of people who are going to be hurt by ObamaCare. A lot of 
part-time workers are going to lose their jobs or are going to lose 
hours. There are going to be real workers who are full time who are 
going to lose their insurance or lose their jobs. Is the Senator 
willing to work with us? Is he willing to work with the leader, Senator 
Reid, and with the President to find a compromise?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for that question. I 
think it is a very good question.
  This afternoon the Senator and I and all the Republican Members of 
the conference spent some 2 hours in a closed-door strategy session. I 
am not going to reveal what anyone else said there, but I certainly 
feel comfortable revealing what I said there, which is that if we are 
going to make real progress in solving the problem that is ObamaCare, 
in listening to the American people and mitigating the job losses, with 
people losing their health insurance, all of the harms that are coming 
from ObamaCare, we have to stand and fight right now.
  The battle before this body is the cloture vote that will occur on 
Friday or Saturday of this week. If all 46 Republicans vote together in 
unity to support the House Republicans and to deny Majority Leader Reid 
the ability to fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote, that puts 
us in a position to address the problem.
  The Senator's question was would I vote for something less than 
defunding ObamaCare. Personally, no. Why? Because I have committed 
publicly over and over to the American people that I will not vote for 
a continuing resolution that funds one penny of ObamaCare.
  I am reminded of when I first arrived in the Senate. I spent 2 years 
campaigning for the Senator from Kentucky. Senator Paul campaigned with 
me in Texas over and over.
  If you want to talk about a rock star, you should see, when Rand Paul 
shows up in Texas, the huge number of fans who come out for Senator 
Paul and for his dad.
  I spent 2 years campaigning in Texas saying: The first bill I will 
introduce in Congress will be a bill to repeal ObamaCare.
  When I showed up, there were lots of reporters. I introduced the bill 
to repeal ObamaCare.
  They immediately said: Well, why did you do that?
  My response: Well, I spent 2 years campaigning telling the American 
people that would be first bill I would introduce.
  They were utterly befuddled why anyone would actually do what they 
said.
  In answer to the Senator's question of whether I will vote for 
something that is a middle ground that funds ObamaCare partially, no. 
Why? Because, as I have repeatedly told the American people, as I have 
told Texas, I will not vote for a continuing resolution that funds 
ObamaCare. But that being said, are there Members of our conference who 
would like to see a compromise, who would like to see a middle ground 
that is perhaps not what I very much want and will fight for with every 
ounce of strength I have but that mitigates some of the damage of 
ObamaCare, that responds to the people who are suffering from 
ObamaCare, I think there are quite a few Senators who would like to see 
that happen.
  If Republicans roll over on the cloture vote on Friday or Saturday, 
if we allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare with 51 votes, we 
will get no compromise. There will be no middle ground because there 
will be no reason to compromise. It is much like a poker game. I know 
the Senator from Kentucky--many of his libertarian supporters enjoy a 
good game of poker. As a Texan, I will admit to not being entirely 
adverse to it myself. In a game of poker, if somebody makes a bet and 
then says to you ``if you raise me, I am going to fold,'' you will lose 
100 percent of your poker games. That is a path to losing.
  For those Members of the Republican caucus who were perhaps not as 
adamant that we should insist on a complete and total defund now, I 
don't intend to waiver from that position, but there may be others who 
disagree.
  If you want to get to any middle ground that is not a symbolic vote 
to tell our constituents but that actually changes the law to make 
things better for the men and women at home, to mitigate the harms of 
ObamaCare, the only way to do so is for Republicans to stand united and 
to deny the majority leader the ability to fund ObamaCare on a 51-vote 
partisan vote.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Would the courageous Senator from Texas yield for a 
question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Let me ask the Senator a question to cut to the chase. 
Let's get to the bottom line. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, 
our respected leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, because of his 
position, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and 
President Barack Obama have all said publicly that the Affordable Care 
Act is the first step to a single-payer system. Listen to the folks on 
the other side of the aisle, and many of them say the same thing.
  We can call it a single-payer system, we can call it national health 
insurance, but is this not the first step toward socialized health 
care--socialized health care--and is stopping socialized health care 
worth pulling out all of the stops and fighting the fight?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Kansas for that very fine question. 
He is exactly right. Socialized medicine is--and has been everywhere it 
has been implemented in the world--a disaster. ObamaCare--its intended 
purpose is to lead us unavoidably down that path.
  I thank the Senator from Kansas for his good question on that front 
and for his leadership.
  I would note that there are some Republicans, some commentators who 
have said: Don't fight this fight. Don't fight to defund. Why? Because 
ObamaCare is going to collapse on its own weight. If we just stay 
quiet, we don't take any risks. Give it time; it is getting worse and 
worse. Stay out of the way; it is going to collapse on its own weight. 
And there is both truth and falsity in that prediction. There is no 
doubt that ObamaCare is going to collapse. But the problem is that the 
way it will collapse, if it is implemented, is likely to permanently 
damage the private health insurance system, which will result in 
millions of people losing their health insurance and having no ability 
to go back. That is what enables Majority Leader Reid to go on 
television and say: Fear not, this will lead us to single-payer 
government health care. Because when ObamaCare collapses in shambles--
he doesn't say this, but this is the necessary reasoning that leads him 
to this--it will take down the private health insurance business with 
it, so there will be nothing left.
  Listen, I commend the majority leader for his candor. I mean, there 
is a degree of courage in embracing socialized medicine. There are a 
number of Members of the Democratic caucus who embrace socialized 
medicine. I think every one of them shows courage and candor. I am very 
happy to debate in great detail whether socialized medicine would be 
good or bad for this Nation.
  I don't think the American people are conflicted. If you look at the 
nations that have socialized medicine, everyplace it has been 
implemented you see low quality, you see scarcity, you see waiting 
periods, and you see government bureaucrats getting between you and 
your doctor. If you go in for government treatment, you may be told 
that you are going to have to wait 6 months, you are going to have to 
wait a year or, you know what. A bureaucrat in the ministry of 
whatchamacallit has determined you don't get that treatment. That is 
what has happened in every socialized medicine country in the 
world. And so to those on the Republican side, those commentators who 
say this is a risky fight, I have never once suggested this is an easy 
fight. But in my 42 years on Earth, I have yet to see any fight that

[[Page S6719]]

is worthwhile that is easy. In his years as a marine, I would venture 
to guess that Senator Roberts never saw a fight that mattered that was 
easy. None of us were elected to this body to do easy things.

  If the majority leader is right, that leaving ObamaCare alone will 
necessarily lead us to socialized medicine because private health 
insurance will collapse--ObamaCare will collapse--and there will be 
nothing left, what a call to urgency. Indeed, I would say the majority 
leader, in making that argument, should be one of the most effective 
spokespersons for saying we ought to have 46 Republicans uniting and 
voting against cloture on this bill to say: No, we are not going to let 
a partisan Democrat vote fund ObamaCare because we are not going to be 
complicit in any way, shape or form with destroying private health 
insurance and forcing Americans into socialized medicine.
  Let me note that in the meantime, even for those who somewhat 
serenely say: Fear not; this is going to collapse on its own. The 
process will inevitably be painful. Just a few minutes ago I read a 
letter from a constituent from Euless, TX, who is disabled and on a 
fixed income, whose wife has retired and who has lost his insurance 
because of ObamaCare. There are millions of Americans in Kansas, in 
Kentucky, in Alabama, in Texas, and in States all over this country who 
are worried right now because their health insurance is in jeopardy. In 
my view the decision of some Members of the Senate to say: Well, let 
ObamaCare collapse--either on the Republican side because when it 
collapses it will all just magically go away, or on the Democratic side 
because when it collapses it will lead us all to the perfect utopia of 
socialized medicine--is easy. It is easy for Members of this body to 
say such things from the cheap seats, particularly when the President 
has granted an exemption to Members of Congress from ObamaCare, where 
they feel that if the system collapses, if millions of Americans are 
suffering, it is not going to be us. It is not going to be our staff. 
The President has carved us out for special rules. It is just going to 
be the American people.
  The most fundamental divide that is happening here is this body has 
stopped listening to the American people. We ought to have the urgency 
for this man and woman in Euless, TX, who is disabled and on a fixed 
income and retired and who wants to keep his health insurance, that we 
have for ourselves and our staffs. We ought to have that kind of 
urgency. And you know what. If it were our wife or our husband's health 
insurance, we wouldn't say: Let the system collapse because, in time, 
there will be a political victory. I guarantee if it were our spouse's, 
if it were our daughter's or son's health insurance, particularly if 
they had significant health issues, not one of us would be serene in 
saying: Let it collapse, because we want to immunize ourselves from the 
criticism or because we want to ultimately move to socialized medicine.
  I think the stakes have never been higher. In my view, the cloture 
vote we will take on either Friday or Saturday of this week is the most 
important vote that I will have taken--I think that any Member of the 
Senate will have taken--in the 9 months I have served in this body 
because it goes fundamentally to: Will we respond to the suffering 
ObamaCare is causing? Will we respond to the millions of people who are 
jobless? Will we respond to the people getting forced into part-time 
work? Will we respond to the people who are losing their health care or 
will we continue to say: For me but not for thee. Different rules apply 
to Washington that apply to the ruling class. The President can grant 
exemptions to the big corporations and to Members of Congress, but 
hardworking American families, you guys are left in the cold. I would 
suggest that is a fundamental abdication of our responsibility. We are 
here--or we should be here--fighting for the people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. By chance, or maybe because of the significance of it, 
my first question is very similar to what Senator Roberts had asked, 
because I have given a lot of thought to this. I haven't signed 
letters. I haven't said how I was going to vote on this issue. But it 
was called to my attention that Senator Reid, the majority leader, 
flatly stated a month ago he believed in a single-payer system.
  They asked him: Is it the Senator's goal to move toward a single-
payer system? And his answer is: yes, yes, absolutely yes.
  I just left the Budget Committee hearing. We have a great team there, 
on the Republican and Democrat side, and my friend Sheldon Whitehouse 
and I had a little exchange about the new health care law, and I 
thought he was suggesting it wasn't much of a change. So I asked him 
this, I said: The majority leader said he favors a single-payer system. 
He said: I do too.
  It wasn't long ago in the Budget Committee that Senator Bernie 
Sanders also said he favored a single-payer system. And Senator Roberts 
mentioned others. And of course the President did. I checked the 
President's quote from 2003. He has denied it since, when he was trying 
to get the votes to pass the new law, but in 2003 he said he was a 
proponent of a ``single-payer universal health system.''
  I think this is a huge national issue. This new health care law is 
clearly driven by an agenda: to have a single payer. So I ask Senator 
Cruz: If there is a single payer, who will the payer be?
  Mr. CRUZ. The payer is always the government, which ultimately means 
the taxpayer, hardworking American families.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In other words, the Federal Government?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will continue to yield for a question without yielding 
the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Let me ask this. In other words, the government is 
going to be the one that pays for everything. In health care in America 
there will be only one payer, the government, and it would then, since 
it is a predominant power, be able to dictate health policy, such as in 
the socialized medical systems that have failed around the world; would 
it not?
  Mr. CRUZ. The Senator is absolutely correct. Once the government is 
paying for health care, it controls health care. That has proven to be 
the case in every country in the world.
  I agree with the Senator from Alabama that it is commendable that 
there are some Members of this body who openly embrace socialized 
medicine. That is commendable for candor. I don't agree with it as a 
policy matter, but I actually think there is virtue to speaking 
honestly about what it is you support and not occupying the middle 
ground, as those--to take a quote from Teddy Roosevelt slightly out of 
context--cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
  One of the problems in this debate over ObamaCare is the relatively 
few who are candid about what ObamaCare is designed to do. It is worth 
noting, as Senator Sessions has, that Majority Leader Reid is not a 
passive observer from the sidelines. He is the man responsible, in his 
role as majority leader, for passing ObamaCare through this body with 
only Democratic votes--without a single Republican vote. So when he 
says it is designed to lead to a single-payer system, when he says it 
is designed to lead to socialized medicine, we should trust that he 
knows what he is talking about.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, if the Senator will yield again for a 
question.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And is it not true--since Senator Reid has made his 
position crystal clear ideologically, and based on the actions the 
Senator from Texas and I have observed--that he has steadfastly 
resisted any change whatsoever in the legislation as passed, certainly 
any change that would constrict its power and reach?
  Mr. CRUZ. I think Senator Sessions is exactly correct.
  If we look at the way this vote is set up, Republicans are being 
asked to vote with majority leader Harry Reid to shut off debate on 
this bill. Any Republican who votes yes on Friday or Saturday to invoke 
cloture will be voting alongside majority leader Harry Reid to give 
Leader Reid the authority to fund ObamaCare using just 51 votes on a 
straight party-line vote, which is exactly how ObamaCare passed in the 
first place.

[[Page S6720]]

  At the same time the majority leader has made clear he is not going 
to allow other amendments. He is not going to allow amendments that 
would improve ObamaCare or fix ObamaCare. He is not going to allow the 
amendment of Senator Vitter, as we talked about earlier, that would 
correct or get rid of the congressional exemption and treat Members of 
Congress the same as the American people, get rid of President Obama's 
lawless exemption, and stop treating Members of Congress like a 
privileged ruling class who are different from the American people. 
Leader Reid has said he is not going to allow a vote on that, not going 
to allow a vote on repealing the medical devices tax that has been 
crippling the medical devices industry, and that is killing innovation 
and killing jobs.
  If Republicans are complicit in shutting off debate and allowing just 
a single vote on funding ObamaCare, then we have only ourselves to 
blame. If we give the majority leader the power to do that, we should 
not be surprised when he exercises it. It is within the power of the 46 
Republicans in this body to say no, to say: No, we will not shut off 
debate that allows the majority leader to use 51 votes to fund 
ObamaCare on a straight party-line partisan Democratic vote. We will 
not be complicit in a process that treats Members of Congress like a 
privileged ruling class and that ignores the cries for help from the 
American people. All we have to do to accomplish that is for 
Republicans to stand together and stand united.
  It is my hope, my fervent hope, that the voices of dissension within 
the Republican conference will stop firing at each other and start 
firing at the target. And let me be clear who the target is. The target 
is not Democrats. I don't want us to start firing at Democrats or at 
the President or at anyone else. It is not about us. The target is 
ObamaCare. It is fixing this train wreck that is hurting the American 
people.
  If Members of the Republican conference in the Senate could devote 
one-tenth of the ferocity they have devoted to fighting within the 
caucus on this issue, to actually stopping ObamaCare--not a symbolic 
vote, not a press release, not a speech, but actually fixing the 
problem--I could think of nothing better this Senate could do.
  And you know what. If, instead of 100 Senators, this Chamber had 100 
citizens picked from our States at random, I guarantee not a one of 
them would say in discussing this: You know what we need is a bunch of 
symbolic votes. They wouldn't say that. Regular people who live on 
planet Earth would know a symbolic vote is not a good thing or bad 
thing. They would say, if we grabbed any hundred--and I wouldn't even 
have a partisan screen on it. I would grab 100 people at random, and I 
guarantee you they would say: We have to fix ObamaCare. This thing is 
hurting people.
  The problem is too many Members of this body are not listening, and 
we need to make DC listen.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, without yielding the floor, will the 
Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I notice a real low number of jobs being created this 
year. And the reports were that 77 percent of those jobs created this 
year were part-time, not full-time jobs.
  Allan Meltzer, one of the great economists in the last 50 years, a 
knowledgeable observer of our economy, just testified in a Budget 
Committee maybe 3 hours ago that ObamaCare was a factor in that 
occurring.
  Would the Senator agree that we have had this extraordinary increase 
in part-time jobs rather than full-time jobs, and that is hammering 
working Americans who need full-time work?
  Mr. CRUZ. Senator Sessions is absolutely right. One of the most 
devastating consequences of ObamaCare is that it is forcing so many 
Americans into part-time work. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2013 second 
quarter small business survey found that among small businesses that 
will be impacted by the employer mandate, 50 percent of small 
businesses say they will either cut out to reduce full-time employees 
or replace full-time employees with part-time employees to avoid the 
mandate, and 24 percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 
employees.
  As Senator Sessions knows, this is not one isolated anecdote here or 
there. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, this is 50 percent of 
small businesses reducing employees' hours forcibly or just hiring 
part-time employees instead. This is an enormous problem. Who gets 
hurt? When someone gets their hours reduced to 29 hours a week, it is 
never the CEO. It is usually not the lawyers. It is usually not the 
professionals. It is absolutely never Senators and Members of Congress.
  The people whose hours get forcibly reduced are almost always, 
without exception, the vulnerable among us. They are the young, they 
are the Hispanics, the African Americans, the single mom working in a 
diner, struggling to feed her kids, to be a good example to her kids, 
who suddenly finds instead of having one job where she works her 
fingers to the bones to take care of her kids, she has to get two 
because 29 hours a week is not enough to provide for her kids. Suddenly 
she has two jobs, both at 29 hours a week. She has to commute from one 
to the other. She has to deal with two bosses. Boss No. 1 says: I want 
you at work Tuesday morning. Boss No. 2 says: I want you at work 
Tuesday morning. What is a single mom supposed to do?
  Earlier this afternoon I read from a constituent's letter talking 
about low-income housing in Virginia, where a significant percentage of 
the residents were janitorial or service industry workers and were 
paying their rent out of their own pocket. Because of ObamaCare, 
because of having their hours reduced, they weren't able to pay the 
rent. I will read two sentences from a constituent letter from a 
commercial real estate broker in Chesapeake City, VA.

       Most of the tenants work in fast food, janitorial, and low-
     paying service-related jobs. A great deal of them had their 
     hours cut to 29.5 hours per week and cannot pay the rent.

  So they are losing their apartments and being forced to live 
elsewhere. This is a tragedy playing out across this country, and it is 
incumbent on this body to listen to the people. We need to make DC 
listen.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question 
without yielding the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know the Senator is aware that the number of people 
employed in the workforce today has fallen to the lowest level since 
1975 and wages have declined. We learned today in our Budget Committee 
hearing we have had a surge from around 300,000 people working part-
time to 1 million.
  These are bad trends, but one place has avoided that; that is, the 
Washington, DC, area. It has had more job growth, higher income job 
growth than any place in America.
  If this bill becomes entrenched into law, will it not create a huge 
additional increase of government workers and bureaucrats in and around 
this city, all riding on the backs of American workers?
  Mr. CRUZ. The Senator from Alabama is absolutely correct. One of the 
disturbing trends we have seen in recent years is the boom business in 
our economy is government. There are lots of consequences to that; one 
is that the best and the brightest learn, hey, you want to have 
success, go into government. The private sector? That is apparently not 
what America is about.
  Look right now at government employees who are paid substantially 
more than their counterparts in the private sector. It is one of the 
reasons Senator Vitter's amendment would say that Members of Congress 
shall be subject to the same rules as the American people and not have 
the special exemption President Obama has put in place is so important 
and why I support an even broader amendment that would include all 
Federal employees on the ObamaCare exchanges.
  Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle routinely say 
ObamaCare is terrific, it is great. If that is the case, then Members 
of Congress should be excited about being on those exchanges, which are 
apparently so great for our constituents, and so should Federal 
workers. But they are not, indeed, as the Senator from Alabama knows 
well.
  This issue has caused more consternation among Members and 
congressional staff than probably any

[[Page S6721]]

other issue because people are quite rightly afraid of losing their 
health insurance and losing their coverage.
  That concern is not irrational. There are many good public servants, 
congressional staffers who are Federal employees, even who are Members 
of the Senate. It is not irrational at all for them to be concerned 
about losing their health insurance and forced onto poor-quality health 
insurance. But that desire shouldn't push us to say let's exempt them. 
We don't want to be subject to it. That desire should push us to fight 
for hard-working American families. That desire should say: If we don't 
want to be on the exchanges, let's not make anyone else be on them. 
That divide between Washington--the ruling class--and the American 
people is the most significant reason for the disillusion we see.

  The view from Americans all over this country--and this is true of 
conservatives and liberals--is that Washington doesn't listen. 
Politicians don't listen. We just had an August recess. A significant 
number of Members of this body held no townhalls, didn't go back and 
listen to their constituents. You can't fault Americans for saying 
politicians don't listen to us when, in fact, politicians don't listen 
to us. That is what this fight is about.
  If it is just up to Washington, we are not going to have to do 
anything to stop ObamaCare. For one thing, Members of Congress and 
their staff are exempted so there is no urgency. But if we listen to 
the American people, there is urgency. That is why it is so critical 
that we make DC listen.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, if the Senator would yield for another 
question.
  Mr. CRUZ. I would be happy to yield for a question without yielding 
the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know the Senator is aware that Senator Baucus, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, a long-time Senator who I believe 
has announced he is not going to run again but shepherded this 
legislation through the Senate and worked in many ways to try to make 
it better--lost some battles in that time--has referred to this as a 
``train wreck'' because there are so many things going wrong right now. 
Did the Senator hear that from him?
  It seems to me we are at a point where we have to push hard. That is 
the conclusion I have come to, and I will ask the Senator's opinion. It 
seems to me we are at a position where we need to push hard to force 
discussion of this legislation because the majority leader wants to 
make it even bigger government, to take it even further. He is blocking 
and going to resist any attempt to have real debate, real amendments 
being offered. He will not allow votes, and he is going to fill the 
tree and otherwise dominate the Senate so we can't even have the 
classic debate and amendments and votes to improve this train wreck of 
a law.
  Is that the way the Senator sees the situation we are in today?
  Mr. CRUZ. Senator Sessions is absolutely correct. I would note, first 
of all, the Senate Democrat who is the lead author of ObamaCare has 
referred to ObamaCare's implementation as ``a major train wreck.'' That 
is not I speaking. That is not Senator Sessions speaking. That is the 
lead author of ObamaCare, a Democratic Senator.
  I commend his candor. It is indeed a major train wreck. I have no 
doubt that more than a few of his colleagues on that side of the aisle 
were unhappy with him for speaking the truth on that.
  There should be a lot more truth-speaking in this body, not engaging 
in partisan team politics but speaking the truth for the American 
people. That was commendable for Senator Baucus to speak for the 
American people and say this is a major train wreck. We need to all 
acknowledge it is a major train wreck and then step forward to avert 
the train wreck.
  Senator Sessions' second point is a very important one. I note 
Senator Sessions is an elder statesman in this body, has served 
admirably a great many years, fighting for the citizens of Alabama, and 
is well experienced when a day a time existed when the Senate operated 
like a deliberative body, where Senators would speak and offer 
amendments and amendments could be considered. That doesn't occur now.
  The practice Senator Sessions referred to, and I suspect some folks 
may not be familiar with, is called filling the tree. Filling the tree 
has become commonplace. Filling the tree is a procedural and 
parliamentary tree that only the majority leader can do. The majority 
leader has a privileged role under the Senate rules in that he has 
priority of recognition, the ability to insist he is the first Senator 
on the floor to be recognized.
  Filling the tree enables him to do what he has said he is going to do 
on this bill, which is file an amendment to fund ObamaCare in its 
entirety and then fill the tree so no other Senator can offer any 
amendments, so the other 99 Senators are muzzled, we can't offer 
amendments to improve ObamaCare, we can't offer amendments to fix 
ObamaCare, and we can't offer amendments to do anything. Indeed, the 
more liberal Members of the Democratic caucus can't offer amendments to 
adopt a single-payer socialized medicine system, which some of them 
openly embrace. That is a sign of a Senate that is not working.
  There should be open debate and there should be open amendments. One 
of the great strengths of this body is that all 100 Senators for most 
of the history of the Republic could offer any amendment at virtually 
any time. That has all but disappeared. Why has it disappeared?
  For folks who are at home watching this debate, it is easy to let the 
procedure make your eyes glaze over. When you hear someone talk about 
invoking cloture on the motion to proceed, it is utterly 
incomprehensible to virtually anyone in the country. Indeed, I suspect 
more than a few people on the floor of the Senate right now don't quite 
understand what it means.
  But what is all the procedure about? Why should you care about 
filling the tree? You should care about it because it is a tool of 
power, of silencing the people, and using the positions of power to 
enforce Washington's ideological view on the rest of this country.
  If we got out of Washington, DC, if we went to the American people 
and said what are your top priorities--we actually have. We don't have 
to hypothesize about that. The American people over and over again say 
jobs and the economy are their top priorities. The American people want 
ObamaCare stopped because it is not working, it is killing jobs, it is 
pushing people into part-time work. Yet this Senate has not been 
listening to the American people.
  We need to make DC listen.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would also observe, and the Senator probably is 
aware, it does appear there is a budget point of order against this 
whole continuing resolution. I want to mention a couple of things.
  I want to thank the Senator for having the courage to stand here and 
raise the concerns I am hearing all over my State. I had three separate 
meetings in August, as I traveled the State, with small business 
groups. It is difficult to overstate the concerns they have with this 
law. They tell me without a doubt it is impacting their willingness to 
hire and the uncertainty in the workplace is damaging business in 
America, and they are passionate about it.
  They are struggling to get by. They are laying off people and they 
are not happy about it. They say this law alone is the primary thing 
that is hammering them in this country. I have given a lot of thought 
to it. I am beginning to see that we have to use the opportunities we 
have to confront this issue and talk about it and try to force some 
changes and improvements.
  I appreciate the effort, and I am going to support the Senator. I am 
going to oppose any advancing of the final bill that does not provide 
some change in ObamaCare.
  I did not sign the letter, and have some great friends who see it 
differently than I do who likewise are totally opposed to the health 
care law. I want to be sure people who are listening need to know good 
people, I think, can disagree on this. But the Senator stood up and 
raised the question and forced us to confront it and talk about it and 
I think it is good. I intend to support him. I am not going to vote to 
move a bill where we are sure we are going to be blocked from having 
any

[[Page S6722]]

meaningful discussion on one of the most historic, damaging laws in 
maybe the last hundred years that would basically move us to single-
payer, government-run socialized medicine. I think that is where we are 
heading.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership. Hopefully we can begin to 
force this Senate to act. The House has already acted. They have 
repeatedly acted to fix this legislation, because it is so damaging. 
But the Senate, the Democratic Senate, refuses to act. It refuses to 
listen. That is the problem I have. One way I have to express that is 
to support the position the Senator has taken.
  I thank him very much and wish him good luck.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his question and 
fundamentally for his support. His support is very needed. Senator 
Sessions is a man who is respected in this body. He commands the 
respect of his peers.
  If you read the newspapers, the votes have already been decided. If 
you watch the TV commentators, I read one newspaper article--it was 
actually styled a news article--that talked about the ``effort to 
defund ObamaCare, which is doomed to fail.''
  That was the lead, the opening line of what purported to be an 
objective news article. A lot of folks in official Washington and the 
Washington establishment have said there is no way this can happen.
  Three weeks ago they said there is no way the House is going to vote 
to defund ObamaCare. Three weeks ago you read it was impossible, cannot 
happen, will not happen. Yet on Friday the House voted overwhelmingly 
to defund ObamaCare.
  This week it is all the same pundits. A funny thing: Everyone who 
said it is impossible in the House--apparently there are no 
consequences for their being proved laughingly, totally, completely 
wrong. And they all come out with the same certainty, the same deep 
baritone voices, to say it is impossible that the votes will be there 
in the Senate. Republicans will not stand together.
  Let me point to just a minute ago. Senator Jeff Sessions who, as he 
knows, was not on the letter Senator Mike Lee circulated, was not 
initially part of the group--according to all of the press, anyone who 
was not on the letter was necessarily going to oppose us, and Senator 
Sessions is here, courageously standing, and I appreciate his 
leadership, his principle, and his courage. I am going to suggest this 
debate is having exactly the function it is supposed to.
  Back when this body was in fact the world's greatest deliberative 
body, as it was reputed to be, debates were about moving hearts and 
minds and making the case. How can we best serve the American people? 
Now, sadly, debates usually occur in an empty Chamber and the 
Washington establishment tells us this is the result of the vote before 
it happens.
  Let me note for those of you keeping score at home, the momentum has 
consistently been in favor of defunding ObamaCare. Two months ago 
everyone said it was impossible, the American people were not behind 
it, the House was not behind it, the Senate was not behind it, it could 
not happen. We saw the American people unite. We saw over 1.6 million 
Americans sign a national petition, we saw the House unite, and now the 
Senate must unite, and I am grateful to Senator Sessions for his 
leadership and his support.
  Mr. RUBIO. I thank the Senator for his efforts here today and in the 
weeks that led us here. I ask the Senator from Texas--let me preface 
this by saying so much of the focus--if you read the coverage, all the 
focus is on what is going to happen, the process, the votes, who is 
going to vote what. I think that is important and I think we will have 
a conversation about that in the moments to come.
  What I am most enthusiastic about in the last few hours is there is 
an increasing focus on why. Why are people so passionate about 
ObamaCare, particularly those who are opposed to it? Why is there a 
growing number of Americans coming out and saying ObamaCare is a bad 
idea? Why are Republicans united against ObamaCare?
  Let's be clear. We do have a tactical debate going on in the 
Republican Party about the right way to stop ObamaCare. What there is 
no debate about among Republicans is this is a bad idea for the 
country. Why are we so passionate about that? I only speak for myself 
in what I am about to say, and I think it speaks for others. I will ask 
the Senator from Texas to comment in a moment about that. I think 
sometimes when you are born and raised, as I have been, your whole life 
in this country, speaking for myself, sometimes it is easy to take for 
granted how special America is because this is all you have known, this 
is all we have ever been around so we take that for granted a little 
bit.
  I had a blessing, similar to the same one the Senator from Texas had. 
I actually grew up around people who knew what life was like somewhere 
else. They knew what America had is special because they lived 
somewhere else and they knew what the world was like outside of 
America. It is a reminder that what makes America different and special 
from the rest of the world is that it is one of the few places in human 
history where no matter where you start out in life, no matter how poor 
you were, no matter how poor your parents were, no matter how 
disconnected they may be from power, if you are willing to work hard 
and you are willing to sacrifice, you can have a better life.
  For us Americans, that seems, of course, right. That is the way it 
has always been. It is not. In fact, for almost all of human history 
that has not been the case. In much of the world that is still not the 
case. For almost all of human history almost everyone who has ever 
lived is basically trapped by whatever they were born into. If your 
parents were poor, you were poor. If your parents were farmers, you 
were a farmer. I want you to think about what that means for a moment. 
Imagine for a second--because all of us have dreams and hopes, when you 
are young, especially. Imagine for a second if you are someone with 
talent and dreams and aspirations and ambitions but knowing that in the 
society you live in, none of that matters because you are not from the 
right people. You don't come from the right family. Imagine how 
frustrating that must be.
  That is the story of humanity up until about 200 years ago when the 
American experiment began, based on something very powerful the Senator 
from Texas talked about a moment ago, the idea that every single one of 
us has a God-given right to go as far as our talent and our work will 
take us.
  The result is the most extraordinary story in all of human history. I 
point that out today because I remember growing up knowing my parents 
wanted me to clearly understand that I would have a chance to do things 
they never had a chance to do because I lived in an extraordinary place 
unlike any that had ever existed before.
  Fast forward to today and the challenges we face as a country. The 
one thing that most worries me as I analyze American politics and the 
state of our country is there is a growing number of people who are 
starting to doubt whether that dream is still true; a growing number of 
people who are starting to wonder is it still true that if you work 
hard and you sacrifice, you can get ahead. Do you know why they are 
doubting that? Because they are working hard, they are working harder 
than they ever have, they are sacrificing, and not only are they not 
getting ahead, they are struggling to keep from falling behind.
  There are a lot of reasons why this is happening. Globalization has 
changed the nature of our economy. So have advances in information 
technology. We have an emerging skills gap in this country where 
unfortunately many Americans have not acquired the skills needed for 
these new jobs in the 21st century. We have to address these things. 
Societal breakdown is real. It is having an impact. In fact, it is one 
of the leading causes of poverty in the United States, and that is 
troubling too.
  But for those of us who are in the Federal Government and in the 
policymaking branch of government, I think it is time we realize that 
one of the leading threats to the American dream is the policies that 
are being pursued at the Federal level, policies that are undermining 
the free enterprise system. Here is why that is important--because the 
only economy, the only economic system in human history that rewards 
hard work, sacrifice, and merit is the American free enterprise

[[Page S6723]]

system. The evidence is all over the world. Look all over the world at 
people whose families have lived in poverty for generations, who now 
have joined the middle class. They live in countries that are trying to 
copy the American economic example. They don't live in countries that 
embrace socialism, they don't live in countries that embrace big 
government. They live in places that are trying to move toward free 
enterprise. Free enterprise has eradicated more poverty than all the 
government programs in the world combined. That is the story of free 
enterprise. That is why it is startling that over the last few decades, 
Federal policies have contributed steadily to undermining the free 
enterprise system.
  We talk about all those policies, but ObamaCare is an example of 
that. You ask yourself how does ObamaCare undermine the free enterprise 
system? There are a few examples. First, because of the disruptive 
costs and rules created by ObamaCare, there are thousands of middle-
class jobs that will not be created. These are jobs that were going to 
be created that someone wanted to create. I met a restaurant owner. I 
think he was from Louisiana. He testified before the Small Business 
Committee. He wants to open new restaurants. He has specific sites in 
mind. He knows he can make it work. He is not going to do it and he 
cites ObamaCare as the reason why. Those are jobs that were going to be 
created that do not now exist because of ObamaCare. That undermines the 
free enterprise system.
  ObamaCare has a mandate. It has already been discussed here on the 
floor. It says if you have more than 50 full-time workers, you have to 
live by a bunch of mandates that it creates. Do you know what the 
result of that has been? Businesses close to that number are deciding I 
don't want to have 50 employees, I want to have 48 or 49 so that 
doesn't apply to me because I can't afford for it to apply to me. Do 
you know what that means? That means those were jobs that were going to 
be created or those are jobs that were there but now they are part 
time. That means you lost money out of your paycheck.
  It also has redefined, ObamaCare has redefined what part-time work 
is. An American economic reality is that part-time work is anything 
less than 40 hours, except for ObamaCare, anything less than 30 hours. 
So what is happening? People working part time are losing their hours.
  Real world example. Sea World in Florida just announced it is moving 
over 2,000 of its part-time employees from 32 hours a week to 28 hours 
a week. That is not just a statistic. These are people who are losing 4 
hours' worth of pay a week.
  The very people that this bill is supposed to be helping, the working 
class and middle class--the people who are trying to get ahead--are the 
people it is directly hurting. That is just one example. There are 
multiple examples. Senator Cruz and I could cite examples all night of 
real people who will be hurt in this way.
  I have one more point that has not been talked about enough. Medicare 
Advantage is a program that gives seniors choices. It has competition. 
There are different companies that provide Medicare Advantage benefits, 
and they compete for the business of seniors by offering additional 
benefits.
  My mom is a Medicare Advantage recipient. She is heavily marketed 
every year because--like all seniors are in that area--they want her 
business. How do they compete? They offer transportation, free 
pharmaceuticals, or whatever it may be. Well, guess what. ObamaCare 
takes money out of Medicare Advantage, not to save Medicare but to fund 
ObamaCare. Later this year--in early January--these seniors are going 
to get a letter in the mail saying that their Medicare Advantage plan 
no longer offers X, Y, or whatever some of these benefits are. That is 
just another example of who is hurt by this.
  Why are we passionate? Why are we here about this? Look, we have an 
ideological objection to the government being involved in such a 
widespread way in health care, but now it is beyond that. We are 
passionate about this opportunity that we have to stop ObamaCare 
because of the impact this is having on real people. At the end of the 
day, that is what we are fighting for. We are not fighting against 
ObamaCare, and we are fighting for these people.
  By the way, the people we are fighting for includes people who voted 
for the President. This includes, by the way, people who didn't vote 
for me or the Senator from Texas or the Senator from Utah. We are 
fighting for them because they are going to be hurt by this.
  If your dream is to open your own business one day and to grow it, 
ObamaCare will hurt you. It is going to make it harder for you to be 
able to do that. If your dream is to do what my parents did, which is 
to work a job so your kids could one day have a career, ObamaCare is 
hurting you too. It could cost you the insurance you have now that you 
are happy with. It could cost you hours out of your paycheck. It could 
cost you your very job.
  What about if you are working part time while you go to school at 
night? If you are paying your way through school as a part-time worker, 
ObamaCare is going to hurt you. You are going to lose hours at work 
potentially because of ObamaCare. What if you graduated from college? 
You finished college and have done everything that has been asked of 
you.
  What do we tell young people in America who go to school, get good 
grades, a degree, and dream of having a career and better life? What do 
they want to do? They want to graduate from college, get married, buy a 
house, and start a family. A lot of people are having to put that off 
for a lot of reasons. ObamaCare will be one of the reasons. You know 
why? Because that job or career you wanted to start may not be created 
now because of ObamaCare.
  What if you worked your whole life--like the 3 million seniors who 
live in Florida--and are living with dignity, security, and stability, 
and can finally sign up for the Medicare Advantage plan, but now 
ObamaCare is hurting you? That is the irony in all of this. The very 
people they said this plan--this bill, this idea--would help are the 
very people it is hurting the most. That, by the way, is the experience 
of big government.
  I know that big government sounds appealing sometimes when you are 
hurting and struggling to make ends meet and then a politician comes 
along and says: I'm going to create a new program called jobs for 
Americans and health care for everybody. When you are struggling, this 
stuff sounds enticing. The problem is it never works. Anytime and 
anywhere it has been tried, it has failed, and it will fail again. It 
doesn't work.
  In fact, big government hurts the people who are trying to make it. 
If you are a multibillion-dollar corporation or a millionaire or 
billionaire, you may not like big government, but you can afford to 
deal with it. If you are a major corporation in America, you can hire 
the best lawyers in America to navigate whatever complex rules the 
government throws at you. If you really don't like it, you can hire the 
best lobbyist in this city to write the laws in your favor or try to 
get them written in your favor.
  However, if you are trying to start a business by using the free wi-
fi at Starbucks or you are using the spare bedroom in your home to 
start a business, you can't navigate all of that big government stuff. 
You can't afford to hire a lobbyist to get a waiver from ObamaCare. 
That is the irony of this. The very people that big government promises 
to help are the people it hurts the most, and we are seeing it again 
with ObamaCare.
  Who is getting waivers from ObamaCare? The people who can afford to 
influence it. That is the experience of big government. It is the 
experience of ObamaCare, and that is unfair. That is just not fair. It 
is not fair that in America the people who are willing to work hard and 
sacrifice are not able to achieve a better life. That is wrong.
  The only way to assure that those opportunities are there is to 
embrace the free enterprise system, not to undermine it or try to 
replace it with an expansion of government that in the end will 
collapse under its own weight. But that is the direction we are headed 
in right now.
  You want to know what the biggest issue facing America politically 
is? It

[[Page S6724]]

is not whether Republicans or Democrats win the next election, it is 
whether we will continue to be an exceptional country where anyone from 
anywhere can accomplish anything or whether we will become like the 
rest of the world, just another powerful, rich country with a big 
economy, but no longer the place where hard work and sacrifice is 
enough. That is the choice we are being asked to make on issue after 
issue that comes before this body, and especially on this one.
  I will yield back to the Senator from Texas by just saying this: My 
parents were never rich. I told this story before, but I tell it, not 
so much to talk about me, but to talk about us, because this is our 
story, not just mine. My parents were never rich. When they came here, 
they didn't know anybody. They had no money or connections. They barely 
spoke the language. When they first came here, they struggled. They 
were discouraged. Sometimes they wondered if they made a mistake. 
Sometimes they thought that maybe they should have stayed back in Cuba. 
Ultimately, they persevered and hung in there.
  Ten years after they had been here, my dad was working as a bartender 
and my mom worked as a maid and a cashier. They bought their first home 
in 1966. In fact, by 1971, they were so optimistic about the future, 
that after both of them were over 40 years of age, they had me, and 
then my sister a year and a half after that. Talk about optimistic 
about the future. America fundamentally changed their lives because of 
free enterprise.
  My dad had a job at those hotels because someone had access to money 
and risked it. They took a risk and said: I am going to invest this 
money into opening up a hotel because I believe in my idea. Because 
someone took a risk, my dad and my mom had a job. They weren't rich. We 
never owned multiple homes. We never had a yacht. We never traveled to 
Europe. There is nothing wrong with any of those things.
  My parents lived the American dream. Why? Because they lived a life 
no one in their family history had ever lived in terms of stability and 
security, and they were able to provide opportunities for their 
children they themselves never had. That is the American dream. It is 
about being able to fulfill your God-given potential, whatever it may 
be, and it is what is at play right now.
  There are millions of people in this country who are trying to 
achieve their American dream. There are millions of people across 
America who are trying to do what my parents were able to do for me and 
what Senator Cruz's parents were able to do for him. Our job is to make 
it easier for them to do it, not harder. Our job is to do everything we 
can to ensure that this is the one country on Earth where that is still 
possible.
  When we pass bills such as ObamaCare, which claims to help people 
like this, we are not helping them. We are hurting them. If we hurt 
them, we hurt the country because there cannot be an America without an 
American dream. We can't be special and exceptional without the 
American dream, and that is what is being undermined by big government 
and by ObamaCare.
  At the end of the day that is why we are so passionate about this, 
and that is why this is an issue worth fighting for.
  The Senator from Texas was reading stories and cases earlier today 
that he heard from around the country, and that is what these people 
are telling us. That is what they are saying to us. They are saying: 
All we want is a chance to turn our dreams into reality. All we want is 
a chance to be able to work hard and sacrifice so we can achieve a 
better life. All we want is for you guys to give us a chance.
  I ask the Senator from Texas: Isn't that what this issue is all 
about?
  Mr. CRUZ. The junior Senator from Florida is absolutely correct. I 
agree entirely. Senator Rubio is inspiring. Senator Marco Rubio is a 
critical national leader. When Senator Mike Lee began this fight, Marco 
Rubio was there from day one. He was there from the beginning, despite 
the protests and despite official Washington saying that he should know 
better than to stand against the DC establishment and stand for the 
people.
  I don't know if there is anyone more effective, more articulate, or a 
more persuasive voice for conservative principles than my friend Marco 
Rubio. His race in Florida 2 years ago was supposed to be impossible. I 
know that because I read it in the paper over and over.
  Actually, many of the same people are saying this fight is 
impossible. They all said it with that same certitude and that same 
deep baritone voice: This young lad Rubio has no chance of winning this 
race. If it were up to official Washington, they would have been right. 
By every measure of official Washington, the winner of that race that 
would have been picked was the governor of the State. All of Washington 
was behind him. The only thing that was standing with Marco Rubio was 
the people.
  When he started, he was at 3 percent in the polls. That is a 
condition I know well because 2 years later I found myself in a similar 
position. Yet he ran a campaign where he crisscrossed the State of 
Florida. He listened to the Florida people and got support from the 
grassroots. His victory in 2010 was a transformational moment in 
American politics, and it is also emblematic about what this fight is 
about right here.
  If you trust the talking heads on television, if you trust the 
reporters who tell us what is up and what is down, what is white and 
what is black, then ObamaCare is here to stay and America has to 
continue to suffer with it because we can never, ever do anything to 
change it. As long as this body, the Senate, believes the opinions of 
these 100 people in this room is more important than the American 
people, that will remain a true and accurate description. But that is 
not our job. Our job is to listen to the people.
  Marco Rubio's parents were Cuban immigrants. His dad was a bartender. 
It was a family experience that resonates powerfully with me because I 
came from a similar background. But more important than that, Marco 
Rubio's story is the American story. There is not a Member of this 
Senate, or a person in this country, who doesn't have a story just like 
that somewhere in their background.
  The most unique aspect of the United States of America, I believe, is 
that we are all the children of those who risked everything for 
freedom. I think it is the most fundamental aspect of our DNA and what 
it means to be an American. What unifies all of us is that as Americans 
we value liberty and opportunity above all else.
  One of the things I admire about Senator Rubio is how he views issues 
in this Senate. He doesn't look at it from how it impacts the titans of 
industry, such as the CEOs, but from how it impacts people such as his 
dad and my dad, the people who struggled and climbed the economic 
ladder, seeking the American dream.
  If today you are a bartender at a Nevada hotel or if you are washing 
dishes at a restaurant, like his father and my father, respectively, 
ObamaCare is hurting you. It is hurting you in a way that all the 
Senators who have a special exemption from Barack Obama don't have to 
worry about. It is hurting you because your job is in jeopardy. You may 
well lose your job or you may not have a job to begin with.
  Maybe you would like to be a bartender or wash dishes, but because of 
ObamaCare, there is no job to hire you. Maybe it is hurting you because 
what used to be a 40-hour a week job has become a 29-hour a week job 
and your boss has told you: I don't have any choice. ObamaCare kicks in 
at 30 hours a week, and it will bankrupt me.
  Suddenly you are struggling by either working 29 hours a week and are 
unable to feed your kids or have to get a second job and work 29 hours 
a week and have to juggle your schedule, which results in making your 
life more difficult than it was before--not to mention your concerns 
about health insurance. Maybe you have a health insurance.
  Maybe a person has a health insurance plan they have been struggling 
to pay, but it is important to them and they want to make sure their 
kids are covered, they want to make sure their spouse is covered. Yet 
every year they see their premiums going up and up and up.
  We remember when President Obama was defending the ObamaCare bill. He 
promised the American people that as a result of ObamaCare, the average

[[Page S6725]]

family's health insurance premium would drop $2,500. He said: That is 
going to happen by the end of my first term. I would point out that the 
President's first term ended 9 months ago, and by the end of the 
President's first term, that promise was proven not just a little off 
the mark, not just kind of sort of a little bit not entirely accurate; 
it was proven 100 percent, categorically, objectively false.
  Let me suggest to every American, if your health insurance premiums 
have dropped $2,500, as the President promised the average family--so 
there would be tens of millions for whom that is true--then I would 
encourage those Americans to enthusiastically stand and defend 
ObamaCare. But there is a reason it is so profoundly unpopular, and it 
is because it hasn't happened. Premiums have gone up, and the American 
people are hurting as a result. So DC should listen to the people. We 
should make DC listen.
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. LEE. I wish to ask the Senator from Texas whether he has received 
comments similar to those I have received from my constituents and from 
other concerned citizens from around the country in recent months. I 
wish to highlight a few and ask whether these are similar to comments 
the Senator from Texas has heard, concerns he has heard expressed.
  Let me start by sharing one expressed by Shawn from Utah, who says:

       I do not like the fact that the President is picking 
     winners and picking and choosing which parts of the law he 
     will enforce. We need the three branches of government to 
     keep freedom alive.

  Well, Shawn from Utah, I share your concern. I would add to that, to 
Shawn from Utah, the fact that this is really what started this effort. 
In other words, during the first week of July 2013, when the President 
announced there were several provisions in the law he simply would not 
be implementing, he simply would not be enforcing, along the lines of 
what Congress enacted with the Affordable Care Act in 2010, it was at 
that point that I and several others put our heads together and 
realized that if the President is saying this law is not ready to 
implement, if the law objectively is not ready to implement; if, as we 
now understand it, the law is going to make health care less affordable 
rather than more affordable for so many Americans, perhaps Congress 
shouldn't be funding its implementation and enforcement. Perhaps that 
ought to be telling us something.
  So it is important to remember, as Shawn from Utah points out to us, 
that we do have three branches of government. This is the legislative 
branch. Our job is to make the laws. The President does not have law-
making authority. The President can seek changes in the law just as 
other citizens can seek them from Congress, but Congress does have to 
act.
  Although the President wields the veto pen, the veto pen is not the 
legislation pen. He doesn't have the power to legislate on his own 
without the assistance of Congress. It is one of the reasons we are in 
this debacle today. It is one of the reasons we have, along with so 
many millions of Americans, expressed this position that we would like 
to fund government while defunding ObamaCare. This is something the 
American people are calling out for. It is something they are 
requesting. It is something the House of Representatives acted boldly 
and bravely in doing, in standing behind the American people. This 
really is what we are doing. This is the whole reason we are concerned 
about this, because we want to stand with the American people and with 
the House leadership, Speaker Boehner and the other leaders in the 
other body in Congress, who bravely put forward this legislation to 
keep government funded while defunding ObamaCare.
  One of the things we have been concerned about today and one of the 
things I think we need to focus on over the next few days is the fact 
that with the House of Representatives acting last week, passing this 
legislation, this continuing resolution to keep government funded while 
defunding ObamaCare, in order for us to stand behind them, we have to 
monitor the manner in which that legislation is reviewed over here.
  Now that the House-passed continuing resolution has reached the 
Senate, we have a few options. There are a few acceptable ways of 
treating this legislation now that it has been passed by the House. One 
very acceptable approach would be for us to say: OK, let's bring up the 
House-passed continuing resolution--the resolution that funds 
government but defunds ObamaCare--and let's have an up-or-down vote. 
Let's vote for it as is, the same way it was crafted in the House of 
Representatives. That would be an acceptable approach. I would be 
comfortable with that.
  Another acceptable approach would be to say: Instead of just taking 
it up and passing it or not passing it as is, let's have an amendment 
process. Let's allow Democrats and Republicans as they may deem fit to 
offer amendments. Let's debate those amendments, discuss their relative 
merits, the pros and the cons. Let's put those before the American 
people in the few days we have left before the existing continuing 
resolution expires, let's vote on all of those, and then at the end of 
it we will get to the bill itself as it may have been amended by that 
point. That would be acceptable as well.
  What is not acceptable is what many have suggested will occur. Many 
have suggested that the majority leader will bring up this bill and 
instead of saying ``let's vote on it as is'' or instead of saying 
``let's have an amendment process,'' he apparently wants to have his 
cake and eat it too. He wants to have it both ways. He wants to bring 
it up and subject it to one and only one amendment--an amendment that 
would strip out a very critical part of the legislation, a part of the 
legislation that probably is the ``without which not'' element for many 
of the House Members who voted for it: the provision defunding 
ObamaCare. He wants that amendment and no other. That is not 
acceptable, and under that circumstance, in my opinion and in the 
opinions of several of my colleagues, some of whom we have heard from 
today, the appropriate way to register that concern is to vote against 
cloture on the bill if, in fact, that is what the majority leader 
chooses to do.
  That is why we are fighting this particular battle today. That is 
much of what we are discussing today, is why it is that we should not 
be facilitating the effort of Senate leadership to, in effect, gut the 
House-passed continuing resolution of an extraordinarily critical 
element, an element without which it could never have passed in the 
House of Representatives and an element which, frankly, the American 
people expect us to take up and discuss and debate. So either way--an 
open amendment process, fine; an up-or-down vote on the bill as is, 
fine. What is not fine is an effort to try to have it both ways.

  Let me share with the Senator from Texas another comment I received 
from a man named Michael who is also from Utah:

       We are getting a bigger and bigger government. They're 
     telling us what we should have, what we are entitled to 
     instead of protecting a free people paving our own path. 
     Government gets bigger while the job market is getting 
     crushed. I work for a company in the middle of layoffs and 
     more are to follow. We can't continue like this.

  This is an acknowledgment that so many people across our great 
country are making as they discover the impact of this bill--passed 
into law some 3\1/2\ years ago--that has not increased in popularity 
over the last 3 years.
  Time might not have increased its popularity--in fact, it has had 
quite the opposite effect--but time has had the effect of expanding its 
volume. It has gone from 2,700 pages when it was passed to more than 
20,000 pages now when we add the implementing regulations. That is 
quite stunning. The length of it is quite stunning. It reminds me of 
something James Madison wrote--I believe it was in Federalist No. 62. 
He said, if I may paraphrase him, it will be of little benefit to the 
American people that their laws may be written by individuals of their 
own choosing if those laws are so voluminous and complex that they 
can't reasonably be read and understood by the American people. Well, 
2,700 pages is a little too long. It is a lot too long. And I certainly 
know that 20,000 pages is much, much, much too long.
  That brings to mind a comment I received from Marcia, also from Utah, 
who writes this:


[[Page S6726]]


       However well intentioned Obama care may be, I do not feel 
     this is the best solution. I think something ``less wordy'' 
     and more succinct would be a much better plan. If you can't 
     say it in 5 pages or less, it may be best unsaid! The changes 
     already enacted have made it more difficult for me to get 
     medical care. Not a big help!

  Well said, Marcia, very well said.
  When we vote on legislation people haven't read, the American people 
tend to suffer. When we perpetuate a mistake once made embodied in a 
2,700-page bill, things go from bad to worse to much, much worse.
  What we have right now is an opportunity for us to debate and discuss 
the merits of something that perhaps was not adequately debated and 
discussed 3\1/2\ years ago when this law was passed, when Members of 
Congress were told to pass this law to find out what is in it. Well, we 
know a lot more about what is in it now. The American people have 
concerns.
  It is appropriate to have the discussion now in connection with 
spending legislation because, after all, Congress does have the power 
of the purse. Congress is given this power, this responsibility of 
making decisions regarding taxing and spending. It was for this reason 
the founding generation wisely put it in the hands of the House of 
Representatives--the power of the purse--giving the House of 
Representatives the responsibility to initiate or originate bills 
relating to this power. It is the House of Representatives that is, 
after all, the branch of a government and of Congress that is most 
directly responsive to the needs of the people.
  It is appropriate that we have this discussion regarding funding or 
not funding a piece of legislation that is going to require a lot of 
money and is going to be proven costly to the American people in many, 
many ways in the coming years--I say ``costly in many ways'' to reflect 
the fact that it is not just the cost of government money; it costs the 
American people a lot of things as well. It is costing them jobs. It is 
costing them wages. It is costing them access to health care in many 
circumstances.
  Let me read something I received from Randy. Randy is from my 
neighboring State of Idaho. Randy writes:

       My wife and I have a small business with about 20 
     employees. We struggle to stay in business. We feel that if 
     and when Obamacare is implemented, we will not be able to 
     continue to be in business.

  Randy, I can't tell you how many people I have heard make very 
similar comments from one end of my State of Utah to the other and from 
people across America. You are not alone, Randy. A lot of people out 
there are concerned as well.
  That is one thing people lose in addition to wages or jobs or access 
to health care--some of them lose the opportunity they have to stay in 
business. We are not talking about millionaires and billionaires; we 
are talking about hard-working Americans who put a lot on the line in 
order to make a decent living, in order to provide jobs for their few 
employees. This is something we need to look out for. This is something 
we may not, we must not lightly brush aside.
  Here is something else some Americans will sometimes lose--something 
they were promised they would not lose--access to a doctor they like, 
access to a doctor they have come to trust over the years.
  This one comes from Jack from the State of Texas. Jack says:

       My family doctor of 25 years is talking about an early 
     retirement because of policies Obamacare is going to require 
     him to follow that will compromise the oath he took when he 
     became an M.D.

  This is sad, Jack. This is something we were promised would not 
happen, and it is something that should not happen. This is something 
that we are told is happening from time to time.
  Ryan, also from Texas, writes:

       My mother is a middle-class mortician whose health care 
     coverage is going up by 68 percent for this poorly envisioned 
     law with no other changes. She simply cannot afford to 
     maintain health care coverage without significant changes to 
     her lifestyle, and for what?

  Sometimes we have to ask that question: And for what?
  Sometimes we have to ask the question, the same question that 
physicians are required to ask themselves: Are we doing harm? It is my 
understanding that when a physician becomes licensed, he or she must 
take an oath, an oath that involves an obligation to first do no harm. 
We as lawmakers have to ask ourselves that question from time to time. 
We as lawmakers have to view ourselves as subject to a similar 
obligation to first do no harm.
  (Mr. DONNELLY assumed the chair.)
  Some have said that when you are carrying around a hammer, everything 
starts to look like a nail. I wonder whether that is sometimes true of 
Congress and the law-making power. Because of the law-making power we 
wield, sometimes, when we view problems, we assume we automatically, 
necessarily, inevitably have the right solutions. Well, in some cases 
that may be true. In other cases, it might be true in part. But that 
power might be used incorrectly. Sometimes when legislation is hastily 
drafted, thrown together in a hurry, rather than for purposes of making 
sure it is part of a cohesive whole--something that will be a coherent 
mechanism that can be implemented in a commonsense fashion--sometimes 
if it is thrown together too hastily and these cautions are ignored, we 
can end up doing a lot of harm, we can find ourselves first doing harm 
above all else, and that is not OK.
  When we look at this law, and we look at the fact that the American 
people are funding its implementation, we discover it is much deeper 
than something that deals with an individual mandate or an employer 
mandate or a set of regulations governing the insurance industry. It is 
much more than that. It is much more than what people will have to do 
with regard to the reporting of some fairly personal details about 
their lives to the IRS, an agency that Americans have come to trust 
substantially less than they already did, as if that were possible.
  It is about the fact that the American people--in addition to being 
made less free by this law, and in addition to being made less 
prosperous by this law--are also required to fund its implementation 
and its enforcement against them. That is where the power of the purse 
must come into play. That is what makes it so appropriate, so 
essential, so vital that we have this discussion right here and right 
now as we consider spending legislation, spending legislation that may 
well represent our last best hope of achieving a degree of delay or 
defunding of this legislation before its primary operative provisions 
take full effect. That is why it is important for us to have this 
discussion right now.
  Let me emphasize again the importance of the cloture vote and the 
position we are taking on that. It is grounded fundamentally in the 
understanding that the House of Representatives acted in a manner 
consistent with what the American people have been asking. I cannot 
emphasize enough the fact that House Speaker John Boehner and his 
leadership team in the House--the House Republicans have supported him 
in this effort. They did great work. They stood valiantly with the 
American people who were calling out overwhelmingly for them to take 
this step, to keep government funded but defund ObamaCare. And that is 
what they did.
  Now that they have acted, there are two approaches we could take to 
this that are perfectly appropriate. We could vote on that legislation 
as is, up or down, or we could subject it to an amendment process, 
allow Democrats and Republicans alike to present amendments to make the 
House-passed resolution better, as they might deem fit. We can debate 
and discuss and vote on each of those. Sure, it can be time-consuming. 
Sure, it can be grueling. But that is our job. We took an oath to do 
that job. We do this all the time--maybe not as much as we should. But 
a few months ago in connection with the budget resolution, we as 
Senators stood and sat--a little of both--here all night long. We voted 
all night long, until 5 o'clock in the morning. People got a little 
cranky at times, but that is what we are here to do--not to be cranky, 
but we are here to vote, to cast votes on amendments. That is what we 
had to do that day because there were a lot of amendments. That is what 
we should be doing with this if, in fact, we decide we want amendments 
to the House-passed resolution.
  So vote on it up or down as is; fine. Subject it to an open amendment 
process; fine. Trying to have it both ways, the majority leader telling 
us this will be subject to one amendment, one amendment only--an 
amendment that

[[Page S6727]]

would gut and render nugatory the operative provision that was so 
important to so many House Members--that is not OK. That is why those 
who agree with us on this point, those who feel that way, those who 
feel the American people need us to stand up for them, should vote no 
on cloture when we get to the cloture vote on the bill later in this 
week.
  I would ask my colleague from Texas, as to these concerns I have 
expressed, these statements that have been made from people around the 
country--some of them my constituents in Utah, some of them from other 
parts of the country, including a couple from Texas--what similarities 
does the Senator see between these statements I have read today and 
comments the Senator has heard from his constituents as he has traveled 
through his great State, a State of great expanse and a State of close 
to 30 million people? What similarities does the Senator see between 
these statements and those he has heard around his State?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Utah for that very insightful 
question. Let me note there are many reasons why I love the Senator 
from Utah. But very near the top of the list is the fact that when he 
``paraphrases'' the Federalist Papers, it is darn near a word-for-word, 
verbatim quote. Mike Lee is extraordinary and it is an honor to stand 
by his side and serve with him. The stories he has read are exactly 
consonant with the stories I have heard all across Texas and, frankly, 
all across the country. This thing is not working. It is not political. 
It is not partisan. It has nothing to do with what team you are on. The 
facts are clear. There is a reason why the unions are jumping ship. 
There is a reason why Teamsters President James Hoffa says ObamaCare is 
destroying the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American 
middle class. There is a reason why the IRS employees union has asked 
to be exempted from ObamaCare. These are the guys who are in charge of 
enforcing it on the rest of us. They have asked to be exempt because it 
is not working. The facts are clear. It is a train wreck. As the lead 
author Democratic Senator put it: It is a train wreck.
  In fact, let me share some of the tweets that have come in the 
preceding days. In the preceding days, the American people had a chance 
to speak out about ObamaCare and in particular there was a hashtag 
``DefundObamacareBecause.'' In the last several days, Americans all 
over this country have tweeted their reason why ObamaCare should be 
defunded.
  I will note to Senator Lee that some months ago, he and I stood on 
this same Senate floor, side by side with our dear friend Senator Rand 
Paul, supporting him in his historic filibuster on drones. At that time 
I had the opportunity to read tweets that were supporting Rand's 
filibuster. To the best of my knowledge, that was the first time tweets 
had been read on the Senate floor, which I have joked to my wife makes 
me happy because 20 years from now if there is some obscure political 
geek trivial pursuit game, I am pretty confident I am going to be an 
answer as to the first person to have the chance to read tweets on the 
Senate floor.
  I am going to do my best now to be the second person. Now I am 
reading tweets that concern the hashtag ``DefundObamacareBecause,'' but 
I will note there has been another hashtag tonight: ``MakeDCListen.'' 
And that hashtag has been trending higher and higher--
``MakeDCListen''--and as the evening goes forward, I fully expect for 
those of you who have something you want to say, but you are not 
currently able to come to the Senate floor--maybe in a few years you 
will be, maybe you will be elected to the Senate and stand at your desk 
and make your arguments, but right now you are not--let me encourage 
you to tweet with the hashtag ``MakeDCListen,'' and I expect later in 
the evening to read a sample of those tweets so we can help provide 
voice to those millions of Americans who are frustrated that DC is not 
listening.
  But these are some of the tweets in the past few days with the 
hashtag ``DefundObamacareBecause.''

       It is just another way to gain control over people.
       Defund ObamaCare because I don't want the government 
     dictating my health care.
       Because I don't trust the government to run my health care.
       Because it was sold to us on lies. You can keep your 
     insurance? No. My coverage reduced to nearly nothing, 
     premiums the same.
       Because it's too intrusive on our privacy.
       Because it's killing jobs and stifling the economy.
       Because it's forcing small businesses to lay off full-time 
     workers and replace them with part-time workers to avoid 
     bankrupting mandates.
       Because Congress should be representing us, we the people. 
     A majority of Americans don't want ObamaCare.
       Because it adds layers of government, inefficiency, 
     centralizes control to ivory-tower bureaucrats. Massive drag 
     on the economy.
       Because it will lead to SINGLE-PAYER health ``care''.

  ``SINGLE-PAYER'' is all caps and ``care'' is in quotes.

       Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.
       Because it's not even implemented yet and it has already 
     raised my insurance rates and reduced the quality of my 
     medical care.
       Because cancellation notices from my carrier due to ACA 
     kind of ruined the narrative: Like it, keep it. Bombs away on 
     ACA.
       Because I don't want the government deciding my family's 
     health care.
       Because the cost of health care will increase with quality 
     decreasing. Empower the free market.
       Because it is a threat to jobs and our economy.
       Because I got laid off. My chances of finding another job 
     are slim too. None now.
       Because it's time people in DC do what's best for this 
     country instead of their political party.

  Let me read that one again: ``Because it's time for people in DC to 
do what's best for this country instead of their political party.''
  If we listened to the people, if we make DC listen, this would not be 
about party, this would not be about Democrats sticking to the bill 
they passed, this would not be about Republicans afraid of political 
blame and repercussions. This would be about 100 Senators listening to 
people and saying: This bill is not working.

       Because it kills jobs and the backbone of the American 
     middle class.
       Because it's killing free clinics and reducing access to 
     care.
       Because Americans love freedom.
       Because it's a job-killing machine, up to and including 
     doctors.
       Because I don't want government to control my health care.
       Because the free market works and government regulation 
     does not.
       Because Americans can't live on part-time wages and pay the 
     outrageously high cost of ObamaCare.
       Because it violates Americans' first amendment right to 
     religious liberty.
       Because we the people don't want it and the government 
     works for us.

  Let me repeat that one again: ``Because we the people don't want it 
and the government works for us.''
  Let me note something, by the way. That hashtag was a simple hashtag: 
``DefundObamacareBecause.'' That is the message that is coming from the 
people. Washington is not listening. It is why tonight ``MakeDCListen'' 
is trending higher and higher as a hashtag because that is what this 
fight is about. Washington is not listening to the people.

       Because it has already resulted in great doctors leaving 
     medicine.
       Because government is not meant to force me into something 
     they have no business in.
       Because I'm against force and coercion from government. If 
     it was a great idea, it would be voluntary.

  Now that says something.

       If it was a great idea, why is the Federal Government 
     forcing you to be a part of it? By the way, why, at the same 
     time, is the President granting exemptions to big 
     corporations and to Members of Congress? If it is a great 
     idea, they would not have to force you to participate. If it 
     was a great idea, Members of Congress would not have asked 
     the President for an exemption so that Members of Congress 
     get a special rule that does not apply to the American 
     people.
       Because I do not want bureaucrats involved in my 
     physician's decisions on my health care.
       Because I value my freedom.
       Because it's ruining the 40-hour work week, according to 
     unions.
       Because it is crony capitalism for the health care 
     industrial complex.
       Because you don't want a bunch of bureaucrats deciding 
     which medical treatments you can and can't receive. What do 
     they know?
       Because the government SHOULD NOT own our medical data.
       Because the IRS will be enforcing it.

  Now, that is a pair that gives you great comfort. The IRS in charge 
of it, the IRS employee unions publicly asked them to be exempted from 
ObamaCare. Right now they are assembling the largest database in the 
history of our health care records. We have seen the IRS--their 
willingness to abuse their power. Under ObamaCare

[[Page S6728]]

right now, they just have access to our health care records so it is 
not like anyone should be concerned about it.

       Because it is a job-killing, economy-destroying, health 
     care-ruining, debt-exploding, out of control government mess.

  I like that one.

       Because it is a job-killing, economy-destroying, health 
     care ruining, debt-exploding, out of control government mess.
       Because ObamaCare is all about socialistic control of we 
     the people and nothing to do with fixing health care.
       Because it was rammed through in the dark of the night, and 
     that should matter.
       Because it has already come between me and my doctors and 
     it is not even fully implemented yet.

  Next time you see your physician, do you want your friendly 
neighborhood Federal bureaucrat sitting down and being part of the 
physician's meeting? I do not. I know Texans do not either, most 
Americans do not either.

       Because it is a Trojan horse. Once inside it will destroy 
     us.
       Because even the unions agree it's not working.
       Because we need the IRS to get out of our lives, not make 
     health care decisions for us.
       Because it will cost Americans their jobs.
       Because it's a red herring being used to move the credit to 
     a single-payer system.

  As we noted earlier, that is not--some people dismiss that. Oh, 
single payer, this is designed to go there. You know that is just 
crazy, tinfoil hat-wearing stuff. But there is an old saying: Just 
because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you. Yes, 
there are people worried about single payer. They have every good 
reason to be, particularly when the majority leader of the Senate goes 
on television and says: The purpose of ObamaCare is to send people into 
a single-payer system, government-provided socialized health care.
  That is the express purpose from those who voted for ObamaCare, to 
destroy the private health insurance system and to move to single-payer 
government socialized medicine.

       Because honestly the people do not want it.
       Because problems cannot be solved by a larger government 
     than the one that created them.
       Because after 3 years, they are still trying to sell it to 
     us.

  That is a good point. If it were such a great idea--don't you 
remember at the time, they said: Gosh, when people get it, they are 
going to love it. It is going to work. You know what. If it had, we 
would be having a very different discussion. If it had worked, the 
American people would support it. We would see the results. We would 
see the benefits, and we would not have this debate. If it were working 
well, we would not be having this debate because the American people 
would support it. The facts are clear. So even those who voted 3 years 
ago, unless your view of serving in office is: Hey, once I vote, I 
stick to it no matter what the facts say, no matter how much people are 
hurting, no matter how big a disaster it is. I ain't changing no matter 
what.
  I cannot believe there are many Senators in this body who want to 
approach voting like that. That is not a responsible way to approach a 
job. The facts are clear. This thing is not working. All 100 of us 
ought to act to avert this train wreck.

       Because it is and will continue to destroy jobs, slow 
     hiring, and move others to part-time status.
       Because if you don't, your doctor might just retire early.

  How many know a doctor who is retiring early? I know quite a few who 
are retiring. Do you think that is good for our health care system, 
seeing doctors retire early? I know older doctors who are advising 
young students, do not go to med school. Do you think that is good for 
health care? Do you think that is going to expand our health care if we 
do not see bright young students going to medical school? That is what 
ObamaCare is doing.

       Because you do not want an IRS agent deciding if your mom 
     lives or dies.
       Because it makes health insurance less affordable. My 
     premiums will be higher to subsidize people who cannot afford 
     insurance.
       Because even the unions don't want it.
       Because the IRS has shown they are willing to abuse power 
     for political gain.
       Because it's not about care, it is about government 
     control.
       Because I shouldn't have to pay for the murder of innocent, 
     unborn babies through abortion.
       Because if it worked, Democratic Senators would not have 
     needed to be bribed to vote for it.
       Because the death panel is an unchecked bureaucracy 
     accountable to no one.
       Because I love my current health care and doctors.

  Do you like your current health care? Do you like your doctor? Do you 
want to keep seeing your doctor? I tell you, Americans all over this 
country are losing their health care because of ObamaCare. They are 
losing their ability to see their doctors. That is what happens if the 
Senate does not act to defund ObamaCare.

       Because the majority of the country is against it.
       Because premiums up 100 percent after dropped off spouse's 
     plan. Elimination of meds coverage, reduction of choices and 
     treatments.

  These are real people tweeting. They are sharing their stories of why 
they do not like ObamaCare. Do you notice these stories are not: 
Because I am a Republican. Because I am a Democrat. Because I believe 
in this ideology. It is because: This thing is hurting me and my 
family. If this body were listening to the people, we would have 100 
Senators concerned about all of the Americans being hurt by ObamaCare 
and here at any hour of the night ready to act to stop it.

       Because no one wants to live in their parent's basement 
     forever.
       Because Reagan once said, you can't be for big government, 
     big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.

  Boy, ain't that the truth.

       Because I don't want to pay more taxes to fund it.
       Because it does nothing to reduce costs while hurting many 
     full-time employees who are dropped to part time.
       Because it makes health insurance less affordable, my 
     premiums will be higher to subsidize people who cannot afford 
     insurance.
       Because it actually does add a dime to the deficit, and a 
     lot of them.
       Because--

  Three words in all caps.

     --INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
       Because it is killing full-time jobs and stunting the 
     growth of businesses that want to hire.
       Because government should not be in charge of something as 
     important as health care.
       Because the devil himself wouldn't put the IRS between you 
     and your doctor.

  I like that one too.

       Because the more exemptions that are given out, the more 
     ObamaCare won't work.
       Because I cannot afford to get two jobs, pay outrageous 
     prices for crappy insurance. I will lose my full time.
       Because that time Congress passed the law and then excluded 
     themselves. #healthcarehypocrisy.
       Because doctors and hospitals are already becoming limited.
       Because it is designed to collapse private insurance and 
     force us all to single payer. Socialism.

  Again, I would note that is not hypothetical. That is what majority 
leader Harry Reid has publicly said on television.

       Because insurance isn't very helpful when you can't find a 
     doctor.
       Because I don't need to spend a decade of my life filling 
     out government forms.
       Because baby-boomer doctors will retire in droves, plus 
     more who won't practice in this environment.
       Because if it is not good enough for Congress, it sure as 
     shooting is not good enough for the people.

  Those are sentiments we are hearing from all across the country. 
Those are sentiments that reflect the views of the American people, not 
just in Texas, in all 50 States, and not just Republicans but 
Democrats, Independents, Libertarians. The American people understand 
that when you have a law that is killing jobs, when you have a law that 
is hammering small businesses, when you have a law that is forcing 
people into part-time work and to work 29 hours a week, when you have a 
law that is causing skyrocketing insurance premiums, when you have a 
law that is causing more and more people to lose their health 
insurance, you have a law that is not working.
  You have a train wreck, as the Democratic Senator who is the lead 
author of this bill described it. Yet right now the Senate is not 
listening to the American people. The Democrats in the Senate 
understandably have circled the wagons. They passed this bill, and even 
if it is a sinking ship, we have yet to see Democrats come out and say: 
We tried it. It didn't work. Let's listen to the American people. I 
hope the time comes this week where we see some courageous Democrats 
stand--and let me say to any Democratic Senator who does so, he or she 
will receive withering criticisms from the partisans in your party.

[[Page S6729]]

  Now I will know, as someone not entirely unfamiliar with receiving 
withering criticisms from one's own party. There are worse things in 
life. I promise you that it is, in the order of things to be worried 
about, quite low. You know I am a lot more concerned about a single mom 
working in a diner trying to feed her kids than I am about whether some 
Senator or some congressional staffer wants to run to a newspaper and 
say something mean about me.
  So any Democratic Senator who is thinking about responding to the 
concerns that I know you are hearing from your citizens, because we are 
hearing it all over the country, let me suggest a little bit of grief 
for breaking party discipline is a small price to pay for doing your 
job, for listening to the American people.
  Let me say to the Republicans: There is a lot of concern about 
political blame. There is a lot of concern about: If we would just get 
a symbolic vote so we can all say we are opposed to it, but let's not 
actually do anything to change ObamaCare. Let me suggest to my 
Republican friends that we should worry a lot less about blame and 
credit and politics and just worry about fixing the darn thing for the 
American people.
  If we get back to an economy where jobs are booming, where small 
businesses are thriving, where people who are struggling and want the 
American dream can get that first job and get that second job and climb 
that economic ladder and advance, provide for their families, that 
answers a whole lot of problems.
  I have heard some partisan observers say: ObamaCare is not the 
biggest job killer in the country. No. 1, it is ironic that is the 
particular debate, about whether it is the biggest job killer or the 
second biggest job killer. But let me tell you, I do not think there is 
any debate on that question.
  So let me point to a list by Investors Business Daily of 300 cuts to 
work hours or jobs.
  Well, if you don't believe ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in the 
country, look to the facts. This year report after report has rolled in 
about employers restricting work hours to less than 30 hours per week--
the point where the mandate kicks in. The data also points to record-
low workweeks in low-wage industries. It is low-wage industries in 
particular because the people who get hammered by this are not the 
CEOs. It is not the rich. The rich have done just fine under President 
Obama. It is hard-working American families, the people who are 
struggling. It is young people, Hispanics, African Americans, and 
single moms. They are the ones who are losing their jobs and being 
forced to work 29 hours a week.
  Investor's Business Daily compiled a list of job actions that provide 
strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work 
or staffing cuts. As of September 18, 2013, their ObamaCare scorecard 
included 301 employers.
  In the State of Alabama, Houston County cut the hours of part-time 
employees to less than 30 hours per week.
  In California, Biola University cut student work hours to a maximum 
of 25 per week and suspended the limit due to the employer mandate 
delay. That is interesting. They cut it, and then when the employer 
mandate delay kicked in, they suspended that. If you want to understand 
cause and effect, look to the behavior, look to the suffering, look to 
the job losses that are coming as a direct result of ObamaCare.
  In Florida, Bealls department stores restricted part-time hours to 
less than 30 hours a week.
  In Florida, SeaWorld Entertainment--have any of you ever taken your 
kids to SeaWorld? They cut hours for part-time workers from a maximum 
of 32 hours to 28 hours a week. That is SeaWorld, which is a big 
employer.
  In Illinois, Palmer Place Restaurant cut hours for some workers below 
30 hours a week.
  In Kansas, the Salina Family YMCA cut part-time employee schedules to 
a maximum of 25 hours per week.
  In New Jersey, Middletown Township Public Schools cut hours for 
paraprofessionals to below 30 hours per week.
  The great State of Texas--it actually doesn't say ``great State'' on 
the list, but I view that as implied--Sam Houston State University 
limited student work hours to 29 per week, impacting multiple job 
holders.
  In Michigan, Auburn Hills reduced hours for part-time seasonal 
workers to less than 30 per week.
  In Pennsylvania, Friendship Community cut part-time hours to below 30 
per week. That, by the way, is a group home for adults with 
disabilities. Not only are the folks at Friendship Community working to 
help adults with disabilities, they are also getting their hours cut. 
That is their penalty for making a difference in their community.
  In Michigan, Meridian Public Schools cut schedules of hourly workers 
to less than 30 hours per week.
  In Arizona, Arizona State University limited course loads for 
nontenured associate faculty members.
  In Maine, Mainesubway, the Subway franchisee, reduced worker hours to 
no more than 29 per week.
  In New York, Finger Lakes Community College capped course loads for 
adjunct faculty.
  In South Carolina, Tsunami Surf Shops--I like that name; that is a 
surf shop with an attitude--will limit workers to less than 30 hours 
per week.
  In Illinois, Southern Illinois University limited graduate teaching 
assistants to 20 hours per week.
  In Indiana, Vincennes cut the hours of part-timers to 29 per week.
  In California, the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation cut the 
hours of employees working up to 39 hours a week to less than 30. I am 
talking about a real impact from this law.
  In Georgia, Georgia Military College cut the hours of adjunct faculty 
to below 30 hours per week.
  In Illinois, Vcm Inc., the Subway franchisee, reduced hours for 
hourly wage earners to below 30 per week.
  In Indiana, Ball State University limited work hours for graduate 
assistants.
  In New Jersey, Toms River will cut part-time hours to 25 hours per 
week, effective July 2014.
  In North Carolina, Forsyth Community Technical College reduced hours 
for adjunct faculty to below 30 hours per week. Also in North Carolina, 
Wilkes Community College reduced teaching loads for adjunct faculty to 
below 30 hours a week.
  Let me go through a few of these that are much the same:
  Texas, Consolidated Restaurant Operations and Dave & Buster's; 
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia University; Virginia, K-VA-T Food Stores; 
Missouri, Three Rivers College. In Alabama, the University of Alabama 
capped student work hours at 20 per week. That may, in fact, be 
justifiable punishment for their having beaten Texas A&M, but it is 
still not good for the students who would like to work more than 20 
hours per week. Florida, Brevard County; Florida, Buca di Beppo 
restaurant chain; Florida, Hillsborough Community College; Florida, St. 
Petersburg College; Georgia, Cherokee County School Board; Indiana, 
Hancock County; Indiana, Morgan County; Michigan, Central Michigan 
University; New Jersey, NEMF trucking company; North Carolina, 
Henderson; Ohio, White Castle. We read a letter from White Castle 
earlier today. They used to open eight new restaurants a year. They 
have reduced it to two. Think of all the people who won't get jobs 
because there is no White Castle over there, not to mention all of the 
hungry college kids who at 3 in the morning are just craving a White 
Castle and they can't find one. Oregon, Shari's restaurants; 
Pennsylvania, Carnegie Museum; Tennessee, Oneida Special School 
District; Tennessee, Scott County School System; Tennessee, Stewart 
County School System; Texas, Jim's Restaurant; Virginia, Christopher 
Savvides Restaurant & catering; Wisconsin, Minocqua-Hazelhurst-Lake 
Tomahawk School District; Wisconsin, Trig's Supermarkets; Alabama, 
University of North Alabama; California, Fatburger. Now there is truth 
in advertising. Iowa, Lee County; Michigan, Delta County; Texas, Bee 
County; Idaho, Boundary County; North Carolina, Rutherford County; 
Pennsylvania, Lawrence County; Michigan, Kenowa Hills Public Schools; 
New Jersey, City of Burlington Public Schools; Texas, the Lion & Rose 
British Restaurant and Pub; Texas, MTC Inc. Restaurant Management; 
Utah, Millard School District; Arkansas, Area Agency on Aging of

[[Page S6730]]

Western Arkansas; Arkansas, Walmart Stores, Inc. Has anyone heard of 
them? They increased temp share of workforce to ``fewer than 10 
percent'' from 1 to 2 percent before this year. California, CKE 
Restaurants, Inc.
  The list goes on and on.
  Every one of those--and I read the first 50 or 75 out of 301--it is 
all over the country. It is every State. A lot of folks in this body 
may say: Well, that doesn't impact us. What is the problem? If you 
serve in the Senate, your salary is guaranteed no matter what. Besides, 
we are exempted from ObamaCare. So what is the concern?

  That is official Washington for you. What is the problem? Government 
is a boom business. If you look at the counties surrounding Washington, 
DC, they are booming. Why? Because government is growing, growing, 
growing, and growing.
  At every place I just read, there are men and women working and 
almost none of them are wealthy. Almost none of them are fat cats. 
Almost none of them are, as the President likes to invoke so often, 
millionaires and billionaires. They are 22-year-old kids, some who are 
recent college graduates and some who dropped out of high school, but 
they are trying to work. They would like to make a better life. They 
are not able to do so. They are not able to do so because of ObamaCare.
  Every one of those names--and listening to those names, it would be 
easy to zone out: Oh, another name, another name; those are just empty 
names. Every one of those names--there are men, women, and their kids 
who are suffering because of that. If you have a job, working hard, 
trying to provide for your family, and you are told: Congratulations; 
you will be working 29 hours a week courtesy of the Senate and 
ObamaCare--talk about a failed law.
  In the last election, young people voted overwhelmingly for the 
reelection of the President. Indeed, some of my friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle believe that a new dawn has arrived, that 
young people will remain permanently Democrats and thus keep a 
Democratic majority in the Senate for time immemorial. I am not 
convinced of that.
  I will say it is interesting--you could not design a law to do more 
damage to young people than ObamaCare if you sat down and tried. If you 
sat down and said: Let's really pound the living daylights out of young 
people, you couldn't do it.
  We will talk later tonight about premiums that are going up, 
especially for young people, because one way to understand ObamaCare is 
it is a massive wealth transfer from young healthy people to everyone 
else. If you are young and healthy, Congress looked at you, licked 
their chops, and said: You are for dinner. Not only that, the people 
who are getting their hours forcibly reduced are overwhelmingly young 
people. They are people who are starting their climb on the economic 
ladder. If you don't get that first job, you don't get the second, and 
you don't get the third. It impacts you for a long, long time.
  Just recently, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that I 
think is relevant for every young person to read because it explains 
how ObamaCare is impacting you not just today but for decades to come. 
I think young people have a particularly acute desire to see this 
Senate act this week to defund ObamaCare because it is young people 
paying the price. Don't take my word for it, take the Wall Street 
Journal. On September 1, 2013, the Wall Street had a major article that 
was entitled ``Wanted: Jobs for the New 'Lost' Generation.'' If you are 
a young person, you should feel excited: there is now a title for your 
generation--the ``lost generation.'' I mentioned that if you were 
trying to design a law to hurt young people, ObamaCare--you couldn't do 
better than that. Well, it has produced a lost generation.
  Here is what the Wall Street Journal said:

       Like so many young Americans, Derek Wetherell is stuck. At 
     23 years old, he has a job, but not a career, and little 
     prospect for advancement. He has tens of thousands of dollars 
     in student debt--

  I know what student debt is like. It was only 2 years ago that I paid 
off my student debt. I had to take out student debt to pay my way 
through college and law school. There are a lot of young people right 
now struggling to pay off student debt. I will tell you, if you combine 
student debt with a dead-end job or not being able to find a job at 
all, that is a recipe for a lost generation.
  Continuing with Derek Wetherell:

       He has tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, but no 
     college degree.

  That is becoming more and more common. People take out loans to get a 
college degree, but they are not finishing. They are not able to 
finish.

       He says he is more likely to move back in with his parents 
     than to buy a home--

  The American dream used to be that everyone wanted to buy their own 
home, have a white picket fence, have a swing out front on which your 
kids could play. That was our parents' dreams. That was their parents' 
dreams. That has been the American dream for generations. I ask young 
people, how many of you feel that dream is a realistic prospect for 
you? It was for your parents when they were your age. Let me tell you, 
the policies this Congress has put in place because we are not 
listening to the American people are a direct cause of that. ObamaCare 
is a direct cause of that.

  Mr. Wetherell continues:

       He says he is more likely to move back in with his parents 
     than to buy a home, and he doesn't know what he will do if 
     his car--a 2001 Chrysler Sebring with well over 100,000 
     miles--breaks down.
  Is there anyone else in America who has a car that is 12 years old 
with 100,000 miles and is wondering what happens if they wake up one 
morning and turn the key and nothing happens? If you have a good job, 
if you are climbing the economic ladder, if you have career prospects, 
you can deal with that. If you are stuck in a dead-end job and living 
paycheck to paycheck, that is a huge problem.

       ``I'm kind of spinning my wheels,'' Mr. Wetherell says. 
     ``We can wishfully think that eventually it's going to get 
     better, but we don't really know, and that doesn't really 
     help us now.''

  There are millions of Americans who feel exactly like that.

       Mr. Wetherell is a member of the lost generation, a group 
     that is now only beginning to gain attention from many 
     economists and employment experts.

  Young people should feel particularly privileged that they have 
coined a new term for their generation--the lost generation--because of 
ObamaCare and the policies of this administration.

       From Oakland to Orlando--and across the ocean in Birmingham 
     and Barcelona--young people have come of age amid the most 
     prolonged period of economic distress since the Great 
     Depression.
       Most, like Mr. Wetherell, have little memory of the 
     financial crisis itself, which struck while they were still 
     in high school. But they are all too familiar with its 
     aftermath: the crippling recession, which made it all but 
     impossible for many young people to get a first foothold in 
     the job market, and the achingly slow recovery that has left 
     the prosperity of their parents' generation out of reach--
     perhaps permanently.
       "This has been for quite a while now a hostile environment 
     for young people,'' said Paul Taylor, executive vice 
     president of the Pew Research Center, which has studied the 
     impact of the recession on young people. ``This is all 
     they've really known.''
       The financial crisis that struck five years ago this month 
     opened up a sinkhole in the U.S. economy that swallowed 
     Americans of all ages and backgrounds. Retirees lost life 
     savings. Families lost homes. Millions of Americans lost 
     their jobs. Five years later, that hole is being filled in, 
     however slowly. The unemployment rate is down to 7.3 percent 
     amid slow, steady job growth.

  Although, as we noted earlier, that 7.3 percent vastly understates 
it, because so many have given up looking for work altogether.

       The stock market has rallied to new highs. Home prices are 
     rebounding. Total output has surpassed its prerecession peak.
       But the recovery has left many young people behind. The 
     official unemployment rate for Americans under age 25 was 
     15.6 percent in August, down from a peak of nearly 20 percent 
     in 2010 but still more than 2\1/2\ times the rate of those 25 
     and older--a gap that has widened during the recovery.

  In other words, it has gotten worse for young people during the past 
few years.

       Moreover, the unemployment rate ignores the hundreds of 
     thousands of young people who have taken shelter from the 
     weak job market by going to college, enrolling in training 
     programs or otherwise sitting on the sidelines.

  Do any of you know anyone--do any of you, right now, know anyone 
doing that--going to school because, gosh, jobs are so lousy, maybe, 
you think,

[[Page S6731]]

you will try to do something at school and maybe things will get 
better? If ObamaCare keeps hammering small businesses so they do not 
hire new workers and they keep reducing hours, the prospects for things 
getting better are not very bright.

       Even those lucky enough to be employed are often 
     struggling. Little more than half are working full time--
     compared with about 80 percent of the population at large--
     and 12 percent earn minimum wage or less.

  Let me repeat that. For young people who are working, little more 
than half are working full time. If you are a young person, if you are 
hoping to start a career, being forced into a part-time job because of 
ObamaCare is a big problem.

       The median weekly wage for young workers has fallen more 
     than 5 percent since 2007, after adjusting for inflation; for 
     those 25 and older, wages have stayed roughly flat.

  It is getting worse for young people. It is young people who are 
really getting hit by this. Let me ask young people: What urgency do 
you see in the Senate? Is the floor of the Senate filled with Senators 
saying there is a crisis with young people; let's step forward and help 
them get jobs? Nope. Senators have very busy calendars. There are 
cocktail parties to go to. Responding to the crisis that young people 
are facing is not high on the priority of enough Members of this Senate 
because Washington isn't listening to the people. That is why the 
hashtag is trending: ``MakeDCListen.'' Because we need to make DC 
listen.

       This generation's struggles have few historical precedents, 
     at least in the U.S.

  You all should feel excited. You have made history, although, 
unfortunately, not for a good reason, because the government has put 
policies in place that have so hammered small businesses that they have 
created a job market that makes life incredibly difficult for young 
people.

       The recession of the early 1980s was comparable but was 
     followed by a rapid recovery.

  Well, gosh, what happened in the early 1980s? President Ronald Reagan 
was elected. He implemented policies the exact opposite of this 
administration's policies. Instead of jacking up taxes by $1.7 
trillion, as this Congress and this President has done, President 
Reagan slashed taxes and simplified the Tax Code. Instead of exploding 
government spending and the debt, President Reagan restrained the 
growth of government spending. And instead of unleashing regulators 
like locusts that destroy small businesses, President Reagan restrained 
regulation and the result was incredible growth.
  For young people who have never known anything other than these 
abysmal economic conditions, there is another way. Every time we have 
implemented pro free-enterprise policies of restraining taxes, 
restraining regulation, reining in out-of-control government spending 
and debt, the result has been small businesses have prospered and 
thrived. They have created jobs, and the result has been young people 
could get jobs, full-time jobs that advance towards a career and 
towards the American Dream.

       The economic legacy of the Great Depression was erased to a 
     large degree by World War II and the boom that followed. No 
     similar rebound looks likely this time around.

  What a crying shame. Wouldn't it be nice if this week we forced them 
to change that sentence. Suppose this week Washington, DC, changed. 
Suppose this week Senators in this body--Republicans and Democrats--
decided we are going to do something we haven't done in a long time. We 
are going to listen to the people. The American people say their top 
priority is jobs and the economy. Suppose Members of the Senate said: 
Hot diggity, our top priority is jobs and the economy. Suppose Members 
of the Senate came together, and Republicans said we are going to stand 
together on cloture. On the vote on Friday or Saturday, all 46 of us 
are going to vote against cloture because ObamaCare is killing jobs. It 
is the biggest job killer and it is hurting the American people. And 
suppose Democrats said: You know, even though we supported ObamaCare, 
we have seen how it is implemented, it is not working, it is a train 
wreck, the American people are hurting, and we are going to respond. We 
are going to respond to young people--the young people, by the way, on 
Twitter and in social media we are reaching out to all the time.

  You know, lots of politics is very interesting, but nothing is better 
for a young person than a growing economy and an opportunity to have a 
job to work to achieve the American Dream. Yet the Wall Street Journal 
says no similar rebound looks likely this time around. I tell you what. 
If we act in an historic show of courage to defund ObamaCare, that will 
change.

       What evidence does exist suggests today's young people will 
     suffer long-term consequences.

  Now, this is important. You say may: Well, the job I have now is not 
great, but it will be fine in a few years. Here is part of the problem. 
When young people are stuck in dead-end jobs, if they don't get 
opportunity now, it echoes throughout that generation for decades.

       One recent study by Yale University economist Lisa Kahn 
     found that after the 1980s recession, new college graduates 
     lost 6 to 7 percent in initial wages for every one percentage 
     point increase in the unemployment rate. The effects shrank 
     over time, but even 15 years after graduation, those who 
     finished college in bad economic times earned less than 
     similar people who graduated in better times. Some never 
     caught up at all.

  So this stagnant economic growth, if you are a young person, I am 
sorry to tell you, it is not just a problem now. If you don't see the 
Senate finally listening to the American people, finally working to 
bring back economic growth, the stagnant economic opportunities we have 
right now are likely to haunt the lost generation of young people for 
decades to come. This is an urgency that should have this Senate floor 
packed.
  You know what. A lot of men and women in this body have kids who are 
in that generation. And we should be horrified, we should be outraged 
that the future of our young people is jeopardized.

       Mr. Wetherell, the son of an electrician, grew up in 
     Imperial, MO, a very small town south of St. Louis, where job 
     opportunities were limited even when the economy was strong, 
     and it wasn't when he graduated from high school in 2008. He 
     enrolled at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, juggled a 
     full course load, had a full-time job at a local grocery 
     store, and tracked his near-constant commitments on a dry-
     erase board in his room.
       Eventually, the schedule wore him down. He withdrew from 
     school in 2011, though he says he still plans to complete his 
     degree. He owes $27,000 in student debt--roughly his annual 
     pretax earnings--with three semesters still to go.
       Mr. Wetherell is better off than many of his peers. He 
     works at Schnucks, a locally owned supermarket chain where he 
     is a union member--
  And, by the way, that is one of the reasons why so many unions that 
have supported ObamaCare are turning on it now--

      receives health benefits and is paid $12.65 an hour. That is 
     enough to cover $400 monthly rent and $200 in student loan 
     payments. But it leaves little left over for an emergency 
     fund, let alone retirement savings.

  How many young people right now are able to save for retirement? That 
is something else that will echo for decades. Savings when you are 
young are most important for retirement because through compounding 
interest they can grow over the years.

       ``It's kind of unsettling not being able to put anything 
     away,'' says Mr. Wetherell, a political science major.
       Even more unsettling: Wetherell has noticed that more and 
     more of his coworkers have college degrees, some from well-
     regarded colleges like Washington University. What he had 
     intended as a job to help pay his way through college has now 
     turned into a destination for college graduates. ``I think a 
     lot about whether I'm ahead or behind,'' he says. ``I really 
     hope I'm not ahead.''

  What does that say when what used to be a part-time job that would 
help people pay their way through school becomes a destination for 
college graduates?
  You know, my dad worked his way through the University of Texas as a 
dishwasher and then as a cook. That job is what let him get the 
education. How much different would it have been if, after he had 
gotten his degree, he had shown up and they had said: Let's start 
washing dishes.

       Americans aren't the only ones asking such questions.

  I'm going to pause in this article because it is 8 o'clock right now, 
and I mentioned before that Heidi and I are blessed to have two little 
girls, Caroline and Catherine. Caroline is 5 and Catherine is 2. I love 
my daughters with all my heart. They are the joys of my life. I will 
tell you the hardest aspect of public service is not someone

[[Page S6732]]

saying something mean about you--the press. The hardest aspect of 
public service is being away from those little precious angels and 
coming up here to DC. I tell you, it breaks your heart on Monday 
morning when I walk out of the house and one girl grabs one leg and one 
girl grabs the other and they say: Don't leave, Dad.
  Well, right now, Caroline and Catherine are both at home getting 
ready to go to bed, and they have both turned on the television. They 
are both watching C-SPAN. Now I'm going to confess that Caroline and 
Catherine don't usually watch C-SPAN since there are far too few 
animated features on C-SPAN. But because the girls are watching, and my 
wife Heidi is watching with them, I wanted to take an opportunity--an 
opportunity I don't usually have when I am in DC--to read them a couple 
of bedtime stories. They are watching right now, and if you will 
forgive me, I want to take the opportunity to read two bedtime stories 
to my girls.
  But there is a point to this also. The point is very simple: The 
urgency we have and should feel is because of our kids. It is because 
of the future they are facing. It is because of the limited 
opportunities they have.
  I wish to read first to Caroline and Catherine Bible stories from the 
Old and New Testaments. We often read similar stories at home. This one 
is entitled ``King Solomon's Wise Words.'' It is from Proverbs 10, 11, 
12, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 21.
  So, Caroline and Catherine:

       King Solomon had good advice for how people could live a 
     good life and be happy. Here are some of his wise sayings:
       Children with good sense make their parents happy, but 
     foolish children make them sad.

  Sweetheart, you make your mommy and me very happy.

       You will say the wrong thing if you talk too much, so be 
     sensible and watch what you say.

  I will have to confess to my colleagues, that is not an encouraging 
Proverb for someone in the midst of a filibuster.

       Kindness is rewarded--but if you are cruel, you hurt 
     yourself.
       Try hard to do right, and you will win friends; go looking 
     for trouble, and you will find it.
       Good people are kind to their animals, but a mean person is 
     cruel.
       We trap ourselves by telling lies, but we stay out of 
     trouble by living right.
       It's wrong to hate others, but God blesses everyone who is 
     kind to the poor.
       Kind words are like honey--they cheer you up and make you 
     feel strong.
       Don't trust violent people. They will mislead you to do the 
     wrong thing.
       Even fools seem smart when they are quiet.

  I suppose that may counteract the other one.

       Good people live right, and God blesses the children who 
     follow their example.
       Hearing and seeing are gifts from the Lord.
       The food you get by cheating may taste delicious, but it 
     turns to gravel.

  And,

       If you try to be kind and good, you will be blessed with 
     life and goodness and honor.

  So that is the first story for Caroline and Catherine.
  The second one is what they know is my favorite story. It was my 
favorite story when I was a kid and it is a story I love reading to 
them. I actually don't get to read it to them often because we have a 
rule at home that they get to pick the books. For whatever reason, they 
don't pick Dr. Seuss's ``Green Eggs and Ham'' all that often. I don't 
get to read it that often because I tell them, Go pick the books you 
want to read, and I read to them. But since tonight, girls, you aren't 
here, you don't get to pick the book, so I got to pick ``Green Eggs and 
Ham.'' I love this story, so I am going to read it to you.

     Sam I Am.
     That Sam-I-am!
     That Sam-I-am!
     I do not like that Sam-I-am!
     Do you like green eggs and ham?
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     I do not like green eggs and ham.
     Would you like them here or there?
     I would not like them here or there.
     I would not like them anywhere.
     I do not like green eggs and ham.
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     Would you like them in a house?
     Would you like them with a mouse?
     I do not like them in a house.
     I do not like them with a mouse.
     I do not like them here or there.
     I do not like them anywhere.
     I do not like green eggs and ham.
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     Would you eat them in a box?
     Would you eat them with a fox?
     Not in a box.
     Not with a fox.
     Not in a house.
     Not with a mouse.
     I would not eat them here or there.
     I would not eat them anywhere.
     I would not eat green eggs and ham.
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     Would you? Could you?
     In a car?
     Eat them! Eat them!
     Here they are.
     I would not, could not, in a car.
     You may like them.
     You will see.
     You may like them in a tree!
     I would not, could not, in a tree.
     Not in a car! You let me be.
     I do not like them in a box.
     I do not like them with a fox.
     I do not like them in a house.
     I do not like them with a mouse.
     I do not like them here or there.
     I do not like them anywhere.
     I do not like green eggs and ham.
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     A train! A train!
     A train! A train!
     Could you, would you, on a train?
     Not on a train! Not in a tree!
     Not in a car! Sam, let me be!
     I would not, could not, in a box.
     I could not, would not, with a fox.
     I will not eat them with a mouse.
     I will not eat them in a house.
     I will not eat them here or there.
     I will not eat them anywhere.
     I do not like green eggs and ham.
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     Say!
     In the dark?
     Here in the dark!
     Would you, could you, in the dark?
     I would not, could not, in the dark.
     Would you, could you, in the rain?
     I would not, could not, in the rain.
     Not in the dark. Not on a train.
     Not in a car. Not in a tree.
     I do not like them, Sam, you see.
     Not in a house. Not in a box.
     Not with a mouse. Not with a fox.
     I will not eat them here or there.
     I do not like them anywhere!
     You do not like green eggs and ham?
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     Could you, would you, with a goat?
     I would not, could not, with a goat!
     Would you, could you, on a boat?
     I could not, would not, on a boat.
     I will not, will not, with a goat.
     I will not eat them in the rain.
     I will not eat them on a train.
     Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
     Not in a car! You let them be!
     I do not like them in a box.
     I do not like them with a fox.
     I will not eat them in a house.
     I do not like them with a mouse.
     I do not like them here or there.
     I do not like them ANYWHERE!
     I do not like green eggs and ham!
     I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
     You do not like them.
     So you say.
     Try them! Try them!
     And you may.
     Try them and you may, I say.
     Sam!
     If you will let me be,
     I will try them.
     You will see.

  And on this page he is simply holding green eggs and ham on a fork 
preparing to bite them.

     Say!
     I like green eggs and ham!
     I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!
     And I would eat them in a boat.
     And I would eat them with a goat . . .
     And I will eat them in the rain.
     And in the dark. And on a train.
     And in a car. And in a tree.
     They are so good, so good, you see!
     So I will eat them in a box.
     And I will eat them with a fox.
     And I will eat them in a house.
     And I will eat them with a mouse.
     And I will eat them here and there.
     Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!
     I do so like
     green eggs and ham!
     Thank you!
     Thank you,
     Sam-I-am!

  I want to say to Caroline and Catherine, my angels, I love you with 
all my heart. It is bedtime. Give Mommy a hug and a kiss, brush your 
teeth, say your prayers, and Daddy is going to be home soon to read to 
you in person.
  Let me say more broadly to everyone, ``Green Eggs and Ham'' has some 
applicability, as curious as it might sound, to ObamaCare, because 3\1/
2\ years ago President Obama and Senate Democrats told the American 
people, Just try ObamaCare. Just try it. There were an awful lot of 
Republicans who were very skeptical of it, I think for good reasons, 
but very skeptical. And we were told try it, try it, try it, try it. 
Unfortunately, through an exercise of brute political force, ObamaCare 
became the law of the land.
  But the difference with ``Green Eggs and Ham'' is when Americans 
tried it, they discovered they did not like green

[[Page S6733]]

eggs and ham and they did not like ObamaCare either. They did not like 
ObamaCare in a box, with a fox, in a house, or with a mouse. It is not 
working.
  One of the oldest definitions of insanity is continuing to do the 
same thing over and over expecting different results. I understand why 
many supported ObamaCare in the beginning. But if you look at the 
facts, if you look at the evidence, if you look at what is happening 
when the American people have tried it, it is not working. And if we 
listen to the people--if we listen to the American people, every one of 
us will stand together and say, We are going to stop this train wreck. 
Together, we need to make DC listen.
  Mr. ENZI. Through the Chair, would the Senator yield for a question, 
retaining the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. ENZI. I want to thank the Senator for the recitation of ``Green 
Eggs and Ham.'' That is as good as I have heard. I loved the different 
voices in it. One of my favorites was ``Hand, Hand, Finger, Thumb'' by 
Dr. Seuss. And another one was ``Hop on Pop.'' I think all of those 
could have related to the messages here. They might even be simple 
enough that we could get the message across.
  I appreciate all the passion and preparation the Senator has put into 
explaining this and his careful way with words.
  We are on a continuing resolution, and I don't know that people out 
there understand what continuing resolution is. It means that we failed 
to do our job on time--that we should have had 12 appropriations bills, 
one at a time, and been able to go through them with some care.
  I think maybe the Senator would agree that perhaps if we had done 
that, when we got to Health and Human Services we might have had the 
issue on the individual items of defunding ObamaCare. Had we had those 
individual ones, I think some of those would have passed and it 
wouldn't have had to have been an all-or-nothing as we have now.
  Would the Senator agree that doing it this way, particularly if we 
have no debate and no amendments, would be the wrong way, and that all 
we are doing is delaying some more decisions a little further down the 
road that again should have been covered by appropriations in a very 
timely manner? Isn't that the same problem we had with sequester, where 
we went through two-thirds of the year when there was supposed to be a 
2.3-percent sequester, so we only had 4 months left and those agencies 
had to pack it into the 4 months, and that made it 5.3 percent and that 
hurt worse? Of course, the President's note to everybody to ``make it 
hurt'' was not particularly helpful either.
  But aren't we faced again with that when we are doing a 2-month delay 
on a CR, so that we have to go through this exercise again probably 
when we would like to be home at Christmas personally reading those 
stories to kids? I would like to be reading to my grandkids.
  We have been kind of put in a box here that the American public 
doesn't like, I don't like, but it wasn't our doing.
  If those bills would have been brought up one at a time, we could 
have debated each of them and gotten into some details on them. It has 
been a long time since we got into details on trillions of dollars of 
spending. Health care is a part of that, and health care deserves some 
individual attention. That is what the Senator and I and a number of 
people are trying to give it, some individual attention. But we are 
being denied that right. We are not being allowed to go into it in 
detail so we can show exactly which parts we would defund, which parts 
we would dismantle and replace with something better.
  I spent a lot of time on this bill because I was here when it was 
going through the committee process. In fact, I had a 10-step plan on 
my Web site that would have done more than this bill and it would have 
been paid for. But that isn't a part of the bill. When they say the 
Republicans don't have solutions, they are not willing to look at any 
of the solutions even if they would wind up in a better situation.
  This was passed with a partisan government. It is a health care that 
is failing and we are not getting a chance to change it. Of course, I 
am one of those who would have liked to have repealed it and started 
over again and gotten it right.
  I know of another substitute bill that Senator Coburn and Senator 
Burr did, and that would have been a better replacement too. It would 
have covered more of the things the President, in a joint session of 
Congress when he covered it--I was on a committee that was working on 
it particularly, and I sat there and took extensive notes. The next day 
in our meeting I said, There are 14 things that he said in that speech 
we did not cover and I think we should have covered them.
  Instead, we wound up with the bill we have because there were 60 
Democrats and that is all it took to pass the bill. They had to make a 
few deals in order to get the 60 to stick together, and it is 
surprising they did stick together.
  I will end on that question. I have one other I would like to ask 
too. But I think our failure to do appropriations leads us to this 
point, and also gets us to a point where we can't go into the details 
of the bill. We have to take an all-or-nothing approach. That is not 
legislating. That is deal-making. I think we have an alternate approach 
and I would like the Senator to comment on it.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Wyoming for that very good question. 
I thank him also for his early support of this fight to defund 
ObamaCare. When Senator Mike Lee and I began this endeavor, Senator 
Enzi was with us from the start. I am grateful for his support and for 
his leadership.
  I note his question is exactly right. We would not be in this mess 
were it not for the failure of the Senate, the failure of the Senate to 
do its job, the failure of the Senate to have open debate, to have open 
amendments, the failure of the Senate to actually pass appropriations 
bills.
  Continuing resolutions exist because Congress has fallen down on the 
job. Congress has not actually passed appropriations bills into law. 
One of the things the continuing resolution bill does--a continuing 
resolution basically says let's keep everything going because we have 
not actually passed the appropriations bills that would properly make 
the funding decisions on the various agencies of government. But a 
continuing resolution enables those who want to keep funding ObamaCare 
to try to hold everything hostage to it.
  For example, you hear some in the Democratic majority suggesting--
they often run through a parade of horribles. If there is a government 
shutdown, if the continuing resolution doesn't pass, here are all of 
the horrible things that will happen.
  Some of the parade of horribles that are suggested are contrary to 
law. For example, they will sometimes suggest people will not get their 
Social Security payment or they will not get their Medicare or they 
won't get their Medicaid or we won't pay interest on the debt. That is 
not the way the Government works. All of those are paid through 
mandatory spending. The continuing resolution does not impact those 
continuing to happen. I note in 1995 when there were two partial 
temporary shutdowns, Social Security checks continued to go out, the 
interest on the debt continued to be paid. All that continued.
  Another thing those who are trying to force ObamaCare on the American 
people frequently want to hold hostage is the men and women in the 
military. My friend from Wyoming noted if we passed appropriations 
bills that would not be a problem. The House has passed an 
appropriations bill for the military. Yet the majority leader, Harry 
Reid, the Democratic majority, had not taken that bill up. If we had 
passed it into law you could quantify the chances of the men and women 
in the military having their pay suspended to mathematical certainty to 
0.000 percent. If we passed the appropriations bill, the issue would be 
off the table. But the Senate did not do its job; we did not pass the 
appropriations bill for the military.
  That leaves a tiny window for the President to threaten. If Congress 
listens to the American people and defunds ObamaCare, we may just stop 
paying the men and women of the military. Let me be absolutely clear. 
Under

[[Page S6734]]

no circumstances ever should the United States not pay the men and 
women of our military who risk their lives on the front lines. Current 
law gives the President ample authority to continue to pay the military 
regardless of whether there is a temporary partial shutdown.
  What has happened in the past, if and when there has been a temporary 
partial shutdown, is nonessential government services are temporarily 
suspended. By any measure, the military of the United States is not 
nonessential. So if we had done our job, as the Senator from Wyoming 
puts that forward, if we had passed appropriations bills, we would have 
taken off the table one after the other after the other of these 
hostages that are being held as the price to force ObamaCare on the 
American people.
  Part of the reason why the Democratic majority of the Senate does 
that is because the debate on the merits of ObamaCare is very hard to 
win. You notice we are, by and large, not engaging in a debate on the 
merits of ObamaCare, in terms of defunding ObamaCare. You don't see 
Democratic Senators talking about all the people who are losing their 
jobs, you don't see Democratic Senators talking about all those people 
having their hours reduced or all the people seeing skyrocketing health 
insurance premiums, or who are losing their health insurance. Instead, 
we see Democratic Senators going on television and saying: Well, if 
they stick to their guns on this, it is going to shut down the 
government.
  The Senator from Wyoming points out there is no reason for that. We 
could have passed the appropriations bill or we could do what the House 
of Representatives did. The House of Representatives, in an 
overwhelming vote, 232 Members, including 2 Democrats, voted to fund 
every aspect of the Federal Government--including, I note, some parts 
of the Federal Government that I am certain House Republicans are not 
fans of--yet they voted to fund all of it except for ObamaCare.
  I know my friend Congressman Louie Gohmert has come over to the 
Senate floor in a show of solidarity. I appreciate Congressman Gohmert 
joining us.
  I note if the Senate wants to avoid a shutdown, it can do so. Indeed, 
last night I took the opportunity to ask the majority leader, Why don't 
we avert this whole train wreck right now? Why don't we agree by 
unanimous consent to pass the continuing resolution the House has 
passed, take the prospect of a shutdown off the table entirely, and 
defund ObamaCare because it is hurting the American people? Majority 
Leader Reid objected and said no. No, he wants to keep ObamaCare, he 
wants to force it on the American people. Critically, he wants to use 
the threat of a government shutdown to try to do so. That, I suggest, 
is inconsistent with the obligation that every Senator has.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask permission to ask another question 
through the Chair, with the Senator being allowed to keep the floor.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, would the Senator agree that there are a 
number of things in this bill that have been changed because we have 
recognized that those things would not work? We have changed--not we, 
the President has changed a number of these things. I am having trouble 
finding in the law where those changes come from. There is not a lot of 
waiver authority in the bill, but every time a difficulty is found with 
the bill, then there appears to be a waiver so that particular part of 
the bill no longer exists.
  I have never seen that done before on legislation. How do they take a 
piece of the law that is in the bill, that does not have a waiver 
right, and go ahead and exempt us under that particular part of the 
law? One particular part of that I am particularly sensitive on because 
I worked on it very diligently. As the bill came through committee, 
that piece was the one where Congress should be under the law that we 
passed, Congress and the staff.
  That got remodeled, as you will recall, a little bit so that the 
committee staffs did not have to come under it because the committee 
staffs were actually going to finish up the bill. But we had intended 
for all of our staffs to be under that bill.
  Would the Senator agree that one of the amendments that we have not 
been able to vote on--it would have only taken 30 minutes to do a 15-
minute vote. That is kind of standard around here; it takes us a little 
longer to do a 15-minute vote. Heck, it takes us 20 minutes to do a 10-
minute vote and that has to follow on the heels of a 30-minute 15-
minute vote.
  We could have had that vote, but we were not allowed to. What that 
amendment is, as you will recall, what it would have done is put 
Congress back under the bill. It would have subjected Congress to 
suffering the same exact thing the American public is going to start 
experiencing on Tuesday as they go into the exchange or at the very 
latest by the 1st of January when they are required to do that.
  If their company is no longer providing them with insurance, the 
company will pay a little penalty but they get to come under the 
exchange. But they do not get to bring the company's tax-free donation 
to their health care along with them. But that is the way we had 
envisioned it working for Congress too. They would not get a special 
dispensation. So we brought up this amendment which would require that 
not only would Congress come under it, but since the President is the 
one who exempted this and did not have the right to exempt this from 
it, we thought perhaps he and the Vice President and the political 
appointees maybe ought to come under that same bill. I mean, why 
wouldn't the President want to come under it? After all, it is called 
ObamaCare. It is named after him.
  Apparently there is a tremendous desire not to do that, to explain 
that the Federal Government is different. That is exactly what the 
American people are upset about, that we are different. We should not 
be different. That is one of the things that could have been taken care 
of if we had taken this all through regular order.
  I appreciate efforts of the Senator to be able to do something. I ask 
if the Senator believes we ought to be exempted under any parts of this 
law or if these exemptions would be legal for the President to do if it 
is not written in the law? As a lawyer, my colleague probably has 
better insight into that than I do--and a constitutionalist. That is 
why I ask the question. Does the President have the right to do that?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my colleague for that very good question. The 
simple answer is no, the President does not have the authority to 
rewrite the law or alter the law. We operate under a principle that no 
one is above the law. We are a nation of laws and not of men. There are 
many disturbing aspects of ObamaCare, but one of the persistent ones is 
this law has been such a train wreck that the approach of the President 
has been, over and over, simply to disregard the language of the law, 
to pretend as if the law of the United States does not exist because as 
passed it was such a bad law. The way that is manifested, as my friend 
from Wyoming pointed out so accurately, is to grant exemptions to 
politically favored classes.
  It started out with big business. Giant corporations were all, with 
the wave of a pen, told don't worry about ObamaCare. It is supposed to 
kick in for you January 1 of next year, but the President has decided 
he is going to do a favor for big businesses that he will not do for 
small businesses, that he will not do for hard-working American 
families.
  The next significant waiver we saw was for Members of Congress. It 
occurred after a closed-door meeting here in the Capitol where majority 
leader Harry Reid and all the Senate Democrats, according to the public 
reports, came to the President and said: We want out of the ObamaCare 
exchanges.
  As my friend from Wyoming pointed out, if the ObamaCare exchanges 
were a good thing, if ObamaCare was working, why would there be panic 
among Senate Democrats saying please exempt Members of Congress? Why 
would there be panic among congressional staffers, as I can assure you 
there is, in a bipartisan way, about being subjected to these ObamaCare 
exchanges? Why would there be such opposition to subjecting the 
political appointees of the Obama administration to the ObamaCare 
exchanges or, as my friend from Wyoming pointed out so correctly, the 
President himself?

[[Page S6735]]

  It is, after all, called popularly ObamaCare. Even the President has 
embraced that name. You would think, I suspect, if there were a health 
care plan called EnziCare, the Senator from Wyoming would be happy to 
be covered by it and he would probably be very careful to draft a plan 
that he would be willing and excited to be covered by.
  What does it say that the people in charge of enforcing ObamaCare on 
the American people want out? They want a special rule. The IRS 
employee unions, the men and women who are given the statutory 
responsibility of going to Americans, going to hard-working Americans 
and forcing Americans to comply with ObamaCare, have said in writing: 
Please, let us out of ObamaCare. We don't want to be a part of this 
thing. This is our health care you are talking about.
  The most profound issue we are dealing with here today is not jobs, 
it is not the economy, it is not health care, it is not ObamaCare. The 
most profound issue we are dealing with here today is the fundamental 
divide between Washington and American people. There is a ruling class 
in Washington, DC; that they are subjected to different rules than the 
American people; that it is perfectly appropriate for political friends 
and allies of the President to get exemptions while single moms and 
young people and Hispanics and African Americans, people struggling, 
union workers struggling to pay the bills, provide for their kids--they 
don't get an exemption. Just those who walk the corridors of power. 
Just those with access to political influence.
  You know what that does? It strengthens politicians even more. Look, 
politicians are in the business of granting dispensations, granting 
exceptions. That means everybody in the country who wants some 
exception better come to politicians and support them.
  If you want to talk about something corrosive to our system of 
democracy, why do you think the American people hold this body in low 
regard? Because we pass laws that treat us better than everybody else. 
Tonight we are listening to the American people. We need to make DC 
listen.
  By the way, I have been told that during the course of this 
filibuster, the ``#MakeDCListen'' has at times been trending No. 1 in 
the country.
  I say to my colleagues who have come to the floor in support of this 
effort that it is because the American people understand and are 
frustrated as to why Washington doesn't listen to them, and for at 
least a brief moment each of us together--the Senator from Wyoming and 
the Senator from Oklahoma--are trying to serve as a voice for the 
American people who don't often have a voice in Washington. We need to 
make DC listen. There is nothing more important we can do than that.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. A lot of people have forgotten the cost of this. I would 
like to go over a couple of things if it is all right with the Senator. 
First, I wonder if the same thing is happening in his State--which is 
to the south of Oklahoma--of Texas that is happening in my State of 
Oklahoma. We are just a week away from when people will have to start 
signing up for ObamaCare. I commend Senator Cruz for reminding the 
American people that this law doesn't have to be a new reality. It 
doesn't have to be that way. We can stop it. There are still lingering 
questions about exactly what this is all going to look like.
  We do know this reform law, as they call it, continues to be 
expensive and overreaching. When it started out, it didn't sound too 
bad to the American people. It is estimated that the program will now 
cost as much as $2.4 trillion over the years.
  As I have suggested to my friend from Texas, around here we know what 
$1 trillion is, but most people don't know what that means. It is hard 
to understand this as far as what is going on in America. It will cost 
$2.6 trillion over 10 years once this is fully implemented, assuming 
they are successful in doing it. The cost estimates have only continued 
to rise since the law was passed.
  Most recently the administration asked for another $5.4 billion in 
discretionary funds next year for implementation. That is $5.4 billion 
in discretionary funds. Let's stop and think about that. One of the 
worst things about the Obama administration--and the Senator from Texas 
understands this since he is on the Senate Armed Services Committee--is 
how this President has been disarming America. The discretionary money 
that would be coming out of this is money that otherwise could be used 
for our systems and to support our warfighters over there. That is just 
the cost of the Federal Government. It doesn't include the lost hours, 
wages, and employees who have lost their jobs and the cost it will be 
to their families.
  Everyone agrees the premiums will rise. In my home State of Oklahoma 
we have a guy named John Doak. After talking to the insurance 
companies, he said Oklahomans' insurance will increase by a minimum of 
30 percent and up to 100 percent. He also said that one in four 
insurers in Oklahoma will have their rates vary from $143 a month for a 
30-year-old with basic coverage to $673 a month for a 64-year-old who 
wants the best coverage.
  Remember, the President promised to lower the premiums by $2,500. 
What I want to do, if I could, is share a little bit of good news. I 
know the Senator from Texas is aware of it, but I don't know how many 
other people are aware of this. We have a great attorney general in the 
State of Oklahoma whose name is Scott Pruitt. I suspect the Senator 
from Texas has met Scott Pruitt. Before we voted on this issue, we had 
a question on whether some of these subsidies would go any further. 
Scott Pruitt, through the courts, filed a lawsuit and is leading the 
charge to dismantle ObamaCare and put an end to it.
  Last month the judge overseeing the lawsuit ruled against a motion 
filed by the Obama administration to dismiss the case, which means the 
case will proceed. That is huge. If this goes through, this whole thing 
will be dismantled. That is why we need to go ahead and fight this as 
best we can, recognizing that there are other areas where the American 
people are speaking. Certainly Scott Pruitt is doing great things.
  I heard the Senator mention Congressman Louie Gohmert. Congressman 
Gohmert is a very close friend of mine. We have been together on a lot 
of things. I was visiting with him. He is in the Chamber right now and 
would like to share some of the things that are happening in his 
district, which is eastern Texas.
  These are some of the letters that he gets from constituents. This 
says:

       To get setup on the software was too expensive. She also 
     didn't want to be limited on the time she felt she needed to 
     spend with her patients. Therefore, she stopped taking 
     Medicare. Had to go on strictly cash basis.

  This text says:

       My wife's doctor has just retired because he did not want 
     to deal with ObamaCare.

  This is a letter that came from someone whose name is Katy Smith. She 
goes through quite a bit, and then says:

       The explanation from IBM was that they ``projected that 
     health care costs under the current IBM Medicare-eligible 
     retiree plan options will nearly triple by 2020.''

  This is another letter from Riverside Cottages. I guess that is 
someplace in eastern Texas.

       We were notified July 15, 2013 that my husband's insurance 
     coverage, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana/Montana 
     Comprehensive Health Association will terminate December 31, 
     2013. When my husband contacted Blue Cross Blue Shield, they 
     told him that this policy will no longer exist due to Obama 
     Care. He will need to find new coverage.

  And it goes on and on.
  The interesting thing--and the reason I am reading Texas letters 
right now--is that we receive a lot of them, and they are up in my 
office someplace. So this hits home and hits home hard.
  I ask my friend from Texas if he has received a lot of these 
anecdotal letters from people who are suffering serious hardships and 
are now anticipating what will happen when this becomes a reality?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his excellent question. 
Let me say from the outset that I am grateful for Senator Inhofe's 
leadership and his courage. From the outset Senator Inhofe has been 
with me on this fight, fighting to defund ObamaCare.

[[Page S6736]]

  I want to also note that Senator Inhofe, like some of the other 
Senators who have come to the floor of the Senate this afternoon--
including Senator Roberts, Senator Sessions, and Senator Enzi--are 
respected veterans of this institution. They are leaders who have 
earned the respect of their colleagues.
  I am grateful for Senator Inhofe being willing to stand up and be a 
leader in this fight. That courage is contagious. I hope it will 
continue to be even more contagious in the Republican Congress. I hope 
by the time we come to the cloture vote on Saturday that we see all 46 
Republicans united in voting against shutting off the debate and 
against allowing majority leader Harry Reid the ability to fund 
ObamaCare with a straight 51 party vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. Before that happens, I think it is important that the 
people of this country have to know what this is all about. This is 
socialized medicine. A lot of them didn't believe that. Last week 
majority leader Harry Reid was on the PBS ``Nevada Week in Review.'' He 
was asked whether his goal was to move ObamaCare to a single-payer 
system. His answer was: Yes, yes. Absolutely yes. Do a lot of the 
people know what a single-payer system is? That is essentially 
socialized medicine.
  I was around during the Clinton administration when there was a thing 
called Hillary health care. Does my friend from Texas remember Hillary 
health care?
  Mr. CRUZ. I do indeed. I remember in particular at the time the press 
and all of the graybeards in Washington at the time saying that Hillary 
Care was unstoppable. It can't stop it. Republicans need to get 
together.
  If the Senator from Oklahoma will recall, initially the response was 
described as like Hillary care lite. Back then in the midst of the 
Hillary care fight there were a few courageous leaders in the House who 
stood up against Hillary Care. What changed that battle was the 
American people rising. At the end of the day, it is the only thing 
that can win any fights.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is exactly what did happen. I can remember going 
from Washington to my hometown of Tulsa. Normally I have to go through 
Chicago. Chicago is where the AMA has their headquarters, and it is 
probably still there. I will always remember this. I was rejoicing. I 
was coming back after the long fight against Hillary health care or 
socialized medicine. I remember saying the question on the Senate 
floor: Try to explain this to me: If socialized medicine doesn't work 
in Great Britain, Sweden, or Canada, why would it work in this country? 
They never said it, but what they were thinking was: If I were running 
it, it would work. We got that point across.
  They started way ahead with Hillary health care, and then we started 
to catch up. Just like now people are realizing this is a failed 
socialized medicine effort. We had won.
  That kind of relates to what is happening today. I was on that plane 
going through Chicago to Tulsa, and I picked up the Wall Street 
Journal, and there was a full-page ad by the AMA supporting Hillary 
health care. Of course, when I stopped in Chicago, I went and visited 
the AMA. This is an organization that represents a lot of real smart 
doctors and others who were saying that we can't win. We can't win this 
and therefore let's go ahead with it. We had already won when they ran 
that ad. I don't know how many days before that they put the ad in, but 
nonetheless we had won.
  I don't know if my friend remembers that because my friend was not in 
the Senate at that time. That is exactly what happened, and it is very 
analogous to a lot of things that are happening today.
  The other thing I wanted to mention is that anytime desperation 
starts to set in, there are a lot of things that go around to confuse 
people. Let me tell everyone what happened in Oklahoma today. This will 
surprise my friend from Texas. There are 14 people who started this--
the Senator from Texas, myself, and 12 other people about 6 weeks ago. 
During this time we have been in lockstep to see what we could do to 
stop this from happening to my 20 kids and grandkids and the rest of 
America.
  People realized I was there from the very beginning, as the Senator 
from Texas mentioned, and yet we have some of the Obama people who are 
doing robocalls in my State of Oklahoma posing as tea party people and 
saying to call Inhofe because he is for ObamaCare.
  I say to my good friend, I can't believe something like that is 
happening. It shows a level of desperation where they are trying to get 
people confused as to what the issue is and want to get to these 
deadlines so we can get past this and have this thing as a reality. 
Every liberal in America is probably for it.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for that question. I have 
to say I am not surprised. There is an old adage among courtroom 
lawyers: If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, 
pound the law. If you don't have either, pound the table.
  To be honest, the approach by ObamaCare defenders is an awful lot of 
table pounding. It is an awful lot of ``let's discuss anything other 
than what, in fact, happened.'' Pick up any newspaper and it is talking 
about this issue. What will the reporters, the political reporters in 
Washington, DC, write about? I think some may be frustrated because 
they wanted to be Hollywood gossip reporters because they covered these 
issues as a battle of personalities. If you want to get a story on the 
front page of the paper, find some anonymous congressional staffer to 
say something scurrilous, ideally include profanity in it, and the 
political reporters eat it up, because, apparently, the only thing that 
matters is the personalities bickering back and forth. In many ways, 
that is not surprising, because if one is trying to defend a law that 
the lead author calls a train wreck, that the unions who supported it 
are desperately trying to get out from under, that you and your 
Democratic Senate colleagues are desperately asking for yourselves to 
be exempted from it, then you sure as heck don't want to talk about how 
the law is operating. You sure as heck don't want to talk about all of 
the people who are losing their jobs because of ObamaCare. You sure as 
heck don't want to talk about all the people who can't get jobs, all 
the small businesses that aren't growing because of ObamaCare. You 
certainly don't want to talk about all of the people forced into part-
time work, 29-hours-a-week work. You don't want to talk about the 
insurance premiums that are going up, pricing people out of the 
insurance market, and you especially don't want to talk about all the 
people losing their health insurance.

  My colleague read the stories from East Texas of citizens there 
losing their health insurance. That is happening all over the country.
  So it doesn't surprise me that the Senator from Oklahoma is seeing 
robocalls in the State of Oklahoma because they don't want to debate on 
the merits of ObamaCare because it is indefensible. So the only 
strategy is smoke and mirrors. The only strategy is, if we can't talk 
about the law, let's convince them about something else. Let's distract 
them. Let's figure out anything to take people's minds off of the 
underlying issue.
  I would note to my friend from Oklahoma, the only way that strategy 
works is if the American people don't believe Washington will listen to 
them.
  Look, there are a lot of reasons for the American people to believe 
Washington is not going to listen to them because Washington hasn't 
been listening to us for a long time. Politicians on both sides of this 
aisle have lost touch with their constituents. They don't go home, 
don't go to townhall meetings, and view the desires of their 
constituents as simply uninformed and not relevant to doing our jobs.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator from Texas will yield, because he said 
something that is so profound.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am yielding for a question but not yielding the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Of course. The Senator from Texas said if you don't have 
logic on your side or the facts on your side or the public on your 
side, what do you do? It is not just pounding the table. It is name-
calling.
  I went through this, I would suggest to my friend, 12 years ago when 
the Kyoto treaty was up and everyone thought global warming was coming 
and that was going to be everyone's trip to the White House to support 
global warming, until we realized what the cost would be. I was the bad 
guy

[[Page S6737]]

because I stood and said: No, this isn't true. First of all, it is a 
hoax; and secondly, even if it is not, we couldn't do it. That is when 
all the name-calling started. I can remember being called--in writing 
and by a fairly prominent person--I should be hanged for treason at 
that time. That is what they get, and that is what my friend is going 
through right now with a lot of people who don't agree with him.
  Twelve years later, what has happened? People realize I was right. I 
am not suggesting it is going to be 12 years before they realize the 
Senator from Texas is right on this, but it means the behavior of 
people today is something that has happened many times in the past.
  So I would just ask my friend to remember that and to realize that 
quite often, when a person is right on a controversial issue, they are 
going to be the subject of a lot of criticism, a lot of cussing, a lot 
of name-calling, and a lot of violence. So this isn't the first time.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his very kind remarks 
of support and encouragement and for his friendship from day one since 
I arrived in the Senate. I do hope other colleagues in this body don't 
listen to all of the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma and suddenly 
discover that hanging for treason is an option because that may not 
work out terribly well for me. I hope that becomes purely fictional.
  I will know that at the end of the day--listen, the Senator from 
Oklahoma and I, and all 100 of us, are incredibly fortunate. We have 
lived lives in this country of relative privilege. We, everyone in the 
Senate, enjoys a good home, has a soft bed, I suspect, has air-
conditioning, has food on the table. I feel blessed to have a wife who 
is my best friend in the world and whom I love with all my heart, to 
have two precious little girls who are the joy of my life. To be able 
to come to work every day, to walk on this Senate floor, there is not a 
day when that doesn't take my breath away. The idea that the son of a 
Cuban immigrant with nothing, who finds himself suddenly elected to the 
Senate, to have the opportunity to come in every day, it is truly 
awesome, in the real sense of the word. There was a time when the word 
``awesome'' was a Valley girl phrase for everything, but awesome, in 
its real sense of inspiring awe--I will tell my colleague I find it 
awesome every day to walk into this Capitol and to have the amazing 
privilege to serve, as the Senator from Oklahoma and I do, as do all 
100 of us. The slings and arrows one deals with serving in public 
office, to be perfectly candid, are all chickenfeed. The old phrase 
about sticks and stones--listen, someone saying something mean about 
another is nothing compared to the suffering that so many people across 
this country are experiencing.
  I sat down with one single mom who is working her heart out to 
provide for her kids because she wants her kids to have a good home, 
she wants her kids to have an education, she wants her kids to have a 
future. Her hours have been reduced to 29 hours a week and she doesn't 
know what is coming next. That is hard work. That is suffering. This 
ain't nothing.
  The Senator from Oklahoma speaks with disabled veterans, as I know he 
has done many times, and he is worried about the impact of ObamaCare on 
our economy, of jobs drying up. He is worried about his grandson who is 
just coming out of school right now but who can't get a job. That is a 
lot more important than the political bickering back and forth. That 
was my point about all of the press coverage dealing with--it is not 
about any personality here; it is about listening to the American 
people.
  The American people do not give a flying flip about any Member of the 
Senate--none of the 100 of us. What the American people are interested 
in is what we have always been interested in, which is freedom, our 
families, providing for our kids, being a good example to our kids, 
working for a better world and working so our kids and their kids have 
an even better future and opportunity than we have had. If we go back 
centuries, we see that every generation of Americans has been able to 
give to the next generation a brighter future, greater prosperity, 
greater opportunity. We are on the verge of being the first generation 
of Americans not to do so. If we want to put our fingers on the 
discontent so many Americans feel, that goes right to the heart of it: 
What we are doing in Washington isn't working.

  The economic malaise. I refer to the last 5 years as the ``great 
stagnation'' because for 4 consecutive years our economy has grown on 
average 0.9 percent a year. It is not working. Intelligent, rational 
people looking at a set of policies that aren't working would do the 
intelligent, rational thing. We would correct course. We would say, OK, 
this isn't working. What has worked? But that is not happening. It is 
not happening because even though it is not working, the failures 
aren't visited on Congress. The failures are visited on the American 
people. Congress exempts itself from ObamaCare. It doesn't even do it 
in the law. The law says we are covered by it, but, instead, Democratic 
Senators go to the President and say: We want a special exemption for 
us that doesn't apply to the American people. So the fundamental 
problem is that elected officials are not listening to the people.
  Earlier, I was reading the article about the lost generation of young 
people from the Wall Street Journal that ran on September 19. I made it 
about halfway through. Let me finish that article because I think it 
raises some very important issues. The last thing I read was about the 
young man, 23 years old, working a job where he says his job at the 
grocery store--he doesn't have a college degree, but he is seeing more 
and more college degrees getting in, and he is saying: Gosh, I thought 
this was a job that helped me pay my way through school. If this is the 
end job after you get a degree, what does it say about opportunity?
  The last quote I read was:

       I think a lot about whether I am ahead or behind. I really 
     hope I'm not ahead.

  The article continues:

       Americans aren't the only ones asking such questions. The 
     financial crisis that began in the U.S. quickly rippled 
     across the Atlantic, bursting similar credit and property 
     bubbles in countries such as the U.K., Ireland and Spain, and 
     crippling a European banking sector that had dense links with 
     the U.S. financial system.
       Much of Europe's economy was plunged into its worst postwar 
     slump and has struggled even more in the U.S. to regain its 
     precrisis levels of growth and jobs. In Europe, the banking 
     crisis also triggered a second-wave crisis--massive capital 
     flights from Southern European countries that relied on 
     foreign borrowing--that came close to unraveling the euro.

  Let me move forward beyond the Europeans, back to where it discusses 
American young people again:

       But there are signs that the weak economy is leading to 
     deep societal changes. An entire generation is putting off 
     the rituals of early adulthood: Moving away, getting married, 
     buying a home and having children. The marriage rate among 
     young people, long in decline, fell even faster during the 
     recession, and the birth rate for women in their early 20s 
     fell to an all-time low in 2012.

  Why do we think it is that young people are putting off marriage and 
putting off kids?

       According to a recent Pew Research Study, 56 percent of 18- 
     to 24-year-olds lived with their parents in 2012, up from 51 
     percent in 2007--

  Fifty-six percent of 18- to 24-year-olds lived with their parents in 
2012--

     an increase that looks particularly dramatic because the 
     share had changed little in the previous four decades.

  Moreover, many young people are losing hopes of matching the 
prosperity of their parents' generation.
  I talked a minute ago about the hope of all of us that our kids have 
greater opportunity. What does it say that young people are losing hope 
of even matching where we are, much less having greater prosperity?

       Just 11 percent of employed young people in a recent Pew 
     survey said they had a career as opposed to ``just a job''; 
     fewer than half said they were even on track for one.
       John Connelly thought he was on the right track in life. 
     The son of a New Jersey auto mechanic, he was the first in 
     his family to go to college when he enrolled in Rutgers in 
     2009.

  I will note as an aside, my uncle went to Rutgers. I went to college, 
to Princeton in New Jersey, and my uncle was often fond of reminding me 
that the very first collegiate football game that ever was played in 
the United States was played between Rutgers and Princeton. At every 
Thanksgiving, my uncle would then remind me who won and it was Rutgers 
who won. Princeton

[[Page S6738]]

got whipped in that Princeton game. I am sure John Connelly is quite 
aware that Rutgers won the first collegiate football game in the United 
States.

       Four years later, the 22-year-old found himself $21,000 in 
     debt, without a permanent job and sleeping on friends' 
     couches in New Jersey and Brooklyn. ``I hear a lot of stuff 
     that people in my generation aren't buying cars or houses, 
     and I'm a step beyond that--I can't even pay rent on time,'' 
     Mr. Connelly says. ``I have a hard time planning 10 years in 
     the future when I can hardly plan three months in the 
     future.''
       At Rutgers, Mr. Connelly was an honors student and 
     president of the student assembly. But wary of taking on more 
     debt, he ended up withdrawing from school with three credits 
     to go until graduation. After a summer spent living with 
     friends while working a temporary job at a Brooklyn 
     nonprofit, he found a grant that allowed him to reenroll in 
     school this fall, but he still doesn't know what he will do 
     when he graduates at the end of the semester. ``I kind of did 
     everything I was quote-unquote ``supposed'' to be doing,'' he 
     says.

  I am still reading from the Wall Street Journal:

       The costs of a ``lost generation'' go beyond the impact on 
     young people themselves. A 2012 analysis commissioned by the 
     Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal 
     agency, estimated that the 6.7 million American youth who are 
     disconnected from both school and work could ultimately cost 
     taxpayers $1.6 trillion in lost tax receipts, increased 
     reliance on government benefits and other expenses. Look 
     at broader economic and social effects such as lost 
     earnings and increased criminal activity and the impact 
     tops $4.7 trillion, the researchers estimated.

  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. My understanding is that the Senator's position is, if we 
do not defund ObamaCare, as he has characterized it--the health care 
reform act--that he believes we should shut down the government on 
October 1. Is that the Senator's position?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question. That 
most assuredly is not my position, so I thank the Senator for the 
opportunity to clarify it.
  Let me be very clear. I do not believe we should shut down the 
Federal Government. The only reason we might shut down the Federal 
Government is if President Obama and Majority Leader Reid decide they 
want to force a government shutdown.
  What I believe we should do is the same thing the House of 
Representatives did, the same thing the House courageously did, which 
was last Friday the House of Representatives voted to fund every aspect 
of the Federal Government--every bit of it, including parts they 
disagree with--except for ObamaCare. I would note to my friend from 
Illinois, they did so in response to the American people because the 
American people are hurting under ObamaCare.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator has spoken at length many times, including 
today, about his education. I respect him. He has gone to some very 
famous schools. Certainly, the Senator understands it takes 60 votes to 
achieve the goal he is trying to achieve, which means the Senator 
believes he has at least all the votes on his side of the aisle and 
another 14 votes on the Democratic side of the aisle to repeal 
ObamaCare. Does the Senator have that belief?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator for that question, and I thank the 
Senator for the comment he has made in public, noting that having 
attended the schools I have that perhaps I had not learned to count to 
60. I will note that I am quite familiar with what is necessary to 
defund ObamaCare. What I have said for months is this is a long 
process. I am not remotely Pollyannaish. I am not remotely under the 
illusion that this is going to be a short, quick process, that suddenly 
ObamaCare will be defunded.
  I am getting to the answer to the Senator's question, but it is a 
detailed answer, so if he will forgive me, I will take a few moments to 
lay it out.
  In my view, the first step to this process was unifying and 
motivating the American people. This process was never going to work 
unless the American people became engaged in historic numbers. So I 
spent much of the month of August and September during our recess 
traveling the State of Texas, traveling the country, doing everything I 
could to go directly to the American people, to go around the 
lobbyists, to go around the entrenched interests in Washington, and go 
straight to the American people.
  I will tell the Senator, the response was incredible. Everywhere I 
would go, I would see 1,000, 2,000 people show up. We have seen over 
1.6 million Americans sign a national petition to defund ObamaCare.
  That was the first step. That was not going to be enough, but it was 
a critical first step.
  The second step was what happened last week. It was the House of 
Representatives voting to defund ObamaCare.
  I would note, as the Senator from Illinois is well aware, that as 
recently as a couple weeks ago, every learned observer, every pundit, 
everyone in Washington said: It is impossible that the House is going 
to pass a continuing resolution that defunds ObamaCare. It is not going 
to happen. Yet on Friday it did. Why did it pass it? Because the House 
of Representatives listened to the American people, because the Speaker 
of the House and House conservatives stood and did the right thing and 
made a courageous vote. I will note, two Democrats joined the House 
Republicans in that vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield further for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I would like to finish answering the Senator's last 
question, and I am happy to yield for another. But let me finish 
answering the Senator's question.
  The third step is where we are now as the Senate. In the Senate, we 
are going to have to do two things. The first thing we are going to 
have to do in order to successfully defund ObamaCare is to unify 
Republicans, to bring together all 46 Republicans, opposing cloture, 
opposing Harry Reid being able to fund ObamaCare on a straight 51-vote 
partisan vote. I believe every Republican should be unified in that. 
Right now we are not. Right now there are divisions in the Republican 
caucus. I am hopeful Republicans will listen to our constituents. I 
cannot convince my colleagues. The only people who can convince my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle are the 
people all of us work for, the American people.
  If we are able to unify Republicans, the next step--the Senator asked 
me: How do we ultimately get to 60? I assume the predicate of that 
question is that the first thing we would have to do is to get to 51--
so if we got 46 Republicans and we initially got five Democrats. How 
would we get five Democrats? As the Senator from Illinois is well 
aware, there are quite a few Democrats who are up for election in red 
States, States where their citizens understand ObamaCare is a train 
wreck. It is not working. I believe if those Democratic Senators, 
particularly in red States, begin hearing from their constituents in 
overwhelming numbers, that will change their calculus.
  Let me readily admit, as long as Republicans are divided, as long as 
we are shooting at each other, there is not a lot of incentive for 
Democrats to come join us. But if we can unify Republicans, then I 
believe we will start with red State Democrats who will potentially 
lose their jobs if they continue not listening to their people.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. CRUZ. Sure.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might question the Senator's premise as to whether the 
House was going to vote the way it did. Since it has voted 42 times to 
abolish ObamaCare, it came as no surprise.
  But let me ask a specific question. One of the reasons I voted for 
health care reform--and I am proud that I did--was illustrated by a 
woman whom I met in southern Illinois. The Senator has spoken today 
about hard-working people, including members of his own family, and I 
do not doubt that.
  This woman's name is Judy. Judy is a housekeeper at a motel that I 
often go to, and we have become friends. Judy has worked her whole life 
in manual labor. She has been everything you

[[Page S6739]]

can imagine--a cook, a waitress, a housekeeper, all of these things. 
She is 62 years old. Judy told me that she had never had health 
insurance one day in her life, ever. She worked every single day she 
could, but she never had health insurance. It turns out Judy was 
diabetic, and we found some doctors and hospitals locally in her area 
to give her some care.
  We have just had an announcement in Illinois that is going to be 
officially released tomorrow about what this new health insurance 
marketplace in Illinois means for people such as Judy. It means we are 
going to offer 165 different health insurance plans in Illinois by 
eight different insurers. The premiums at the lowest level of health 
insurance, for those who are not under Medicaid, will be in the range 
of $84 a month. But the good news for Judy is that her income is so low 
she now qualifies for Medicaid for the first time in her life. For the 
first time in her life, Judy who would be turned down because of the 
preexisting condition of diabetes, is going to have the peace of mind 
of health insurance.

  The Senator and I are blessed to have the best health insurance in 
America as Members of the Senate. So when the Senator says he wants to 
disband and stop ObamaCare, does he want to deny the opportunity for 
Judy and millions more just like her for the first time in their lives 
to have the protection of health insurance they can afford?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question. I will 
say, I respect his sincerity and passion in believing that government 
solutions from Washington can fix this problem. I do not know if the 
Senator from Illinois shares the views that Majority Leader Reid 
expressed on television. I do not know if his objective is as Majority 
Leader Reid said his was: to move to single-payer, government-provided, 
socialized health care. But it may be. I do not want to put words in 
the Senator's mouth. Certainly, I do not know one way or the other what 
his view would be.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.
  Mr. CRUZ. But I will say this. The Senator tells the story of Judy. 
The best way for Judy or anyone to have health insurance is to have an 
economy that is booming where people can get jobs and have 
opportunities. Indeed, let me respond with two things.
  No. 1, before the Senator from Illinois came to the floor of the 
Senate, I read a number of letters that have come from people all over 
the country. Let me just read the next one in my stack because it 
happens to actually be a counterpart to his story about Judy. This is a 
constituent from Brackettville, TX, who wrote earlier this year:

       Since the passage of what is known as Obama Care, my 
     insurance premiums have gone up three times. That doesn't 
     count the increases in my Medicare Part A and B that have 
     also risen. I was also informed prior to passage that certain 
     retirees from one group would see their company support 
     terminated after 2013 and my support will terminate after 
     2018. In the meantime, I've lost two family doctors who have 
     left the practice . . . and must settle for nurse 
     practitioners and physician assistants. I am fortunate to 
     have good coverage, for which I pay dearly, that is accepted 
     everywhere; but I fear the day I can no longer afford it. I 
     am paying for Obama's train wreck ever since the bill was 
     passed. Surely, there must be some way to defund or repeal 
     the bill. . . . Please help.

  I would note for the Senator from Illinois, these pleas for help are 
coming from all across the country.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator's answer to Judy is: You need a 
better job. After working a lifetime--62 years, hard work, the best she 
can do; she has never had health insurance--and I think the Senator's 
answer was: Judy, get a better job.
  So let me ask another question.
  When I voted for ObamaCare, health care reform, one of the things 
that motivated me was the fact that health insurance companies would no 
longer be able to discriminate against Americans with preexisting 
conditions.
  I have had a situation in my family, a child who had a serious 
physical problem, who could not have qualified but for group health 
insurance that was available to me as a Member of Congress. If I had 
gone in the open market to buy a policy, I am not sure I would have 
bought one for my family to cover my child.
  So when the Senator says he wants to abolish ObamaCare, does he want 
to abolish that part of ObamaCare which says you cannot discriminate 
against people with preexisting conditions when it comes to health 
insurance? If those people are victims of asthma, diabetes, cancer 
treatment, mental illness, does the Senator want to abolish ObamaCare 
and that protection?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question.
  Let me answer it in two different ways. Let me talk generally about 
what the Senator talked about, about his health insurance and my health 
insurance as a Member of the Senate and let me talk about preexisting 
conditions separately.
  The first point I will make is that the Senator from Illinois is 
passionate and has been quite eloquent describing what he perceives to 
be the benefits from ObamaCare. Yet I think it speaks volumes that the 
Senator from Illinois and I and every other Member of Congress have 
been exempted by President Obama from the plain text of the statute.
  The statute provided--and it was inserted quite deliberately--if we 
are going to impose rules on the American people, we should be subject 
to the same rules, we should be put in the exchanges similar to 
millions of other Americans. The Senator just talked about the 
wonderful exchange. The text of ObamaCare provides that he and I should 
be in those exchanges. It also provides that, just like the other 
people in the exchange, our employers cannot subsidize it once we get 
in that exchange.
  Once it passed into law, the Democratic caucus met with President 
Obama. Obviously, I was not in that meeting. But I read the public 
reports of what occurred there. I read the press accounts. The press 
accounts all indicated that the majority leader and the Democratic 
Members of the Senate asked President Obama: Please get us out from 
under this. We do not want to be in the exchanges.
  I see my friend from Illinois is shaking his head. I was not in the 
room. The press reports all say that is what occurred. But regardless, 
that is what happened.
  So that message was heard by the President because shortly thereafter 
the administration issued a ruling that exempted Members of Congress 
and exempted our staff.
  I am curious, if the Senator from Illinois is such a fan of the 
exchanges, is such a fan of the health care that has been provided to 
Judy, would the Senator from Illinois then support Senator Vitter's 
amendment to provide that every Member of Congress, every one of our 
staffs, every political appointee in the Obama administration--and, 
frankly, I would like to see every Federal employee all put under the 
exchanges--so if we are going to make the rules for the American 
people, that we be subject to those same rules, those same plans, so 
that when we go on television and say the exchanges are very good, we 
are not talking about something someone else is experiencing, we are 
talking about our own health care.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield, I would like to respond and 
ask a question.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. The point I would like to make is that the Senator is 
just plain wrong. What he has stated is just plain wrong. Here is the 
state of the situation: The health insurance that you enjoy and the 
Senator from Alabama and I enjoy, as well as the Senator from Virginia, 
is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It covers 8 million 
Federal employees and their families, including Members of Congress and 
our staff. The premiums we pay for the health insurance we choose--the 
Federal Government as our employer pays 72 percent of the premiums. 
This is not an unusual situation--150 million Americans, which is half 
of our population, have exactly the same arrangement. These are 
employer-sponsored employer contributions to the health care of their 
employees.
  What the President did was to say, No. 1, that you, Senator Cruz, I, 
and others will now have to buy our health insurance through the 
insurance exchanges that we created in ObamaCare.

[[Page S6740]]

With it, we will get the employer contribution, as we do now--as you 
enjoy now personally and I enjoy--for that purchase of health 
insurance.
  My wife and I will be choosing a policy from the health insurance 
marketplace in the State of Illinois. We will have 8 different 
insurance companies and 165 choices. That is our insurance.
  What you quarrel with is the employer contribution to health 
insurance. If that is now your position and the position of Senator 
Vitter and the Republican Party, that it is a Federal subsidy which 
should be stopped, you are affecting the health insurance not just of 
Members of Congress and their staff but 150 million Americans. You 
better think twice about this. If you want to stop employer 
contributions to health insurance, that will be the headline for 
tomorrow morning. I do not support that. My question is, Do you?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his certainly genuine 
political advice and counsel. I would note that the experience 
Democratic Senators found under ObamaCare of suddenly facing the 
prospect of losing their health insurance, of being forced into the 
exchanges, health insurance that had been employer provided--being 
forced into the exchanges with no employer subsidy, is a disconcerting 
experience. It is an experience nobody liked. It is an experience that 
is lousy. There is a reason why Democratic Senators were so upset. 
There is a reason why congressional staff were so upset.
  What my friend from Illinois is not focusing on is that right now 
there are Americans all over this country who are experiencing that 
same exact sentiment because of ObamaCare. Just a few weeks ago UPS 
sent a letter to some 15,000 employees saying: We are dropping spousal 
health insurance because of ObamaCare. That is 15,000 UPS employees who 
had insurance for their husbands and wives, and suddenly those husbands 
and wives are left without health insurance and being told: Go on an 
exchange with no employer subsidy. Senator Durbin just made a 
passionate case for why that is a terrible thing to tell people. I 
agree.
  Listen, my preferred outcome is not to subject Members of Congress, 
congressional staff, political appointees of the administration, and 
Federal employees to the exchanges and ObamaCare. My preference is to 
subject nobody to that. But the reason Senator Grassley inserted that 
amendment is because we have a problem of a ruling class in 
Washington--in both parties; this is a bipartisan affliction--that 
believes the rules that govern working Americans do not govern us.
  So if we are going to set up a system, if ObamaCare is going to force 
Americans all over this country to lose their employer-provided health 
insurance, to be forced into the exchanges with no subsidies, then the 
men and women who serve in this body should feel that pain exactly the 
same. So when we go on television and say ``this is great,'' we should 
know of which we speak because we got skin in the game and we are not 
being treated better. I think under no circumstance should Members of 
Congress be treated better than hard-working Americans. That is what 
President Obama did. He did so, by all reports, at the request of 
Democratic Senators in this body.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for one last question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask one last question.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am going to yield to the Senator from Alabama. I am happy 
to return to the Senator from Illinois if he would like to remain, but 
I want to be fair because the Senator from Alabama has been waiting for 
some time. So I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  An econometric firm and others have studied what is likely to happen 
in our economy. As I understand it, they predict that far more people 
will be dumped from coverage into the exchanges than they have today. 
So people who are under health care coverage today--it is being paid 
for by their employer. The employer discovers it would be less 
expensive to quit providing health care coverage and let those 
individuals go into the exchange, and they may or may not provide any 
subsidy to them.
  So I do think the extent to which we as Senators go into the exchange 
and are guaranteed the full subsidy we have been getting--that is 
different from what is going to happen to millions of Americans. I 
guess the Senator maybe has heard that argument and how it is possible 
that if businesses decide to drop health care, individuals can then be 
forced to go into the exchange without any subsidy at all. I would ask 
Senator Cruz if he understands that is possibly what could happen to 
large numbers of Americans.
  Mr. CRUZ. I think the Senator from Alabama is exactly right. We are 
seeing Americans all over this country hurt by ObamaCare.
  I want to suggest that the problem we are debating today is bigger 
than this continuing resolution, it is bigger than ObamaCare, and it is 
bigger even than the Federal budget. The problem is that the men and 
women of DC are not listening. They are not listening to the millions 
of Americans who are asking for more accountability, more 
responsibility, and more truth from their elected officials. It is time 
to make DC listen.
  I would observe that during the course of this afternoon, the hashtag 
``MakeDCListen'' has been trending No. 1 because the American people 
are frustrated. They are frustrated that the Democratic Senate is not 
listening to them. They are frustrated that the Republican Senators are 
not listening to them. The whole debate we are having right now is not 
about strategy, it is not about process, it is not about procedures, 
and it is not about all of the pundits and pollsters and consultants. 
The problem is that DC is not listening.

  Everyone in America knows that ObamaCare is destroying jobs. What the 
Senator from Alabama so eloquently talked about, the econometric 
predictions--you have to get outside the beltway to any of the 50 
States and actually talk to people who are trying to find jobs and talk 
to small business owners who are struggling under the 20,000 pages of 
regulations. Everyone in America knows ObamaCare is destroying jobs and 
driving up health care costs.
  Let me encourage right now everyone in America--President Obama 3\1/
2\ years ago promised the average American that by the end of his first 
term, by the end of last year, the average American family's premiums 
would drop $2,500. Let me encourage everyone in America whose premiums 
dropped $2,500 to go online and tweet ``ObamaCare cut my premium.'' You 
know what. I am willing to venture that in every one of these States, 
if all of the Democratic Senators who support ObamaCare are willing to 
say ``I will take only the votes of those of you whose premiums have 
gone down,'' I can tell you right now on the Republican side that I 
will happily take the votes of everybody else because I am going to 
predict that is not going to be a 50/50 election, it is not even going 
to be a 60/40 election. Everyone knows this thing is not working, and 
Washington is pretending it does not know. This process is rigged. That 
is why we have to make DC listen.
  In traveling across Texas, just like the Senator traveling across 
Alabama, I hear the stories everywhere I go. It does not matter what 
town I am in, it does not matter whom I am talking about, I hear the 
stories. I see people with disabilities saying: Please stop ObamaCare 
before I lose my health insurance. I see young people who would like to 
be working toward a career saying: Please, I would like a job.
  I met with a whole bunch of service men and women who had just come 
back from Afghanistan at a military base in Texas. I asked them, as I 
try do in any gathering that is a small enough group that I can do 
this: Go around, share an issue that is weighing on your heart, that 
you pray about, that you are concerned about.
  I remember one young soldier said: I am most worried about jobs. When 
I come out of the military, am I going to have a job? All of my 
buddies, when they come out, they cannot find jobs.
  Everyone nodded and said: That is exactly right.
  The American people want to stop this madness. So do I.
  Here in Washington we pass million-dollar bills and billion-dollar 
bills no one has ever read, without even voting on them. We call it 
unanimous consent.

[[Page S6741]]

It is only unanimous because we do not let the American people know. It 
would be very interesting to bring 100 of our constituents in on any 
unanimous consent that is spending $1 billion here, $1 billion there, 
and see what our constituents think about that. The system is designed 
deliberately to hide what we are doing.
  In this debate right now there are many Members of this body who are 
happy that the debate is covered with obscurity over pressure, 
obscurity over a motion for cloture on a motion to proceed. Nobody 
knows what that is. You know what. That benefits Members of this body 
because it lets all 100 go back to their citizens and say: What were 
you for? Yeah, yeah, I was for that because I was for the motion to 
whatchamacallit.
  No one understands what that is.
  You know, one of the things we see is our leaders demand approval for 
bills before they are amended. So we are being asked this Friday or 
Saturday to vote to shut off debate on this bill before we know what 
the bill will be. We do not know what amendment Harry Reid is going to 
file, but we are asked to cut off debate nonetheless. It is like former 
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she said: Pass it to find out 
what is in it. You wonder why the American people are disgusted with 
what happens in Washington. That is business as usual in this town.
  Listen, the way this is planning to unfold is very simple. Majority 
Leader Reid has said that if he succeeds in cloture, if he succeeds in 
shutting off debate on Friday or Saturday, that he is going to 
introduce one amendment--and by all appearances only one amendment--to 
fund ObamaCare in its entirety. That will be subject to a straight 51-
vote threshold.
  There are a couple of dynamics going on. No. 1, Republicans are 
actively debating among ourselves: Should Republicans vote with Harry 
Reid and Senate Democrats to allow Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to 
fund ObamaCare with a straight 51-vote partisan majority? I do not find 
that a difficult question. I think that should unify all 46 Republicans 
to say no. We should not enable ObamaCare to be funded, and a vote for 
cloture on Friday or Saturday is a vote to fund ObamaCare. They are one 
in the same. They are identical.
  If you vote to give that power to Harry Reid to fund ObamaCare, then 
you are responsible for it being funded--and, by the way, for it being 
funded in the same broken process where there are no amendments, there 
is no opportunity to change it, there is no opportunity to offer 
anything. The Presiding Officer will not have an opportunity to offer 
an amendment, and I will not have an opportunity to offer an amendment. 
Instead, it is brute political force.
  But I will tell of an upside--an upside, frankly, from some Members 
of the Republican caucus. If debate is cut off, they can tell their 
constituents: I voted for the House bill. That is not true, but they 
can tell them that. But even better, a 51-vote threshold--here is the 
dirty little secret people do not want to admit: There are more than a 
few Republicans on this side who affirmatively want a 51-vote threshold 
on funding ObamaCare. Why? Because they want two outcomes. No. 1, if we 
have a 51-vote threshold on funding ObamaCare, I promise you all 46 
Republicans will vote against it. It will be a straight party-line 
vote, which means every Republican can go back to their district and 
say: Mr. and Mrs. America, when I had the opportunity to vote against 
ObamaCare, I did it. I did what you wanted.
  I did what you want. The rest of it is kind of hidden in the 
procedural mumbo jumbo. But the beautiful outcome--and the reason why 
some Republicans want a 51-vote threshold--is if it is 51 votes we will 
lose. The President is well aware there are more than 51 Democrats in 
this body. It will be a partisan party-line Democratic vote, exactly 
how ObamaCare got passed into law.
  I am going to suggest that Republicans going along and saying we want 
a symbolic vote is not listening to the people. Look, the dysfunction 
is on both sides. The Democratic Members of this Chamber--I understand, 
look, ObamaCare is a Democratic law passed and signed into law by a 
Democratic President, passed into law with only Democratic votes.
  It is hard, if you are a political party, to admit, gosh, this thing 
that we put a lot of political capital in, it ain't working. That is a 
difficult, risky thing for anyone to say.
  I am going to encourage--and my hope is that by the end of this 
process we will see some Democrats, Senate Democrats, listen to their 
voters and say: Listen, I thought this thing would work, I hoped it 
would work, but it hasn't. That is what the unions have said. The labor 
unions that publicly, vocally supported ObamaCare--and many of them 
were active proponents of getting it passed--have looked at it and 
said: Do you know what, we thought it would work and it hasn't.
  There is no shame in admitting you tried something and it didn't 
work. I very much hope over the course of this debate we will see some 
Democratic Senators doing so. I would note that the fact that Senate 
Democrats are not participating, are not here, makes it less likely. 
But on the Republican side, the game is the same.
  Washington, DC, is a strange place in many regards, one of which is 
symbolic votes are treated as tremendously important. I am told of a 
conversation that Senator Lee had with a Member of the House when early 
on the House had not yet voted to defund ObamaCare, but there was 
discussion about casting a symbolic vote to do so. The American people 
were quite unhappy with that and expressed that view.
  Both Senator Lee and I expressed the view that we shouldn't be 
engaging in procedural games; we should actually be defunding 
ObamaCare. One particular House Member who will remain unnamed called 
Senator Lee and made a comment that I thought was particularly 
revealing. He said: You guys should be grateful. We gave you your vote.
  I remember thinking what a curious turn of phrase, ``grateful.'' What 
an odd, Washington view of things. Why should we feel gratitude for 
getting a vote that is 100 percent destined to lose because it is 
offered in such a way that Harry Reid, on a party-line vote, can fund 
ObamaCare, and yet we can all have a symbolic vote. The reason, 
frankly, is that this is a town where for a long time neither side has 
listened to the team. This is the town where for a long time there have 
been elected politicians who want symbolic votes.
  Let me be very clear. I don't want any symbolic votes on anything. I 
think everyone--our constituents should know what we believe. Whether 
or not we get a vote on it to demonstrate it shouldn't matter, because 
if we are standing and fighting, and if we are walking the walk, our 
beliefs should be self-evident.
  DC responds, the DC establishment responds, if anybody tries to tell 
the truth--look, I promise you, my observations right now that there 
are some Republicans that would like a symbolic vote and then would 
like to lose so that they don't have any risk of it actually being 
defunded, I promise you those comments are not getting me invited to 
any cocktail parties in Washington anytime soon. That is perfectly 
fine. I don't particularly enjoy cocktail parties anyway.
  This town needs a lot more truth telling. It is absolutely true. 
Everyone here knows it, but we are not supposed to say it out loud. 
There is a custom where we kind of wink at each other and say, listen, 
you are telling your constituents one thing, I am telling my 
constituents one thing. Let's not bother to give them the opportunity 
to know the truth.
  If we got 100 of your constituents or mine, if we got 100 citizens 
from any of the 50 States and we put them in this room instead of 100 
Senators, I promise you, No. 1, our constituents would not care about a 
symbolic vote. If you got 100 people, why would you want a symbolic 
vote? What is the point of that?
  It is only the politicians who make a living staying in office that 
want symbolic votes. Symbolic votes are useful for getting reelected. 
They don't actually change the country. They don't make the lives of 
people better. But they do help politicians who want to get reelected 
and want to run a campaign ad saying, here is what I voted to do.
  If you have 100 citizens in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the great 
State of Texas, the great State of Alabama, what they would say on 
ObamaCare is,

[[Page S6742]]

we have to fix this. We have to get people back to work. We have to 
deal with all the young people that are stuck in dead-end jobs because 
they can't get a job coming out of school. We have to deal with all the 
people, all single moms working in diners who are finding themselves 
working 29 hours a week because of ObamaCare. We have to deal with all 
of the people who are struggling because their health insurance 
premiums are skyrocketing under ObamaCare. We have to deal with all of 
the people who are losing their health insurance under ObamaCare.
  This is why I am speaking out today and why so many others have come 
here speaking out because we have to make DC listen. That is what this 
fight is about, to make DC listen to the American people. I very much 
hope that the debate over the course of this week has a real effect 
changing the culture. That is why this body has held 10, 12, 14 percent 
approval ratings.
  I remember a few months ago when all of us were in the Old Senate 
Chamber, all 100 Senators. It was a bipartisan meeting, and it was 
actually a very interesting, productive conversation. I remember a 
number of Senators commenting about the low approval ratings that 
Congress has and saying something to the effect that it is because we 
are not more efficient, that we don't pass more laws.
  I have to say I think that gets it exactly backwards. I have never 
once found any constituent in the State of Texas--and I suspect there 
are not many in your State, in my State, or in anyone else's State--who 
says the problem is you guys aren't passing enough laws. That is not 
what I hear from people.

  It is what you hear from politicians in Washington who would like to 
pass as many laws as possible so they can take credit for them. But it 
is not what you hear from people. The people at home say: You guys have 
done enough damage already. I will tell you why I think we are held in 
such low esteem. It is because we don't listen to the American people.
  In every poll that has been done for years of the American people, in 
any State, whether your State, my State, any State, even bright blue 
States, Democratic States, if you ask the American people what is their 
top priority, jobs and the economy is the overwhelming answer. This is 
true if you ask Republicans, even if you ask only Democrats. If you ask 
only Democrats in bright blue States, jobs and the economy are still 
the top priority--or independents, Libertarians, anyone in the United 
States.
  Yet the Presiding Officer and I have both served in this body 9 
months. I would note the 9 months we have been here the Senate has 
spent virtually zero time talking about jobs and the economy. It is not 
on the agenda. We don't talk about it. We spent 6 weeks talking about 
guns, talking about taking away people's Second Amendment right, and no 
time talking about fundamental tax reform, fundamental regulatory 
reform. Today we are talking about defunding ObamaCare, the biggest job 
killer in the country. If you want to get jobs and the economy going, 
there is nothing we could do that is more important than defunding 
ObamaCare.
  What is the case? There are right now three Members of the Senate on 
the floor of the Senate and two Members of the House of 
Representatives. Ask the American people, how many Senators should be 
here in the debate over defunding ObamaCare, the biggest job killer in 
this country? Because the American people's top priority is jobs and 
the economy, the people would say to all 100 Senators, what possibly do 
you have that is more important to do?
  I expect some of my colleagues are at a fundraising dinner. Some of 
our colleagues are at home with their families.
  Do you want to know why Congress is held in such low esteem? It is 
not that we don't pass enough laws; it is that the priorities of the 
men and women in this body are not the priorities of the men and women 
in America. We are not listening to America.
  The most important objective, what I hope will come of this week, 
more important than the continuing resolution and the budget, more 
important than ObamaCare, is that we make some real progress to 
changing the culture of this place so that both Democrats and 
Republicans start listening to the people. That is the way our 
democratic republic is supposed to work. Right now, unfortunately, it 
is not how it is working.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator made an important point about too often 
what goes on around here is that we have to obscure the reality of what 
is happening. I think that is important. I wish to ask about it. The 
Senator asked Senator Durbin--I didn't see exactly how he answered. I 
think the Senator asked him whether or not he believed in a single 
payer. I don't think he answered. We know for a fact, though, that 
Senator Reid in August said, when squarely asked: Do you believe in a 
single payer, he said: Yes, yes, absolutely yes.
  What we have learned since then is that others are making the same 
statement. This spring, Senator Sanders of Vermont, a nice and able 
Senator in the Budget Committee, said this bill is not going to work; 
really, in my view, it is not going to work; It needs to be a single 
payer.
  Senator Sanders is one of our more liberal Members--and I think it 
was how he identified himself, as a socialist, but he is an honest, 
able advocate. He said the truth: this bill, as written, will not work. 
It has to be a single payer.
  Only this afternoon in the Budget Committee, one of our esteemed 
Members of the Democratic Party, when asked--when I made a comment 
about Senator Reid, that the majority leader of the Senate said he 
wanted a single payer--he said, this ought to be a single payer system.
  I don't know how many others have. The President said, in 2003, when 
he was running, he flat out said he wanted to have a single payer. Then 
he backed off and began to obscure that position, it seems to me. It 
seems to me that they realize that the American people were nowhere 
ready to have their government take over health care. So what did they 
do? It seemed to me that they obscured what the reality of this 
legislation was. They began to move away from it, and they began to say 
that it was something that it wasn't.
  In the last few days it is almost like they have come out here in the 
open and begun to say that is what should happen. I understand the 
Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said that she favors 
a single-payer system.
  I think I will say to Senator Cruz that I feel you are doing 
important work because the American people may not yet fully know how 
huge an issue it is before this Congress. This is huge.
  Let me ask again, when we say there is a single payer--hair begins to 
stand up on my neck--I think I know who the payer is. Who would be the 
single payer for all health care in America if that kind of agenda took 
place?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank Senator Sessions for that very important question. 
The payer would be the U.S. Government, which means the payer would be 
the U.S. taxpayer, which means the payer would be hard-working 
Americans, once the Federal Government starts paying for all health 
care in all of America, which has been the stated position of the far 
left for a long, long time.
  The Senator from Alabama made reference to Senator Bernie Sanders. I 
agree. I respect Senator Sanders's commitment to his principles. As you 
know, he previously ran as a socialist. That is correct. I respect that 
degree of candor. Quite frankly, I would be very happy if this body had 
10 more Bernie Sanders and 10 more Mike Lees, because I think there 
would be far more truth in advertising and then we could have real 
debate about what the role of government should be in our lives.
  Should we have socialized medicine? That is a very good debate to 
have, especially because--and I know the Senator from Alabama agrees 
with me on this--the facts are on our side. In every country on Earth 
where socialized medicine has been implemented it hasn't worked. We 
know what the results are. If you implement socialized medicine, you 
inevitably see poor quality. You see rationing, you see scarcity. You 
see the government getting between you and your doctor, the government 
deciding you want a health treatment, your mother wants a health 
treatment, your child needs a health

[[Page S6743]]

treatment. And you have a government bureaucrat deciding whether you 
get one. Maybe the bureaucrat tells you: Well, you can get that hip 
replacement you want in 6 months, in 1 year. But they may turn to 
Senator Lee and say: You know what. Your mom can't get that treatment. 
We have determined in our tables it doesn't make sense to give her that 
treatment. I guess she is at the end of her road.

  That is what happens. It is the government that decides who gets 
health care and who doesn't. And you know what. Americans 
overwhelmingly don't want that. This is another point that is critical. 
It is not just that Majority Leader Reid said he likes single-payer 
socialized health care; it is that he says, and a number of others 
have, that ObamaCare is designed to lead to that. I think it is very 
important to ask the question: Why? How does it lead to that? Because 
that goes to both sides of the aisle.
  There are many Republicans who have said: We shouldn't fight this 
fight. It is risky. We will get political blame. All of the DC pundits 
say we shouldn't do this. Let's sit quietly and let ObamaCare collapse. 
It is collapsing of its own weight, it is not working. If we sit 
quietly, it will collapse and the Democrats will take the blame. I am 
suggesting there is far too much worry about blame and credit. Who 
cares? I don't care if Democrats take the blame. I would prefer to 
avoid the collapse and spare the Democrats the blame. Who cares?
  But if it collapses, why is it that Majority Leader Reid says 
ObamaCare will lead to single payer? Because in the process of the 
collapse, it will take our private health insurance system with it. 
Yes, it will collapse, but it will leave a wreckage. It will leave 
millions of people losing their health insurance, being pushed more and 
more into the exchanges, with one insurer after the other pushed out of 
the market. So when it collapses, there is no private health insurance 
market to go back to. That is why Majority Leader Reid can tell the 
American people: Hey, I want the single-payer socialized medicine. And 
relax, ObamaCare will take us to that.
  But that is also a real message to all the Republicans who right now 
have not yet announced they are going to oppose cloture on this bill. 
Because if we wait for ObamaCare to collapse--yes, it will collapse--
with it will go the private health insurance system, and we may find 
ourselves in single payer. I think instead of worrying about blame, 
instead of trying to play the politics and think through it--and, 
listen, I am not nearly smart enough to play through all the political 
angles and everything else--it is a lot simpler to stand and do the 
right thing. One of the easiest ways to do the right thing is to listen 
to the American people.
  You want to know what the American people are worried about. Go home 
and listen to your constituents. Their concerns are: I am trying to get 
a job and I can't get a job. I am trying to grow my small business and 
ObamaCare is driving us out of business. I am afraid of losing my 
health insurance and ObamaCare is taking away health insurance.
  Look, we have read, and I have stack after stack that I am going to 
keep reading, from individual constituents--constituents in Texas and 
Virginia and Utah and Alabama and all over the country--who are losing 
their health insurance because of ObamaCare, who are losing their jobs 
and being forced into part-time work. We need to listen to the people.
  I told the men and women who are watching tonight if they were to 
tweet the hashtag ``MakeDCListen,'' which has been, over the course of 
this, trending No. 1, that I would share some of the tweets they sent. 
So with your indulgence, I would like to do so to help give them a 
voice.
  Many of these folks right now presumably cannot walk on to the Senate 
Floor and give a speech. Maybe in a few years some of them might. Maybe 
in a few years, if enough politicians in this body don't listen to the 
American people we may get quite a few of these tweeters who show up as 
new Senators committed to listening to the American people. But in the 
meantime--
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. When the Senator thinks about those people who have 
tweeted and e-mailed and called and have written, most know something 
about the American system. If you were in Illinois or Alabama or Texas 
or Utah and you talked about this and said: This law has got real 
problems and it can't work the way it is, wouldn't the Senator think 
they would think the Senate would be able to take up this legislation 
and actually discuss it in a grownup way; that amendments could be 
offered that could fix it and be voted on up or down?
  Doesn't the Senator think the fact we are in this situation--the 
Senator called it a steamroller--where the majority leader is blocking 
all amendments, all ability to attempt to fix this legislation and make 
something that would actually work, even though the House has passed 
repeatedly changing this law and ending this law, that the average 
American would be shocked to think we are incapable in this Senate of 
bringing up legislation and having it voted on in order to fix this 
bill?
  Mr. CRUZ. I think Senator Sessions is absolutely right. The Senate 
isn't trying to fix this bill. The Senate isn't trying to respond to 
the needs of the American people. It isn't trying to respond to the 
jobs that have been lost, to the people who have been forced into part-
time work, to the people who have lost their health insurance. Instead, 
it is responding to political power.
  I will note that any Republican--on Friday or Saturday when we have 
the cloture vote--who votes to cut off debate is voting to give 
majority leader Harry Reid the ability to force funding for ObamaCare 
with no changes--no amendments, shutting off amendments. The Senator 
from Alabama can't offer amendments, I can't offer amendments, and we 
can't do anything. It is a pure exercise of political power on a 
straight party-line vote. That will make many Republicans happy because 
they will get to symbolically vote against it, and then we will be 
certain to lose if it is a 51-vote threshold.
  Part of the reason, I would suggest--and one can understand why the 
majority leader wants to do that. Listen, if you are defending a law 
such as ObamaCare, that is a train wreck, in the words of the Democrat 
who wrote the bill, you don't want to debate the substance of it. When 
the esteemed Senator from Illinois was down on the floor--and I 
appreciate his coming--he sure didn't want to debate why there is a 
congressional exemption, why Members of Congress are treated better 
than average Americans, why President Obama has said Members of 
Congress are going to be exempted from ObamaCare but hard-working 
American families are not.
  Look, I understand. If I were the Democratic majority leader and I 
were defending that position, I wouldn't want to defend it either. 
Because I have to tell you there is not a State in the Union where 
our constituents wouldn't just about tar and feather us if we stood in 
front of them and defended that, yes, there should be a special 
exemption for Members of Congress but not for you. And for big 
business. President Obama granted a special exemption for big business, 
but not for you, not for hard-working Americans.

  Look, what a perfect example of the broken system, of the disconnect 
between DC and the American people. It is indefensible on the merits, 
and so this whole process is designed not to debate on the merits. It 
is designed never to have that debate because, as I observed earlier, 
the old adage in the courtroom--and my friend Senator Lee will 
recognize this from his days as a litigator, as will the Chair--if you 
have the facts, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; 
and if you don't have either, pound the table.
  So if you are defending ObamaCare, if you are defending exemptions 
for giant corporations and Members of Congress that don't go to the 
average American family, you don't want to talk about the facts and you 
don't want to talk about the law, so you want to pound the table. You 
want to talk about shutting down the government. You want to scare 
people. You want to threaten cutting off the funding of the men and 
women in the military, which is grossly irresponsible. I think Congress 
should never ever imperil the salaries

[[Page S6744]]

of the men and women who risk their lives to protect us.
  This body should immediately take up the Defense authorization bill 
the House passed so that we can make sure the men and women in the 
military are always paid. And, by the way, even without that--if there 
were a partial shutdown--the President has all the authority he needs 
in existing law to pay the men and women in the military.
  But if you don't want to debate the merits, you have to distract 
people. So it is a game. If you talk to a professional magician, 
magicians are good at banter and they are good at smoke and mirrors and 
distraction. Sometimes when they raise their hand and they have a shiny 
object over here and they want everyone to look over here, it is 
because they are pulling a card out of the deck with this hand. There 
are a lot of professional magicians in this Senate. There is a purpose 
to all of the discussion about shutdown and, for that matter, all of 
the personal politics--all of the attacks, more than a few of which 
have occurred within the Republican conference, more than a few of 
which have been directed at Senator Lee, more than a few of which have 
been directed at myself, and more than a few have been directed at the 
courageous House conservatives who led the fight in the House to get 
the House of Representatives to do the right thing and defund 
ObamaCare. It is not even the purpose that appears on the face of it. 
One would think the purpose is as it appears on the face. One would 
think the purpose for leaking nasty quotes, trying to beat up people, 
sending congressional staffers to get anonymous quotes--a little bit of 
profanity, a sort of mean, wicked sense of humor is because they are 
trying to pound somebody. It is not that, although that is an added 
side benefit. It is all about distraction. Make it about the 
personalities, make it about the people, make it about anything, 
anything, anything other than ObamaCare.
  If we were actually talking about ObamaCare, if we were listening to 
the people--listen, if we were listening to the people, the people 
don't give a flip about any of the hundred of us. They don't care about 
politicians. And for good reason. There are very few people in America 
who say, when asked what do you want to do on the Fourth of July, they 
want to pal around with a bunch of elected politicians. Most people 
want to be in their backyard grilling burgers with their kids. God 
bless them. That is why America is the greatest country on Earth, 
because we have families and it is not about government. You know, in a 
totalitarian regime, everyone thinks about government almost all the 
time. Because when you have a jackboot on the back of your neck, it is 
hard to think about anything else.
  The game in Washington is smoke and mirrors. The game in Washington 
is distract from anything, anything, anything, except the thing the 
American people care about--fixing the jobs and the American economy. 
That is not what is happening.
  All right, let me read some tweets.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield one more time for 
a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question. I would note my friend 
from Alabama seems bound and determined to stop the tweets. God bless 
him.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am interested in those tweets. I just wanted to thank 
the Senator for what he has done, because I think he is alerting all of 
us to the critical importance of the health care issue.
  This is a plan, it seems to me, and the Senator has expressed it, I 
believe, to take over health care by the U.S. Government. We can all 
disagree. I was here when everybody on the Republican side fought this 
legislation until Christmas Eve, when it was finally rammed through 
shortly before Scott Brown from Massachusetts could take office and 
kill it. That is how close it was. I know people disagree about how to 
deal with it, and I understand and respect people with differing 
visions, but I wanted to say the Senator's leadership has served a 
valuable purpose tonight, and I am pleased to be able to support his 
effort. I wish him every success in those efforts, and I hope, as the 
Senator continues tonight, he will drive home the critical importance 
of this issue as we go forward. It is a matter this entire Nation 
cannot look away from. It is a matter we need to consider fixing 
because the legislation, as presently written, will not work.
  We have two choices, it seems to me. We move forward to a single 
payer, as Senator Sanders said we must do because this legislation 
won't work as written or will we move back to the classical American 
view of insurance and private health care and our own personal 
physicians.
  I thank the Senator from Texas and would be pleased to hear some of 
those great tweets I know he has.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Alabama, and I thank him for his 
perseverance, his leadership, and his courage. I will say there have 
been more than a few legislative fights, and even a few while I have 
served in this body, on which Jeff Sessions and I have been fighting 
side by side, and I appreciate his friendship and wisdom, and it 
matters in this body.
  Let's hear from the American people some of the tweets that were sent 
this afternoon during this discussion:

       Already got a second job again because taxes are squeezing 
     me dry. Make D.C. listen.
       Congress passes laws that they don't follow, lives large 
     off our money, and has contempt for those they represent. 
     Make D.C. listen.
       2700 pages when it was passed, over 20,000 pages now to 
     implement. Make D.C. listen.
       Vote no on cloture. A vote for cloture is a vote to fund 
     ObamaCare. Defund ObamaCare. Make D.C. listen.
       We will not go quietly into this disaster called ObamaCare. 
     Make it cover everyone or no one. Make D.C. listen.

  What a great point. If ObamaCare is such a terrific thing, as its 
defenders say, then all of us should be subject to it--big businesses, 
Members of Congress, our staffs, President Obama, every political 
appointee in the government, every Federal employee.
  If that is a burden--and I believe it would be a huge burden--I would 
not be eager about that personally, but if that is a burden, then it 
shouldn't cover anyone. If there is some reason why that would be 
unacceptable--I actually think, of all of those, our friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle would probably get the most pushback from 
having it apply to all Federal employees because Federal employees 
would push back mightily for good reason. But the right thing to take 
from that is not, well, all these guys should be exempt. It is, why 
would they push back?
  If Members of Congress and their staff, Federal employees, the 
President, and the executive branch employees all found themselves 
subject to the same exchanges, the same rules that hard-working 
Americans find themselves subject to and they would be really, really 
dismayed, that should motivate every one of us to say: Hey, I am a lot 
more worried about the single mom working in a diner than I am about 
the IRS tax agent making $125,000 a year who is dismayed about being 
subject to the same rules as that single mom. And if we wouldn't be 
willing to make it apply to everyone, then it shouldn't apply to 
anyone.

       Make D.C. listen. Do the right thing and defund this 
     abomination of an unfair tax.
       Listen up, America. This is your wake-up call. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       Defund ObamaCare now. We do not need this injurious 
     legislation to be enacted. Make D.C. listen.
       Stay strong. Vote no on cloture. ObamaCare must be stopped. 
     The will of the majority of Americans is to defund ObamaCare. 
     Make D.C. listen.
       Sick of our employees deluding themselves into believing 
     they are our bosses. Make D.C. listen.

  For those who didn't follow it, we are the employees, the elected 
representatives who work for the American people, and yet an awful lot 
of people in this body think we are the bosses. That is exactly 
backward.

       We don't want ObamaCare. We never did. Defund it. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       Just finished college. Can't get a full-time job. Thanks, 
     ObamaCare. Make D.C. listen.
       There should be no law that exempts a few and burdens the 
     citizens. We, the people, do NOT want ObamaCare. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       D.C. a leader out of touch. IRS has no business being 
     involved with health care. Make D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen, because ObamaCare and its tax will damage 
     the opportunity of Americans to choose the course of their 
     own lives.
       My insurance premiums went from $450 in 2010 to $880 in 
     2013 with $1500 deductible. Make D.C. listen. ObamaCare is a 
     job killer, will ruin health care.

  Let's look at those numbers again. Two thousand ten was just a few 
years

[[Page S6745]]

ago, and $450 was that individual's health insurance premium. Now it is 
$880 in 2013. That is the impact ObamaCare is having.
  Here is a nice one:

       Thank you for reading tweets so the American people can be 
     heard. Make D.C. listen.

  You are welcome. It is a privilege to have a chance to in some small 
way help provide a voice for the American people.

       IRS bureaucrats don't want ObamaCare, either, but they are 
     happy to force everyone else to conform to it. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       ObamaCare has turned America into a part-time nation. 
     People are losing their homes. They can't feed their children 
     properly. Make D.C. listen.

  I wish to think about that last tweet for a second. ObamaCare has 
turned America into a part-time nation, and people are losing their 
homes. They can't feed their children properly. If any Member of this 
body was forced to work part-time, was losing his or her home, couldn't 
feed his or her children properly, it would be a crisis. Talk about 
getting our attention--it would be a crisis. If it was a family member, 
if it was our parents, if our kids were facing that, we would move 
Heaven and Earth to address it. Yet here it is our boss, the American 
people who are experiencing that, and most Members of this Senate are 
doing something else other than being here.
  I will note that we have Congressman Louie Gohmert, Congressman Paul 
Broun, and Congressman Richard Hudson was here earlier. But where is 
the Senate?
  We don't feel the pain of the American people like it is ours, like 
it is us. It is not surprising because President Obama has exempted 
Congress from ObamaCare, so we are not feeling the pain. That is the 
problem.

       ObamaCare has turned America into a part-time nation and 
     people are losing their homes. They can't feed their children 
     properly. Make D.C. listen.
       Three years and they still can't get it going. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       Make D.C. listen, because D.C. is not listening to the 
     American people. HELP US.
       Defund ACA. It is job killing and not affordable and we 
     won't get care, and our politicians act like it is good for 
     us.

  Well, that is true. A lot of politicians do act as though this is 
really good for you. Mind you, we don't want to be subject to it, but 
trust us, it is good for you. Different rules apply to the Washington, 
DC, ruling class than apply to the American people. That is the 
problem.

       Help revive the economy. Make D.C. listen and defund 
     ObamaCare. Fight for real reform.
       ObamaCare is a disaster. Make D.C. listen.
       Letters saying your plan is cancelled due to the ACA ruins 
     the ``like it, keep it'' narrative. Make D.C. listen.

  By the way, that is from an individual who is @demcalal. Makes me 
wonder if that is a Democrat in California named Al. I don't know if it 
is, but it would be interesting if it were.
  What is interesting about this is that if you get outside of 
Washington, it is not just Republicans who understand ObamaCare isn't 
working; it is Democrats, Independents, libertarians.
  I feel quite confident that James Hoffa, the president of the 
Teamsters, is not a Republican. I really have no doubts on that. Yet 
Mr. Hoffa in a public letter has said that ObamaCare is destroying the 
40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.
  Those are just the facts. That is what is happening. If we were 
listening to the American people, every one of us would be here doing 
everything we could to turn it around now. We wouldn't be happy to wait 
until the end of the week. We would say: Now, let's stop this job 
killer.

       Defund ObamaCare, because I know what is best for my health 
     care, not some bureaucrat. Make D.C. listen.
       Defund ObamaCare. The majority of America is against this 
     intrusion into our private relationship with our doctor. Make 
     D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen because ObamaCare is killing full-time 
     jobs.
       Make D.C. listen. Defund ObamaCare because it takes our 
     freedom away.
       If you love your country, value freedom and choice, oppose 
     tyranny-style government laws, then make D.C. listen to you.
       Tired of Senators who won't listen. Make D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen. Please stop ObamaCare. It is killing this 
     country.
       We need the government to listen to the people and do what 
     is best for the country. I support defunding ObamaCare 100 
     percent. Make D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen. We don't want government intrusion into 
     our health care.
       D.C. isn't listening. Everyone in America understands that 
     ObamaCare isn't working. Make D.C. listen.
       The health care reform that the President sold America 
     isn't the health care reform that America is getting. Make 
     D.C. listen.
       ObamaCare. AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!!! Make D.C. 
     listen.
       Way to go. Make D.C. listen to our voices calling for 
     individual liberty.
       Make D.C. listen. We don't get an exception, so you 
     shouldn't either.

  I agree. I think all of us should get an exception. Every American 
should get an exception. And there is no world in which Congress should 
be treated better than hard-working American families.

       I don't want more government. Make D.C. listen.
       I wish the Senate would listen to us. Please listen to the 
     people. We don't want this bill. We want freedom. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       Make D.C. listen. ObamaCare is turning us into a part-time 
     economy.
       Government is designed to go by the will of the people, not 
     the other way around. Make D.C. listen.
       We don't want it, don't need it, can't afford it. Please 
     tell them to listen to its citizens. Make D.C. listen.
       Ronald Reagan warned us about government-run health care. 
     Bad. Bad. Bad. Make D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen. Analysts, experts, and business people 
     agree that the ACA will hurt our economy.
       Americans are fed up with our elected officials not 
     listening. WE don't want ObamaCare. Make D.C. listen.
       Let the free market make health care more affordable by 
     allowing sales across state lines. Make D.C. listen.

  Let me say, by the way, that is a terrific proposal. Once we defund 
ObamaCare, there will be a lot we will need to do on health insurance. 
There is a lot we need to do on health care reform to make it more 
affordable, to make policies personal and portable so they go with you 
regardless of what job you are in.
  One of the best things we can do is allow interstate competition. 
Right now it is illegal to purchase health insurance across State 
lines. Why does that matter? Well, the biggest barrier to access for 
people who don't have health insurance is the cost. You get government 
regulators who drive the cost up and up because they mandate this bell 
and this whistle, and you have to cover everything they want. It is a 
great thing for politicians because if you mandate that every health 
insurance policy has to cover this procedure, it lets politicians come 
to the people and say: I am giving you free what-have-yous. But one of 
the simplest principles of government is that there ain't no such thing 
as a free lunch. Every time you mandate that a health insurance plan 
must include whatever benefit it is that politicians want to give away 
to the people, it drives the cost up. Every time the cost goes up, 
there are more and more people who can't afford it. So you can have a 
lot of politicians giving away free stuff, and when you do that, it 
will mean there will be a whole bunch of people who get no coverage at 
all because they can't afford it.
  If we were to allow purchases across State lines, we would see a true 
50-State national marketplace, true competition. There would be real 
choice.
  By the way, the people who may be the biggest losers of all under 
ObamaCare are the young. It is difficult to design a bill to do more 
damage to young people. The ``lost generation'' is what economists are 
now dubbing young people, in significant part because of the 
consequences of ObamaCare. If you are a young healthy person, it may 
well make sense to purchase catastrophic health insurance--health 
insurance that if, God forbid, you get hit by a truck tomorrow or you 
get diagnosed with some horrible life-threatening disease.
  The odds are relatively small that is going to happen to any of us, 
but if it does, it is very bad, and that is when we want health 
insurance. If you could purchase insurance across State lines, there 
would be a 50-State market and you could get low-cost, inexpensive 
catastrophic health insurance.
  If you think about health insurance right now, it doesn't work like 
insurance. I wish to compare it to an insurance market that works. Most 
of us are familiar with car insurance. Most of us who have cars have 
car insurance. With car insurance, if you need to change the oil in 
your car, you do not call Allstate and say: Change the oil in my car. 
If you get a flat tire, you typically do not call Allstate and say: 
Hey, I

[[Page S6746]]

have a flat tire, change the tire on my car. God forbid, if you get hit 
by an 18-wheeler and your car gets totaled, then you call your 
insurance company and say this catastrophic event happened; that is why 
I have insurance. A lot of people when it comes to health insurance 
though, right now the system is treated as just a third-party payer 
instead of dealing with catastrophic, unlikely events. That is a reform 
that would make a real difference.
  If you want access to low-cost health insurance, allowing people to 
purchase it across State lines after we defund ObamaCare would make a 
real difference, and if we added to that reforms that expanded health 
savings accounts so you could save in a tax-advantaged way to meet 
routine prevention and maintenance, to take care of the equivalent, in 
the auto context, of changing the tire, that would go even further; and 
if we changed the tax law right now--most people do not know that 
employer-provided health care is an historical anomaly. It actually 
arose during World War II. Shortly thereafter, when wage and price 
controls were in effect, employers had a challenge. They wanted to 
recruit employees, but they could not raise wages. It was against the 
law. So they began offering health insurance as a way to attract 
people, to say come work for my company, we will give you health 
insurance.
  Right now the Federal tax laws heavily favor employer health 
insurance. The problem is, we don't live in 1950s America now. There 
was a time when people would get a job in a big company and work 30, 
40, 50 years, retire, get a gold watch, and that would be it. We don't 
live in that kind of world anymore.
  Most people will work for one company, then another company, then 
another company--relatively unlikely that American workers are going to 
stay with one company their entire life. They are going to switch jobs, 
possibly a lot, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes not voluntarily.
  When you and I were in the private sector, Mr. President, if we lost 
our jobs and got fired, you didn't lose your life insurance. You didn't 
lose your car insurance. You didn't lose your house insurance. The only 
insurance you would lose if you lost your job was your health 
insurance. That doesn't make any sense. Of all of them it is the worst 
one to lose.
  The Senator from Illinois asked about preexisting conditions. If we 
could change the law so health insurance plans were personal and 
portable, just like your car insurance, regardless of where you happen 
to work it goes with you, it travels with you, that goes a long way to 
solving the problem of preexisting conditions, because where 
preexisting conditions have such a big impact is when somebody loses 
one job and is trying to get coverage for the next job. If you could 
take your personal portable plan with you, that goes a long way to 
mitigating it. Let me point out all of those reforms have a 
fundamentally different philosophy than ObamaCare. ObamaCare has a 
philosophy empower government over your life, put a government 
bureaucrat between you and your doctor. The reforms I laid out are all 
about empowering you, the American people, empowering you, the patient, 
to make a choice, empowering you to make decisions about your health 
care with your doctor, with no government bureaucrat anywhere near you. 
I am going to suggest the difference is those plans come from listening 
to the people. ObamaCare is the opposite of listening to the people.
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend from Utah for a question, 
and I will return with yet more tweets at a later point.
  Mr. LEE. I say to Senator Cruz I have come with some updates from the 
outside world, updates based on what I am hearing from my constituents 
at home. You may be interested in learning, I say to Senator Cruz, that 
just today in the last 12 hours or so my office has received nearly 
1,100 e-mails, 1,093 to be precise. Almost every single one of those is 
asking us to do whatever we can, do whatever it takes, to defund 
ObamaCare. People are asking us to fund government, keep government 
functioning, but to defund ObamaCare.
  I also have some news from a local paper in the State of Utah. This 
is from the Box Elder News Journal in the northern part of my State. In 
an article written by Mike Nelson, an associated editor with the Box 
Elder News Journal, we read about Brigham City moving to adjust its 
pay, to cut its payroll, in order to avoid certain ObamaCare 
provisions. I am going to quote just from part of it here. It says:

       Changes are coming for paid on-call employees at Brigham 
     City Emergency Services Department in an effort by the 
     department and the city to avoid employee eligibility for 
     health care under the Affordable Care Act. ``Back in February 
     it became apparent the ACA--

  Or for those of you who see the newspapers, ObamaCare--

     was going to dramatically impact the way we manage our fire 
     and ambulance crews,'' said emergency services director Jim 
     Buchanan, while addressing the issue at an August 1 city 
     council meeting.

  This is one of many examples of not just businesses but also local 
governments that are having to make cuts in their payroll in order to 
adjust for this law. This is having a real impact on real people.
  It is having an impact also on students. I received a message from a 
student in Utah named Sarah. Sarah, today, a college student, writes:

       I am a student facing a shrinking job market with fewer 
     options. Now it seems ObamaCare is going to force me as a 
     healthy young person to pay more to keep the President's 
     health plan functioning. How is that fair?
  She asks rhetorically. Sarah, it is not fair. Sarah, I would add to 
that, we have this health care law called the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act. The idea of it is it is supposed to make health 
care more affordable. What we have found in recent months is that it is 
going to make health care less affordable, with premium hikes expected 
around the country. What we are seeing is that this law will make 
health care not only less affordable, it is also fundamentally unfair. 
It is unfair in that it is forcing a lot of people to have cuts made to 
their wages, cuts made to their hours. In many cases, people are losing 
access to health care plans that they have enjoyed for years. In some 
cases, they are even seeing that they will no longer have access to the 
same physician or other health care provider that they have enjoyed for 
years.
  This is a law that while touted as making health care somehow more 
affordable is actually making it less affordable. It is also being 
implemented in a manner that will make our health care system 
fundamentally unfair. Within my State, the State of Utah, we have no 
fewer than five school districts and three universities that have been 
announcing cuts in their hours, cuts in their number of employees, all 
in response to this law. It is interesting that what we are discussing, 
much of what we have been discussing, has been on the upcoming cloture 
vote. There have been those who have argued that if you want to support 
the continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives--
remember, this is the continuing resolution that will keep our Federal 
Government funded while defunding ObamaCare--that if you want to 
support that, that you must vote yes on the cloture vote on the bill.
  That is an interesting take on it because not withstanding the fact 
that some in my party have been making that suggestion, it is 
anticipated that Mr. Harry Reid--the Senator from Nevada who is 
currently serving as the Senate majority leader--that Harry Reid and 53 
Democratic allies will, as I understand it, all be voting for cloture 
on that bill. That begs the question, are those same people who are 
suggesting that if you support the House-passed continuing resolution, 
the one that funds government, keeps government funded while defunding 
ObamaCare, that you have to vote yes on cloture on the bill, does that 
mean that Harry Reid and the 53 Democrats who are likely to follow him 
are also supporting the House-passed continuing resolution, the one 
that keeps government funded while defunding ObamaCare?
  I find that a little strange. I find that a little counterintuitive. 
I think it is important that we remember, and we continually remind 
ourselves, what this is about. When this continuing resolution passed 
by the House last week--heroically in my opinion. It showed a real 
strong sense of leadership by Speaker John Boehner and by

[[Page S6747]]

the other Republican leaders in the House of Representatives and by the 
rank-and-file Members of the House who voted for this legislation. When 
they voted for this legislation to keep government funded while 
defunding ObamaCare they stood with the American people who asked them 
for relief from this bill.
  American people had been telling them: Look, we need help. They have 
been asking: How many of us will have to see our hours cut? How many of 
us will have to experience wage cuts? How many of us will have to lose 
access to the health care we have enjoyed for many years before 
Congress acts?
  The House of Representatives did act. The body within our government, 
the branch within Congress that is most responsive to the American 
people, acted to protect the American people from this harmful law 
while simultaneously keeping the Federal Government operating.
  Now that that has happened and that bill is moving over to the 
Senate, the ball is in our court, we have a couple of possible 
responses to that. The first would be we could take it up and we could 
vote on it as is. We could vote on it just as it was passed by the 
House. We could vote on it, up or down, as is without any amendment. 
That would be fine. I would be fine with that. If that is what we were 
doing, I would be voting yes on the cloture vote. Of course I would. I 
suspect my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, would as well.
  There is another option. We could say rather than vote on it as is, 
let's make adjustments to it. Let's invite amendments. Let's have an 
open amendment process whereby Senators, whether Democrats or 
Republicans or the couple of Independents we have, could submit 
amendments as they deem fit, have those amendments not just proposed 
but debated, discussed, and ultimately voted upon. That would be an 
acceptable alternative.
  People around here often call this, the Senate, the world's greatest 
deliberative body. They call it that because this is a place where, in 
theory, we are supposed to have access to an open amendment process; 
theoretically unlimited debate. Is it time consuming? Yes. Is it 
cumbersome? Absolutely. Can it be frustrating? Without question. But it 
is one of the things that distinguishes this body. It is one of the 
things that makes this the Senate.
  So if we were to have an open amendment process, it would take a lot 
of time and it might even require another all-night session just like 
we had a few months ago in connection with the budget resolution, but 
it would be worth it. It would be entirely acceptable, and I would be 
voting yes on cloture on the bill if that is what we were faced with. 
But what we are faced with, what we are told is going to happen, what 
we are told is being prepared to accept is neither of those options; 
not being given the opportunity to vote yes or no, up or down on the 
resolution passed by the House of Representatives nor would we be given 
the opportunity to have an open amendment process, one that allows 
individual Senators to propose amendments and have those amendment 
considered, voted on in this body.
  What we are being told instead is that what we will have is a single 
amendment brought forward by the Senate majority leader, one amendment 
and one amendment only, and that amendment, by the way, would strip out 
the defunding language, it would gut the House-passed continuing 
resolution of a provision that many would consider the ``without which 
not'' part of the House-passed bill, meaning the part without which the 
House of Representatives could not and would not have gotten the 
necessary 218 votes to pass a continuing resolution. That is a problem. 
That is a problem indeed because that suggests that by voting for 
cloture in that posture, where Senator Reid is contemplating allowing 
neither an open amendment process nor an up-or-down vote on the House-
passed resolution in as-is condition--in either of those circumstances, 
we would be fine. But we are not getting that. We are getting stuck 
with something else. He wants to gut the House-passed continuing 
resolution with the defunding language without any open amendment 
process and without the opportunity for an up-or-down vote.

  So in that circumstance, I don't understand why it would be the case 
that Republicans would feel that voting yes would be supporting the 
House of Representatives and voting no would be voting against the 
House of Representatives. In fact, it seems to me, I say to Senator 
Cruz, that would be quite the opposite of that. It seems to me that if, 
in fact, one wanted to stand behind the House of Representatives and 
stand behind their willingness to defend the American people and 
protect them from this harmful law, at the end of the day that would 
entail that anyone who wanted to stand with the House of 
Representatives on that point would necessarily need to vote no if, in 
fact, Senator Reid does what we expect him to do later this week.
  Would the Senator agree that is what one could expect in that 
circumstance? And would the Senator also agree that Senator Reid is 
likely to have 53 Democrats going along with him, and if Senator Reid 
has 53 Democrats going along with him, doesn't that rather undercut the 
argument that in order to support the House-passed bill one must vote 
yes on the cloture vote on cloture on the bill?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank Senator Lee for his very good question. I think the 
answer is absolutely yes. If the objective of any Senate Republican is 
to support the House Republicans, the bill they passed to defund 
ObamaCare, then one obviously would not vote to allow Majority Leader 
Harry Reid to strip out all of the operative language and to fund 
ObamaCare with a 51-vote pure-partisan Democratic majority. That is not 
complicated. To be honest, it is something every Senator in this body 
understands. All the Democrats understand it. It is why Harry Reid is 
voting yes on cloture. It is why, presumably, every Democrat will vote 
yes on cloture. Why? It is the reason some of our colleagues have used 
as well: A ``yes'' vote on cloture says that they support the House of 
Representatives' bill and support defunding ObamaCare.
  I suppose that means, then, that Harry Reid suddenly supports 
defunding ObamaCare and that every Democrat supports defunding 
ObamaCare. I say to my friend Senator Lee that I would be very happy if 
that were the case. If that interpretation were right and suddenly 
Harry Reid and every Democrat supported defunding ObamaCare, that would 
be terrific. We know for a fact it is not the case. We know for a fact 
it is not the case because they publicly said it. We know for a fact it 
is not the case because just yesterday I asked for unanimous consent to 
simply pass the House bill. If every Democrat and Harry Reid supported 
defunding ObamaCare, he wouldn't have objected.
  Everyone understands that the cloture vote on Friday or Saturday will 
be a vote to allow Harry Reid to fully fund ObamaCare using only a 51-
vote majority that allows it to be done on a straight partisan line. 
There is no confusion on that. Every Democrat understands that, and 
every Republican understands that.
  However, there is some confusion, but not in this body, and it is so 
Senators believe with the American people because Senators think, well, 
the politics and procedural mumbo-jumbo is confusing enough that I can 
vote yes, give Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare, and at the 
same time I can run paid advertisements--as more than a few of our 
colleagues may well be doing right now--that say: I want to defund 
ObamaCare. They can't do both. They can't hand Harry Reid the ability 
to fund ObamaCare and claim they want to defund it. Pick a side. Pick a 
position and stand by your beliefs.
  I will give an analogy. The House of Representatives passed a bill 
that cut taxes, and then it came over to the Senate. Majority leader 
Harry Reid announced that he wanted to file for cloture on that bill, 
and then after that happened, he would file an amendment to erase all 
the tax cuts and to jack up taxes by $1 trillion. Let's suppose he 
announced this publicly and told everyone: This is what I plan to do--
and by the way, it is going to be the only amendment. I will totally 
gut the House bill and turn a tax cut into a tax increase. I am 
absolutely certain if that were the case all 46 Republicans would vote 
against cloture. We get the game.
  Voting to cut off debate is voting to allow the majority leader to 
gut the

[[Page S6748]]

House bill. So any Senator who votes for cloture is saying: I want the 
majority leader to be able to gut the House bill. But it is even better 
than that. What was it that P.T. Barnum said? You can fool some of the 
people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't 
fool all of the people all of the time. There are a lot of Members of 
this body who think: Some of the people all of the time will be just 
good enough for me. If I can vote to give Harry Reid the ability to 
fund ObamaCare, and then, beauty of all beauty, when we get to a 51-
vote threshold on ObamaCare, I can vote against funding ObamaCare, I 
can go home and say: Hey, I voted twice the right way. Of course, I did 
it in a way that guaranteed 100 percent that we are going to lose. It 
guaranteed that ObamaCare would be funded.
  Now, for that strategy to work, it depends upon voters being really 
gullible and confused.
  I was reading tweets earlier. Earlier we talked about how we are not 
living in the 1950s. In many respects we are not living in the 1950s. 
One of those respects is we no longer have three big networks that 
control all the news and limited avenues for the American people to 
find out what is going on. We have seen a democratization of 
information. We now have cable TV and more channels, it seems, than one 
could possibly imagine. We have avenues such as FOX News that get out 
content that the mainstream media won't cover in an effort to provide 
fair and balanced news. We have talk radio. God bless talk radio. It is 
an avenue to reach out to millions of Americans, and it is able to go 
right around the media gatekeepers. We have the Internet. We have 
social media. We have Facebook and Twitter. We can disseminate 
information directly.

  In the 1950s one could do some procedural smoke-and-mirrors. One 
could hide an obfuscation, and people wouldn't know. One of the 
fascinating things--and I suspect the Presiding Officer has done this 
as well as an avid student of history--is listening to the old L.B.J. 
tapes. L.B.J. would be talking to one group on tape and say: I am 
totally with you. And then he would be on tape talking to the other 
side saying: I am totally with you. He would tell different groups 
things that were 180 degrees opposite of each other. He would say one 
thing to one group and another thing to another group. They were so 
different, they would never get a chance to reconcile.
  I would suggest that in 2013 that is a lot harder to do. In 2013, if 
they tell one group they are totally with them, you better believe the 
other group will find out about them.
  In 2013, if a Member votes--I hope they don't, but some Republicans 
might--to give Harry Reid the power to fund ObamaCare on a straight 
partisan 51-vote threshold, then that Member is voting to fund 
ObamaCare and their constituents are going to know about it. It is not 
anything any of us are going to do because our constituents are now 
engaged and following this debate directly. So the ad that says ``I am 
for defunding ObamaCare'' while at the same time fighting to keep 
funding ObamaCare doesn't work in the Internet age. It doesn't work.
  What is the old line? I try not to lie. I try to tell the truth 
because it is so hard to keep track of the lies. Instead of telling 
people multiple positions, just stand and fight for what you believe 
in.
  Earlier we were talking about Bernie Sanders. I respect the heck out 
of Bernie Sanders. Actually--and this is a comment that often surprises 
our friends in the media and even some Democrats--I respect President 
Obama. I respect the man a great deal because I think he is deeply 
committed to his principles. I think he has taken political risks for 
his principles, I think he has fought for them, and I think he is a 
true believer. Everything I have seen about his entire course of life--
I think he believes genuinely, earnestly, and with all of his heart in 
government solutions, government control of the economy and our lives, 
and in redistribution of wealth. I have no reason to doubt that the 
President sleeps like a babe at night believing that he is fighting to 
better America. At the same time, I believe the ideas the President 
believes in and the policies he has advanced are profoundly harmful--
not a little bit wrong but profoundly harmful to this country.
  You know what. That is a debate we can have. That is a policy debate 
I welcome. Has it been good or bad for Americans to implement 
ObamaCare? Has it been good or bad for Americans to see jobs drying up? 
Has it been good or bad for Americans to see small businesses not grow 
anymore? Has it been good or bad for Americans to see health insurance 
premiums skyrocketing? Has it been good or bad for Americans to see 
more and more people losing their health insurance? That is a debate I 
am happy to have on the substance. That is an honest debate. The 
President embraces that policy.
  I will confess that what produces more of the cynicism and skepticism 
toward Washington are the politicians who don't have the honest debates 
and don't say: You know what. I am not all that fond of ObamaCare, but 
it doesn't matter enough to me to risk anything on it. I care more 
about staying in office than I do, actually, about fighting a fight. So 
I want to take some symbolic votes, and I don't want to risk any chance 
of anyone blaming me for the downside.
  I get why voters are frustrated with that. I get why voters are 
frustrated with politicians saying one thing and doing another. It 
shouldn't be complicated. Do what you say. It shouldn't be complicated. 
Stand for your principles. If you don't believe ObamaCare should be 
funded and that Obamacare is hurting Americans, then stand and say: 
Let's defund ObamaCare.
  I have made it very clear that we could end this debate right now if 
the majority leader would come down and say--look, the best way to end 
this debate would be if he would agree to pass the House continuing 
resolution to fund all of government except for ObamaCare. I recognize 
that is not likely to happen anytime soon, but it would be the best 
way, and it would be the way that is most responsive to the American 
people. But the second way to end this debate--and, by the way, to 
expedite this whole process--is to simply have the majority leader 
agree to have open amendments and have those amendments subject to a 
60-vote threshold.
  The Presiding Officer and I have both been here the same number of 
months--9 months. During the time we have been here, we have seen vote 
after vote after vote with a 60-vote threshold. That is very common.
  The Presiding Officer will remember the guns debate we had. Guns are 
an emotional and passionate issue. It is an issue people on both sides 
care a lot about. I get that. The Presiding Officer will remember that 
when we voted on the floor of this Senate, every single amendment was 
subject to a 60-vote threshold.
  In the course of that debate, I introduced, along with Senator Chuck 
Grassley, the Grassley-Cruz bill. It was a law enforcement alternative. 
Instead of restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding 
citizens, it was targeting violent criminals. It was going after felons 
and fugitives who tried to illegally buy guns. It was going after those 
who commit violent crimes with guns. It was going after States that 
don't report mental health records to the background check system.

  We just saw a horrific shooting in Washington, DC. All of us are 
mourning for the victims and the families there. The individual, it 
appears, had significant mental health issues. The Grassley-Cruz bill 
would have mandated significant incentives and penalties for States to 
get them to report mental health records, because our background mental 
health system doesn't work if we don't have the mental health records 
in them. As of a date relatively recently--I don't recall the date off 
the top of my head but relatively recently this year--I believe there 
were 18 States that reported 100 or fewer records.
  The Presiding Officer will recall what happened with that bill, and 
every amendment. We got a majority. A majority of Senators voted for 
the Grassley-Cruz bill. Indeed, nine Democrats voted for the Grassley-
Cruz bill. It was the most bipartisan of any of the comprehensive gun 
legislation that was considered by this body. There was no other 
comprehensive bill that had anywhere close to that level of bipartisan 
support across the aisle. Yet the Grassley-Cruz bill did not pass into 
law. It

[[Page S6749]]

didn't even get sent over to the House. Why? Because there was a 60-
vote threshold because, effectively, Majority Leader Reid filibustered 
it.
  As important as guns are, I think restoring jobs and the economy, 
restoring economic growth, dealing with the train wreck that is 
ObamaCare, is at least as important to the American people. The idea 
that somehow a 60-vote threshold was OK there but here there has to be 
a partisan exercise in brute power in my view is completely 
inconsistent with the traditions of this great body. But I will note it 
serves the purposes of politicians on both sides of the aisle. It 
serves the purposes of Democrats because most Democrats right now still 
want to preserve ObamaCare.
  Most Democrats, in my view, are privately getting more and more 
nervous about the train wreck that this is. They are seeing--we can't 
go home and talk to our constituents without seeing the job loss and 
the health insurance premiums going up and people losing their health 
insurance. I think most Democratic Senators are nervous about it but 
not yet ready to abandon ship. On the Republican side, there is not a 
Republican here who doesn't enjoy giving speeches about ObamaCare. We 
can give speeches, humdingers sometimes. But there are more than a few 
Republicans who are nervous about actually doing anything that has a 
real chance of happening, because anytime we take a stand that has 
risk, there is downside to risk. If we hold our ground, if the House 
holds their ground, it is entirely possible that majority leader Harry 
Reid and President Obama will force a government shutdown. I don't 
think they should. I think it will be a mistake. But they have said 
they are willing to shut the government down in order to force 
ObamaCare on the American people. That has a lot of people on the 
Republican side in the conference nervous because they think, Well, if 
President Obama and Harry Reid shut the government down, they will 
blame it on Republicans and the media will all repeat that attack. The 
mainstream media, every one of them, will repeat word for word the 
talking points. It will get to the point that the stories we read in 
the major newspapers will read as if they were written by the White 
House Press Office.
  But that has been the way of the world for a long time. So there are 
Republicans nervous about, Well, even if the President and Harry Reid 
force a shutdown, Republicans will get blamed and we don't want the 
political blame so we don't want to fight this fight. In fact, a lot of 
Republicans have gone out to the press and said, We can't win, we can't 
win, we can't win. When we have a lot of Republicans saying we can't 
win, that is one way to make it less likely we are going to win.
  It is true if Republicans don't stand together on this, we can't win. 
Some have asked, Why haven't Democrats come over to join us? Listen, 
the Presiding Officer and I both know no Democrat is going to come join 
us as long as half the Republican conference is split and throwing 
rocks at us. There is no incentive for anyone to do that now. The only 
hope of bringing Democrats over to join us is if we first unify 
Republicans. If we get all 46 Republicans to stand together opposing 
cloture and to say, No, we are not going to let Harry Reid shut down 
all amendments; we are not going to let Harry Reid fund ObamaCare on a 
straight partisan party-line vote; and then, if those Democrats elected 
in red States begin hearing from their constituents in incredible 
numbers--listen, I will tell my colleagues, the people of Arkansas, the 
people of Louisiana, the people of North Carolina, they understand 
ObamaCare is a train wreck. They would like their Senators to listen to 
them. The Presiding Officer and I both know, when we start to hear from 
5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000 of our constituents, it changes our 
calculus. If there is one thing the men and women of this body like, it 
is to get reelected. The only way this fight is going to be won is if 
the American people speak so loudly that the politicians in this body 
have no choice but to listen to the people.
  Let me give an example, an example the Presiding Officer and I spoke 
about at the time. About a month ago, we all remember that President 
Obama publicly announced his intention to launch a unilateral military 
attack on the nation of Syria. When that happened, bipartisan leaders 
in both the House and the Senate fairly quickly came out in support of 
that plan. Just about every commentator--just about every talking head 
in Washington--said there was no chance of stopping it. It was going to 
happen. It was a done deal. It was going to happen. In fact, they were 
the same voices who are saying now, with regard to defunding ObamaCare, 
it can't be done, accept it, accept it, it can't be done, it can't be 
done. All of those exact voices said about Syria: He is going to 
attack, there is nothing we can do, it will be done.
  The Presiding Officer and I both spoke out loudly, saying the 
President should bring the issue to Congress, and I commend the 
President for listening to bipartisan calls. That was not easy. I have 
no doubt there was significant dissension among his advisers who didn't 
want him to do so, and I commend the President for listening to those 
bipartisan calls. It was the right thing to do. Once he submitted it to 
Congress, what happened next the Presiding Officer and I both know 
because we both went home to our respective States. People in our 
States were not evenly divided on the question of Syria. It wasn't a 
close call. I can tell my colleagues in my office the calls literally 
went 100 to 1 against the United States launching a unilateral military 
attack against Syria and getting involved in that sectarian civil war 
in a way that didn't further our national security. We had over 5,000 
calls from Texans opposing getting us in the middle of that Syrian 
civil war. We had roughly 50 in support of it. I think the percentage 
in our office at one point was 99.13 percent of the calls were against 
military intervention.
  We saw something even more incredible. Everyone said it was a done 
deal and the Senate was going to vote to approve it. The more the 
American people spoke up, the more people in this body began listening, 
the more some of those who early on were fans of the military 
intervention suddenly began listening to their constituents and saying, 
I am not so sure this makes sense.
  And then astonishingly, remarkably--and I give him credit for this--
the President of the United States listened, and the President went 
before this Nation and asked this body, do not vote on this. I am glad 
he did, because if we had voted, I think at that point it was very 
clear he would have lost the vote, that Congress would not have voted 
to authorize military force. The House clearly would have voted against 
it and I think there is a good chance the Senate would have also, 
although the Senate is a little harder to predict. I am glad the 
President asked us to call off that vote, because I don't think it is 
good for this country, for Congress to vote against the Commander in 
Chief on issues of national security and defending this Nation, so I am 
glad we didn't have that vote. But I am glad he listened to the 
American people.
  I want to point out, for everyone who says defunding ObamaCare is 
impossible, they are the same voices who said stopping the attack on 
Syria was impossible--the exact same voices, graybeards--all of the 
media.
  The only thing that is going to change the dynamic in this body, the 
only thing that is going to unite 41 Republicans against cloture, 
against ObamaCare, and to defund ObamaCare, is if the voice of the 
people becomes so loud it can't be ignored. The only thing that is 
going to start moving red State Democrats is if the voice of the people 
in their States becomes so loud they cannot be ignored. Ultimately, 
that is how we win this fight. It comes down to the people.
  I would also like to have a bit of a discussion on an issue that I 
would note the Presiding Officer and Senator Lee both care about and 
are quite expert in, which is constitutional law and the separation of 
powers. We have often seen pundits go on television and they use a 
phrase that I think is particularly asinine. They say, Republicans 
cannot expect to--fill in the blank here--defund ObamaCare, cut taxes, 
push tax reform, have regulatory reform--do anything--Republicans 
cannot expect to X because we control just one-half of one-third of the 
government. The only thing the Republicans have in Washington is a 
majority in the House, and they can't do anything from one-half of one-
third of the government. There is a technical legal

[[Page S6750]]

term for that argument: It is poppycock. It is complete and utter 
nonsense. That is not the way our constitutional system works.
  It is true that Democrats currently have a majority in the Senate and 
that a Democrat sits in the White House. That is true. But the 
Constitution gives different branches different responsibilities and in 
their respective spheres each branch has exceptional power. So when it 
comes to ordering our military troops into battle, to selecting 
targets, to making direct decisions of military conflict, the President 
of the United States is Commander in Chief, and it does not matter if 
the President is a Democrat or whether 535 Members of Congress are 
Republicans. When it comes to being Commander in Chief, when it comes 
to ordering our troops into battle, to making decisions in the midst of 
conducting war, the Constitution gives the President preeminent 
authority on that under article II.
  When it comes to adjudicating the constitutionality of law--one could 
make arguments about whether this is right--but as a practical matter, 
the Constitution and modern acceptance gives the Supreme Court 
preeminence in adjudicating whether a law comports with the 
Constitution. I would note that is true even if five Justices of the 
Court are appointed by a different political party, the party that 
controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. We could have five 
Justices appointed by a Democratic President and 535 Republican Members 
of Congress and a Republican President. Yet on the questions of 
adjudicating the constitutionality of the law, the Supreme Court would 
still have preeminence and very significant authority.
  When it comes to appropriations, when it comes to the power of the 
purse, when it comes to spending, article I of the Constitution gives 
Congress preeminence and, in particular, the House of Representatives. 
So I will be perfectly honest. If I were to pick one thing for 
Republicans to have control over, particularly when it comes to funding 
or defunding something, it would be the House of Representatives. Every 
pundit who goes on television and says, Well, we just control one-half 
of one-third of the government--what complete and utter nonsense. Not a 
single law can pass into law without the House of Representatives. It 
is a necessary but-for. And on questions of spending, the House of 
Representatives has preeminence. So this notion that it can't be done--
and a related point. There are some on the Democratic side of the aisle 
who make the argument this is the settled law of the land. Accept it 
already. You guys are bitter enders. We passed it into law. We won a 
Presidential election again. Game over. You lose.
  I understand the political virtue of making that argument. It is 
always good to convince those who disagree with you to give up their 
beliefs. Sometimes those on this side of the aisle oblige by doing so. 
But it is not an argument that has any basis in the Constitution. Is 
ObamaCare currently the law of the land? Of course. It was passed into 
law, it is in the statute. It is on the books.
  No one on this side of the aisle has argued it is not. We are arguing 
it should not be. That is a very different thing than saying it is not.
  Congress has the power of the purse. Congress has the power--let me 
finish this point, and then I am happy to yield for a question. 
Congress has the power to appropriate. There is no obligation for 
Congress to appropriate, to fund a law that is not working, that 
evidence and experience--that what the American people are experiencing 
has demonstrated it is not working.
  So the House of Representatives in voting to defund ObamaCare, while 
funding the rest of government, is fulfilling its constitutional 
function. If this body took up that same gauntlet, kept government 
funded, never shut down government, funded every aspect of government 
except ObamaCare because it is not working, it is hurting the American 
people, we would be fulfilling our constitutional function as well.
  (Mr. MURPHY assumed the Chair.)
  I would note the Senator from Virginia rose for a question. I am 
happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. KAINE. I thank the Senator.
  I would ask the Senator to yield for a series of questions around two 
issues--first, comments the Senator made earlier about helpful reforms 
that could be made to the health care system and, second, the Senator's 
comments about the need for Members of this body to listen to their 
constituents. Being in the chair and hearing the Senator, I could not 
resist but to follow up on those two items.
  On the issue of reforms, I understood one of the Senator's points to 
be that a helpful reform might be for Congress to take up and 
potentially eliminate the current prohibition of purchasing insurance 
across State lines. Did I hear that correctly?
  Mr. CRUZ. Yes, that is correct.
  I am happy to yield for a second question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. KAINE. In addition, I think I understood, and I agree with a 
comment the Senator made about potential reforms--that even the whole 
notion of health care provided through employers is a little bit of a 
historical anomaly that came up in the aftermath of World War II.
  I was not sure if the Senator was suggesting that as part of a health 
care reform he would want to alter that norm of employers providing at 
least some health care provision for their employees.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator for that question.
  What I was suggesting is we should do tax reform that encourages 
policies to be personal and affordable. Right now, Federal tax laws, 
Federal laws heavily favor employer-provided health insurance, and that 
creates some real failures in the market where when someone loses their 
job, they lose their health insurance. We would be better serving, I 
believe, our constituents if health insurance became like car 
insurance, something that went with you regardless of what job you were 
in.
  Mr. KAINE. I say to the Senator, you engaged in a colloquy with the 
Senator from Illinois about a provision that I wanted to follow up on.
  Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, it was completely 
lawful and, in fact, common for insurance companies to turn down 
individuals for insurance because of preexisting health conditions. I 
do not think--but I want to make sure about this--I do not think the 
Senator was arguing that we should go back to that day and that we 
should go back to a status quo where children would be turned down for 
health insurance because of preexisting health care conditions.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator for that question.
  Let me point out that preexisting conditions and the individual 
mandate of ObamaCare are integrally connected because the way the 
insurance market works--let me take an example that does not deal with 
health care. Let's talk about fire insurance, fire insurance on your 
home.
  I suspect both our homes have fire insurance. Imagine if Congress 
were to pass a law that says fire insurance companies cannot take into 
account preexisting conditions, such as whether the home has already 
burned down in a fire.
  If that were the law, what any rational person would do--we would 
both cancel our fire insurance policies because our house had not 
burned down, and if it did burn down, we could then buy a fire 
insurance policy and say: Please pay for my house.
  Under that rule, the whole insurance regime collapses because the 
entire basis of insurance is you get people whose homes have not burned 
down to pay relatively small premiums to create a pool of capital that 
will be used to compensate--we do not know who, but somebody's home is 
going to burn down. If enough people whose homes have not burned down 
put in money in premiums, there will be a pool to pay for whichever 
unlucky soul faces their home burning down.
  The health insurance market works quite similarly. If the rule is 
simply that for anyone, regardless of their medical condition, any 
insurance company has to cover them, no matter what, then the incentive 
is the same as with fire insurance; that if the Senator and I are 
healthy, it is, frankly, irrational to get health insurance, if the 
rule is, if I get sick, then I can get health insurance and they have 
to cover me. What you end up with is insurance that consists only of 
people

[[Page S6751]]

who have sicknesses, who have grave diseases, and that bankrupts every 
insurance plan. If you have a mandate that you cannot take into account 
whether someone is already sick before giving them insurance, it means 
the insurance companies go out of business, and what it leads to is 
what Majority Leader Reid has argued for--it leads ultimately to 
single-payer government health insurance.
  Mr. KAINE. Does the Affordable Care Act require that insurance be 
provided to folks despite preexisting conditions at the same rate 
across the board?
  Mr. CRUZ. It restricts the terms at which the rates are given.
  Mr. KAINE. So then, to make sure I understand, the Senator is opposed 
to the provision in the current Affordable Care Act that requires 
insurance companies to write insurance to individuals within those 
limitations, regardless of preexisting conditions.
  Mr. CRUZ. Let me finish my explanation on that. I will answer the 
Senator's question, but I wish to finish the explanation. That is the 
reason ObamaCare includes the individual mandate. Because, to use the 
fire example again, it would be the equivalent of, if you are saying 
you have to issue a fire policy to anyone regardless of whether their 
house has already burned down, it would be the equivalent of saying we 
are requiring everyone who has a house to buy a policy. Because that is 
the only way you prevent the insurance market from being bankrupt.

  So the individual mandate, the reason ObamaCare says we are forcing 
everyone to buy insurance--whether you want to or not--is because of 
the preexisting condition.
  Now listen, my view on preexisting conditions is we ought to reform 
the market to deal with that problem. I do not think ObamaCare is the 
right solution. I think ObamaCare is the wrong solution. I think we 
ought to defund it all now. I think we ultimately ought to repeal it in 
its entirety.
  But on preexisting conditions, I will point out, No. 1, if you have 
an issue--and there have been issues with insurance companies acting in 
bad faith, with insurance companies dropping someone when they get 
sick, and I think there the legal system should work to prevent that. 
If you have purchased insurance, if you have paid your premiums, your 
company should not be dropping you when you become sick. I think there 
is a vital role for State insurance regulators to be involved there and 
for our contract and tort system--the legal system--to be involved.
  I think if we move toward changing the Federal tax laws to make 
health insurance policies portable, personal, it will go a long way to 
solving the problem of preexisting conditions. I am not maintaining it 
will solve it in every instance 100 percent of the time. It is very 
difficult to come up with a Federal rule that will address 100 percent 
of the inequitable circumstances one could come up with, and if we 
tried to the unintended consequences could be staggering.
  ObamaCare was justified in terms of wanting to provide insurance for 
those without insurance. Listen, I would like to see those without 
insurance get health insurance. I would like to see a competitive 
market where low-cost catastrophic policies were attractive to people 
and they chose to purchase it. But one of the best ways for someone to 
get health insurance is for them to get a good job, for them to 
actually start making real money, have some disposable income, start 
climbing the economic ladder.
  The unintended consequence of ObamaCare is it has ended up hammering 
economic growth, hammering small businesses. So a lot of the people the 
law was trying to help have been made worse off.
  Mr. KAINE. If I could, let me ask: A reform in the Senator's view 
that might encompass a different solution for the preexisting condition 
or an ending of the ban on interstate purchasing of insurance, if we 
get through this week and we are into next week and ObamaCare has not 
been defunded and we have funded government operations going forward, 
the Senator could introduce a reform bill proposing to do just those 
things, could he not?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator for that question.
  I could. I will confess, our policy team is working on a number of 
affirmative health insurance reform policies.
  I will confess--and for some reason we are kind of going with the 
home fire analogy, so let's stick with it right now. There are some 
who, in the course of health care matters, argue that the heavy focus 
of those of us who are opposed to ObamaCare should be what is the 
alternative, that should be the heavy focus. Listen, I absolutely think 
the health care system needs reforms to change real problems in it. I 
am a strong believer in that.
  But an analogy I have used before is, if your home is on fire, you 
put out the fire first before building an addition to the house. 
Likewise, with ObamaCare, I think ObamaCare is such a train wreck, is 
such a disaster that the first imperative is to stop the damage from 
ObamaCare. Then I think we should work, and I would like it to be in a 
bipartisan way. The Senator and I have talked many times about how we 
could work together. We have yet to find a great opportunity to do so. 
But I am hopeful that will change because I would like to see us listen 
to our constituents and work constructively to fix the problems that 
hard-working Americans are struggling with.
  When it comes to introducing affirmative health care legislation, I 
fully anticipate our team will do so, and we are working on proposals 
now. As the Senator knows well, our having been here just 9 months, it 
has not been a quiet 9 months.
  Mr. KAINE. I say to the Senator, if we get to that point and he 
introduces affirmative legislation to reform the health care system--
after we get through this debate--that would be legislation that would 
not be connected to the question, the existential question, of whether 
the government would continue to operate on October 1. So it would not 
be integrally wrapped up with sort of a threat to the economy that 
would be posed by a potential government shutdown, and it could be 
analyzed just on its own merits: Is this a good reform or a bad reform, 
without being wrapped around the question of whether we would shut down 
the government and do we lay off or put on some kind of furlough the 
nurses at Fort Belvoir Hospital who are taking care of wounded warriors 
every day. That would be a reform bill where we could dig into the 
reform and talk about the reform and analyze what is good and what is 
bad and what should be fixed and maybe what should not be, without it 
being wrapped around the question of a government shutdown.
  Would the Senator not agree with that?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  I would certainly agree that this body should spend considerable time 
working, and working together, on positive, proactive health care 
reforms, to expand competition, to empower patients.
  I also agree with something else the Senator from Virginia said, 
which is that we should not be threatening a government shutdown. I do 
not want a government shutdown. I want the government to continue.
  I salute the House of Representatives for passing a continuing 
resolution that keeps the government funded. But it also defunds 
ObamaCare. In my view, that is responsive to the suffering that so many 
millions of Americans are experiencing--to the loss of jobs, to being 
forced into part-time work, to facing higher health insurance premiums, 
to losing their health insurance.
  Mr. KAINE. I ask the Senator, would he not agree that the best way to 
avoid a government shutdown or threats of a government shutdown or 
talking about the consequences of a government shutdown would be to 
separate out his question of what are the right reforms of the health 
care system from the funding of government operations?
  Mr. CRUZ. I certainly agree with the Senator from Virginia that we 
should stop holding hostages. So an ideal way--and I had an earlier 
exchange with Senator Enzi from Wyoming, who pointed out that the 
entire reason we are having this continuing resolution battle is 
because Congress failed in its job to pass appropriations bills.
  For example, the House of Representatives has passed a Defense 
appropriations bill. It is sitting here in the Senate. Majority Leader 
Reid has not taken it up. I think we should take it up and pass it 
immediately so that any discussion of government shutdowns does not in 
any way, shape or form

[[Page S6752]]

even remotely threaten the salary of the men and women of our military. 
I am confident the Senator and I agree, under no circumstances should 
anyone who is risking his or her life to defend the rest of us find 
their compensation, their salary threatened.
  In my view, existing law allows and even requires the President to 
fund the military regardless of what happens on the continuing 
resolution, regardless of if we had a partial temporary shutdown.



                          ____________________