[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6763-S6838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  In the Senator's view, is it acceptable for the discussion of a 
government shutdown to threaten the nonmilitary priorities that are 
important to the American public?
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the question from the Senator from Virginia. I 
would note, I do not think we should shut anything down except 
ObamaCare. I think we should fund it all. Indeed, I have indicated a 
willingness--the Senator from Virginia knows well that I think we have 
a deep spending problem in this country and Congress has abdicated its 
responsibility and built a record debt.
  It has gone from $10 trillion when the President was elected to now 
nearly $17 trillion--over a 60-percent increase. So if you ask me, do I 
like a continuing resolution that funds everything the Federal 
Government is doing without significant spending cuts, no. I would much 
rather have real spending cuts, roll up our sleeves and address the 
out-of-control spending and debt.
  But I am perfectly willing to vote for a continuing resolution that 
maintains the status quo on everything, except for ObamaCare, because I 
view the gravity of ObamaCare, the threat of ObamaCare to hard-working 
American men and women so grave. As you know, in politics and in life 
you have got to pick your battles. We have to pick our battles one at a 
time.
  So over time, I would prefer for us to work to have real spending 
cuts. But I do not think the avenue to doing that is that we should 
shut down the government. In my view, we should not shut down the 
government. The only way a government shutdown will happen--it may 
happen--is if majority leader Harry Reid and President Obama decide 
they want to shut down the government in order to force ObamaCare on 
the American people.
  Mr. KAINE. So the Senator will not vote to continue government 
operations unless ObamaCare is defunded?
  Mr. CRUZ. The Senator from Virginia is correct, and I have stated 
that I will not vote for a continuing resolution that funds ObamaCare. 
I believe this body should not vote for a continuing resolution that 
funds ObamaCare. Why? Because the facts show it is not working.
  That is why the unions that used to support it are, one after the 
other, coming out against it.
  Mr. KAINE. I want to switch and ask the Senator a question about 
``MakeWashingtonListen.'' That is the second piece. If the Senator will 
let me get back into a little bit of campaigning activity, he and I 
were candidates at the same time in 2012, and I gather that he told his 
constituents that he was opposed to ObamaCare and that he would vote to 
repeal or defund it if he were elected to office. Is that correct?
  Mr. CRUZ. That is most assuredly correct.
  Mr. KAINE. I believe I am correct that the Senator won his election 
not by a small margin but by a large margin. Is that correct?
  Mr. CRUZ. Thanks to the work of a whole lot of Texas men and women 
across the State who really worked their hearts out. Yes, we were 
privileged to win the primary by 14 points and to win the general 
election by 15 points.
  Mr. KAINE. Would it be fair to say that part of the Senator's mission 
here is he told his voters what he would do. They knew what the Senator 
would do and chose him to do the job. One of the things the Senator is 
doing today on the floor with this effort is to basically live up to 
the promise that he made to them, and the mandate that they gave to 
him?
  Mr. CRUZ. I would agree with all of that.
  Mr. KAINE. Let me offer a hypothetical situation. Contemplate another 
State and another race between two candidates, where one candidate took 
the strong position that ObamaCare should be repealed and the other 
candidate took the strong position that ObamaCare should not be 
repealed. In that State, the candidate that won by a sizable margin was 
the candidate who said ObamaCare should not be repealed, having been 
plain about it with the voters, and the voters having heard the choices 
and made a choice. Does the Senator think it is also the case that a 
Senator in that hypothetical State should come to the body and do what 
he said he was going to do for his voters?
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the question from the Senator from Virginia. 
He raises a very good and a fair point. I think that point is 
particularly valid for those Senators--I would note that all three of 
the Senators in the Chamber right now were elected in 2012. I think the 
point that he raises is particularly valid for those of us who were 
ruining in 2012, when this was an issue before the voters.
  Now, in the hypothetical given, which I am not sure is entirely 
hypothetical, what I do not know is the exact representation that 
candidate made to the voters in his or her State, the exact statements 
that candidate made. I absolutely agree that he should honor the 
commitments made to the people. I would also note that all of us have 
an obligation to take note of changed circumstances, to take note of 
new facts that come to light, and even honoring your commitments does 
not mean that you ignore changed circumstances.
  To give an example, prior to World War II, there were quite a few 
Members of this body and in the House of Representatives who campaigned 
and said they would keep America out of the war. Following Pearl 
Harbor, it was a different circumstance. It was a changed circumstance. 
I think, quite reasonably, people change their views.

[[Page S6764]]

Constituents change their views and representatives change their views 
based on changed circumstances. So I would submit--listen, the argument 
the Senator makes is a serious one. I would not encourage any Member of 
this body to disregard the commitments they made to their constituents.
  But I would, at the same time, encourage every Member not just to 
keep in mind the promises made on the campaign trail but the ongoing 
views of their constituents, because as circumstances change all of us 
respond to changed circumstances including our constituents. So one 
must certainly respect the promises made, but at the same time in the 9 
months we have been here, in the year since the 3 of us were active 
candidates, the situation on ObamaCare has changed.
  Look, I very much was opposed to ObamaCare a year ago, 2 years ago, 
and 3 years ago. At the time it passed, I thought it was a bad idea. 
But a year ago, the unions did not oppose it. A year ago, the President 
had not granted exemptions for big corporations. A year ago, Members of 
Congress had not gone to the President and asked for an exemption and 
got it. A year ago, we had not seen companies all over this country 
forcing people into 29 hours a week. A year ago we had not seen one big 
corporation after another dropping their health insurance coverage, 
such as UPS telling 15,000 employees: Your spousal coverage is being 
dropped because of ObamaCare. Your husbands and wives have just lost 
their coverage. So I would submit that the circumstances have changed.

  Mr. KAINE. The last thing I would ask the Senator is--the three 
Senators who are now in the Chamber are each from different States. We 
all ran in 2012. I do not know about the presiding officer's situation. 
I was in that hypothetical, as you understand, running against a 
candidate who promised to repeal ObamaCare. I promised to work on 
reform efforts but to reject any effort to repeal or defund ObamaCare. 
The voters of Virginia chose the candidate who was not for repeal of 
ObamaCare. I do not know if it was the same situation in Connecticut or 
not. I suspect it probably was. We each represent one State.
  There was also a national election in 2012, between a candidate, a 
President, who said that the Affordable Care Act was the law of the 
land and I am willing to work on it and improve it, but I will fight 
against efforts to repeal it or defund it, and a candidate who pledged 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  An election result in a Presidential election is listening to 
America, I believe. I am a believer in this system. I am a believer in 
democracy and the power of Presidential elections and mandates. I think 
the result in that election between the candidate who promised to 
maintain the Affordable Care Act and work to improve it and the 
candidate who promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act was not 
particularly close. I think it was a 53 to 47 percent election among 
the large size of a national electorate, rejecting the repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act position.
  Is that something that this body should at least consider or take 
into account as we wrestle with this question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the question from the Senator from Virginia as 
well. Look, there is no doubt President Obama was reelected. I wish he 
had not been. I obviously did not support his election, but the 
majority of the American people voted for him to be reelected. That is 
to his credit.
  I would point out that I do not agree with one of the premises of the 
question proposed by the Senator from Virginia, which is namely that 
the national election was fought over ObamaCare. I think the national 
election--No. 1, President Obama is a spectacularly talented candidate, 
a far more talented candidate than the Republican candidate. I think 
Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, but not the political candidate 
that Barack Obama is.
  But, No. 2, once we got to the general election, much to my great 
dismay, Republicans did not make the election about ObamaCare. In fact, 
if you contrast the elections in 2010 and 2012, in 2010 Republicans ran 
all over the country on let's stop ObamaCare. The result was a tidal 
wave election for Republicans in the House of Representatives and in 
the Senate. It resulted in new personnel in both places. It resulted in 
Republicans taking over the House of Representatives. It resulted in a 
significant number of new Republicans in this body.
  In 2012, Republicans did not focus. Indeed, the general election did 
not make nearly as much of an issue about ObamaCare and how it was 
failing the American people as it should have. As a consequence, I 
think an awful lot of people stayed home. I will commend the Obama 
campaign. They did a fabulous job of mobilizing their supporters. They 
also did a very good job of focusing on a lot of issues other than 
ObamaCare. Indeed, I would suggest to the Senator from Virginia, that 
if the premise of his question were correct, then President Obama would 
have campaigned on: I passed ObamaCare. Vote for me and let's preserve 
ObamaCare. We would have seen TV ads saturating that this is the 
signature achievement. It was very interesting. That was not the 
campaign President Obama ran. There was almost a bipartisan agreement 
not to mention ObamaCare; unfortunately, Republicans did far too little 
of it. But it is not like the President ran a lot focusing on it 
either.
  Mr. KAINE. I have a comment and a final question. I am not skilled at 
how campaigns are run, but I would challenge the Senator's assertion. I 
think virtually everyone in the country who voted in the Presidential 
election in 2012 knew that one candidate, the President, would fight to 
maintain the Affordable Care Act, and another pledged to repeal it.
  How much they did it in ads and on TV I cannot count. I actually saw 
a lot of ads about the very subject in the battleground State of 
Virginia. But I think the voters knew exactly the position of the two 
candidates on this issue. While it was not the only issue in the 
campaign, it was an important one. They had that before them as they 
made the decision.
  The last question I will ask is a little bit of a rhetorical one but 
it is a sincere one. I very much hope that regardless of the outcome of 
this debate over the next few days--and I strongly want the outcome of 
this debate to be that government continues and that we continue to 
provide the services that we need to provide, and that we save the 
debate about health care reform for another day. But I very much hope 
that the Senator introduces legislation about health care reform ideas 
and that the legislation not be wrapped up with the question of whether 
government should shut down or not but that it be stand-alone 
legislation, that it not be wrapped up with a question of whether we 
should default on our debts or not, but that it should be stand-alone 
legislation.
  I have a feeling that there are many Democrats and Republicans that 
would love to work on reform ideas. In this body and in the House we 
have a somewhat limited bandwidth. We are trying to deal with a lot of 
different issues. Health care is a hugely important one.
  Its connection to the economy is equally important, and I think there 
are a lot of Members here who would love to have a debate about reform.
  But for the last 3-plus years the only debate has been about the 
repealing or defunding instead of about reform. That makes it a fairly 
simple vote for many of us. It makes it a simple vote for many of us 
who feel as though the will of this body has been expressed, that the 
Supreme Court has rendered an opinion about the Affordable Care Act, 
that the American public rendered an opinion about two positions in a 
Presidential election in 2012.
  A defunding repeal strategy, which has been now done four dozen times 
by the House, is actually a pretty simple thing to move aside based on 
the foregoing, but if we set aside those efforts and try to take up the 
kinds of concrete reform ideas the Senator talked about earlier, I 
actually think there might be a number of things that we could all do 
together to improve the situation, but we don't need to do it while we 
are talking about the shutdown of the government or defaulting on 
America's bills for the first time in our history.
  Thank you. I yield the floor, and I yield back.
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the question from the Senator from Virginia. 
Let me say I appreciate the good faith and seriousness with which he 
approaches

[[Page S6765]]

this issue and the other issues before this body. One notable thing: Of 
the three Senators who are on the floor right now, all of us are 
freshmen. One of the things I appreciate about this freshman class, as 
all of us came to Washington before we were sworn in as Senators, we 
had a weeklong orientation process. We went and had dinners with our 
spouses, and we got to know each other as human beings. That is 
something that doesn't happen very often in Washington anymore. It used 
to happen in a bygone era, but it doesn't happen much anymore.
  One of the interesting consequences that not many people have 
commented about--but it is something I find quite significant--is in 
the freshman class there were far more Democrats than Republicans, but 
to the best of my knowledge, no freshman has spoken ill of another 
freshman. I am not aware of it if it has happened. I think part of the 
reason for that was spending that time together, getting to know each 
other as people.
  The Senator from Virginia and I disagree on a number of issues. Yet I 
hope and believe that we each understand that the other is operating in 
good faith based on principles he believes are correct. That is a 
foundation for actually solving problems and moving forward in this 
country.
  One of the unfortunate consequences as you see both sides of this 
Chamber pommel each other is that many of us don't even know each 
other. One of the interesting dynamics, from my perspective, is that 
many of the senior Democrats frequently choose to say some fairly 
strident things directed at me. Many of them I don't really know. I 
haven't had the opportunity to get to know them, and I have had 
conversations with freshman Democrats asking the senior Republicans: Do 
you know them? The answer I have been told is, not really. We sit on 
committees, but most of us are on four or five committees. We are 
running from one hearing to another. You often run into a hearing, you 
ask a few questions, you run out, and you are off to the next meeting. 
You are meeting with your constituents, you are doing this and doing 
that. You don't have an opportunity to get to know each other. I am 
hopeful that the good will we have seen among the freshmen can spill 
over more broadly.
  I wish to say also, on the point the Senator from Virginia made about 
reasonable and productive amendments to improve the system, look, it is 
very difficult to have the sorts of reforms I have talked about with 
ObamaCare in place because ObamaCare has so dominated the health care 
market. It has made government the chief mover and operator. You can't 
have positive free market reforms with ObamaCare there. The approach I 
am advocating doesn't work as long as ObamaCare makes the government 
the chief mover and operator. That is much the same in situations and 
nations that have adopted single-payer socialized health.
  I would note that the Senator from Virginia expressed an interest in 
positive reforms to address some of the most egregious aspects of 
health care. I would encourage the Senator from Virginia to direct 
those comments to the majority leader of this body because the majority 
leader of this body has decided on this vote, that we will have one 
amendment and one amendment only, as far as I understand. That 
amendment will be funding ObamaCare in its entirety. The majority 
leader has decided we are not going to have amendments on the sorts of 
things the Senator from Virginia suggested, ways to improve the system.
  If, for example, the majority leader does not want an amendment, 
apparently, on addressing the medical devices tax--a large majority of 
Senators in this body voted during the Budget proceeding against the 
medical devices tax because we understand it is killing jobs, 
destroying innovation, and it is one of the most punitive, destructive 
aspects of this bill. Yet the majority leader, as I understand it, said 
we are not going to have a vote on that. Why? Because that would 
actually affirmatively help fix things, and so we are not going to do 
that. I am putting words into the why, but that is the only reason I 
can think of.
  Another example is Senator Vitter's amendment to repeal the 
congressional exemption. I understand many Members of Congress don't 
want to be in the exchanges, don't want to lose their subsidy, don't 
want to have the same rules apply to them that apply to millions of 
Americans. I understand that personally, but I think it is utterly 
indefensible for Members of Congress to be treated better than the 
American people. I think we ought to have a vote on the Vitter 
amendment.
  I have stated before that I think it ought to be expanded so that 
every Member of Congress, all the congressional staff, the President, 
the political appointees, and every Federal employee should be subject 
to ObamaCare. They shouldn't be exempted. There shouldn't be a gilded 
class in Washington that operates on different rules than those of the 
American people. That would be a positive reform indeed. Indeed, I 
would suggest it would be a populist reform. Yet the majority leader 
has said: No, we can't vote on that. I am going to assume part of the 
reason is because having a debate on that, on the merits--the position 
that Congress should have a privileged position is indefensible.
  Another example: The House of Representatives has voted to delay the 
individual mandate. They have said: Listen, if you are going to delay 
the employer's mandate for big businesses, why treat big businesses 
better than individuals and hard-working American families? Let's delay 
them both. If you are going to delay one, delay them both.
  That passed the majority of the House--and, indeed, a considerable 
number of Democrats. I don't have the number in front of me, but a 
considerable number of Democrats in the House voted for that. The 
majority leader of the Senate has said: No, we are not going to vote on 
that.
  Yet another instance: We have all been astonished and dismayed by the 
abuse that has occurred in the IRS that has been made public and has 
been admitted to. Quite a number of Members of this body would like to 
see the IRS removed from enforcing ObamaCare.
  That is a position a large majority of Americans support. The 
majority leader of this body, as I understand it, has said: No, we 
can't vote on that. We are not going to have that positive reform. We 
are not going to have a vote. We are only going to vote to fund it all.

  There are a great many amendments we could make that would make this 
situation better. It is only because the majority leader has decided to 
shut down the Senate to not make this process worse, but we are not 
having those amendments.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia. I would urge him to make those 
arguments to the leader of his party and this institution so that we 
can have full and open debate and vote on these amendments because this 
isn't working. It is fundamentally not working. We need to respond to 
the American people. We need to listen to the American people, and we 
need to fix it.
  At this point I wish to return to reading some more tweets. As the 
night goes on, I hope to read even more tweets. I would encourage 
anyone who would like to see--the folks in the gallery who just waved, 
I am not sure if they have their electronics. If you do tweet, it may 
end up here and I may have the chance to read it, the ``MakeDCListen.''

       Make D.C. listen because ``We the People'' are on to you 
     and will not stand for tyranny. Hoorah.

  I like that.

       Defund ObamaCare because if I can't get a job now, what 
     hope will I have later. Make D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen because it makes entry-level jobs 
     disappear for young Americans.
       Make D.C. listen because I want to keep my own doctor. 
     Defund ObamaCare because we don't want government-run health 
     care. Make D.C. listen.
       ObamaCare is a job killer. We can't afford it. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       Make D.C. listen. If it is bad for Congress, they have no 
     right to force it on their constituents. Vote to defund it.
       I want my 40 hours. Make D.C. listen.
       Start listening to the people instead of who is lining your 
     pockets. We are the ones who vote. Make D.C. listen.

  Here is a tweet from Greg Abbott, my former boss, the attorney 
general of Texas, who is running for Governor of Texas, and a very good 
man.

       ObamaCare is destructive to our economy, to jobs, to 
     liberty, and to health care access. Make D.C. listen.

  Thanks, boss. I appreciate it, and I agree.

       Make D.C. listen by committing to always cast your vote for 
     those who do listen and act accordingly.

[[Page S6766]]

       Make D.C. listen because government is too large already.
       ObamaCare violates our rights. We cannot, as America, allow 
     this ``solution'' to continue. Make D.C. listen.
       Small business owners. If ObamaCare is implemented, I will 
     be forced to drop my group insurance for my employees. Make 
     D.C. listen.
       When can the citizens expect our way. If everyone else is 
     getting them, shouldn't we make D.C. listen?

  That is a great point. Why is it that President Obama treats giant 
corporations and Members of Congress better than hard-working 
Americans? I think it is indefensible. Yet this body right now, unless 
we act differently, is going to allow that status quo to continue.

       The same Senators should live by the same rules as the 
     American people and should not be controversial. It should be 
     obvious. Make D.C. listen.

  That is exactly right.

       Congress has exempted itself and staffers from the 
     monstrous law for an obvious reason. Don't we deserve the 
     same? Make D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen. Make Americans finally see what is in the 
     bill, and we hate it.
       Thank you for standing up to the status quo in D.C.
       Senate phone lines are jammed. Start using facts, social 
     media. Go to . . .

  And it lists a private Web site for a list of Twitter accounts.

       Make D.C. listen.

  I think that point, by the way, is really quite potent, that as 
effective as the phones are--I think the phones are very effective--
there is e-mail, Facebook, Twitter. There are an awful lot of ways for 
the American people to speak up and make DC listen.

       Today the Cleveland Clinic saved my dad's life. The U.S. 
     Senate saved their jobs. Make D.C. listen.

  That is powerful.

       How can any American support a law that punishes success. 
     That is unAmerican. Defund ObamaCare now. Make D.C. listen.
       Defund ObamaCare because it is a tax that was never read 
     until it was passed. ``We the People'' demand representation. 
     Make D.C. listen.
       Defund ObamaCare because it will ruin our generation and 
     will destroy America and the American Dream. Make D.C. 
     listen.
       ObamaCare is destructive to our country. Defund ObamaCare. 
     Stand up for our freedom. Make D.C. listen.
       If ObamaCare is so great, why is everyone not going to have 
     it? Make D.C. listen.
       The Congress, the President, and Federal workers have 
     forgotten they work for us and should have to obey the same 
     laws and rules we do. Make D.C. listen.
       Make D.C. listen. My children cannot get full-time jobs 
     because of ObamaCare. Can't wait to see how much my premiums 
     will go up during open enrollment. Defund ObamaCare because 
     it is not good enough for Congress. Make D.C. listen.
       The American people are screaming to STOP OBAMACARE. Make 
     DC listen. Leave us alone.

  At this point I want to talk about the topic of rate shock. We all 
remember some 3\1/2\ years ago when President Obama told the American 
people that by the end of his first term the average American family's 
health insurance premiums would drop by $2,500. The end of his first 
term, as we know, was last year, and that hasn't happened. That has not 
been the effect.
  What has happened instead? According to a Kaiser Family Foundation 
report in 2012, the average cost of premiums for family coverage has 
risen by more than $3,000 since 2008. Now, $3,000 compared to $2,500 is 
a $5,500 swing. That is a big swing. That is a big impact for any hard-
working American family.
  But you know who is impacted the most? Those who are struggling the 
most. Single moms, working one or two jobs trying to feed their kids, 
trying to put food on the table. You know, $5,500 a year is a real 
difference. The consistent pattern is that the people who are the 
biggest losers under ObamaCare are the most vulnerable among us--they 
are young people, African Americans, Hispanics, single moms. They are 
the ones not able to get jobs, they are the ones being laid off from 
their jobs, they are the ones being forcibly put into part-time work at 
29 hours a week, they are the ones facing skyrocketing health insurance 
premiums, and they are the ones losing their health insurance.
  The actuarial firm of Oliver Wyman estimates premiums in the 
individual market will increase an average of 40 percent. The Society 
of Actuaries estimates an average premium increase of 32 percent in the 
individual markets.
  The Obama administration unilaterally delayed a provision of the law 
that limits out-of-pocket payments--e.g., deductibles, copayments--to 
$6,350 per individual or $12,700 per family.
  According to Avik Roy, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and 
writer for Forbes.com:

       If you compare the cheapest plan on health care.gov to the 
     cheapest ``bronze plan'' on the new Covered California 
     insurance exchange, premiums for healthy 25 year olds will 
     increase by 147 percent, a median of $183 on the exchange 
     versus $74 today; and premiums for healthy 40 year olds will 
     increase by 149 percent, a median of $234 on the exchange 
     versus $94 today. And because California bars insurers from 
     charging different rates based on gender--and so do Colorado, 
     Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New 
     Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington--the war on young 
     people's premiums will fare just as poorly for women in 
     California and many other States. Despite ObamaCare 
     subsidies, many Americans will still be paying higher 
     premiums in 2014 as a result of ObamaCare.

  Even with the government subsidy they are going to be paying higher 
premiums.

       For example, Americans earning as little as $25,000 will 
     still pay more, even including subsidies.

  The Ohio Department of Insurance--we talked about this earlier, how 
every 4 years both parties focus rather intensely on Ohio. When it is a 
Presidential year, when it is a swing State, suddenly Ohio is the 
center of the universe. We get to 2013, a nonpresidential year, and 
Ohio seems to command an awful lot less attention in this body. But 
what is happening in Ohio? Well, the Ohio Department of Insurance 
announced ObamaCare will increase individual market health premiums by 
88 percent. That is not a mild increase. That is not a percent or two. 
Eighty-eight percent is a big deal for a family struggling to pay their 
bills.
  In California, ObamaCare is estimated to have increased individual 
health insurance premiums by anywhere from 64 percent to 146 percent.
  In Florida, Florida's insurance commissioner Kevin McCarty told the 
Palm Beach Post that insurance rates will rise by 5 to 20 percent in 
the small group market and by 30 to 40 percent in the individual 
market.
  If the men and women in America can easily afford to pay an extra 30, 
40 percent or, in the case of California an extra 146 percent on health 
insurance, then we don't have anything to be worried about. But when I 
travel home that is not what the men and women of America tell me. That 
is not what Texans say. Texans say they are working hard to make ends 
meet; that their life has gotten harder because of ObamaCare.
  A constituent in Vidalia, TX, wrote on September 19, 2013:

       I decided to do some research on ObamaCare insurance for me 
     and my husband since neither of us have any insurance. I used 
     the calculator to calculate how much ``affordable insurance'' 
     would cost us. I had really hoped this might be our chance to 
     get insurance. To my SHOCK it would cost us $16,026, and this 
     was for the silver plan, which only pays 70 percent. My 
     husband is disabled and receives Social Security benefits, 
     but they say he cannot get Medicaid for 2 years after he was 
     approved. He has another year before he qualifies. He is 62 
     and I am 56, and we have been without insurance since he lost 
     his job 4 years ago. There is no possible way to pay $16,026 
     from our take-home pay, plus have to pay an additional 30 
     percent cost on any health costs we may incur. This is not 
     affordable health care. The crime of it all is that if my 
     husband and I do not enroll we will be fined. This is crazy. 
     Please stop this madness.

  I will pass on some more words from Texans. Today we received welcome 
news of support from several of our friends in the Texas legislature 
who are backing our effort to fund the government and to defund 
ObamaCare. The Texas Conservative Coalition--67 members of the Texas 
legislature--released a letter which I would like to read. It begins:

       Dear Senators Cornyn and Cruz and Texas Members of the 
     House of Representatives: Representing the State of Texas, 
     with its 26 million people, we write at this most urgent hour 
     for you to do all you can to defund ObamaCare and fund the 
     Federal Government.
       We have done all that we can to help stop ObamaCare from 
     harming Texans. No. 1, we refused to create the ObamaCare 
     health exchanges and No. 2 we have refused to expand the 
     Medicaid Program under the false pretense of taking Federal 
     money now while burdening taxpayers with millions of dollars 
     in new costs later.
       But some of the most pernicious parts of ObamaCare can only 
     be stopped at the Federal level. Only you can stop the 
     Federal

[[Page S6767]]

     Government from enforcing the individual mandates. Only 
     you can stop the government from creating a new budget-
     busting entitlement that will drive up the cost of 
     insurance around the country. Only you can stop Federal 
     bureaucrats from drafting and imposing thousands of pages 
     of redtape. And only you can stop the Federal Government 
     from destroying the quality of our health care system.
       Therefore, we applaud the action of the United States House 
     of Representatives on Friday, September 20, 2013, to pass a 
     bill that defunds ObamaCare and funds the Federal Government. 
     Next, it is up to Senators Cornyn and Cruz to hold the line 
     and make sure Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid 
     does not use procedural tricks to strip the defunding 
     language from the House bill.

  I would note--and this is not in the letter, this is me speaking--
this is exactly the debate we are in the middle of right now. The vote 
on Friday or Saturday on cloture is going to be the critical vote in 
this battle in the Senate. If Republicans stand together, we can 
prevent Harry Reid from shutting off debate, we can prevent Harry Reid 
from funding ObamaCare using 51 Democratic votes on a straight party-
line vote. But that is only if Republicans stand together. If 
Republicans, instead, choose to vote for Harry Reid, choose to vote for 
giving the Democrats the ability to fund ObamaCare, then that too will 
be our responsibility. And it will be incumbent upon each of us to 
explain to our constituents why we voted to allow Harry Reid and the 
Democrats to fund ObamaCare despite the fact it is destroying jobs and 
hurting millions of Americans.
  Returning to the letter:

       We know Republican Senators will need continued support 
     from the Republican-led House to prevent Democrats from 
     funding ObamaCare. Together, we can prevail. Remember the 
     spirit of so many Texans who have fought much worse odds in 
     the past. Stay strong, stay resolute, and do not give in.

  I am thankful my home State of Texas has such principled 
conservatives among its elected officials to have fought hard to resist 
ObamaCare, and I am very grateful for their support and their 
encouragement. Their leadership is the reason Texas has one of the 
strongest economies in the Nation and is one of the fastest growing 
States in the Nation. Texas is proof that conservative principles put 
in practice actually work and provide opportunity for the most 
vulnerable among us.
  There is a reason why so many people from all across this country are 
moving to Texas, and it is because Texas is where the jobs are. If you 
look across this country, ObamaCare is killing jobs all over this 
Nation.
  I want to look now at the impact to my home State of Texas. ObamaCare 
will devastate jobs, growth, and the economy. It hasn't even been fully 
implemented and yet it is already hurting Americans, even those in 
conservative States that have worked hard to resist the influence of 
ObamaCare.
  According to the Advisory Board's Daily Briefing, 15 Governors are 
opposing Medicaid expansion. I applaud those conservative leaders--
Governor Haley in South Carolina, Governor Walker in Michigan, Governor 
Jindal in Louisiana, Governor Bentley in Alabama, Governor Brownback in 
Kansas, and many others--but particularly Governor Perry in my home 
State of Texas. Texas leaders in the House and Senate elected statewide 
have stood united to resist the influence of ObamaCare in our State. 
But the tragedy is, even with their efforts, Texans still aren't exempt 
from its negative impact.
  Governor Perry in March of 2012 said:

       ObamaCare will cost the State of Texas at least $27 billion 
     over the next 10 years.

  Senator Jane Nelson, Texas Senator and chair of the Senate House of 
Health and Human Services, said in September 2012:

       ObamaCare is the wrong approach to our health care 
     challenges. It does more harm than good. It will hurt our 
     economy, eliminate jobs, balloon the State budget, and 
     perhaps most importantly stretch to the limit our already 
     overburdened health care system.

  Senator Nelson also observed:

       Texas is a large, geographically diverse border State with 
     challenges that are unique from other States. The one-size-
     fits-all approach of ObamaCare is wrong for Texas. If given 
     the opportunity, we can design an efficient system that 
     better meets the needs of our citizens.

  In March of 2012 Senator Nelson observed:

       ObamaCare creates more problems than it solves, ballooning 
     the deficit, overwhelming our health system, and burdening 
     employers at a time when they are just struggling to survive.

  In March of 2010 Senator Nelson observed:

       In Texas, I am deeply concerned about the devastating 
     impacts Federal health care reforms will have on our State 
     budget. The Health and Human Services Commission estimates it 
     will cost up to $24 billion over a 10-year period. 
     Considering our projected budget shortfalls for the upcoming 
     legislative session will be somewhere between $9 billion and 
     $16 billion, it is clear that our Health and Human Services 
     budget--which accounts for a third of the total spending 
     already--will continue to consume precious resources that 
     would otherwise be available for our schools, our highways, 
     and other important services. I am concerned that the Federal 
     Government's plan will jeopardize our efforts on the State 
     level. One size does not fit all, especially in Texas. Our 
     State government spreads more health care dollars across more 
     terrain than any other State. We have challenges along the 
     border in our remote rural areas and in our inner cities that 
     are unique to our State and our costs will be 
     disproportionately high.

  One could perhaps listen to those who say: Those are conservative 
Republicans. We expect conservative Republicans to oppose ObamaCare. 
But how about others? How about those who are not conservative 
Republicans? On April 24, 2013, the United Union of Roofers published a 
press release opposing ObamaCare because it jeopardizes their existing 
health plans. Their press release read: Roofers union seeks repeal-
reform of Affordable Care Act. Cites loss of benefits to members, harm 
to industry and multiemployer health plans.
  Washington, DC. The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and 
Allied Workers International President Kinsey M. Robinson issued the 
following statement on April 16, 2013, calling for a repeal or complete 
reform of the President's Affordable Care Act.
  This is not the union calling for a slight adjustment. This is the 
union calling for repeal: Repeal the law outright.

       Our union and its members have supported President Obama 
     and his administration for both of his terms in office.

  So these are President Obama's supporters. These are the labor 
unions.

       But regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in 
     the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances totally 
     ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the 
     act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in 
     unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the 
     promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-
     sponsored coverage could keep it. These provisions jeopardize 
     our multi-employer health plans and have the potential to 
     cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair 
     bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide 
     health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case may 
     cause our members and their families to lose the benefits 
     they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health 
     benefits.
       For decades, our multi-employer health and welfare plans 
     have provided the necessary medical coverage for our members 
     and their families to protect them in times of illness and 
     medical needs. This collaboration between labor and 
     management has been a model of success that should be 
     emulated rather than ignored. I refuse to remain silent or 
     idly watch as the ACA destroys those protections.

  Let me read that sentence again, because that is coming from the 
leader of a labor union that has supported President Obama in two 
elections:

       I refuse to remain silent or idly watch as the ACA destroys 
     those protections. I therefore call for repeal or complete 
     reform of the Affordable Care Act to protect our employers, 
     our industry, and our most important asset, our members and 
     their families.

  Let me ask right now. Do Members of the Senate have concern for hard-
working union members? Do Members of the Senate have concern for the 
families of hard-working union members who are saying in writing, We 
supported the President, but this law isn't working?
  If Members of the Senate were listening to the people, this letter 
would get our attention. If Members of the Senate were listening to the 
people, Democratic Senators and Republican Senators would stand up and 
say, This thing isn't working.
  The IRS employees union doesn't want to be subject to ObamaCare. The 
union representing IRS workers, tasked with enforcing ObamaCare, 
vocally opposes participating in the law's exchanges. IRS union leaders 
provided their members with a form letter expressing concern with 
legislation to ``push Federal employees out of the

[[Page S6768]]

Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and into the insurance 
exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.''
  Now I want to focus on exactly what happened here. The IRS employees' 
union sent letters to their members, form letters, drafted to you and 
me, drafted to Members of this Senate, where the IRS employees union 
asked the IRS employees: Write a letter to your Senators, write a 
letter to your congressmen saying, Exempt us from ObamaCare. 
Apparently, the IRS employees union believes Congress will listen to 
them.
  How about the American people? These are the men and women in charge 
of enforcing ObamaCare. These are the men and women the statute gives 
the responsibility to go to every hard-working American and say, We are 
going to force you to participate in ObamaCare. They don't want to be 
in it. I would suggest that is not an accident. They know exactly what 
they don't want to be a part of, and the fact that they have sent those 
letters ought to be a warning call that sounds from the high heavens.
  And yet another example--and this is an example I have made multiple 
references to tonight--is a letter from the Teamsters. I would note 
that neither Leader Reid nor Leader Pelosi on the House side are on the 
floor. Neither are listening or participating in this debate.

       Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi. When you and the 
     President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you 
     pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we 
     could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right 
     now, unless you and the Obama administration enact an 
     equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned 
     health benefits but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour 
     workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.
       Like millions of other Americans, our members are the 
     frontline workers in the American economy. We have been 
     strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should 
     have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also 
     been strong supporters of you.

  This is directed to majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader 
Nancy Pelosi.

       In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, 
     gone door to door to get out the vote, run phone banks, and 
     raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come 
     back to haunt us.

  Let me read that again. This is the president of the Teamsters 
describing the political efforts that members of the Teamsters all over 
this country have done to elect Democrats to the Senate and the House. 
In his words, he said, because of ObamaCare and their vision of 
supporting Democrats politically, ``Now this vision has come back to 
haunt us.'' If that doesn't get the attention of the men and women in 
this body, I don't know what does.
  The letter continues:

       Since the ACA was enacted we have been bringing our deep 
     concerns to the administration seeking reasonable regulatory 
     interpretations of the statute and to help prevent the 
     destruction of nonprofit health plans. As you both know 
     firsthand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and 
     met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent 
     agencies.

  The average American does not have the political sway that a major 
labor union like the Teamsters has. The average American especially 
does not have the political sway that a major labor union has with this 
President--a Democratic President--with a Democratic majority in the 
Senate. And yet the head of the Teamsters says that:

       . . . their persuasive arguments have been disregarded and 
     they have been met with a stone wall by the White House and 
     the pertinent agencies.

  If a powerful labor union with friends in high office in Washington 
is met with a stone wall, what is the average American met with? Do you 
think the reception is more welcoming to the average American? Perhaps 
the average American doesn't even get to see that stone wall to be 
rejected, doesn't even have the forum to raise those arguments to have 
them disregard and rejected.
  The letter continues:

       This is especially stinging, because other stakeholders 
     have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their 
     respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last 
     week's huge accommodation for the employer community, 
     extending the statutorily mandated December 31, 2013 deadline 
     for the employer-mandated penalties. Time is running out. 
     Congress wrote this law. We voted for you. We have a problem. 
     You need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA 
     are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating 
     nightmare scenarios.

  ``Nightmare.'' That is the word the Teamsters used. ``Nightmare.'' 
Some Democratic Senators object to the use of the word ``train wreck.'' 
Perhaps ``nightmare'' would be better. That comes from the Teamsters in 
writing, describing what ObamaCare is doing.
  Nightmare is fitting. It is past midnight. Why are we here? Because 
the American people are experiencing the nightmare that is ObamaCare 
and we need to help them wake up from this very bad dream.
  The Teamsters letter continues:

       First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep 
     employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous 
     employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this 
     obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact 
     is twofold. Fewer hours means less pay while also losing our 
     current health benefits.

  How does that sound? The majority leader told the American people on 
television that ObamaCare is terrific. Fewer hours meaning less pay and 
losing your current health benefits, that doesn't sound terrific to me. 
That doesn't sound terrific to the millions of Teamsters, the millions 
of union workers, the millions of hard-working Americans who are 
experiencing the negative consequences of ObamaCare.
  The letter continues:

       Second, millions of Americans are covered by nonprofit 
     health insurance plans like the one in which most of our 
     members participate. These nonprofit plans are governed 
     jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. 
     Our health plans have been built over decades by working men 
     and women. Under the ACA, as interpreted by this 
     administration, our employees will be treated differently and 
     not eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, 
     many employees will be relegated to second-class status and 
     shut out of the help offered to buy for-profit insurance 
     plans. Finally, even though nonprofit plans like ours won't 
     receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they will be 
     taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these 
     restrictions will make nonprofit plans like ours 
     unsustainable and will undermine the health care market as 
     viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.
       On behalf of the millions of working men and women we 
     represent--

  I would note, he didn't say on behalf of the hundreds or on behalf of 
the thousands. He said:

       On behalf of the millions of working men and women we 
     represent and the families they support, we can no longer 
     stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care 
     Act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our 
     members, along with millions of other hard-working Americans.

  I want to remember that phrase, ``We can no longer stand silent.'' I 
am going to return to it in a moment.

       We believe that there are commonsense corrections that can 
     be made within the existing statute that will allow our 
     members to continue to keep their current health benefits and 
     plans, just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes 
     are made, however, that promise is hollow. We continue to 
     stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it 
     stands will hurt millions of Americans, including the members 
     of our respective unions. We are looking to you to make sure 
     these changes are made.
       James P. Hoffa, General President, International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters.

  I don't have to remind anyone that the Teamsters and Mr. Hoffa are 
not loyal Republicans. They are not even disloyal Republicans. They 
have been active foot soldiers in the army to elect President Obama and 
to elect Democrats to this body.
  This letter describes ObamaCare as a nightmare. This letter describes 
how it is hurting millions of Americans, including the members of their 
respective unions. And interestingly enough, this letter uses the same 
phrase, ``We can no longer stand silent,'' that the roofers union used. 
``We won't stand silent, either.''
  Why is it that both of these unions used that same phrase? Everyone 
in this body understands politics, understands sticking with your team, 
dancing with the team that brought you. No union is eager to criticize 
President Obama. They have too much invested in this administration. 
And there is a lot of pressure--a lot of pressure--on the labor unions. 
I can't imagine what the repercussions were to Mr. Hoffa and to the 
Teamsters after this letter was sent. I am quite certain it did not 
produce joy and celebration in the political classes of Washington.
  I think it is quite striking, though, that both the roofers union and 
the

[[Page S6769]]

Teamsters said we can no longer stand silent, because the pressure is 
enormous.
  Let me tell you about another group that is right now standing silent 
that I hope can no longer stand silent and that consists of elected 
Democrats in this body. Elected Democrats in this body--these union men 
and women knocked on doors, worked to elect many Members of this body. 
If their union leaders cannot stand silent, I hope the politicians who 
pledged to fight for them won't stand silent either.
  What a remarkable thing it would be to see a Democrat to have the 
courage of James Hoffa, to see a Democratic Senator stand and have the 
courage to say: You know, look, I supported ObamaCare. That is what Mr. 
Hoffa said. I supported it at first because I believed the promise that 
was made. I thought this thing might work, but we have seen it has not. 
It is a nightmare. It is hurting hard-working American families. Any 
Democrat who did so would be certain to receive serious repercussions 
from the party. Political parties do not like it when you rock the 
boat. I can promise you Senator Lee and I have more than a passing 
awareness of that in our respective party. But at the end of the day, 
if you are responding to the American people, if you are listening to 
the American people, you are doing their job. I hope in the course of 
this week that of the 54 Democrats in this body, we will see one, two, 
three--I hope we see a dozen who have the courage Mr. Hoffa showed, 
have the courage to speak out about the train wreck, about the 
nightmare that is ObamaCare, that is hurting Americans, that is killing 
jobs, that is pushing people into part-time work, that is driving up 
health care premiums and is causing more and more people to lose their 
health insurance. That is the courage we need.
  But you know what. It will not come from business as usual in 
Washington. It will not come from wanting to be popular in the 
conference lunches. It will only come from elected officials making the 
decision, the radical decision to get back to the job we are supposed 
to do in listening to the people. Make DC listen. That is what we 
should be doing.
  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. As I listened to the Senator's remarks, I am reminded of 
many events throughout our Nation's history. It is a storied history 
involving a lot of comebacks. There were a lot of instances in which 
the American people were up against a brick wall of sorts, in which a 
small group of Americans, often not just a minority but sometimes a 
minority within a minority, faced a substantial obstacle.
  The founding of our Republic, at the moment of our independence, 
involved a battle against what was then the world's greatest 
superpower. Even within our own continent we did not have unanimous 
support. Even among our own people, at times it was a minority within 
an a minority who believed that the cause of independence was 
worthwhile, that it was worthy of the great effort that declaring 
independence and fighting a war for it would inevitably require.
  Yet we persevered, we rallied together as a people, believing 
fundamentally that our cause was just. And it worked. We followed that 
formula many times when it has mattered and we have not backed away 
from fights when those fights were necessary. This may be one of those 
moments where even though those who are willing to fight against this 
law, those who are willing to take this effort are not in the majority, 
are in the minority--in this case in a sense we are a minority within 
the minority--it is still worth fighting.
  I commend my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, for his 
dedication, his commitment, his leadership on this issue. Senator Cruz 
has never shrunk from this. He has been willing to fight hard for it. 
He has been willing to speak his mind even at moments when it was 
difficult, even at moments when many were suggesting it could not be 
done or should not be done. It reminds me of other examples we have 
seen over the years, of Senators who were willing to speak at great 
length.
  I see our pages who are here tonight, pages who serve us well and who 
are willing to stay late at night, working hard. I am reminded that 27 
years ago I was a page much like these who are serving us here today. I 
remember a young Senator then in his first term. His name was Harry 
Reid. I remember watching him speak at great length for 10, 12--I don't 
know, maybe 13 hours at a time. I am not certain what the issue was at 
the time, but I know it was important to him. I know it was an issue on 
which he was somewhat outnumbered. I know that I saw his colleagues 
approaching him. Some of them were quite critical of the effort in 
which he was engaged. Yet he stood by his message, he did not shrink 
from it, because he had an inner commitment to the people he 
represented and I respected that about him. I could tell he had that 
kind of tenacity.
  I watched, as I was a Republican page at the time--I watched my 
Democratic page colleagues as they brought him a lot of water, hoping 
perhaps that eventually he would drink enough water that he would 
decide it was no longer in his best interests to continue speaking on 
the floor. Yet somehow he managed to stay speaking for, I don't know, 
10, 12, 13, 14 hours at a time, and I have a great deal of respect for 
what he did at that moment. I hope there is some aspect of Senator Reid 
that is able to sympathize with what Senator Cruz is going through, 
that is able to respect the great level of commitment it takes to stand 
here, hour after hour, and engage in this discussion, a discussion that 
is important for the American people to have.
  We all continue to hear from our constituents about some of the 
things ObamaCare might do, some of the things ObamaCare might do to the 
people rather than for them. I received this one from James in Utah. 
James writes:

       Sir, as a retired U.S. Marine Corps gunny, I would like to 
     express my view and ask that you vote to defund ObamaCare. I 
     am part of the security team here at--

  And I have deleted the name of his employer.

     --and our new contract has a massive increase in the cost for 
     health coverage. I fought for the people of this country. Now 
     I ask the same from you. Please help us.
     Gunnery Sergeant Charlie Jones, U.S. Marine Corps, retired.

  From Utah.
  Then I hear comments such as this from constituent after constituent, 
from people who will write in from throughout my State and from 
throughout the country. Steven from Minnesota writes:

       Dear Senator Lee. Please do all you can to stop the 
     implementation of ObamaCare. My work insurance went up 8.1 
     percent in January in anticipation of ObamaCare. I make about 
     $40,000 a year. We do not have any extra money after bills. I 
     would like to see health care available to everyone. We've 
     gone without health care insurance at times but I believe 
     that ObamaCare is not the solution and will result in poorer 
     quality health care overall, and hurt our economy.
       Thank you for considering a Minnesota resident's concerns.

  Steven, I am happy to consider your concerns and I am happy to share 
those with my constituents. This next one comes from Kevin from 
Massachusetts.

       Dear Senator. I strongly urge you to approve and vote yes 
     on the House resolution bill passed by the House and is now 
     before the Senate that fully funds the Government and 
     protects the full credit of the United States but defunds the 
     Affordable Care Act as provided for in the bill and 
     continuing resolution sponsored by Congressman Graves. It is 
     unfair to exempt everyone with political connections from 
     ObamaCare and not to exempt the rest of us. You must 
     understand that ObamaCare is undermining American workers and 
     selling out hard for union benefits. It is not fair for 
     businesses to reduce workers' hours to survive. It is time to 
     defund the Affordable Care Act until such time when it can be 
     repealed and things can be straightened out and workers 
     protected.
       I urge you please to delay funding for ObamaCare now.

  That is Kevin, from Massachusetts.
  When we look at these examples and we read other similar examples 
like them from people writing from throughout my State of Utah, people 
writing from throughout the country, we see a consistent pattern. 
Americans are justifiably, understandably fearful of losing their jobs, 
of having their wages cut, of having their hours cut, in some instances 
losing access to health care--sometimes through a health plan upon 
which they and their families have relied on for many years. This is a 
difficult situation for them because

[[Page S6770]]

health care is an especially unusually personal thing.
  Access to health care is something people do not necessarily want to 
entrust entirely to their government. Yet that seems to be the 
direction in which ObamaCare inevitably takes us. It puts more and more 
of our health care into the control of the Federal Government and, as 
has been suggested on the floor tonight, as some of my colleagues, some 
of my Democratic colleagues from within the Senate have acknowledged, 
this is but a step in the direction of what they hope will be a single-
payer, government-funded, government-run health care system, funded, 
operated, and administered entirely from Washington, DC.
  There are some things government can do in the sense that there are 
some things that government is rather uniquely empowered to do. 
Providing, for example, for our national defense, that is something we 
do from Washington. That is a power that is entrusted to us by article 
I, section 8, of the Constitution with roughly one-third of the 
provisions of article I, section 8, being dedicated in one way or 
another to our national defense. That is something Washington can do. 
It is something Washington must do and that Washington is rather 
uniquely empowered to do under our constitutional system.
  Health care is of course important, undeniably important. In many 
respects it is as important as national defense. The fact that it is 
important doesn't necessarily make it a responsibility of the Federal 
Government nor does it necessarily qualify the Federal Government as a 
practical matter, setting aside the constitutional question. It doesn't 
necessarily qualify the Federal Government as an effective health care 
provider. Many people fear the day when our Federal Government becomes 
much more empowered over the very personal decisions of our lives, 
particularly those affecting our access to health care.
  Many people are also suspect of the new taxes imposed by this law, 
the new permutations this law will introduce into the lives of the 
American people. We have discussed several times today the manner in 
which this law was enacted, the manner in which it was introduced as a 
bill, brought to the floor of the House of Representatives after then-
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi informed her Members that they needed 
to pass their bill and then they could find out what is in it.
  One of the things we have not discussed as much is the fact that even 
after that was passed, without Members of Congress having adequate 
opportunity to review this legislation--even after that happened, 
setting aside the 20,000 pages of regulations that have been added to 
this corpus of Federal law up until this point, we have had two 
significant revisions of the law, revisions that were brought about not 
legislatively but by the judicial branch of government, revisions the 
judicial branch of government had no authority to impose.
  I would like to talk about both of those. When the Affordable Care 
Act was challenged as to its constitutionality, there were two primary 
constitutional challenges brought to the attention of the Federal court 
system that ultimately made their way to the Supreme Court of the 
United States. One of those challenges involved a constitutional attack 
on Congress's authority to enact the individual mandate. The provision 
compelled individuals to buy health insurance--and not just any kind of 
health insurance but the kind of health insurance the Federal 
Government in its infinite wisdom deemed appropriate, necessary, 
essential, and indispensable to every American everywhere.
  The argument presented in those constitutional challenges culminating 
at the Supreme Court of the United States was that Congress had acted 
pursuant to its authority under the commerce clause, article I, section 
8, clause 3 of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate 
commerce among the several States, Indian tribes, and foreign nations. 
The argument said that Congress does have the power to regulate 
interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court has interpreted that power 
rather broadly since 1937.
  Yet, even under that extraordinarily broad interpretation of the 
commerce clause, the argument was that Congress doesn't have the power 
to regulate an activity. The failure to purchase health insurance is 
not an interstate commercial transaction. In fact, it is not a 
transaction at all. It is a failure to act.
  The Supreme Court of the United States accepted that argument and 
concluded that even under the extraordinarily broad deferential 
standard of review used by the Supreme Court since 1937, this could not 
pass muster as a valid, legitimate exercise of Congress's commerce 
clause authority. The Supreme Court Justices rejected that argument by 
a vote of 5 to 4. Oddly, however, the Supreme Court went on to conclude 
that the individual mandate was nevertheless constitutional--not under 
the commerce power but under Congress's power to tax. In essence, what 
they had was five Justices of the Supreme Court--led by the Chief 
Justice of the United States, the Honorable John Roberts--who, as I see 
it, effectively rewrote the individual mandate provision as a tax. They 
saved it only by recasting it as a tax or as a valid exercise of 
Congress's power to impose taxes.
  There were a couple of problems with that interpretation. First and 
foremost, Congress could have imposed a tax as an enforcement mechanism 
to bring about compliance with the individual mandate provision. Yet it 
decidedly did not. It used language that--under at least a century's 
worth of jurisprudence--was clearly and unequivocally a penalty and not 
a tax. There is a long line of cases that help courts decide whether 
something is a penalty or tax. Under a century or more of 
jurisprudence, this was a penalty and not a tax.
  It is also important to note that the House of Representatives 
initially considered language that would have attempted to enforce 
compliance with the individual mandate provision by means of a tax and 
using language that under a century's worth of jurisprudence would have 
been regarded as a tax. Yet, interestingly enough and not surprisingly, 
that language was rejected. That proposal did not carry the day. That 
proposal could not carry the day. Why? Well, most Americans 
understandably are reluctant to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. 
It was soundly rejected. It could not carry enough votes even in the 
Congress that was in place during the first 2 years of President 
Obama's administration. It could not carry the day in a Congress that 
was overwhelmingly Democratic in both the House of Representatives and 
in the Senate.
  The Constitution requires that revenue bills originate in the House 
of Representatives. If this was a new tax, it would have to originate 
in the House. In a very significant sense, one could argue that the 
bill that ultimately became the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, did 
originate in the House. It came over here to the Senate and had its 
provisions stripped out and replaced by Senate language, but many 
people still consider that a House bill.
  The problem here has a lot to do with the fact that the tax language 
did not originate in the House or in the Senate. Instead, it originated 
across the street with five lawyers wearing black robes whom we call 
Justices. Those five lawyers wearing black robes whom we call Justices 
are no more empowered than the Queen of England to impose a tax on the 
American people. Yet they imposed a tax on the American people. This is 
not OK. This is not acceptable. This was a lawless act. This is 
something we should be ashamed of as Americans. It was a sad, shameful 
moment when the Supreme Court of the United States took upon itself the 
mantle of a superlegislative body, which it is not.
  Unable to bring about a massive tax increase on the middle class, 
Congress adopted what it could. What it did adopt the Supreme Court 
found to be unconstitutional on its own terms as it was written. The 
Supreme Court--apparently unwilling to do its job and all too eager to 
do the job of the legislative branch rather than acknowledging the 
unconstitutionality of that provision--simply resurrected it by 
rewriting it as something that it is not, was not, and never could be.
  Interestingly, this was not the only insult to the Constitution in 
connection with that case. In the same dispute in which the Supreme 
Court rewrote ObamaCare in order to save it, in

[[Page S6771]]

the same case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rewrote 
the individual mandate provision as a tax when in fact it was a 
penalty, they did something else: A separate and even larger majority--
a 7-to-2 majority--concluded that another aspect of the Affordable Care 
Act as written could not withstand constitutional muster.
  The Medicaid expansion provisions left the States with no option, no 
alternative, and no choice other than to accept a significantly 
expanded Medicaid Program, which is a program that is administered by 
the States. It is partially funded by the Federal Government but 
ultimately administered by the States.
  The Supreme Court of the United States, citing longstanding 
precedence, said: This is not OK. Congress doesn't have the power to 
commandeer the State's legislative and administrative machinery for the 
purpose of implementing a Federal policy. Congress may not do that.

  It is not within our power. Yet a large majority of the Supreme Court 
concluded that is exactly what Congress did in the Affordable Care Act. 
So faced with yet another constitutional problem, the Supreme Court 
adopted another rewrite that the Supreme Court of the United States was 
not constitutionally empowered to bring about. What the Supreme Court 
did in that circumstance was to just read in or write in an opt-out for 
the States so as to make it constitutional.
  Some have tried to defend this by saying: Well, that is what courts 
do. When courts find that something is unconstitutional, they have to 
look a second time to see whether they can read into it a different 
interpretation that might be fairly plausible--a fairly plausible 
interpretation that could allow them to save it. But in this case there 
was nothing there. There was nothing that could allow them to do this.
  The Court's job at that moment was to figure out whether the 
unconstitutional provision could be severed from the rest of the 
statute, whether it could be excised, sort of like a cancerous tumor, 
allowing the healthy tissue to remain with the cancerous tissue gone 
forever. There are rules and standards the Supreme Court is supposed to 
follow when engaging in this exercise, and whenever it does this, it 
follows decades-old severability jurisprudence. Well, that standard, I 
believe, if followed, would have inevitably culminated in the Supreme 
Court of the United States finding that the Medicaid expansion 
provisions could not be severed from the rest of the statute--the other 
provisions in the Affordable Care Act. I suspect that may well be why 
the Supreme Court did not engage in severability analysis. Instead, it 
rewrote the law.
  So the Supreme Court of the United States rewrote ObamaCare not just 
once but twice in order to save it. This is not OK. This is not 
constitutional. This is not America.
  The next response the defenders of this law usually bring up is, 
well, it is, after all, the Supreme Court's job to decide what is 
constitutional and what is not constitutional. So if they say it is 
constitutional, then it must be constitutional, and who is anyone else 
to second guess their judgment as to constitutionality?
  OK. Well, I understand that argument. That argument is fine, perhaps, 
as far as it goes. You can't read too much into that statement. It is 
not fair to say that the Supreme Court is the sole expositor of 
constitutional meaning. It is true, of course, that within our Federal 
system the Supreme Court has the last word in deciding questions of 
Federal statutory and constitutional interpretation for the purpose of 
deciding discrete cases and controversies properly before the Court's 
jurisdiction. However, that does not excuse the rest of us from 
independently exercising our own judgment, nor is it the case that 
every constitutional infraction and every constitutional indiscretion 
is necessarily within the competence of the Federal courts to resolve.
  In fact, there are countless circumstances in which, either because 
the courts might lack jurisdiction or because no plaintiff can be 
brought forward with article III standing necessary to challenge the 
Federal action in question or because the courts have recognized that 
there is a nonjusticiable political question at stake--for whatever 
reason, courts might not be competent to address a particular issue. In 
other circumstances, a case for whatever reason simply is not brought. 
In many circumstances the courts don't have occasion to address a 
constitutional infraction.
  Regardless, we are never excused. We, as Senators of the United 
States, having taken an oath under article VI of the Constitution to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States, are never excused from 
our responsibility to look out for, protect, and defend the 
Constitution of the United States. When we see an unconstitutional 
action, we need to call it out as such, and we need to do whatever we 
can to stop the Constitution from being violated.
  The Constitution was violated, the Constitution was distorted, and 
the Constitution was manipulated. It was defiled not once but twice by 
the Supreme Court of the United States when the Court rewrote the 
Affordable Care Act twice in this decision that was rendered at the end 
of June 2012.
  This is one of many reasons why I think it is important for us to 
have this debate and discussion about whether we fully fund the 
implementation and enforcement of this law--a law that was never read 
by those who enacted it, a law that has become less popular rather than 
more popular subsequent to its enactment, a law that has now spawned 
some 20,000 pages and counting of new regulatory text.
  This same law was rewritten not just once but twice by a supreme 
court of the United States that openly flouted the Constitution of the 
United States. They thumbed their noses at their own constitutional 
responsibilities. We are now being asked whether we should continue 
funding the implementation and enforcement of that act, and I think 
not.
  In addition to the unconstitutional rewriting by the Supreme Court of 
the United States, we now have several instances in which the President 
of the United States himself has attempted to rewrite the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act. The President of the United States 
has said that although enforcement of the employer mandate provision is 
set to begin on January 1, 2014, the President's administration will 
not implement and enforce that provision effective January 1, 
2014. Although the President lacks any constitutional or statutory 
authority to make this decision, although the President has neither 
sought nor obtained a legislative modification from the legislative 
branch of government--Congress--the President is treating the law as if 
it contained that modification already.

  There was another modification that took place with respect to the 
implementation of the out-of-pocket spending limits, the spending caps. 
This, too, was done without any legislative or any constitutional 
authority. There is another modification the President made with 
respect to proof of eligibility for subsidies on the exchange network 
set up by the Affordable Care Act. All three of these modifications 
were made by the President without any statutory authority, and they 
were, therefore, extra constitutional modifications.
  As I understand it, a few weeks ago somebody asked the President of 
the United States why this was appropriate. Somebody challenged the 
President of the United States with regard to his authority on these 
modifications. His response was something similar to this: Under 
ordinary circumstances, under more ideal circumstances, perhaps I might 
have gone to Congress to get Congress to modify the statutory 
provisions in question, but these are not ordinary or ideal 
circumstances.
  I am not sure exactly what he meant, but it sounds to me as though 
what he was saying was, I am in a tough spot so I have to do what I can 
do, what I can get away with, because I have a Congress that is now 
less cooperative, less inclined to cooperate with me, less inclined to 
do what I as President of the United States want Congress to do, than 
the Congress that was in place in 2010 when the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act was enacted into law.
  That is interesting. It is interesting on a number of levels because, 
No. 1, one of the reasons Congress is now less inclined to be 
cooperative with the President, one of the reasons the Congress is no 
longer as inclined to do the

[[Page S6772]]

President's bidding is, interestingly enough, because of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, because of the widespread public 
outcry that came from across this country as a direct result of the 
enactment of this statute.
  It is not at all unusual to have a divided Congress. It is not at all 
unusual for one or both Houses of Congress to be under the control of a 
party other than the President's own political party. Yet it has never 
been the case and can never be the case if there is somehow an 
exception to the Constitution, if there is somehow an exception to 
article I's provision that all legislative powers granted by the 
Constitution shall be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and 
of a House of Representatives.
  The fact that the President finds political dissent within the 
Congress irritating does not make him a king. The fact that Congress 
will not always do the President's bidding does not vest him with the 
powers of a despot. When someone holding the office of President of the 
United States purports to wield legislative power, when the President 
of the United States purports to make law by the stroke of the 
executive pen, we have exited the territorial confines of 
constitutional government.
  These are some of the reasons we have focused this debate back on 
ObamaCare. People are frequently bringing up the argument: This is law. 
This is settled law. Because it is settled law, you must fund it. First 
of all, I am aware of no constitutional command that says that simply 
because a law has been adopted, Congress must fund any and every 
provision authorized under that law. In fact, quite to the contrary. 
Because Congress holds the power of the purse, Congress may--Congress 
must--continue to have the authority to decide which programs to fund 
and which programs not to fund. Were it otherwise, we would have a 
straining set of circumstances in which one Congress could bind another 
Congress simply by passing a piece of legislation and not by a 
constitutional amendment.
  That is not the case. It never has been the case. It never could be, 
should be or will be the case under our constitutional system today.
  What we see is the fact that this is not simply a partisan political 
debate. Many are casting it as that. Many are pointing to the fact that 
we have some Republicans agreeing with some Democrats, but for the most 
part we see widespread disagreement between Republicans and Democrats. 
But that dramatically oversimplifies the matter. This is no longer 
simply a dispute between Republicans and Democrats. In many respects, 
this represents a dispute between the political ruling establishment in 
Washington, DC, on the one hand and the American people on the other 
hand.
  One of the things we are often told we have to face is that we have 
to choose to keep everything funded or we have to choose to fund 
nothing. It is a frequent source of frustration to many who serve in 
this body. It certainly has been a frequent source of frustration to me 
and to the 3 million people I represent in the State of Utah. It is odd 
that we find ourselves in a position to vote on a continuing resolution 
that funds everything in government or nothing in government. It is a 
frustrating exercise we have to go through. Because of the fact that we 
have chosen to appropriate this way year after year, we basically have 
one opportunity to decide what we are going to fund in government and 
what we are not going to fund in government. I wish what we could do 
is, at a minimum, a bare minimum--it should be a lot more than this--
but at a bare minimum, to have two different debates, two different 
discussions, both starting with the presupposition that we fund nothing 
but culminating in funding or not funding something; one that would 
deal with funding for ObamaCare and another one that would deal with 
funding for everything else in government. It would be nice if 
ObamaCare funding had to stand or fall on its own merits. If we were 
starting from zero when it came to providing ObamaCare funding and we 
had to justify it, we had to make the case for it, and we had to say, 
let's prove to the American people why we ought to be funding the 
enforcement of this law--this law that will make health care less 
affordable rather than more and this law that is being implemented in a 
fundamentally unfair manner, I think that would prove a very different 
debate and discussion. But very often the way things work in 
Washington, the way continuing resolutions work, is we are faced with a 
set of circumstances that don't accurately reflect the way we make 
decisions in any other aspect of our lives.
  I sometimes am inclined to analogize this kind of continuing 
resolution spending default. This is a vast oversimplification, but 
suppose someone lived in a very remote area. Suppose the closest town 
to where they lived was at least 100 miles away, but there was one 
market, one grocery store just 1 mile from their home. It was the only 
grocery store within at least 150 miles, let's just say. One day the 
person's spouse calls them on their way home from work and says: Stop 
at the store. We need bread, milk, and eggs. The person goes to the 
grocery store and finds the bread, puts it in the cart, finds the milk 
and eggs, puts them in the cart, and goes to the checkout counter. The 
cashier checks out those things and then the cashier says: Wait a 
second. You can't just buy these things. You cannot just buy bread, 
milk, and eggs.
  You say: Why on Earth can I not buy just these three items? This is 
all I need.
  This is a different kind of grocery store. This is a grocery store 
patterned after the U.S. Congress. In order to buy bread, milk, and 
eggs, we are also going to require you to buy a bucket of nails, a half 
ton of iron ore, and you can use our wheelbarrow to take it out to your 
car, a book about cowboy poetry, and a Barry Manilow album.
  You say: I don't want any of those things. And the cashier says: That 
is fine. Then you don't get your bread, your milk, and your eggs.
  At that point, the shopper, not wanting to come home to a very 
disappointed spouse, is likely to say: Fine, even though I don't want 
the nails or the iron ore or the cowboy poetry book, and I definitely 
don't want the Barry Manilow album, I am going to buy those things 
because I can't buy the things I need unless I also buy those things.
  That is how we spend in the Congress. Whether we like it or not--and 
most of us don't like it--that is what we are stuck with. So that is 
one of the reasons we are having this debate now, one of the reasons I 
think it is appropriate for us to have this debate in connection with 
this. It is unfortunate in many respects that we tie something so 
fundamental to who we are as a country, something so essential to our 
ongoing existence as a nation as national defense. It seems absurd that 
we should tie that to funding for ObamaCare. Yet that is where we find 
ourselves because of the fact that we have been operating under a 
continuous string of back-to-back continuing resolutions for the last 4 
or 5 years.
  It is time for us to start breaking away from those false and 
ultimately ridiculous choices. It is time for us to demand more as a 
people from our Congress. It is time for us as a people to start to 
demand independent debate and discussion, debate and discussion that 
far more closely reflects the will of the American people and their 
ongoing needs.
  If the Senate must choose between standing with the longstanding 
interests, the entrenched interests of the political governing class in 
Washington on the one hand or, on the other hand, standing with the 
American people, I hope--I expect--that we will stand with the American 
people. If we ask any Member how constituents are feeling about the 
Affordable Care Act, how constituents are feeling about ObamaCare and 
its coming implementation and enforcement, the response we will get is 
that, at best, constituents are mixed. In many cases, they are 
apprehensive, they are uncertain. But overwhelmingly, we will find a 
lot of opposition from people who are seeing those all around them 
facing job losses, wage cuts, cuts to their hours, and cuts to their 
health care benefits.
  How long are we going to have to continue to hear these things before 
we act? Are we as a Congress willing to just look at these things and 
say: Yes, well, bad things happen. Let's just allow them to happen. Are 
we willing to do that? Those who are Democrats, are they willing to do 
that saying, yes,

[[Page S6773]]

I know this law is not perfect, but it is a speed dump that we have to 
cross over on our way to a single-payer system run by the health care 
system? As Republicans, are we willing to endure that, saying, yes, it 
is a train wreck, but the good news is it might inure to our political 
benefit if it gets in? I hope we are not willing to do that. I hope we 
have not descended to such a shameful, cynical low that we would be 
willing to allow those political interests to trump the needs of the 
American people who are calling out, crying out for help and for 
relief.
  Ultimately, as we think about our responsibilities as Senators, as we 
think about our responsibilities as citizens, I hope we will reflect 
from time to time on the fact that we have all taken an oath to uphold 
this document, this 226-year-old document, a document that I believe 
was written by the hands of wise men raised up by their Creator for 
that very purpose, to help foster and promote what will become--what 
has become--the greatest civilization the world has ever known.
  To the extent that we respect and honor this document, to the extent 
that we follow it, to the extent that we defend it, we uphold it at 
every turn, to the extent that we consider it not just a responsibility 
of the judiciary but also of the political branches of government, 
including our own branch, we have prospered as a country. And to the 
extent that we will return to those practices, we will benefit directly 
as a result.
  So I have to ask Senator Cruz, as a constitutional lawyer, as one of 
our Nation's preeminent appellate litigators, as one who has argued 
many times before the U.S. Supreme Court, and as one who clerked for 
the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and now as a U.S. Senator, how 
does the Senator see this role, the role of what some describe as 
coordinate branch construction of the Constitution? What role does it 
play in this body? What role does the Constitution play in the Senate? 
Does it have a place or is that something that is supposed to be left 
to the nine men and women wearing black robes across the street who are 
lawyers and hold a different constitutional office than we do?
  (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. CRUZ. Well, I thank my friend the junior Senator from Utah for 
his very fine, learned question. It is truly a privilege to serve in 
this body alongside a constitutional scholar, alongside a Senator who 
takes fidelity to the Constitution so seriously, so appropriately 
seriously.
  Senator Lee's question is exactly right: How seriously do the men and 
woman in this body take the Constitution? How seriously do we take the 
obligation? Each of us swears to uphold the Constitution. Yet it is 
easy, particularly in an era in which the Supreme Court is deemed to be 
the primary arbiter of constitutionality, for Members of Congress, 
members of the executive branch, to say: That is their problem. We pass 
the laws; the Court figures out if they are constitutional.
  I would very much agree with Senator Lee's proposition that doing so 
is an abdication of our responsibility, that every one of us has an 
obligation to not support any law that is contrary to the Constitution 
and to oppose any law that is.
  I would note that among the House Members who joined us was 
Congressman Justin Amash. He came to the floor of the Senate to join us 
to support this effort. I note Congressman Amash has the unique 
distinction of joining you and me and Senator Paul in the description 
of being--I believe the term was ``wacko birds,'' which, I for one--I 
am not sure to which particular avian species that refers, but 
whichever one it is, if it reflects a fidelity to the Constitution, a 
fidelity to liberty, and a willingness to fight to defend the 
principles this country was founded on, then I--and I believe I can 
speak for you and Rand and Congressman Amash--and I think quite a few 
others of us are very, very proud ``wacko birds.''
  We are talking about an important topic. We are talking about a topic 
that impacts millions of Americans. But at the same time, we cannot 
lose our sense of humor, and we cannot lose our sense of hope and 
optimism.
  I will note that my staff has been with me here all night, tirelessly 
fighting because they believe in America. We believe in America. We 
believe there can be something better. You look at the explosion of 
government, the explosion of spending, the explosion of debt, the 
explosion of taxes, the explosion of regulation, the stagnation of 
economic growth, and it is easy to throw up your hands and say: Can we 
ever get back to that United States of America we once were?
  But there are signs, glimmers of hope. Look right now at one of the 
most popular television shows in the United States--``Duck Dynasty.'' 
This is a show about a God-fearing family of successful entrepreneurs 
who love guns, who love to hunt, and who believe in the American dream. 
It is something that, according to Congress, almost should not exist, 
yet a lot of wisdom. Millions of Americans tune in to ``Duck Dynasty.'' 
So I want to point out just a few words of wisdom from ``Duck Dynasty'' 
that are probably good for all of us to hear.
  Willie observed:

       You put 5 rednecks on a mower, it's gonna be epic.

  Phil said:

       In a subdivision, you call 911. At home, I AM 911!

  Si said:

       Some people say I'm a dreamer, others say, ``If you fall 
     asleep at work again we're going to let you go.''

  Jase said:

       Redneck rule number one, most things can be fixed with duct 
     tape and extension cords.

  That is actually very true.
  Phil said:

       I think our problem is a spiritual one.

  Phil also said:

       When you get older and you start dating, I want you to be 
     able to say one thing, ``I can bait a hook.''

  One day maybe Caroline and Catherine will be able to say that.
  Phil also said, very simply:

       Happy, happy, happy.

  I say this to the junior Senator from Utah, when we defund ObamaCare, 
we are all going to be happy, happy, happy.
  Miss Kay said:

       Our marriage is living proof that love & family can get you 
     through everything.

  Si said:

       I live by my own rules (reviewed, revised, and approved by 
     my wife) . . . but still my own.

  Jep said:

       Faith, family, and facial hair.

  Let me point out to the junior Senator from Utah that if we continue 
doing this long enough, we may have facial hair on the floor of Senate. 
That is all right.
  Willie said:

       Are you kidding me? I'm straight up hunger games with a 
     bow.

  Si said:

       Ford F150, Chevy Silverado, Dodge Ram, Toyota Tundra. As a 
     married man, these are the only pickup lines I am allowed to 
     use.

  Jase said:

       Where I come from, your truck is an exact reflection on 
     your personality.

  Si said:

       I make up people all the time to get out of stuff.

  Si also said:

       A redneck walkin' into Bass Pro Shops gets more excited 
     than a 12 year old girl going to a Justin Beaver concert.

  Let me point out that that is Justin Beaver, B-e-a-v-e-r.
  Si also said:

       Your beard is so hairy, even Dora can't explore it.

  Si also said:

       Your beard's so stupid it takes 2 hours to watch 60 
     minutes!

  And finally Si said:

       I am the MacGyver of cooking. You bring me a piece of 
     bread, cabbage, coconut, mustard greens, pigs feet, pine 
     cones . . . and a woodpecker, I'll make you a good chicken 
     pot pie.

  Let me suggest that kind of homespun wisdom is what this country was 
built on. It is who we are. Look, there are some things to chuckle on, 
but there is an awful lot of common sense.
  On the same theme, I want to point to one of my favorite songs. It is 
a song that came out following the tragic attacks on this country of 9/
11, but it speaks more broadly to who we are as Americans, that we can 
overcome any challenge, any obstacle, including, I think, the obstacle 
of ObamaCare--admittedly, a very, very different challenge than that 
which occurred on 9/11,

[[Page S6774]]

but ultimately the American spirit and faith and freedom that underlie 
it will help us overcome every challenge. That is Toby Keith's song 
``Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.''
  Toby Keith observed--and, Mr. President, I am going to make a promise 
to you. I am not going to endeavor to sing because even if it might not 
violate the Senate rules, it would violate rules of musical harmony, 
human decency, and possibly even the Geneva Conventions. So I will not 
subject you to my musical rendition, but I will at least share the 
words from ``Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.''

     American Girls and American Guys
     We'll always stand up and salute
     We'll always recognize
     When we see Old Glory flying
     There's a lot of men dead
     So we can sleep in peace at night
     When we lay down our head.

     My daddy served in the army
     Where he lost his right eye
     But he flew a flag out in our yard
     Until the day that he died
     He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me
     To grow up and live happy
     In the land of the free.

     Now this nation that I love
     Has fallen under attack
     A mighty sucker punch came flyin' in
     From somewhere in the back
     Soon as we could see clearly
     Through our big black eye
     Man, we lit up your world
     Like the 4th of July.

     Hey Uncle Sam
     Put your name at the top of his list
     And the Statue of Liberty
     Started shakin' her fist
     And the eagle will fly
     Man, it's gonna be hell
     When you hear Mother Freedom
     Start ringin' her bell
     And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
     Brought to you Courtesy of the Red White and Blue.

     Justice will be served
     And the battle will rage
     This big dog will fight
     When you rattle his cage
     And you'll be sorry that you messed with
     The U.S. of A.
     'Cause we'll put a boot in your [posterior]--

  Edited for our friends on C-SPAN--

     It's the American way.

     Hey Uncle Sam
     Put your name at the top of his list
     And the Statue of Liberty
     Started shakin' her fist
     And the eagle will fly
     Man, it's gonna be hell
     When you hear Mother Freedom
     Start ringin' her bell
     And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
     Brought to you Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue.

  If you want to talk about the American spirit, it is hard to listen 
to that song and not think about who we are as a people, not think 
about the threats.
  Let me give you an example of a different threat, a different threat 
to our liberty that every bit as much we have to rise up against. I 
want to read for you a statement of September 12, 2012, that Hobby 
Lobby put out on ObamaCare and religious freedom. Religious freedom is 
foundational to who we are. So let's read what David Green, the CEO and 
founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., stated.

       When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we 
     were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling 
     miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much 
     bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that 
     we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's 
     work. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's 
     largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 
     locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine 
     business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a 
     family.
       We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian 
     principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our 
     business are 1) to run our business in harmony with God's 
     laws, and 2) to focus on people more than money. And that's 
     what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can 
     see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on 
     Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our 
     workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We 
     believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has 
     endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not 
     only added jobs in a weak economy, we've also raised wages 
     for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees 
     start at 80% above minimum wage.
       But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A 
     new government health care mandate says that our family 
     business must provide what I believe are abortion-causing 
     drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we 
     don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means 
     that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-
     after pill or the week-after pill.
       We believe that doing so might end a life after the moment 
     of conception, something that is contrary to our most 
     important beliefs. It goes against the biblical principles on 
     which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to 
     comply, we could face $1.3 million per day in government 
     fines.
       Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad 
     economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that has 
     raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to 
     fine a family for running its business according to its 
     beliefs. It's not right.
       I know people will say we ought to follow the rules, that 
     it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The 
     government has exempted thousands of companies from its 
     mandates, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't 
     exempt them for reasons of religious belief.
       So, Hobby Lobby--and my family--are forced to make a 
     choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, 
     represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking 
     a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our 
     business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no 
     longer have a choice. We believe people are more important 
     than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important 
     than turning a profit.
       My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue 
     growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of 
     employees, but the government is going to make that much more 
     difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between 
     following our faith and following the law. I say that's a 
     choice no American--and no American business--should have to 
     make.

  Now, you might ask, what does that letter from Hobby Lobby have to do 
with Toby Keith's terrific song? I am going to suggest they have an 
awful lot to do with each other. Our Nation was founded by men and 
women fleeing religious persecution from across the globe, fleeing 
governments that sought to impose their rules to restrict the religious 
liberty of men and women.
  Our Founding Fathers, the people who formed the United States of 
America, fled those countries and came here. Why? To establish a 
country where everyone could worship God with all of your heart, mind 
and soul, according to the dictates of your conscience. The men and 
women watching this at home--not all of you may share the religious 
convictions of the CEO of Hobby Lobby. You may or may not be 
Christians. If you are Christians, you may or may not share his faith 
and his interpretation of what his faith requires.
  But if you look at the history of our country, the Federal Government 
is telling that CEO--the Federal Government is telling Catholic 
hospitals and Catholic charities that they must violate their religious 
beliefs. Why? Because government knows best. You know, there is a 
reason why the Bill of Rights begins with the First Amendment and why 
the First Amendment begins with protecting religious liberty, 
protecting the religious liberty of all of us, because it is 
foundational. The Founding Fathers who formed our country understood 
that if you did not have the freedom to seek out God, then every other 
freedom could be stripped away. Yet this administration has 
demonstrated a hostility to religious faith that is staggering, indeed.
  In recent months, we saw an Air Force chaplain in Alaska face 
punishment and repercussions for posting a blog post in which he 
stated, ``there are no atheists in foxholes.''
  Now, mind you, this was a chaplain. His job is to minister to the 
spiritual life of the men and women of the Air Force. Yet that 
statement was deemed inhospitable to atheists and inconsistent with the 
military and this administration. Now, the irony, of course, is that 
particular statement was said previously by a general named Dwight D. 
Eisenhower, who as we all know was President of the United States.
  Indeed, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had more than a passing 
familiarity with the military. That statement comes from a speech 
President Eisenhower gave to the American Legion--I believe it was in 
1954--in which he was describing a story of four immortal chaplains. 
That story is a story young people do not learn any more. It is a story 
a lot of people do not know. President Eisenhower told it.
  I had the opportunity recently to speak at the American Legion's 
national convention. I had the opportunity to share it. There were a 
number of particularly older veterans, World War II veterans, who knew 
the story of the four immortal chaplains.

[[Page S6775]]

That is the story of the USS Dorchester that was hit by a U-boat 
torpedo and was sinking. There were four chaplains aboard that ship.
  I believe two were Protestant, one was Catholic, and one was Jewish. 
They were handing out life vests. They realized they did not have 
enough life vests for the men and women on that ship. Each of those 
four chaplains removed his life vest and gave it to another passenger. 
Those other passengers were saved and those four chaplains stood 
together on the deck of the ship singing and praying as the ship went 
down.
  The point of the story is, when the chaplains put their life vests on 
other passengers, gave their life vests, gave their lives for other 
passengers, they did not ask each passenger: Are you a Christian? Are 
you a Jew? Is your religious faith the same as mine? Because, as 
President Eisenhower explained, there are no atheists in foxholes, and 
they were there sacrificing for their fellow man.
  You know religious liberty is foundational to who we are. One of the 
most pernicious aspects of ObamaCare is that it disregards religious 
liberty, when you have the Federal Government getting so intimately 
involved in health care. It has necessitated the Federal Government 
trampling on good faith religious beliefs.
  Look, nobody has questioned the good faith religious beliefs of the 
owners of Hobby Lobby. Even if you do not share their views, what about 
your religious beliefs? If the government can order them to violate 
their religious beliefs, what is to stop them from ordering you to 
violate yours?
  That is wrong. That is inconsistent with who we are as Americans. 
That is one of the many reasons Americans are fed up with what is 
happening under ObamaCare.
  You know, earlier I was reading some of the stories from individual 
constituents. I would like to return to that. A constituent in Humble, 
TX, wrote on September 10, 2013:

       I am one of many Americans adversely affected by Mr. 
     Obama's health care. I just received a letter stating that as 
     the Affordable Care Act draws fuller to close implementation, 
     I will no longer have access to the group medical PPO plan, 
     the group dental plan, or the group vision plan effective 
     January 1, 2014. I am 62, in good health, but need health 
     insurance. I do not know what my options will be if I can 
     even afford a government-run plan.

  That is not me speaking. That is reading a letter from one individual 
who is 62 years old who had insurance but is losing that insurance 
because of ObamaCare. Not working. It is simply not working.
  Another constituent from Fort Worth, TX, wrote on September 9, 2013:

       My husband was with IBM for over 30 years. We considered 
     the health insurance was part of our salary. Two weeks ago, I 
     found out that they are canceling the insurance for retirees 
     and their spouses because of ObamaCare. They say they will 
     give me a lump sum of money to buy another plan. But I assume 
     once that money is gone, I will be responsible for the 
     payments. Thank you for all you're doing to stop ObamaCare. 
     By the way, my primary physician just closed his practice 
     because of ObamaCare. He said he didn't think he could give 
     the kind of care to his patients that they deserve.

  There are two things there that are very striking. No. 1 is the 
situation of this woman so many Americans across this country are 
experiencing. They had a health plan they liked. They had health 
insurance they liked. We remember 3\1/2\ years ago when the President 
promised the American people: If you like your health insurance you can 
keep it. We now know that statement was flatly, objectively 100 percent 
false. We now know that it is not the case, if you like your health 
insurance you can keep it, because ObamaCare is causing people all over 
the country, like this woman in Ft. Worth, TX, to lose her health 
insurance.
  They are understandably not happy about it. They are hurting. They 
are suffering. But, secondly, I think it is very interesting, the point 
about her primary physician. We are also seeing doctors leaving the 
practice of medicine, advising young students: Don't go to med school 
because ObamaCare is destroying the practice of medicine. If the goal 
is to expand access to health care, driving good physicians out of the 
practice of medicine is completely antithetical to that goal.
  Another constituent, a retired couple from Bayou Vista, TX, wrote on 
the September 9, 2013:

       My wife and I are retired living on a fixed income. We 
     worked hard our whole lives protecting our credit and saved 
     enough money to buy a modest home in Bayou Vista, TX. If the 
     insurance premiums being published in the local newspaper 
     materialize, we will no longer be able to afford to live in 
     our home. We could not sell it either. The facts, if left 
     unchanged, will destroy many coastal communities and result 
     in our personal financial ruin. We would have no choice but 
     to walk from our mortgage. We would lose all of the 
     investment we have made in this house. Our credit would be 
     ruined.

  These are the words of a retired couple living on a fixed income who 
managed to save up to buy a home for their retirement for their golden 
years. ObamaCare is threatening to turn their retirement into a 
nightmare. I remind you that the word ``nightmare'' is not mine. That 
word ``nightmare'' is the word of James Hoffa, the president of the 
Teamsters.
  That nightmare is very real for that couple. It is real for so many 
Americans. Yet it is a nightmare. It is now late at night. I am going 
to venture to say most Members of the Senate are home in bed asleep 
while America lives the nightmare. If we were listening to the people, 
we would not be home asleep. If we were listening to the people, we 
would be experiencing that nightmare, we would be waking up--much like 
my little girls do sometimes when they have a scary dream--but we would 
be responding like any parent does when your child has a nightmare. You 
come in and try to make the nightmare go away.
  America is experiencing that nightmare and it is even worse. Because 
here, the Senate caused that nightmare. We passed the law that is the 
nightmare for the American people, and Senators on both sides of the 
aisle have been telling the American people they are too busy, there 
are too many other priorities on their list to even talk about the 
nightmare that is ObamaCare.
  That is wrong. That is fundamentally wrong. We need to make DC 
listen.
  Mr. LEE. Would 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 his reaction to a 
couple of stories that I think relate well to what the Senator from 
Texas is saying to us about the fact that Congress has adopted a law 
that has brought about a series of nightmares for the American people, 
only these are real. This is not some dream we are going to wake up 
from and discover that this is a figment of our subconscious mind that 
is causing us torment. It is real.
  Sometimes we react as a lawmaking body to situations in such a way 
that we don't necessarily improve upon the status quo. We identify a 
problem, and we try to act. Sometimes the results aren't necessarily 
what we intend them to be. Sometimes the results can be quite the 
opposite of what was intended at the outset. I think this may well have 
been the case with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which 
at the end of the day neither protects patients nor makes health care 
more affordable.
  It reminds me a little bit of a story, something I experienced a few 
years ago when I was working at the Supreme Court. I shared an office 
with three other law clerks at the time.
  We discovered something very interesting about our office space. 
During the summer months, when we started our clerkships, our office 
was almost unbearably cold, something that was unusual for me because I 
like an office or a home to be relatively cool, but this was unusually 
cold. It was so cold we were tempted to wear gloves in the middle of 
the summer indoors because our office was so cold. It was so cold that 
sometimes we would open our windows to our office, even though it was 
hot outside, and it would let in this hot, humid air. Sometimes we were 
tempted to build fires in the fireplace in our small office in the 
middle of the summer, because it was so cold in the office that our 
hands would get numb and we could barely write. That is a significant 
portion of a law clerk's job is to write, write a lot of material.
  We would walk over to the thermostat thinking that might solve the 
problem. It was too cold, so we turned the thermostat up thinking that 
would make it a little bit warmer and, therefore, more tolerable in our 
office. First

[[Page S6776]]

we would move it up a little. It didn't do any good. Then we would move 
it up a lot and it still didn't do any good. It was still freezing cold 
in our office in the middle of the summer in Washington.
  When it came to be wintertime, we had a similar problem but at the 
opposite end of the thermometer. In the wintertime we found that our 
office was intolerably hot. It was hot all the time. It was so hot that 
we were sweating. It is hardly appropriate, when working as a law clerk 
at the Supreme Court of the United States, to wear shorts to work, 
especially in January, so we didn't do that. Because it was so hot we 
frequently found ourselves tempted to open the windows again, letting 
in very cold air from the outside. Because we were so hot we had to do 
something to balance out the temperature. Again, we went to the 
thermostat to no avail. It was intolerably hot so we, of course, turned 
the thermostat down, first a little, and it didn't do any good, and 
then a lot, and it still didn't do any good.
  After a while we called the maintenance people of the building. In 
fact, we called several of the maintenance people in the building. It 
was an old building, finished in 1935. It was undergoing renovation at 
the time. The renovation went on for many years. We ultimately got to 
the top maintenance and management supervisor in the Supreme Court. He 
ended up spending a fair amount of time trying to find out what was 
wrong with our heating and air conditioning system, trying to figure 
out why on Earth it was so intolerably cold in our office in the summer 
and why it was so intolerably hot in the wintertime.
  His conclusion was relatively simple, and it was not what we 
expected. He came to us and he said, OK, I have dismantled your entire 
system and I found the problem. Your thermostat was installed backward. 
When you turned the thermostat up, trying to make it warmer, it had the 
opposite effect. It was only making it colder. When you turned the 
thermostat down, trying to make it cooler, it was only making it hotter 
in your office, hence your problem.
  As he said this, I looked out the window across the street at the 
Capitol, and I thought I wonder if there is something Congress can 
learn from this. Sometimes Congress, out of an abundant, legitimate, 
well-intentioned desire to achieve good in society will do something. 
Sometimes that something is the only thing Congress knows how to do at 
the moment. Why? Because Congress legislates. It is what we do.
  As I have said before, sometimes when you are holding a hammer, 
everything starts to look like a nail. Sometimes when Congress acts, 
even with the best of intentions, it gets it wrong. The risk of this is 
especially high when Congress acts in 2,700-page increments that no one 
has read prior to passing those increments into law. I believe that is 
what happened here.
  But the proper response to a broken thermostat, or a thermostat that 
is installed backward, is not to continue using the same thermostat. 
The solution has to be to fix the thermostat, to replace it. We have 
got a broken thermostat with this law and it needs to be replaced 
entirely.
  I am also reminded of another story, a story that is somewhat related 
that helps us understand some similar points.
  One night when I was a teenager, I think I was about 14 years old, I 
was out with my family. I grew up in a large family, seven children, 
but in Utah that is sort of a medium-sized family, but that is a 
discussion for a different day. We were out somewhere with the family. 
I think we had gone out for dinner, and we were headed home. As we were 
almost to our home, one of my younger sisters suggested to my dad that 
we go out for ice cream as a family. We were almost home, and 
recognizing that we were almost home, I all of a sudden realized I 
didn't want to go out for ice cream because I had homework. I asked my 
dad to keep driving home, drop me off at the house. The rest of the 
family could continue on and go and get ice cream together. That way I 
could stay home, get my homework done, and I wouldn't have to be up too 
late.
  It all worked well. I had all my siblings in the car. That is a lot 
of kids in the car, but my dad pulled up in front of our house to let 
me out. I was in the back seat of the car. I opened the car door, and I 
put one foot out of the car, starting to get out. I wish to tell you 
something a little bit about my father--my late father, may he rest in 
peace; he died 17 years ago. He was a very good man, a wise man, a 
smart man. He was one of my greatest heroes in this life. He had many 
talents, but he was also very absentminded. Sometimes he wasn't paying 
attention, and this was one of those moments.
  As I stepped one foot out of our Oldsmobile, my dad started to drive 
off with half of my body still in the car. Somehow the Oldsmobile ended 
up on top of my foot turned around backwards. That is a little bit hard 
to describe. The Oldsmobile, with a whole bunch of kids in it, weighs a 
lot. All of a sudden the Oldsmobile was on top of my foot as it was 
turned around backwards. I was trying to explain to my dad we had a 
problem, but all that came out were grunts and groans. I couldn't quite 
find the words to tell him that we had a problem, because I was in so 
much pain.
  He realized at that point I was still in the car, but it still didn't 
occur to him that the car was on top of my foot. Finally I mustered the 
presence of mind to get out one word, one word that I knew I could 
pronounce, one word that would send the message unequivocally to my 
father: Get the Oldsmobile off of my foot. But I couldn't utter that 
many words, so I spit out one word. The word was ``reverse.'' Dad, 
reverse. Well, he got that message. He put the car in reverse, and he 
got the Oldsmobile off my foot.
  But for my ability to utter that one word in a relatively short 
period of time that seemed like an eternity under the circumstances, my 
foot may well have been broken, my siblings probably would have found 
that mildly amusing under the circumstances, and I probably wouldn't 
have gotten my homework done that night. As it turned out, I was able 
to avoid that and it was because I was able to utter that one word, 
reverse.
  Sometimes when you are doing something that hurts someone, you have 
to reverse. You have to turn off that which has been turned on which 
has been harming people. This law, turned on 3\1/2\ years ago, is 
harming people. It is going to do a lot more if it remains in the on 
position. We need to put this car into reverse. We need, at a minimum, 
to halt the operation of this law.
  The best way, I believe the only way at this point, to achieve that, 
short of repeal, is by defunding. Say: Look, at a minimum, let's halt 
the spending on further implementation and enforcement of this law 
while we get certain things sorted out as a country, while we figure 
out what else we can do.
  The objections to this are many. Some say this can't ever happen. You 
don't have the political will to do that, and you don't have the 
political muscle to do that. It can't happen. We know one thing for 
certain. It is never going to happen if we don't try.
  We also know a number of other can't-win battles have been fought and 
ultimately won. A few months ago, Americans were being told we are 
going to have significant gun control legislation, significant 
legislation that could eat away in a meaningful way through your 
privacy and your right to own a gun in this country. We are going to 
have some form of gun registration system. We were told this is 
happening, just accept it, just deal with it, there is nothing you can 
do about it. A few people in Congress disagreed with that conclusion. A 
few people in Congress resisted, and we stopped it.
  Only a few weeks ago it was regarded as an indisputable truth that we 
were going to get involved in some kind of military strife in Syria. A 
swelling group of lawmakers from both Houses in both political parties 
started expressing reservations with that idea. Before long people 
stopped saying resisting that effort was impossible. After a while, 
they stopped saying it was improbable, and after a while movement to 
resist getting the United States involved in military action in Syria 
became absolutely unstoppable.
  In one way or another, I believe the effort to stop ObamaCare might 
bear some resemblance to this. It might operate under a somewhat 
different timeframe. Initially, people said the effort

[[Page S6777]]

to stop this law was one that was impossible.
  I think we are reaching the point at which it is being described by 
many as improbable. In time, as more and more Americans join this 
cause, as more and more Americans reach out to their Senators and their 
Congressmen, this effort will become absolutely unstoppable.
  Because the American people love freedom, the American people were 
born to live free. The sons and daughters of America have freedom as 
their birthright, and they don't take particularly well to 
micromanagement from a large, distant, national government--one that is 
slow to respond to the needs of the people, one that often approaches 
the people with something that does not exactly resemble deep sympathy 
or compassion, because this is not what large national governments are 
all about.
  A large national government can do certain things well. It can do 
certain things no one else can do well. But it can't be all things to 
all people, least of all physician and general caretaker to all. When 
we try to do all things, we often cause far more problems than we 
resolve.
  So in this circumstance, we have to remember the lesson we learned 
from the thermostat, the lesson I learned while working at the Supreme 
Court; that sometimes if you have a broken thermostat, what you do 
might actually be having the opposite effect of what you are trying to 
do. What you are trying to do might actually make matters worse if your 
thermostat's broken, if it is installed backward.
  We also have to remember that sometimes when you get into a position 
where you are causing harm or you could cause more harm unless you 
change direction, that you sometimes just have to reverse. This, I 
believe, is one of those times.
  To reframe all of this, we are here at nearly 2 in the morning on an 
otherwise perfectly good Tuesday night. I guess now it is Wednesday 
morning. We are here because we feel strongly about how best to proceed 
with a funding mechanism passed by the House of Representatives. The 
House of Representatives last week responded to a call from the 
American people--a call to do something very important, a call to keep 
the Federal Government funded and operating but to do so while 
defunding ObamaCare. Once that was passed by the House, once that 
started making its way over to the Senate, we in the Senate were faced 
with several alternatives.
  I believe there are two very good alternatives to addressing that. 
One is to vote on the House-passed continuing resolution that funds 
government but defunds ObamaCare on an up-or-down basis, either pass it 
or don't pass it, but pass it or don't pass it in as-is condition based 
on how it was passed by the House.
  That is one good option. Another option would be to subject that same 
House-passed continuing resolution that funds government but defunds 
ObamaCare to an open amendment process, a process by which Senators, 
both Republicans and Democrats, may propose alterations to that 
continuing resolution as they deem fit. This would require us to 
debate, discuss, and vote on a number of amendments.
  Either of these alternatives would be equally acceptable. I can see 
arguments for either one of them. But what is not acceptable is for the 
Senate majority leader to do as he is expected to do by many, which is 
to say we will have one amendment and one amendment only to the House-
passed continuing resolution and that amendment will be one to gut the 
continuing resolution of a provision that was the ``without which not'' 
measure of the entire bill to gut the defunding language.
  At the same time, the majority leader is expected widely to fill the 
tree, meaning to say no other amendments will be allowed. This is it. 
There is no more. If he is going to do that, he is not going to have my 
help doing it, and because he is not going to have my help doing it, 
that means I must vote no on cloture on the bill.
  In other words, Harry Reid is expected to ask his Members, and is 
expected to be followed by the 53 other Members in his caucus, for a 
total of 54 Democrats who will vote yes when it comes to cloture on 
this bill, who will vote yes knowing full well Harry Reid and the 53 
Democrats who follow him, for a combined total of 54, will vote on 
cloture on this bill. This doesn't mean they are in support of the 
House-passed resolution as adopted by the House, funding government but 
defunding ObamaCare. Quite to the contrary, this means they are in 
favor of gutting it, of severing, of cutting out its most important 
single provision.
  If Harry Reid and the 53 Democrats who follow him want to do that, 
that is their prerogative. As a Republican who was elected to combat 
ObamaCare, to try to stop it, I will not be voting for cloture on the 
bill for that very reason. That could change, of course, if Harry Reid 
decides to bring up this continuing resolution for a vote as is, on its 
own merits, as it was written or, alternatively, if Harry Reid decides 
to bring up the House-passed continuing resolution under an open 
amendment process, allowing Senators to propose, debate, discuss and, 
ultimately, vote on amendments.
  But what is not acceptable is for him to allow one and only one 
amendment, one gutting the continuing resolution of its most important 
provision. With him doing that, the Democrats can oppose this if they 
want. I will not be joining them, and I don't believe they need 
Republican help if that is what they want to do. If they do want 
Republicans to vote with them, I will not be among them. My job is not 
to make it easier for them to gut the House-passed resolution.
  I stand with the House of Representatives. I stand behind Speaker 
Boehner and the Republicans who assisted him in getting this passed. I 
want to get this passed. I would like to pass it as is. If we can't 
pass it as is, on a single as-is vote, I want to see us with an open 
amendment process. The Senate majority leader is proposing neither.
  So I ask Senator Cruz: How does the Senator see this, how could one 
possibly see a ``yes'' vote on cloture on the bill, under the 
circumstances I have described, as a vote in favor of the House-passed 
continuing resolution that funds government while defunding ObamaCare?
  Mr. CRUZ. It is a very good question the Senator from Utah poses, and 
I would note there is only one way; that is, if you are trying to 
confuse and deceive your constituents. There is no intellectually 
honest way to do it.
  If you ask any rational person: If the Republicans vote along with 
Harry Reid and 53 Senate Democrats to allow Harry Reid and 53 Senate 
Democrats to fund ObamaCare, have they stood for defunding ObamaCare? 
Of course not. It is not a difficult question. It is not complicated.
  Those who want to confuse their constituents want complication. Those 
who have, at least initially, stated they intend to vote to allow Harry 
Reid and the Democrats to fund ObamaCare are at the same time--often 
within hours of those statements--telling their constituents: I am 
leading the fight to defund ObamaCare, you can't have it both ways. You 
cannot have it both ways. You are either willing to stand for your 
principles and not just on an empty show.
  There was an exchange earlier with the Senator from Illinois where he 
was saying he wasn't surprised by the House vote. He was certain of 
those votes because they had voted 40-some-odd times to defund 
ObamaCare. But there was a big difference in this Friday vote, a big 
difference in why the commentators in DC, the pundits, and all of the 
learned gray beards said this one wouldn't happen. The other 40-some-
odd times were symbolic votes. They never had a chance to pass it into 
law.
  It is not difficult to get Republicans to vote in symbolic votes 
against ObamaCare. Indeed, in this body I have introduced two 
amendments this year that at the time, when there were 45 Republicans 
in this body, all 45 Republicans voted against it. We are going to have 
another vote. If Majority Leader Reid is successful in shutting off 
debate on funding ObamaCare, then all 46 Republicans will have to vote 
against it, and they will tell people: Hey, I voted against him, when 
it didn't matter. They will leave out the ``when it didn't matter'' 
part. They will leave out that I voted to allow Harry Reid to do that, 
but then once the matter was decided, I cast a vote against it to 
confuse my constituents.
  We wonder why Americans are cynical about politics. They are cynical

[[Page S6778]]

about politics because too many leaders in this body, too many 
Democrats and too many Republicans are not listening to the American 
people.
  Let me read statements from a number of think tank leaders across the 
country.
  Matthew J. Brouillette from the Commonwealth Foundation in 
Pennsylvania.

       Giving more citizens health insurance is not the same as 
     giving them health care. The tragic outcome is that ObamaCare 
     will harm the very Pennsylvanians it purports to help.

  Francis X. De Luca from the Civitas Institute of North Carolina.

       ObamaCare is about neither health nor care. It is about 
     forcing Americans to buy a service they may neither need nor 
     want. In the end, it will reduce the availability of health 
     services for citizens while making those available more 
     costly.

  That sounds like a great option: Fewer choices than the ones you have 
and more expensive. No wonder James Hoffa, head of the Teamsters, calls 
ObamaCare a nightmare. No wonder so many Americans are suffering and 
asking for Congress to listen to their pleas to give them the same 
exemption President Obama has already given huge corporations and 
Members of Congress.
  Connor Boyack from the Libertas Institute in Utah:

       The Affordable Care Act is unfair, invasive and an 
     illegitimate burden on taxpayers. In attempting to remedy 
     certain health care problems, it follows the historical 
     pattern of government intervention and creates even more of 
     them.

  Ellen Weaver from the Palmetto Policy Forum in South Carolina.

       South Carolinians are already starting to feel the front 
     end of the shockwave as several local employers cut work 
     schedules to part time. And we are left to imagine the 
     ultimate decimation on the budgets of Palmetto State families 
     as personal rates skyrocket and people are forced off their 
     current insurance that we were promised we would be able to 
     keep. In fact, just last week, Palmetto Policy Forum's 
     president received a letter telling her she would be losing 
     her private policy. And this is just the beginning of the 
     promised ``trainwreck.''

  Sally Pipes from the Pacific Research Institute in California.

       Unless ObamaCare is repealed and replaced, America will be 
     on the ``road to serfdom'' and there will be no off-ramp. We 
     will be headed for a single-payer, Medicare for all system 
     such as exists in Canada. Americans will face long waiting 
     lists for care, rationed care, and a lack of access to the 
     latest treatments and procedures. Where will the best doctors 
     and we as patients go to get first-rate care?

  Interestingly enough, the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, 
agrees with Ms. Pipes. Both Sally Pipes and Majority Leader Reid say 
the end result of ObamaCare is--and indeed is designed to be--single-
payer, government socialized health care. The only difference is that 
Majority Leader Reid thinks that is a good idea and Sally Pipes and the 
American people think that is a terrible idea. Because we don't want 
our care rationed, we don't want government bureaucrats deciding who 
gets health care when, we don't want waiting periods, and we don't want 
low-quality health care, which is what happens at the end of this road 
if we continue down it.
  Justin Owen, the Beacon Center of Tennessee.

       ObamaCare presents the most dangerous threat to 
     Tennesseans' jobs and health security than anything coming 
     out of Washington. And that says a lot these days.

  Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico.

       ObamaCare locks in the worst aspects of American health 
     care. Rather than restoring the patient-doctor relationship, 
     it puts the IRS and the Federal Government alongside 
     insurance companies between patients and their doctors.

  Matt Mayer, Opportunity, OH.

       ObamaCare is distorting insurance markets, forcing Ohioans 
     to make changes they do not want to make and expanding one of 
     the least effective and most costly government programs in 
     U.S. history.

  Mike Stenhouse from the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and 
Prosperity.

       In Rhode Island, not only will up to 75 percent of those 
     currently uninsured remain uninsured after ObamaCare is 
     implemented, but our State has still not determined how to 
     pay for its wasteful exchange after the Federal subsidies 
     end.

  Scott Moody from the Maine Heritage Policy Center observed:

       The Maine Heritage Policy Center has profiled several Maine 
     businesses employing hundreds of Mainers that simply can't 
     afford to absorb the increased costs under ObamaCare. In 
     fact, in one case the higher ObamaCare costs will consume 
     anywhere from 54 percent to 134 percent of the company's 
     profits.
       This burden could ultimately put this company out of 
     business, which would not only mean no health insurance for 
     their employees, but it would also mean no jobs either.

  Doesn't that describe the nightmare James Hoffa of the Teamsters was 
talking about--employees losing their jobs, employees being forced into 
part-time work and losing their health insurance all at the same time? 
No wonder the unions are speaking out or remaining silent no longer.
  How long will it be until we see Democratic Senators who have the 
courage of James Hoffa to remain silent no longer and to speak out for 
the men and women of America who are losing their jobs, who are being 
forced into part-time work and are losing their health insurance? How 
long will it be before all 46 Republicans do more than give speeches 
against ObamaCare and actually stand and fight this fight, stop saying 
we can't win it and actually stand up and start to win it?
  Paul Mero from the Sutherland Institute in Utah:

       The ACA is a hallucinogen for its recipients and defenders 
     in the search for prudent ways to address the medical needs 
     of our uninsured. A true Utah solution will rely on our 
     people, not the federal government.

  Mike Thompson from the Thomas Jefferson Institute in Virginia:

       It looks as if those on the low end of the income scale 
     will be harmed as part time employees will see their hours 
     cut and full time employees moved to part time. Small 
     businesses, the engine of job creation, are seeing their 
     health care costs rising forcing them to employ fewer people 
     than they would otherwise.

  Wayne Hoffman of the Idaho Freedom Foundation:

       Obamacare is destroying the quality of health care in 
     Idaho. The onslaught of new regulations and the fear of what 
     might come next from Washington is not only raising costs, it 
     has prompted countless Idaho doctors to give up medicine or 
     join large hospital or group medical practices. As a result, 
     the close knit doctor-patient relationships that have endured 
     in many of our communities have vanished entirely.

  Do you like your doctor? Do you like continuing to see your doctor? 
With ObamaCare, that relationship is in jeopardy. Why do you think so 
many Americans are unhappy with this law?
  Janie White of the Wyoming Policy Institute:

       ObamaCare is closing businesses in the small populated 
     state of Wyoming. Full-time is going to part-time and in a 
     state where small business is prevalent, it's hurting an 
     entire state; not just one industry.

  Dave Trabert of the Kansas Policy Institute:

       Scholars at Kansas Policy Institute estimate that Medicaid 
     is expected to consume 31% of Kansas' General Fund Budget by 
     2023 under Obamacare and its proposed Medicaid expansion. The 
     ``woodwork effect'' of Obamacare alone is expected to cause 
     over $4 billion in tax increases or spending reductions for 
     other government services in just the first ten years of 
     Obamacare.

  Gary Palmer of the Alabama Policy Institute:

       Because of the Budget Control Act, which the Republicans 
     passed in 2011, spending reductions for the next fiscal year 
     are already set in place by law and will require 
     approximately $1.3 trillion in discretionary cuts over the 
     next eight years. These cuts can either be done through 
     another round of sequestration in which the Obama 
     Administration will determine what is cut, or it will be done 
     proactively by defunding ObamaCare which, according to the 
     latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, will cost 
     $1.85 trillion over the next 11 years. Keep in mind that in 
     2010 the CBO estimated that Obamacare would only cost $898 
     billion for the first 10 years. With the U.S. already facing 
     a $16 trillion debt and continuing to run a trillion dollar 
     annual deficit, and with all the uncertainty surrounding what 
     Obamacare will actually cost, defunding Obamacare would be an 
     act of fiscal responsibility as intended by the passage of 
     the Budget Control Act.

  Carl Graham from the Montana Policy Institute:

       Obamacare has already resulted in the consolidation and 
     centralization of the health care industry in Montana, 
     removing choices and competition, especially in the state's 
     rural areas.

  Andy Matthews of the Nevada Policy Research Institute:

       At a time when Nevada is already suffering under the 
     highest unemployment rate in the nation, the so-called 
     Affordable Care Act now threatens to do even more damage to 
     the Silver State's jobs picture. Every day I hear from 
     frustrated business owners who would like nothing more than 
     to hire new employees but can't because of the many barriers 
     to hiring that this law has created.


[[Page S6779]]


  Trent England of the Freedom Foundation in Washington State:

       Washington State's Freedom Foundation reports some small 
     businesses are already being told their health insurance 
     rates will double, punishing some of the state's hardest 
     working people, hurting job creation, and stifling economic 
     growth.

  Robert Alt from the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions in 
Ohio:

       So far, Obamacare has been a game of drawing straws: a good 
     deal for the IRS and others who have the ability to secure 
     exemptions for themselves: Congress, a motley group of 
     companies with connections, some unions, and friends of the 
     Obama administration; and the short straws being won by 
     average Americans, medical professionals, small businesses, 
     the overwhelming majority of seniors who are happy with their 
     current plans, and our children and grandchildren. The 
     results of this rigged game are an invasion of privacy, 
     increase in healthcare and insurance costs, loss of freedom, 
     distortion of the free market, and a host of changes 
     Americans never hoped for.

  Jim Stergios of the Pioneer Institute in Massachusetts:

       The ACA will slow the future of innovation in 
     Massachusetts, especially in the medical device field, which 
     faces hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes. In 
     addition, the so-called ``cadillac-tax'' that will burden 
     many Massachusetts Chevy drivers: Over half of the citizens 
     of the state by 2018, including union members, and hundreds 
     of thousands of the middle-class.

  Kim Crockett from the Center for the American Experiment in 
Minnesota:

       Minnesota has one of the finest health care systems in the 
     world. It is unfortunate that Gov. Mark Dayton has whole-
     heartedly embraced the incursion of federal authority in our 
     state. The ACA is anything but affordable and threatens the 
     delivery of quality care to all but the most financially 
     secure Minnesotans. The gross misallocation of local, state 
     and federal resources could instead have been used to improve 
     health care. Instead we are bureaucratizing it. We continue 
     to advocate for portable, patient-owned defined contribution 
     plan as an alternative to one-size-fits-all health care.

  Jim Vokal of the Platt Institute of Nebraska:

       At the expense of middle class, every day Nebraskans, 
     Obamacare's implementation will cause undue hardship on the 
     families and the younger generation all across the state. 
     Governmental intervention rather than personal choice is not 
     the Nebraska way.

  Ashley Landess from the South Carolina Policy Council:

       SC business owners are forced to close their doors and sell 
     off family businesses, not only b/c they can't afford the 
     mandate but because they can't even predict the cost--and 
     neither can anyone else.

  Brett Healy from the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy of 
Wisconsin:

       Before Obamacare, Wisconsin had one of the better health 
     insurance markets in the country that covered the vast 
     majority of our citizens. Now, under Obamacare, Wisconsinites 
     will see insurance premiums increase on average 51% and in 
     many parts of the Badger State, we will have only one company 
     to choose from and no consumer choice. In Wisconsin, the 
     Affordable Care Act is proving to be not affordable at all 
     and the uncertainty surrounding its implementation is 
     weighing on our employers and holding back our economic 
     recovery. Wisconsinites deserve better.

  J. Robert McClure, III, from the James Madison Institute in Florida:

       In Florida, where tourism and seasonal hiring are a way of 
     life, small businesses and large ones are confused and 
     frustrated as to how to move forward. Arbitrary delays and 
     enforcement by the federal government of this invasive and 
     unwieldy law have created a climate of paralysis in Florida 
     when it comes to job creation and planning. In a state of 
     roughly 19 million people, where the economic climate is 
     poised in every way to take off, no organization be it in 
     business, education, healthcare or government knows how to 
     proceed. The Affordable Care Act has only created stagnation 
     and insecurity in Florida--with a hefty price tag to come, 
     paid for on the backs of every taxpayer in the state.

  State representative Geanie Morrison from the Texas Conservative 
Coalition:

       The so-called Affordable Care Act is not even fully 
     implemented, and is already costing jobs, leading to costly 
     increases in insurance premiums, and promising billions of 
     dollars in new taxes. Texans should not have to shoulder the 
     cost of Obamacare, which is why we implore our Texas 
     delegation to defund this unpopular, unworkable, and 
     unaffordable law.

  And Finally, Jim Waters of the Bluegrass Institute of Kentucky:

       Obamacare will devastate Kentucky's already-struggling 
     economy. We already have entire areas where expectant mothers 
     in rural areas must drive two hours to see an ob/gyn. But 
     there will be nowhere that any Kentucky family or small-
     business owner can go to hide from the increased costs and 
     destruction of our personal liberties resulting from this 
     policy of redistribution.

  That list of quotes spans the country. It wasn't just one region. It 
wasn't just Republican States. It wasn't just Democratic States. Those 
are quotes from think tanks in North Carolina, Utah, South Carolina, 
California, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maine, Utah, 
Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Alabama, Montana, Washington State, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, 
and in the State of Kentucky.
  Let me ask everyone watching: Have the Senators from each of those 
States come out and said they will defund ObamaCare? Have the 
Democratic Senators from each of those States said: I have listened to 
my constituents, I have listened to the people who are losing their 
jobs, who are being pushed into part-time work, who are seeing health 
insurance premiums skyrocket or losing their health insurance. Have the 
Democratic Senators representing those States said that?
  And have the Republicans representing those States said, we will 
stand together, and Republicans will be united against cloture on this 
bill because we are not going to vote to allow Harry Reid and the 
Democrats to fund ObamaCare, to gut the House Republican bill? And if 
they haven't, it is a reasonable question to ask why. Why aren't 
elected officials listening to the people? We need to together make 
D.C. 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 have two sons and a daughter. My two sons are twins. They 
are teenagers. They are good boys. They are both 4.0 students, and I 
couldn't be more pleased with them. They work hard.
  I had an experience with them about 1\1/2\ years ago that comes to 
mind. I was driving down the street with them in my car one day. We 
were listening to the radio, as I often do with them. We were listening 
to a popular song familiar to all three of us, a song we had heard on 
many, many occasions.
  On this particular occasion I started noticing the lyrics more than I 
had on previous occasions in the past. All of a sudden, for whatever 
reason, I noticed that these were not good lyrics. These were not 
wholesome lyrics. These were not lyrics that any God-fearing father of 
teenaged boys would necessarily want his sons listening to. All of a 
sudden I pointed out to my twin sons, turning down the radio, These 
were terrible lyrics, and I asked them: Have you ever really listened 
to the words of this song? Do we like the message that is in this song?
  My son John didn't miss a beat. Without hesitating, without batting 
an eye, John looked right at me and said, Dad, it is not bad if you 
don't think about it. I immediately thought it was funny that was his 
response. This was teenage reasoning at its very best. It is not just 
teenage reasoning. It is the way a lot of us think about things by 
saying certain things aren't bad if you don't think about them.
  In many respects, that is reflective of what we face in our country 
today. A $17 trillion debt growing at a rate approaching $1 trillion a 
year isn't bad if you don't think about it. Having a 2,700-page health 
care law with 20,000 pages of implementing legislation isn't bad if you 
don't think about it; having between $1.75 trillion and $2 trillion a 
year in existing Federal regulatory compliance costs is not bad, if you 
don't think about it; having the world's highest corporate tax rate, at 
least the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, isn't bad 
if you don't think about it. A lot of these problems we face are not 
bad, but only if you don't think about them.

  The problem is in the Senate it is our job to think about these 
problems. It is our job to think about the fact that we have on the 
books a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that 
will make a lot of things worse for a lot of people, a law that will 
have an effect not consistent with the lofty sounding title of that 
law, an effect that will actually result, in many instances, in health 
care that is both unfair and less affordable.
  We have to think about what our responsibilities are. We have to 
think

[[Page S6780]]

every single day about how this is going to affect the American people. 
We have to be willing to say we are not going to allow certain things 
to persist, things that would harm the American people, and that means 
we have to listen to the American people when they cry out for help.
  They have cried out for help in recent weeks as they have asked 
Congress again and again to defund ObamaCare, as they have asked 
Congress to keep government funded. They don't want a shutdown. We 
don't want a shutdown. I know I don't want a shutdown. I don't think 
Senator Cruz wants a shutdown. In fact, I don't think I know any Member 
of Congress of either House or either political party representing any 
of our country's 50 States who wants a shutdown.
  What we want is to keep government funded. What the American people 
want is for us to fund government while defunding ObamaCare. That is 
precisely what the House of Representatives has done. I salute the 
House of Representatives. The House of Representatives, the Republican 
leadership, has been thinking about it. They have been thinking about 
this law and the many problems it threatens to create for our Nation's 
300 million-plus people.
  We have to think about the fact that every time we make a law we are 
expanding the reach of this government. We have to think about the fact 
that we became an independent nation, a nation that flies its own flag 
rather than the Union Jack, a nation that pays tribute to the 
sovereignty of the people rather than to the supposed sovereignty of a 
monarch. A couple of centuries ago this was not just an act of 
rejection of the idea of having a monarch, this was not just a 
rejection of the Union Jack, this was not just a statement to the 
effect that we did not want to sing ``God Save the King'' or ``God Save 
the Queen.'' We became our own Republic at least in part because we 
were subject then to a large distant national government, a large 
distant national government that was so far from the people that it was 
sometimes slow to respond to the needs of the people, and that national 
government based not in Washington, DC, because Washington, DC, did not 
exist then. What is now Washington DC was then part of the colony of 
Maryland.
  Our national capital, based in London, taxed the people too much. It 
regulated the people too aggressively, too oppressively. When the 
people called out for help, that government was slow to respond to 
their needs--in part because it was so far from them, so distant from 
them. It was not just distant from them in terms of measurement, in 
terms of geography, but also distant from them in that its interests 
were somewhat detached from those of the American people.
  Ultimately we became our own country. Ultimately we declared our 
independence, we fought for it, we won our independence. Instinctively, 
reflexively, quite understandably we established a national government 
because we knew we would need one. We knew that each of these Thirteen 
Colonies could not exist independently as a freestanding Republic. We 
knew we would need a national government to provide for those basic 
things that a national government generally must provide.
  We knew that national governments, at least our national government 
in this circumstance, would need to be in charge of a few basic things 
such as national defense. Yet we feared what national governments could 
do because we know that when governments become big there is a greater 
risk toward tyranny--even if it is a type of tyranny that exists only 
by degrees. We knew that the risk of this kind of tyranny--some might 
call it soft or incremental tyranny--exists even in republics, even 
when democratic forces are at play. We knew this type of risk of soft 
tyranny, as some would describe it, is greatest within national 
governments.
  The bigger the nation, the more powerful the government and the fewer 
the restrictions on that government, the greater the risk that the 
rights of the people will be undermined; the greater the risk the 
people of that great nation will become subjects rather than 
sovereigns--which of course they should always be.
  So for that very purpose we put in place a very limited-purpose 
national government, originally under the Articles of Confederation. We 
put together a weak national government. It was so weak in fact it was 
ineffective. It was not able to do the things our basic national 
government needed to do. Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, 
had some powers but they proved to be not enough. It had no power of 
raising revenue independently of the States. It had no power of 
regulating commerce or trade between the States and with foreign 
countries. So after a period of just a few years under the Articles of 
Confederation, our Founding Fathers came together in that hot, fateful 
summer of 1787 in Philadelphia and they put together a compromise 
document. They said we need a national government that is at once 
strong enough to be able to do what a National Government must be able 
to do in order to protect us so we can be a nation. Yet we also need 
those powers to be sufficiently limited that the risk of tyranny, even 
incremental tyranny or tyranny by degrees, will be kept to a minimum.
  So our Founding Fathers wisely came up with a list, a list of powers 
that we knew the national government would need powers that we knew 
needed to be exercised at the national level. Those powers, the vast 
majority of which are found in one part of the Constitution--often 
overlooked but perhaps the single most important portion of the 
Constitution, at least for our purposes here--the part of the 
Constitution we have to look to more frequently here, article I, 
section 8.
  Article I, section 8, has 18 clauses and goes through the basic 
powers of Congress. Congress, of course, has the power to tax and the 
power to spend within the powers authorized by the Constitution. 
Congress has the power to regulate trade--referred to in the 
Constitution as commerce--among the States, with foreign nations and 
among the Indian tribes. Congress has the power to coin money and 
regulate the value thereof; develop the uniform set of laws governing 
naturalization or what we would today call immigration; the power to 
provide for our national defense; to declare war; the power to come up 
with a system of laws dealing with bankruptcy; to establish a uniform 
system of weights and measures; to establish postal roads. There are a 
few other powers, but this is the basic gist of them.
  Then there is my favorite power, the power to grant Letters of Marque 
and Reprisal, a power that we too often fail to recognize, a power I 
wish we would get to debate and discuss longer and more frequently in 
the Senate. A Letter of Marque and Reprisal was effectively a hall pass 
issued by the U.S. Congress in the name of the U.S. Government that 
entitles the bearer of that hall pass to be a pirate on the high seas. 
Regardless of how long I might serve in the Senate, I hope one day to 
be granted a Letter of Marque and Reprisal so I can become a pirate as 
I longed to be as a child. You are all invited to join me when I get 
that Letter of Marque and Reprisal.
  The point is the powers of Congress are limited. These are powers 
that James Madison cited in defending the Constitution against people 
who questioned him, against those who feared this Constitution might 
give rise to a general purpose national government, one empowered with 
so many powers that it could become a tyrant. He tried to set at ease 
the concerns of the people in Federalist 45 when he said:

       The powers that would be granted to the newly established 
     federal government upon ratification of the Constitution are 
     few and defined while those reserved to the States are 
     numerous and indefinite.

  He was right and he was persuasive. Upon the advice of James Madison 
and others, the States ratified the Constitution. They did so with that 
very understanding, that this body, the legislative body created by the 
Constitution, the U.S. Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of 
Representatives, would possess legislative powers that were not so 
broad as to encompass all the day-to-day interactions of human beings. 
We would not possess what people refer to as general police powers. We 
do not have the power to make whatever law we think is a good idea. A 
good idea is not nearly enough. We have to find something in the 
Constitution that puts us in charge of legislating within that area to 
promote that good idea. We have to find something in the Constitution 
that gives us the power to do it.

[[Page S6781]]

  During the first 100, maybe 150 years of our Republic as it operated 
under the Constitution, we followed pretty closely this document, what 
some describe as the enumerated powers doctrine. Sure, there were 
arguments from time to time over this or that legislative proposal. 
There were arguments that arose, for example, over whether we should 
have a national bank.
  You had debates among and between the political branches of 
government, meaning Congress and the Presidency, that often centered on 
the principles of the Constitution. It was very common to have 
constitutional concerns brought up on the floor of this body or on the 
floor of the House of Representatives as a basis for halting serious 
consideration of a legislative proposal on grounds that it simply was 
not within Congress's power to enact.
  It was not necessarily considered acceptable to say let's let another 
branch of government think about it. Let's let the Supreme Court iron 
it out. Let's let the Supreme Court decide whether it is 
constitutional. Within the political branches of government, frequently 
proposals were stopped on grounds that they were unconstitutional.
  Fast forward 130, 140, 150 years, and things started to change. The 
Supreme Court, early in the administration of President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt, pushed back on a lot of FDR's more aggressive attempts to 
expand the reach, the size, the scope, the cost of the Federal 
Government. It resisted those and said: Look, regardless of what the 
policy merits might be of this Federal program or that one, we still 
have a limited purpose as the Federal Government and not an all-purpose 
national government. That limited purpose--the national government--has 
to find something in the Constitution each time it legislates. If it 
fails to do that, then no matter how good of an idea it is, it can't 
fly.

  By the end of F.D.R.'s Presidency, the Court changed course. There 
are a number of reasons for this, but the prevailing theory is that the 
Supreme Court got scared. It got scared as a result of F.D.R.'s Court-
packing plan.
  In 1935, the Supreme Court moved into its new building across the 
street, the shining marble palace we see just outside the door to the 
Senate. The Justices liked their new white marble palace. They enjoyed 
it. They didn't want F.D.R., or any other President, raining on their 
parade by packing the Court and fundamentally altering the nature of 
the Court's composition. So for that reason, many theorized, the Court 
changed its position. The Court stopped resisting F.D.R.'s attempts at 
expanding the Federal Government's power.
  People trace the change in jurisprudence to a number of different 
moments. I think one of the pivotal moments occurred in 1937 when the 
Supreme Court of the United States decided a case called the NLRB v. 
Jones & Laughlin Steel Company. In that case, the Supreme Court adopted 
an early version of what has become its modern common clause 
jurisprudence. The Supreme Court started concluding that where there is 
an activity that is commercial or economic in nature, Congress may 
regulate that activity so long as there is a substantial connection 
between that activity and interstate commerce. It was in that case that 
the Supreme Court, for the first time, smiled upon Federal regulation 
of what were previous to that time considered local activities, such as 
labor, manufacturing, agriculture, and mining.
  That is not to say those things should not be regulated by any 
government anywhere. It is not to say the Supreme Court--prior to NLRB 
v. Jones & Laughlin Steel--ever suggested otherwise, but it is to 
suggest that prior to that case regulation of local activities, such as 
labor, manufacturing, agriculture, and mining were considered more 
appropriate for State and local governments and not for our national 
government. Within the next 5 years, the Supreme Court solidified its 
position on the commerce clause, and in many respects it allowed its 
power to reach a high watermark in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.
  Let's talk about that case for just a minute because I think it bears 
on what we are talking about. That case involved a farmer by the name 
of Roscoe Filburn. He got in trouble with the law. You might be asking 
yourselves: What did farmer Roscoe Filburn do? What did he do to get in 
trouble with the Feds? Was he a bank robber? No, he didn't rob a bank. 
Was he a drug dealer? No, he didn't do that. Was he a murderer or a 
kidnapper? No. You want to know what Roscoe Filburn did? He committed a 
grave offense against the United States. He grew too much wheat. Yes, 
scary but true. Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than Congress, in its 
infinite wisdom, saw fit for any American to grow in any 1 single year.
  By then Congress decided it needed to regulate every aspect of human 
existence, if possible. It even had the wisdom and foresight necessary 
to direct the entire economy right down to how much wheat a particular 
farmer could legally grow. Roscoe Filburn was fined many thousands of 
dollars for growing too much wheat. That was a lot of money in those 
days.
  Fortunately, Mr. Filburn had a good lawyer. Mr. Filburn was 
determined not to allow his life to be micromanaged by Federal 
officials in Washington, DC. Mr. Filburn challenged the enforcement of 
this law against him with a theory. He said: Look, the statute I have 
been accused of violating was enacted pursuant to the commerce clause 
of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 3. The commerce 
clause applies to interstate commerce or commerce for trade occurring 
between the States and not intrastate commerce--commerce within a 
State. Commerce which is within a particular State is not subject to 
Congress's authority and the commerce clause.
  Roscoe Filburn argued--through his lawyer--that the wheat he grew in 
excess of the national wheat production limit never entered interstate 
commerce because it never entered commerce at all. Roscoe Filburn used 
that wheat entirely on his farm. He used some of it to feed his 
animals, some of it to feed his own family, and he reserved the balance 
of that grain to use as seed for the following season.
  So on that basis, he said: Look, you can get after me for any reason 
you want. You can get after me, if you want, for violating this wheat 
production limit, but the fact is this law can have no application here 
because this wheat never entered interstate commerce or any other form 
of commerce. It never left my farm.
  Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court of the United States saw it 
differently. The Supreme Court of the United States found that even 
that wheat that never left Roscoe Filburn's farm was subject to the 
long arm of Congress and the long arm of the Federal Government. It was 
subject to that same Federal power that James Madison once described as 
few and defined. All of a sudden the supposedly few and defined powers 
were broad enough somehow to extend to Roscoe Filburn's pernicious 
wheat.
  The Supreme Court said, in essence, that this wheat, because it was 
grown and used on Roscoe Filburn's farm in excess of the grain 
production limit imposed by Federal law, it was grain that Roscoe 
Filburn would have otherwise purchased but did not have to purchase on 
the open market, a market that was distinctively interstate.
  Because he grew it and used it on the farm and did not buy it 
somewhere else, thus by growing too much wheat, Roscoe Filburn 
shamefully distorted and undermined the interstate market and wheat. He 
undermined it in the sense that it drove the price in a different 
direction than Congress, in its infinite judgment, saw fit to direct 
the economy. So the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the fine 
that was assessed against Roscoe Filburn. The reasoning of the Supreme 
Court employed in Wickard v. Filburn is a fascinating study in legal 
and verbal gymnastics. It is a fascinating study in the idea that 
everything affects everything else. They basically said that the wheat 
Roscoe Filburn grew on his farm affects the interstate wheat market in 
much the same way that butterflies flapping their wings in Brazil can 
affect weather patterns in North America.

  We are somehow asked to have faith that this does, in fact, happen. I 
am told that climatologists can prove there is an impact by the 
butterflies in South America on weather patterns in North America. I 
don't know how, but you have to make a lot of inferences

[[Page S6782]]

before you get there. But as many inferences as has to be made with the 
butterflies, I think there are even more inferences that have to be 
drawn with respect to Roscoe Filburn's wheat.
  I remember studying this case in my high school history class. I 
remember arguing with my history teacher about this. I remember my 
history teacher eventually telling me: Get over it, Mr. Lee. The 
Federal Government is big and powerful, and that is just the way things 
are. Yet I think we have a certain responsibility to look back through 
our history and to question from time to time the judgments of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, especially when those judgments 
enable the Congress to extend its power far beyond what Madison 
described as few and defined powers.
  In a sense, what we have done ever since Wickard v. Filburn is we 
continued to expand Federal authority beyond that. We have never fully 
retreated from that high watermark. What we have seen is a perpetually 
expanding national government, one that is capable of imposing an 
estimated $2 trillion in Federal regulatory compliance costs alone, a 
Federal Government that imposes a couple of more trillion dollars in 
taxes a year from the American people, and manages to spend between 
$3.5 and $4 trillion every single year. That is a very big government.
  Since Wickard v. Filburn, there are only two instances in which the 
Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated an act of Congress 
as being beyond the scope of Congress's power under the commerce 
clause. Sometimes I almost add a third, but then I remember the Supreme 
Court stopped short on that third.
  The first two involved a case called the United States v. Lopez, 
which is a case from 1995 where the Supreme Court invalidated the Gun-
Free School Zones Act prohibiting the bare possession of a handgun 
within a school zone. The Supreme Court concluded that the bare 
possession of a gun was not commercial activity at all. It was not 
interstate commercial activity. It was not interstate commerce, and 
they couldn't get to the point where they could conclude that this was 
a valid subject of Congress's commerce clause authority.
  The second case was decided in 2000. It was a case called the United 
States v. Morrison in which the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of 
the Violence Against Women Act, including that those provisions 
attempted to regulate acts of violence, however reprehensible, were 
themselves neither interstate or commercial.
  Then, of course, in 2012 the Supreme Court sort of invalidated the 
penalty provisions attached to the individual mandate in the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act. I say they sort of invalidated that 
provision because the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that 
provision, though enacted pursuant to the commerce clause, could not be 
defended as a valid exercise of Congress's power under the commerce 
clause. To that extent, they concluded it was unconstitutional.
  But then the Supreme Court went on somehow to conclude that this was 
a valid exercise of Congress's power to impose taxes even though 
Congress had attempted unsuccessfully to pass this as a tax, even 
though new taxes have to be introduced in the House of Representatives 
and passed into law by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by 
the President, even though the Supreme Court of the United States has 
no authority to levy taxes, impose taxes or create taxes.
  The Supreme Court of the United States created out of whole cloth a 
new tax which it imposed on the American people. They imposed a middle-
class tax hike, which the Court has no power to impose. It has no power 
to levy taxes. Yet the Court did it anyway.
  When I tell that story, I get asked all the time: How then did the 
Court do it? If the Court has no power to do it, how did it do it? It 
just did. It just declared it to be so and the rest of us were expected 
to accept that and get over it and move on, just as I was told by my 
high school history teacher to accept, get over, and move on from 
Wickard v. Filburn because the Federal Government is big and powerful 
and we can live with it. Well, we all just have to live with it but 
only as long as the American people put up with it, only as long as the 
American people are willing to accept it.

  The American people have never been enthusiastic about ObamaCare--not 
from the beginning. Their satisfaction with this law has not improved 
over time, and it has not been enhanced. The American people don't 
deserve to have to live under a law that imposes a massive middle-class 
tax hike on the American people, one that was not imposed by the 
people's elected representatives in Congress but instead was imposed by 
five of nine lawyers who wear black robes and sit in big fancy chairs 
in the building just across the street from us.
  The American people deserve to live under a system where the laws are 
written by men and women of their own choosing, who serve in increments 
of 2 years in the case of Members of the House of Representatives and 
in increments of 6 years in the case of U.S. Senators.
  Supreme Court Justices, of course, are smart men and women--every one 
of them. They are very intelligent, well-trained individuals. I am 
convinced that each and every one of them loves this country and wants 
to serve it well. Yet the members of the Supreme Court of the United 
States are not elected. They are not subject to election at regular 
intervals, and that is one of the many reasons we don't trust them with 
the power to write law. It is one of the many reasons we don't trust 
them with the power to impose taxes. They are there to decide cases and 
controversies based on the law and the facts before them.
  In the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, they 
rewrote the law not just once but twice--once by transforming what was 
enacted as a penalty into a tax in order to save that law from an 
otherwise certain doom, a doom necessitated by important constitutional 
limitations; the second time when the Court concluded by an even wider 
margin--7 to 2--that Congress had violated the Constitution by imposing 
on the States a mandate to expand their Medicaid Programs without 
giving them any reasonable alternative, any available alternative. The 
Supreme Court, again by a 5-to-4 margin, after 7 to 2--after the 
Justices, by a margin of 7 to 2, had found that this was 
unconstitutional, five of them--by a margin of 5 to 4--saved the 
provisions simply by rewriting the law, by inserting into the law an 
exception in the law that the law did not provide.
  I believe it may have been Shakespeare who originally penned the 
words ``he will cheat without scruple who can without fear.'' I have 
also heard it attributed to Benjamin Franklin. I am not sure which of 
them was the originator of that quote, but I have heard it attributed 
to both. Regardless, there has to be a legal corollary to that. When 
Supreme Court Justices are able to make law, when Supreme Court 
Justices are able to impose taxes and no one calls them out on it, that 
is when the people have to live with that. That is when they get away 
with it. That is when they are allowed to cheat the American people out 
of their right to have their laws made by men and women of their own 
choosing, to have their taxes increased, if at all, only by men and 
women of their own choosing. This was wrong. This was a dastardly, 
cowardly act, one we can't simply ignore.
  One of the things I found so offensive, so appalling, so disturbing, 
so distressing was the fact that in the wake of this decision, so many 
people--many of them from my own political party--praised Chief Justice 
Roberts for his participation in this dastardly, inexcusable act of 
rewriting the Affordable Care Act not just once but twice in order to 
save it. They praised him. Some of them said that this showed he was 
willing to cross the aisle at the Supreme Court. Well, that is a 
problem. There is no aisle in the Supreme Court of the United States. 
They sit along a bench. At the center of the bench is the Chief 
Justice. There isn't an aisle. In fact, particularly once they have 
been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Supreme 
Court Justices operate in a world in which partisan political 
affiliation has no meaning. This wasn't reaching across the aisle.
  Some suggested that this was somehow a statesman-like act by the 
Chief Justice, an act that revealed that he was willing to sort of 
balance various

[[Page S6783]]

interests, an act that some Republicans even were convinced was 
carefully and wisely engineered to procure a Republican partisan 
victory in the 2012 election cycle. That is absolutely nonsense, first 
of all. As a political matter, we saw that it turned out not to work at 
all. I don't necessarily think there is any validity to the theory that 
that is what the Chief Justice was trying to bring about. If it was, 
that would amount to an utter betrayal of his judicial oath. It would 
also reveal him to be a really bad political tactician, but that is not 
the Chief Justice's job. It is not the job of any justice or any 
jurist. The job of any jurist is to decide each case before the court 
based on the law and the facts of the particular case.

  Some have suggested that this was designed to protect the enumerated 
powers doctrine or at least the idea that there is some limit to 
Congress's power under the commerce clause. I believe that is utter 
nonsense. This didn't do that. In fact, I think it blew a hole a mile 
wide in the enumerated powers doctrine because what this suggested is 
that, OK, the Supreme Court is going to pay at least lipservice to the 
idea that the power of Congress is, in fact, limited. But if Congress 
colors outside the lines, if Congress doesn't utter the magic words, if 
Congress really does something quite wrong in drafting such that its 
power can no longer be appropriately assigned, its power can no longer 
be appropriately justified under the commerce clause, then all of a 
sudden the Supreme Court of the United States will find some other 
basis in the Constitution upon which to rest this authority.
  This is really disturbing because if the Supreme Court can do that 
and if the Supreme Court can do that even to raise taxes, then Congress 
can pass all kinds of laws in theory purporting to be simply exercises 
of its regulatory power under the commerce clause and then rely on the 
Supreme Court of the United States to say: Yes, OK, this may not be a 
valid exercise of Congress's power under the commerce clause, but we 
will rewrite it as a tax. We will rewrite it as a tax and thereby 
uphold it, thereby stand behind it.
  So we get back to the question--a question I get asked all the time 
by people around my State, by people across the country when they hear 
about this decision. They ask: How can the Supreme Court of the United 
States do this? How can the Supreme Court of the United States get away 
with it?
  Well, they can do it because they wear the black robes. They can do 
it because they have the printing press that prints out those decisions 
with the fancy wording of the Supreme Court behind it. They can do it 
because the people still regard the decisions, the rulings of the 
Supreme Court of the United States as legitimate.
  I do have to point out another aspect of this ruling. In the same 
ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate 
provision was a valid exercise of the taxing power, the Supreme Court 
of the United States also said--with, by the way, the concurrence of 
Chief Justice Roberts, who was the author of the majority opinion 
upholding it as a valid exercise of the taxing power--that same opinion 
authored by the same Chief Justice concluded that this same provision 
was not a tax for purposes of a law called the Anti-Injunction Act. Had 
the Supreme Court of the United States not reached that conclusion, had 
it reached the same conclusion under the Anti-Injunction Act that it 
reached under the constitutional aspect of the challenge, and had the 
Court concluded that this was, in fact, a tax and not a penalty, as it 
did under the constitutional analysis, then the Supreme Court of the 
United States would have been without jurisdiction to hear the case 
because the Anti-Injunction Act said: If it is a tax, you can't review 
the statute being challenged until after it has been enforced, which 
meant that no legal, no judicial challenge could have been properly 
brought, could have been countenanced by an article III court of the 
United States until, at the earliest, sometime in 2014, after 
enforcement of the individual mandate began.
  So it was very odd that the Court, led by the same Chief Justice, 
concluded at once that this was a tax for purposes of constitutional 
analysis but that it was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction 
Act. Here again, how does the Court get away with that? It gets away 
with it because we recognize the validity, the legitimacy of the 
decision.
  But the more people learn about this, the more they read about it, 
the more they become upset. I have yet to explain this to a constituent 
who isn't deeply disturbed by it. I have yet to explain this to anyone 
who can really defend it on its own merits.
  So we see that this was a law that was put in place quite improperly. 
It was a law that was put in place not by an elected legislative body 
but instead by a judiciary that, at least for purposes of this case, 
transformed itself into a judicial oligarchy of sorts, a judicial 
legislative body--one of the many reasons we need to defund the 
implementation of this law. It was unconstitutional as written in two 
respects and would have been invalidated but for the Supreme Court of 
the United States rewriting it not just once but twice.
  We have to ask ourselves these questions from time to time: Where do 
we go with this? What do we do with it? That is where we get back to 
where we are now, where the House of Representatives boldly stood 
behind the American people and decided to keep funding the government, 
funding the operations of government while defunding ObamaCare. That 
bill, that continuing resolution is now moving over here. That 
continuing resolution is now before us.
  Sometimes we have to ask ourselves these questions of what is it that 
we are funding, why is it that we are funding it, and why is it that we 
should continue to stand behind a law that is causing so much harm to 
the American people--a law that was improperly brought into being in 
the first place, a law that was improperly upheld and sustained, 
ultimately rewritten by the Court, improperly, unconstitutionally 
rewritten by the President of the United States.
  So I wish to ask Senator Cruz, does the Senator know how long the 
Hundred Years War lasted?
  Mr. CRUZ. Well, I thank my friend from Utah for his remarkable 
discourse on constitutional law.
  As for the latest question he asked, one might think the Hundred 
Years War lasted 100 years, but think again.
  It was 116 years.
  Things are not always as they seem.
  (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. LEE. Can the Senator tell me, where do Chinese gooseberries come 
from?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for this question. Most would say China. But think 
again. Chinese gooseberries actually come from New Zealand.
  The way things are labeled are not always, in fact, what they are.
  Mr. LEE. If the Senator will yield for another question.
  Mr. CRUZ. I will yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. LEE. Commercial airplanes, as far as I know, all airplanes in the 
United States, have within them something called a black box--a black 
box that records the events of the cockpit. It also records critical 
operating data from the airplane so that in the event of an accident, 
the data and the voice recordings can be reviewed to try to figure out 
what happened.
  Does the Senator know what color the black box is?
  Mr. CRUZ. I say to Senator Lee, I do. A lot of people would say it 
must be black. If we were dealing with ordinary English language, it 
would be black. But perhaps airplane manufacturers think like Congress 
because the black box on an airplane is orange.
  Mr. LEE. There is something called a Panama hat. Can the Senator tell 
me what part of the world the Panama hat comes from?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will yield for that question and note it could possibly 
be Panama. You might think if you call it a Panama hat it would make 
sense that it would be Panama. But, no, think again. Ecuador. Ecuador 
makes Panama hats. I do not know that anyone makes Ecuador hats.
  Mr. LEE. The device known as a camel's hair brush, does the Senator 
know what it is made of?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for that question. Curiously enough, I do. You 
might think a camel's hair brush must be made of camel's hair. There 
are lots of

[[Page S6784]]

camels. They have hair. Surely you can make a brush. Well, maybe you 
can. I do not know if you can. But a camel's hair brush is made of 
squirrel fur. It makes you wonder. The squirrels apparently have a very 
bad marketing department if they give their fur that gets credited to 
the camels.
  Mr. LEE. What color is a purple finch?
  Mr. CRUZ. Again, I will yield for the purpose of that question to 
note a purple finch--listen, similar to most husbands, I have a color 
palate of about six colors. I remember once my wife asked me, with 
regard to a tile--we were redoing our bathroom. It was a white tile. 
She was long distance. She said: What shade of white? I will note that 
was a question I was utterly incapable of responding to. I was not 
aware there were shades of white, and my vocabulary does not cover such 
things. I finally dropped it in a FedEx envelope and simply sent it to 
her. I was like: It is a white tile. I know nothing beyond that.
  But yet your question: What color is a purple finch? I would tend to 
think it would be purple, but I would think wrong if that were the case 
because a purple finch is crimson red.
  Mr. LEE. There is a chain of islands off the coast of Spain, a chain 
of islands known as the Canary Islands. Can the Senator tell me after 
what animal were these islands named?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will yield for the purpose of that question as well. 
Indeed, I can tell you that. Now, you would think, if you call a chain 
of islands the Canary Islands, it must be a bird, maybe a bird in a 
coal mine but some sort of bird. Think again. The Canary Islands are 
named after a dog. I would note, the Canary Islands are a chain of 
islands I have some real connection to because my grandfather, my 
father's father, was born in the Canary Islands. Indeed, he moved to 
Cuba when he was 1, was raised in Cuba. My father was born in Cuba, was 
raised in Cuba.
  The lesson from all of these is striking. Labels do not always mean 
what they say. Some might wonder, what does this chain of insightful 
questions from my friend, the junior Senator from Utah--how does it 
relate to the issue of ObamaCare?
  If we look at Senator Lee's tremendous discourse of the 
Constitution--and I would note, by the way, there is not another 
Senator in the Senate who could give that constitutional lecture that 
my friend Senator Lee did, sharing with this body. I wish all 100 of us 
had been here to hear that because a lot of Senators--all Senators 
would be well served by learning or relearning those basic 
constitutional principles.
  Mr. LEE. But the question is, Would any of them be willing to listen 
to it or interested in it or would most of them consider it a form of 
torture?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for the purpose of that question as well--and they 
might well.
  One of the striking things--and although under the rules of the 
Senate I am not allowed to ask Senator Lee a question, I can pose a 
rhetorical question to the body, and should Senator Lee have thoughts 
on that rhetorical question, he can choose to ask me a question that 
might contain his thoughts on that rhetorical question posed to the 
body.
  So given that sort of convoluted reasoning, which may explain why we 
are in the Senate with the odd and precarious procedures that govern 
this body, I am going to ask this rhetorical question to the body, 
which is, Senator Lee explained that the Supreme Court of the United 
States upheld ObamaCare, after concluding it exceeded the commerce 
clause authority of Congress, by concluding that it was a tax. By 
calling it a tax, it was able to force it into a different line of 
jurisprudence and uphold it under the taxing clause, the taxing power 
of Congress.
  I would ask rhetorically of this body, was it an accident that the 
ObamaCare statute did not call the individual mandate a tax? Maybe it 
was a scribe's error. Maybe it was they meant to call it a tax, they 
thought it was a tax, and a clerk writing just wrote the wrong word. So 
instead of ``tax,'' the word ``penalty.'' Surely that is not 
consequential. It must purely have been an accident. As a related 
component of that, was it an accident that the President of the United 
States went on national television and told the people of America, 
while this was under consideration, this is not a tax.

  He affirmatively said this is not a tax.
  Mind you, the argument that the U.S. Department of Justice made, the 
Obama administration made to the Supreme Court was this is a tax, 
although the statute did not say it. The argument the Supreme Court 
ultimately found persuasive was: This is a tax, although the statute 
said it was a penalty and not a tax.
  The question I would rhetorically pose is: Was it an accident or is 
there perhaps another reason why elected politicians would not call 
something a tax?
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will be happy to yield for the purpose of a question.
  Mr. LEE. Hearing the Senator from Texas, I started humming the theme 
to ``Jeopardy,'' while stating lots of these things in the form of a 
question. It does occur to me it is absolutely certain there was a 
reason why this was not called a tax when it was presented to the 
Congress. The reason is tax hikes are unpopular. Tax hikes are 
especially unpopular when they are directed at the American middle 
class. Tax hikes are especially unpopular when they are directed at the 
American middle class, when they are presented by a President who ran 
specifically on a campaign of not raising taxes on the American middle 
class, which, of course, nearly all candidates for President will 
promise and in this case did promise.
  So, no, it is not by any means an accident that this happened--the 
fact that language, consistent with 100 years' worth of jurisprudence, 
language that was used in this law, created a penalty. There is a very 
clear distinction between a penalty under Federal law and a tax under 
Federal law. A tax under Federal law is something that is an 
obligation, a generalized obligation to fund government; whereas, a 
penalty is something that involves both a requirement under Federal law 
and a provision exacting a payment as something that occurs in response 
to noncompliance with that requirement. So no, this was not an accident 
at all.
  So I would ask Senator Cruz whether this aspect of the Affordable 
Care Act--and also the fact that ObamaCare is called the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act--doesn't it strike the Senator that 
this, in so many ways, is a misnomer in much the same way that the 
Hundred Years' War did not last 100 years, Chinese gooseberries come 
not from China but from New Zealand, that the black box is orange, that 
Panama hats come from Ecuador, that camel hair brushes are made of 
squirrel fur--by the way, I do not ever want to try one of those; it 
does not sound pleasant--that the purple finch is actually red and that 
the Canary Islands are named after a dog? So, too, the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act is a name that does not accurately 
describe the finished product because this is a law that will make 
health care less affordable rather than more, and it is a law that 
subjects patients to a lot of harm rather than protecting them.
  Does that mean we should think again about ObamaCare in the same way 
that we need to think again in the answers to some of these questions?
  Mr. CRUZ. I think the good Senator from Utah is exactly correct. 
Indeed, as he quite rightly explained, it was not an accident that 
Congress deliberately did not call the individual mandate in ObamaCare 
a tax, nor was it an accident that the President of the United States 
explicitly said it is not a tax, because the effort was to represent to 
the American people that it was something quite different.
  Indeed, again, asking a question rhetorically to the body--I know 
Senator Lee is aware; I know many other Senators are aware--of a lot of 
cases in the Supreme Court, the commandeering line of cases that 
provides that one of the things this body cannot do, Congress cannot 
do, is commandeer a State legislature, commandeer a State lawmaking 
apparatus or a State executive agency to implement, to carry out 
Federal law and Federal policy.
  Indeed, the Supreme Court has explained the reasoning behind the 
commandeering line of cases; that fundamental to our democratic system, 
fundamental to our constitutional system is the notion of 
accountability, the notion that the voters should be able to determine 
who is it that put this policy in place.

[[Page S6785]]

  If Congress could commandeer and force State legislatures to carry 
out Federal policies, it might be that voters would get mad at the 
State legislators, and they would be mad at the wrong people because if 
the decisions were coming from Congress and yet it was the State 
legislators being commandeered into acting, that would frustrate the 
principles of accountability that underlie our constitutional 
structure.
  So the Supreme Court has explained that to make the democratic system 
work, the voters need to be able to understand who has made a decision, 
what that decision is, and if they do not like it, they need to be able 
to, as they say colloquially, throw the bums out.
  The Affordable Care Act in Congress, declining to call it a tax. I 
might ask, did the Supreme Court's rewriting the statute to call it a 
tax for Congress, to call it a tax for the President--despite the fact 
that both had said it was not--did that contravene the accountability 
principles that underlie the Supreme Court's commandeering doctrine 
that underlie the constitutional principles of, frankly, a republican 
form of government, where we may know who our elected officials are and 
what their actions are, and that they may be held accountable for those 
actions so that a democratic republic can function?
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will yield for the purpose of a question without yielding 
the floor.
  Mr. LEE. It occurs to me, as I think of this question that I am about 
to ask the Senator, that, inevitably, one constitutional violation 
facilitates another. It cannot be that you violate one aspect of the 
Constitution, in this circumstance, especially, where you are tinkering 
with the lawmaking power in ways that impact both federalism--the 
relative power of States and localities, on the one hand, vis-a-vis the 
Federal Government on the other hand--and also when you manipulate the 
power to legislate, the power to impose taxes.
  Anytime you distort the operation of the legislative power, anytime 
you allow the judicial branch to commandeer the legislative machinery 
from Congress, you are also distorting the accountability you describe. 
In other words, you have in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act a massive intrusion by the Federal Government into the sovereign 
authority that is retained by the States and by the people.
  The bigger the legislative package, the bigger the intrusion, and the 
greater the potential threat to federalism. The more removed that 
legislative package is from the people's elected representatives in the 
House and in the Senate, the greater the potential distortion that is 
at play in the constitutional system.
  What we have at the end of the day is a new tax. Nobody knows who to 
blame. When the people are upset that they are going to be paying this 
tax, who do they blame? They go to their Members of Congress. You ask 
any Member of Congress who is still here who was here when this was 
enacted, any Member of Congress who voted for the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act, and I can pretty well guarantee you they are 
going to say: Oh, no, I did not vote for a middle-class tax hike. I did 
not vote to impose a new tax on middle-class Americans. No. No. I voted 
for this, but I did not vote for that because this imposed a penalty 
and not a tax.
  I know that because even in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in 
2012, people who supported this legislation in the House and in the 
Senate and in the White House continued to insist: No, this is not a 
tax, this is a penalty. This notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme 
Court of the United States concluded it could not be upheld as a 
penalty, that it can be upheld only as an exercise of Congress's 
authority to tax, an authority which Congress decidedly did not 
exercise. So the accountability is thrown off severely.
  This is what prompted me to introduce a piece of legislation, S. 560. 
S. 560, which stands in rather stark contrast to the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act with its 2,700 pages and 20,000 pages of 
implementing regulations--S. 560, 1 page.
  Here is what it says, to paraphrase: Section 1501 of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, the individual mandates provision, 
is hereby amended as follows: Nothing in this provision shall be 
interpreted as a tax or as a valid exercise of Congress's power to tax 
pursuant to article I, Section 8, clause 1, or the 16th Amendment.
  You see, the part of S. 560 is that it gives those who voted for 
ObamaCare, those in Congress who still defend ObamaCare, something 
other than a tax on the middle class, an opportunity to register that 
belief, to register that belief by a vote, a vote that would say yes, I 
do not believe this is a tax, and it should not be considered as a tax 
by the courts, and it should not be upheld by the courts as a tax. It 
should not be construed under any circumstance as a tax, because we do 
not regard it as that.
  The interesting thing, of course, is that that is naturally the way 
people who are the law's biggest defenders would like to vote in some 
respects, because they want to tell the American public, and they are 
still telling the American public: It is not a tax, it is a penalty. 
But if, in fact, they actually put their vote in that direction, if 
they put their money where their mouth is and they pass that into law, 
guess what happens to the Supreme Court's ruling. What would happen to 
the Supreme Court's ruling in that circumstance, if we were to pass S. 
560 into law? Let's assume that somehow magically it passed the House 
and the Senate and President Obama signed it. Perhaps it united both 
parties behind this concept that this is not a tax. What then would 
become of the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act on that basis?
  Mr. CRUZ. It is an excellent question from Senator Lee. The answer is 
quite simple. If Congress acted to make clear that nothing in the 
Affordable Care Act created a tax, that would remove the entire basis 
for the Supreme Court's upholding ObamaCare. Indeed, it would be a 
relatively simple matter in subsequent litigation for the Court to 
conclude under the matter it has already concluded that the other bases 
for upholding the act are not present.
  When have you elected officials who go to the people, and go to the 
people as Senator Lee still quite rightly noted and still say it is not 
a tax, you would think they would happily vote for it, except there is 
a vested interest. I would note there is a difference between calling 
this a tax when Congress said and says it is not, and the examples we 
went through of the Hundred Years War and the purple finch, and that 
those are relatively innocuous misnomers, where there is something 
designed to be actively deceptive.
  Indeed, another one you could add to that litany we went through is 
you might think if an act were titled ``An act to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, to modify the first-time homebuyer's credit in 
the case of members of the Armed Forces,'' you might think that is the 
title of an act that would concern something about the first-time 
homebuyer's credit, perhaps even members of the Armed Forces. Depending 
on the content of it, it might even be an act that Senator Lee and I 
together would support.
  Yet think again. That act is ObamaCare. This is the 2,000-plus pages 
of ObamaCare, a little bit worse for wear. Right on the cover of it on 
page 1: December 24, 2009, ordered to be printed and passed. Resolved, 
that the bill from the House of Representatives, titled H.R. 3590, 
entitled, an Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to modify 
the first-time homebuyer's credit in the case of members of the Armed 
Services and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes, 
do pass the following.
  Then what was this amendment that was done? Strike out all after the 
enacting clause and insert. Everything for the first-time homebuyer's 
credit, everything about the Armed Forces, that all got erased. The 
title stayed there but it all got erased. Suddenly, ObamaCare was born.
  That was a creature, that was a fact that came out of the procedural 
games that had to be played to force ObamaCare into law on a straight 
party-line vote. But I would note that this body has not forgotten how 
to play those games. Indeed, I would ask again rhetorically to the 
body, is the game the Democratic majority of Congress played in passing 
ObamaCare, saying it was not a tax, when in fact it was a

[[Page S6786]]

tax, when it was not a tax, any different than what right now some 
members of the Republican conference are doing when they say they will 
vote for cloture in order to give Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats 
the ability to fully fund ObamaCare, and that they will do so because 
they want to defund ObamaCare? Is that fundamentally any different, 
presenting one story to tell the voters and a different story in terms 
of what will happen in this body? When it comes to accountability, I 
wonder if we are seeing much the same games played out again, games 
that undermine the integrity of this institution, games that undermine 
the confidence the American people have that our elected 
representatives listen to us.
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for the purpose of a question without 
yielding the floor.
  Mr. LEE. It certainly is important that we call something by an 
appropriate name. It was important back then that the Congress properly 
name what it was doing. It was appropriate back then for the Congress 
to say: We are enforcing the individual mandate through a penalty and 
not through a tax. In fact, it was so important that but for Congress's 
decision to make this a penalty and not a tax, it would never have 
passed in the first place.
  What you call something and what you make of it can mean all the 
difference between passage and failure of a particular legislative 
proposal. When you dress something up in different language, something 
might appear to be more palatable than it actually is. Certainly, it 
could be argued that if there are people among us--if there are 
Republicans among us who are saying that if you support the House-
passed continuing resolution, then you must vote for cloture on the 
bill, cloture on the House-passed resolution, that would not be 
accurate, in my opinion. I would respectfully but strongly disagree 
with someone who would make that claim. I certainly do not believe it 
is accurate to say that if you support the House-passed continuing 
resolution, the one that keeps government funding but defunds ObamaCare 
at the same time, I think it would be inaccurate to say you must vote 
yes on cloture on the bill in this circumstance.
  It is not to say that in every circumstance you would have to vote 
no. In fact, it seems counterintuitive when you first approach it, say 
why would you vote no on cloture on a bill that you liked. There is one 
circumstance where I can see where you would want to do that. It is a 
circumstance in which the continuing resolution you want to support 
moves over from the House of Representatives, and there are three 
alternatives the Senate could consider, but the Senate chooses only the 
third, three doors the majority leader could choose to open. He chooses 
only the third.
  The first door is one in which he says: Okay, we are going to vote on 
this. We are going to vote on it up or down on its merits as is. We are 
going to vote on it as it was passed by the House of Representatives.
  Behind door two is another option. We are going to allow amendments. 
We are going to allow individual Members, Democrats and Republicans, to 
submit amendments as they deem fit. We will debate and discuss those 
amendments. We will consider them. We will vote on them. Some of them 
may pass, some of them may not pass. But we will get to amendments. 
Door one is okay. Door two is okay. They are both appropriate. I would 
be okay with either one. I would vote yes on cloture on the bill if we 
were going to go through either of those first two doors.
  But door three is the one the majority leader appears likely to open. 
And behind door three is a very different alternative, one where the 
majority leader says: I do not want to vote on it as is. But I also do 
not want to allow an open amendment process. In fact, I am going to 
allow one and only one amendment. That amendment will gut the 
continuing resolution passed by the House of the single most important 
provision relative to its ability to pass the House, the provision 
defunding ObamaCare.
  Door 3 is unacceptable. Door 3 is unacceptable because it allows the 
majority leader to gut the House-passed continuing resolution funding 
government but defunding ObamaCare.
  I find door 3 unacceptable. Because I find door 3 unacceptable, I am 
not going to help the majority leader get there. If he wants to get 
there with the help of himself, his own vote, and the 53 Democrats who 
follow him in his conference, that is fine. Let them do that. If he 
wants to try to convince some Republicans to join him in that effort to 
make it easier for him to gut the House-passed continuing resolution, 
to strip out the language defunding ObamaCare, then that is the 
prerogative of anyone who may go along with him. I choose not to do 
that because I was elected to fight this law, not to facilitate its 
implementation.
  I don't want to facilitate its implementation. I therefore don't want 
to facilitate the demise of what I regard as the single most important 
provision of the House-passed continuing resolution. I will therefore 
vote against cloture on the bill.
  I ask Senator Cruz, how does he view the upcoming cloture vote? I am 
speaking here not on cloture on the motion to proceed but on the 
cloture on the bill, on the House-passed bill, the continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Utah for that question.
  On the motion to proceed, on the decision of whether to take up the 
bill, I think there is widespread agreement that we should take up this 
bill as there is no more important bill we could be debating now than 
this. Indeed, in my view, there should not only be 3 Senators in this 
Chamber, there should be 100. The urgency facing this country from 
ObamaCare is such that we have nothing better to do. When James Hoffa, 
the president of the Teamsters, says that ObamaCare is a nightmare, 
frankly, Senators shouldn't be asleep while the Nation is undergoing a 
nightmare.
  The vote that matters is the vote on cloture on the bill. It will 
occur on either Friday or Saturday of this week. On that vote, 60 
Senators, vote yes for cloture. That is a vote to shut off debate, a 
vote to say we will not debate anymore. What it does is it opens the 
door, it sets the stage. It allows the majority leader Harry Reid to 
fully fund ObamaCare with just 51 Democratic votes. That means for the 
Republican side of the aisle that any Republican who votes along with 
Harry Reid--and you quite rightly know that Leader Reid and presumably 
all of the Democrats will vote for cloture on a bill with which most, 
if not all of them disagree. They get the joke. There is no mystery to 
this when the majority leader has announced: I am going to shut off all 
other amendments and I am going to add one amendment to totally gut the 
bill and to transform it, to do to this bill what they did to this 
bill.
  Can you imagine if we were debating cloture? This is actually a very 
good analogy. Imagine if this bill were coming over, the bill that was 
turning into ObamaCare, and we had the same procedural arrangement--
cloture vote first at 60 votes and then all amendments to be approved 
at 51 votes. Imagine if Republicans said: I support an act to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code to modify the first-time home buyer credit in the 
case of members of the Armed Forces. That is a good idea, so I am 
voting yes for cloture.
  That is the bill I supported. It is the bill that came over, and it 
is the bill that I have right now.
  Imagine if that were the scenario, and imagine that majority leader 
Harry Reid had announced: Once we get cloture, I am going to offer an 
amendment to strip every word of that bill you say you support, strip 
it all out and to replace it with 2,000 pages of ObamaCare.
  I would suggest that any Republican who stood up and said: I am 
voting for cloture to give Harry Reid the ability to strip out the bill 
that I support--which he said he is going to do--and to replace it with 
a bill that I say I oppose and not just oppose slightly, that I say I 
oppose passionately, I would suggest that would be beyond irrational. 
Indeed, it would be so irrational to do that, and I would suggest no 
Member of the Senate is capable of such irrationality. This means, if 
they are saying that, it is for a deliberate purpose. It is because 
they affirmatively desire that outcome and yet they wish to be able to 
tell their constituents something different. It is fundamentally the 
same dynamic that leads to the cynicism about Washington that ``our 
elected leaders don't listen to us.''

[[Page S6787]]

  I wish to note on a different front that serving in an elected office 
is a tremendous privilege. It is a humbling experience. You get to meet 
people from all over the State, sometimes from all over the country. 
You get to meet incredible people. You get to meet people who have done 
remarkable things.
  One of the people I have been privileged to meet is my colleague and 
friend Senator Mike Lee. We have learned tonight a number of 
extraordinary things about him, a number of things that border on the 
superhuman.
  No. 1, we have learned that Senator Mike Lee would be willing to 
purchase a ton of rocks and a Barry Manilow record simply to bring his 
wife milk and eggs. That is extraordinary matrimonial fidelity.
  No. 2, we have learned that Senator Mike Lee as a boy could be run 
over with a Buick filled with seven people and not have his foot 
injured. That, too, is extraordinary and superhuman.
  No. 3, we have been privileged with a tour de force constitutional 
lecture with no notes, with no materials in front of him that, frankly, 
was reminiscent to me of a former boss of mine.
  Senator Lee is the son of a legend in law. His late father, Rex Lee, 
was the Solicitor General of the United States. I did not have the 
opportunity to meet his late father but have known him by reputation 
for much of my life because he was revered as one of the finest Supreme 
Court advocates who ever lived. I think Mike was all but weaned on the 
Constitution as a young lad.
  The discourse Senator Lee just presented to this Nation reminded me 
of my boss, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who, like Senator 
Lee, had a deep love for the Constitution and, like Senator Lee, had an 
encyclopedic knowledge of the Constitution and could weave the battles 
we have had to rein in government power to protect individual liberty 
into a tapestry of narrative that explained what it is we are fighting 
for.
  I will say that as we stand here now at 3:35 in the morning, I feel 
privileged. I feel fortunate to be standing side by side with my 
friend.
  I will say this: If ever I am threatened by a Buick with seven people 
in it, I want to put Mike Lee between me and the Buick.
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield to the gentleman without yielding the floor.
  Mr. LEE. First, by way of clarification, it was not a Buick but an 
Oldsmobile.
  Those were not rocks I was purchasing in my hypothetical; it was 
instead a half ton of iron ore. I am not sure it is critical to the 
merits of the story, but I did think that deserved some clarification. 
I am not certain that I would, in fact, do that. I wish to be very 
clear. I did engage in a transaction like that.
  It does remind me of how we are often asked to vote here. We tie 
together program after program. Things are funded not on their own 
merits but on the merits of other programs. When you tie every single 
piece of government spending together, then all of a sudden it becomes 
a must-pass piece of legislation. Everybody sinks or swims together, 
and it becomes a practice of collusive spending in which Congress funds 
things not because each program deserves to be funded but because 
nobody wants to have his ox gored, and that does become a problem.
  I appreciate the Senator's comments about my late father. He has been 
dead for the last 17 years. We miss him. We have missed him every day 
since then.
  The Journal of the American Bar Association once referred to him as 
``Huck Finn in a morning suit,'' referring to the ceremonial dress worn 
by the U.S. Solicitor General. They regard him as sort of the 
Huckleberry Finn character. It was not typical that a boy from the 
Rocky Mountains, as he used to describe himself, ends up in that 
position, but he loved that position and loved it very much.
  It is worth noting that I have met the father of the junior Senator 
from Texas. He is an inspiring speaker. He is a true patriot. Even 
though he was not born or raised in this country, the Senator's father 
has a great love of the United States of America that is unparalleled, 
certainly unexceeded by almost anyone I have ever met. He is one who 
certainly can understand the angst the American people feel about laws 
like ObamaCare. He is someone who I think can understand that in many 
respects the very best kinds of jobs program the Senate could enact, as 
my friend Jared Stone from Danville, CA, recently told me, would be 
legislation defunding ObamaCare. As my friend Jared Stone pointed out 
to me, ObamaCare presents a sort of double whammy for the American 
people. At once, it imposes a massive new tax on the middle class and 
at the same time kills job opportunities for the middle class. Most 
people who work in real jobs or want to have a good job understand 
this. That is why the overwhelming majority of Americans want the 
Senate to defund ObamaCare.
  This is a principle that I think the father of the junior Senator 
from Texas understands very well. The father of the junior Senator from 
Texas came here as a young man, initially working at a restaurant 
waiting tables, as I recall. This was a young man who had escaped 
tyranny in various forms, originally the form of tyranny Cuba saw under 
Castro's predecessor, Fulgencio Batista.
  The Senator's father had quite an experience coming to this country. 
I was wondering if the junior Senator from Texas would be willing to 
share a little bit more about his father's story, the story of Rafael 
Cruz, how he came to this country, and how the Senator's father might 
look upon ObamaCare based upon his rather unique experience coming to 
this country.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Utah for his very kind comments 
regarding my father, and I will say that he and I--I will paraphrase 
Sir Isaac Newton, who said: If I have seen a little bit further, it is 
by standing on the shoulders of giants. I will say one thing. Senator 
Lee and I are both fortunate. We are blessed to be the sons of fathers 
whom we admire immensely and who, I think for both of us, played a big 
part in trying to raise us to be principled, to fight for liberty, and 
to fight for the Constitution.
  When you think about the journeys to freedom that constitute who we 
are as American people, all of us have a story. It doesn't matter--in 
any group you go to, you could get 1,000 people in an audience, and 
each person could come up to the microphone and tell their family story 
of someone who risked everything to be here.
  My dad as a kid was born in Cuba. We mentioned earlier that his 
father had come from the Canary Islands when he was 1. As a young man--
my dad was 14 when he began to get involved in the Cuban Revolution. At 
the time, Batista was the dictator. Batista was cruel, corrupt, closely 
aligned with the Mafia, and he was oppressive.
  The revolution occurred--dad was a 14-year-old boy, and I am looking 
at the pages who are sitting here now who are older than 14, and I 
would suggest, if you could imagine at the age of 14 finding yourself 
in a war, finding yourself fighting a war, hoping to liberate the 
country, being asked to fight against the army, and being asked to 
fight for freedom. The revolution was being fought on behalf of Fidel 
Castro, and indeed my father was one of many freedom fighters who 
fought on behalf of Castro. My father didn't know Castro. He was a kid. 
He was not a high ranking person in the revolution. I can tell you, my 
dad and the kids who were fighting, none of them knew at the time Fidel 
Castro was a communist. As my father describes it today, he says: Look, 
we were all 14- and 15-year-old boys. We were too dumb to know about 
that. We were just fighting for freedom. We just wanted to get out from 
under the boot of Batista.

  For 4 years my father fought with the revolution. When he turned 17, 
my dad went out and partied. He was enjoying himself. He was a 17-year-
old young revolutionary. He was in a white suit. You know, Senator Lee, 
Latinos love white suits. He was in a white suit and he was partying it 
up in Havana and he disappeared.
  For several days my grandfather went looking for him. My 
grandfather--my grandparents knew their son was involved in the 
revolution. He hadn't hid that from his parents. And they also knew if 
your son is involved in the revolution and he disappears, it is a bad, 
bad thing. Well, after searching for him for several days--searching 
the jails, searching around--they found my dad. He was in a jail. He 
had been imprisoned, and he had been tortured.

[[Page S6788]]

  I will confess to this day I don't know a lot about what happened. 
Different people have different experiences. My father doesn't talk 
much about it. To the best of my knowledge, other than our colleague 
Senator John McCain, whom all of us respect immensely for his 
tremendous service and sacrifice to this Nation, I am not aware of any 
of our colleagues in this body who have experienced anything like 
imprisonment and torture--and what my father experienced was a tiny 
fraction of what John McCain went through in the years he was in that 
Vietnam prison. But my dad, when I was growing up, never would really 
tell me what happened there.
  But I remember one night when I was a kid--I think I was in high 
school, maybe junior high or high school, I don't remember--my dad and 
I had gone to see the movie Rambo. My dad and I both liked movies. He 
had taken me to see Rambo, and it was a fun movie to see as a kid. It 
happened that night--my parents owned a small business, and my dad had 
one of his clients over for dinner--that during the course of dinner, 
my father was talking to his client, and he was feeling a little 
gregarious, and he started talking. He said: You know, my son Ted and I 
went to see Rambo this evening. And you might remember there is a 
pretty nasty scene where Rambo is strapped to a bed frame and being 
subjected to electric shock. Not a very pleasant scene in the movie. My 
dad was saying: You know, the Cubans weren't nearly so fancy when it 
came to torture. We watched the movie Rambo. They didn't have any fancy 
bed frames and electric shock or anything. The Cubans were much more 
simple in their torture. Basically, they would just come in every hour 
and beat the living daylights out of you. They would just beat you, and 
beat you, and beat you. Then they would leave, come back in an hour and 
do it again.
  I can tell you my grandmother said when my dad came out of that jail 
cell in Cuba the white suit he was wearing, you couldn't see a spot of 
white on it, that every inch of that suit was covered with mud and 
blood from where he had been beaten. And my father's teeth, she said, 
were dangling from his mouth in shards. Today, my father is a pastor in 
Dallas, and his front teeth are not his own because when he was a kid 
they were kicked out of his mouth in a Cuban jail.
  He got out of that jail and at that point my grandfather told him, he 
said: Look, Rafael, they know who you are now. In fact, the Batista 
police were following my dad hoping he would lead them to others in the 
revolution. The only reason he got out is they thought: Well, maybe if 
we let him go he will be dumb enough to go to some other people in the 
revolution and we can track them down too. So my grandfather said: 
Listen, they know who you are. At this point they are just going to 
hunt you down and kill you. You can't stay here.
  So my father applied to three U.S. universities. He applied to the 
University of Miami, he applied to LSU, and he applied to the 
University of Texas. It was pure happenstance that the first one to let 
him in was the University of Texas. Had it been otherwise, had it been 
the University of Miami, I might today be a constituent of our friend 
Marco Rubio. But it so happened it was the University of Texas, and 
that led to my father getting on a plane in 1957 when he was 18.
  I want again to talk to the pages who are here. Some of you may be 18 
or near it. I want you to imagine at the age of 18 getting on a plane 
and flying away from your family, thousands of miles away to another 
country--to a country where you don't know anybody, you don't have any 
family, and you don't speak the language. Imagine walking off the 
plane.
  My father had the suit on his back. He couldn't take anything with 
him. He couldn't take a suitcase or anything. He was wearing a suit. 
The one possession he had was a slide rule that was in his pocket. I 
see looks of somewhat confusion on the faces of the pages. I note 
anytime I talk to young people they have utterly no idea what a slide 
rule is. That was the one possession he had that he had taken from 
Cuba. And my grandmother, before he left, sewed $100 into the inside of 
his underwear. She wanted him to have at least a little money when he 
landed.
  So in 1957 he shows up in Austin, and his first priority was to get a 
place to live. So he went and found a place to live. And then he had to 
get a job. And the job he got was washing dishes. Why washing dishes? 
Because you didn't have to speak English. He couldn't speak English. He 
made 50 cents an hour. He didn't have to talk to anyone. He could take 
a dish, stick it under hot water, scrub it, and move on to the next 
one. That he could do.
  My dad worked 7 days a week washing dishes and then as a cook to pay 
his way through the University of Texas. And times were tight. I can't 
imagine. I didn't have to go through that. I don't believe Senator Lee 
had to go through the experience of going to school full time and 
working full time. My dad worked 7 days a week while he was going to 
school full time as a student. It wasn't that he wanted to. He didn't 
have any other alternatives. There wasn't anyone else providing for 
him.
  I remember a couple of stories my father told me of his time in 
college. With the indulgence of the Chair, I will share those stories 
because they are stories, I think, of the American experience; they are 
shared experience.
  The great thing about working in a restaurant is they let you eat 
while you work. So during the 8 hours, he would eat those 8 hours. The 
other 16 hours he wouldn't eat. It was even better when he got promoted 
to being a cook, because as a cook you really got a chance to eat. For 
example, one of the things the restaurant served was fried shrimp. My 
dad had a policy that anyone who ordered a dozen shrimp, he would cook 
13 and eat one. During the course of the day a lot of people would 
order fried shrimp, and he would just eat one steadily throughout the 
day. My dad used to try to drink 6 or 7 glasses of milk during the day. 
He figured there was no percentage in water, and he needed the 
nutrients. Because when he left, he was going another 16 hours without 
eating until he came back to work the next day. He didn't have money 
for food.

  There was one little exception. There was a coffee shop he found in 
town. He went in one day, and he splurged. It was one of the few times 
he actually spent money, and he spent money for a cup of coffee. 
Another gentleman in the coffee shop came in and ordered some toast. My 
dad saw the waitress take out of a bag a fresh loaf of bread, take both 
of the heels and throw them away, and then take two other slices of 
bread, put them in the toaster and toast them. My father said: What are 
you doing? You are throwing away perfectly good food. And she said: 
well, we can't serve the heels.
  When you are desperate and you are hungry, you have incentive to do 
all sorts of things, and so my father said: Listen, do me a favor. Save 
them for me. Just save them for me. You can't serve them, I will eat 
them. He used to go into that coffee shop, and that waitress very 
kindly would save the heels when she opened a new loaf. When he would 
come in she would have five, six, or seven heels. She would toast them 
and give him butter, and he would order one cup of coffee and have five 
or six heels of toast and drink his coffee.
  Another similar story. There were a lot of immigrants at the 
University of Texas who didn't have two nickels between them, and he 
went over to some friends who I think were brothers and they invited 
him over for dinner. He was sitting down for dinner with a big pot of 
black beans. Cubans love black beans. When he was reaching in to get 
black beans, they said: Watch out for the nail. Watch out for the nail? 
What on Earth are you talking about? These two brothers explained: 
Look, we don't have money for food. So what little money we have, we 
have enough to have beans each night, and we have enough to purchase a 
little tiny paper-thin steak. The brothers said: Initially, we started 
to cut the steak in half so we would each eat it. To be honest, we both 
left hungry and we weren't happy with that. So we decided instead of 
doing that, we would take a nail, drop it in the beans, and we would 
fish for the nail. Whoever got the nail with their beans got the whole 
steak and the other brother didn't get any steak at all.
  They said: Rafael, since you are our guest--and he was kind of 
waiting for them to say we are going to give you the steak, but they 
were not quite that generous. But they said: Since you are

[[Page S6789]]

our guest, we will give you half of the steak and we are going to fish 
for the nail for the other half.
  One other story. In his freshman or sophomore year, I'm not sure 
which, my dad and a couple of other Cubans who were students there 
decided they wanted to have a Christmas dinner. The Cuban tradition of 
Christmas is to roast a whole pig.
  Indeed, if I may digress, when I was dating my wife Heidi--Heidi is 
the love of my life, she is my best friend. She was raised in 
California. She and her whole family are vegetarians. I remember Heidi 
brought me back to meet her parents for Christmas, and we were sitting 
there having Christmas dinner. I would note that a vegetarian Christmas 
dinner is just like any other Christmas dinner except the entree never 
comes. Everything else is wonderful, but you keep waiting for them to 
bring out the entree and it is not there.
  My now in-laws, who are wonderful tremendous people, who were 
missionaries and just wonderful people, they were trying to get to know 
this strange young man their daughter had brought home. And they said: 
Ted, tell us, how does your family celebrate Christmas? I said: Well, 
we are Cuban, and the Cuban tradition is that on Christmas Eve we roast 
a whole pig.
  I must tell you the look of abject horror. If you can imagine a table 
full of California vegetarians, when I said we roast a whole pig. I 
don't think if I had said we consumed live kittens it would have more 
horrified them than that so viscerally carnivorous tale.
  But my dad and a couple of his Cuban buddies decided they wanted to 
have a Christmas dinner, and to actually celebrate. So they drove to a 
farm just outside of Austin. They found some farmers in central Texas 
and said: Listen, is there any chance we could somehow buy a little 
piglet from you? Can we do something so we could get it and roast it? 
We would like to have it at Christmas Eve dinner. These farmers decided 
they wanted to have fun with my dad and these kids, so they said: Tell 
you what. We will take this little piglet and let him loose in a corral 
filled with mud. If you can catch it, you can have him for free. My dad 
and his friends chased that piglet for close to an hour, running around 
in the mud. They finally caught the piglet, the farmers gave it to 
them, they took it home, and they roasted it for Christmas Eve.
  The epilogue to the story about my in-laws is that when Heidi and I 
became engaged, her mother called her and said: Sweetheart, are you 
prepared to catch the pig? Thankfully Heidi reassured her she was quite 
confident in our marriage that there would be no pig catching that she 
would indeed be carrying out, and that has indeed proven true.
  All of us have stories about our families. My father has been my 
inspiration ever since I was a kid because I think it is a great 
blessing, a tremendous blessing to be the child of someone who has fled 
oppression, to be the child of someone who came here seeking freedom. 
It makes you realize that what we have in the United States of America 
is precious, it is wonderful, it is unique, and we cannot possibly risk 
giving it up.
  At the same time, I am amazed at how commonplace my father's story 
is. Every American has a story just like that. Sometimes it is us, 
sometimes it is our parents, sometimes it is our great-great-
grandparents. But I have yet to encounter someone who doesn't have a 
story like that in their background, often closer than one might think. 
I think the most shared characteristic among all of us as Americans is 
we are the children of those who risked everything for freedom.
  Sometimes people ask, what differentiates Americans from, say, 
Europeans, Americans from other countries? I think more than anything 
it is in our DNA to value liberty and opportunity above all else.
  When ObamaCare was being passed 3\1/2\ years ago, I think the 
proponents believed--in fact, they stated--that once it is in place 
Americans would come to love it and would give up their liberty, would 
give up their freedom in exchange for bread and circuses. Yet 3\1/2\ 
years later we see ObamaCare is less popular now than it was then. That 
is true all over the country. That is true in every region. That is 
true among Republicans, among Democrats, among Independents, and among 
Libertarians.
  There are several reasons for that. One is simple facts. Forget party 
ideology affiliations. The simple fact is this isn't working. If you 
look at it on its face, it is a train wreck, as the Democratic Senator 
who was the lead author of ObamaCare has described. On its face it is a 
nightmare, as James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, has 
described it.
  ObamaCare in practice is killing jobs all over this country. It is 
causing small businesses to stay small, not to grow, not to create 
jobs. It is causing Americans all over this country to forcibly reduce 
to 29 hours a week. Do you know who is being reduced the most? It ain't 
the rich. It ain't, as the President likes to put it, the millionaires 
and billionaires. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great. 
They are richer today than when President Obama was elected.
  I think the biggest lie in politics is the lie that Republicans are 
the party of the rich. I think it is a complete and total falsehood. 
The rich do great with big government. Business does great with big 
government. Why? Because big business gets into bed with big 
government.
  What have we seen with ObamaCare? The rich and powerful get special 
exemptions. Big businesses? The President exempts them. Members of 
Congress? The President exempts us. It is the little guy who doesn't 
have an army of lobbyists, doesn't have special interests, the little 
guy is the one left out.
  So who are the people losing their jobs? Who are the people forcibly 
having reduced hours? Who are the people facing skyrocketing health 
insurance premiums? Who are the people having their insurance dropped? 
It is people such as the disabled retirees whose letters I was reading 
earlier today. It is people like my father.
  If ObamaCare was the law in 1957, when my father was washing dishes, 
I think it is a virtual certainty that he would have found his hours 
forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week--if he had been lucky enough to get 
a job in the first place. He might not have been hired at all. That is 
happening to people all over the country. The people who are losing 
under ObamaCare are people like my dad, teenaged kids who don't speak 
English, who are recent immigrants, who are Hispanic, who are African 
Americans, single moms.
  I have a good friend who is now a justice on the Texas Supreme Court 
whose mom was a single mom and waited tables. He computed the distance 
she walked as a waitress to bring him up. I don't remember the exact 
measurements, but it was some remarkable number of times walking from 
the Earth to the Moon and back that she walked so her kids could have a 
better life. That single mom who was waiting tables, her son is now a 
justice in the Texas Supreme Court. That is the story of America. But 
if ObamaCare had been in place, that single mom waiting tables is 
working 29 hours a week. Try feeding a family on 29 hours a week. You 
can't do it. It cannot be done.
  So what happens instead? People get their hours forcibly reduced. 
They either can't earn enough to feed their family so they leave the 
workforce altogether and they go on welfare. Not that they want to. 
They want to be working. But if Congress has passed a law so that the 
only job they can get is 29 hours a week, that is not enough to feed 
their family. Right now one in seven Americans is on food stamps. What 
a travesty. It is not a travesty from the perspective of the budget; it 
is not a travesty from the perspective of the taxpayers. It is a 
travesty from the perspective of those people on food stamps who would 
rather be working, who would rather have the dignity of work to provide 
for their family and to climb the economic ladder.
  My dad started washing dishes, but he didn't stay there. After 
washing dishes he got a job as a cook. After a cook he got a job as a 
teaching assistant. After a teaching assistant he got hired at IBM as a 
computer programmer. Then he started his own business. If he doesn't 
get hired washing dishes, he doesn't get the next job as a cook, he 
doesn't get the next job as a teaching assistant, he doesn't get the 
next job at IBM, he doesn't get the next job starting his own business.

[[Page S6790]]

  If you look at those single moms who are waiting tables and suddenly 
get their hours reduced to 29 hours a week, if she ends up giving up, 
going on food stamps, going on welfare, saying I can't earn enough in 
the market to provide for my family, not only does that have 
devastating effects on her and on her kids, but it also means she won't 
have a chance to move up the ladder. She won't have a chance to get 
that next job. Maybe if she was waiting tables, she would get promoted 
to being assistant manager and then manager. Maybe she would have 
another opportunity moving up the ladder. But if she doesn't get on 
that first rung, we know to an absolute certainty you won't go to the 
second or third rung. What a travesty.
  This is a country of unlimited opportunity, and ObamaCare is cutting 
off that opportunity. It is shutting down that opportunity. Those are 
who are hurt the most under ObamaCare.
  There are many reasons why ObamaCare is problematic. It is 
problematic because it is the biggest job killer in America. It is a 
train wreck because it is forcing more and more people to be driven 
into part-time work 29 hours a week.
  The second thing the single mom can do--suppose she doesn't give up. 
Suppose she says, Darn it, I want to work to provide for my kids. I am 
not going to give up. I am not going to go on welfare and stop working 
in the workplace. The other option is to go find another job. So then 
she has two jobs at 29 hours a week. Her kids now see less of their 
mom. And, by the way, neither one gives her health care. So the 
Affordable Care Act and all the great benefits of that haven't helped 
her at all. Instead of being at one job where she could work and focus 
on that one job and potentially climb the ladder to different 
opportunities, she is working two part-time jobs. Part-time jobs are 
much harder to advance in your career with. She is also dealing with 
commuting. She has got to get from one job to the other. For a single 
mom whose time is at a premium, who would like to be at her kids' 
soccer game if ever she could work the schedule to do that, if she has 
to drive from one place to the other back and forth, there are a lot of 
soccer games that single mom is never getting to, not to mention the 
headaches of having two different jobs and two different bosses. If you 
have boss No. 1 who says, I want you to work Tuesday morning, and boss 
No. 2 says, I want you to work Tuesday morning at my place, how do you 
balance those? Both of them say, I don't care about your other job. I 
need you here. What a nightmare.
  ObamaCare is a train wreck. It is a nightmare because it is killing 
jobs, because it is driving up health insurance, because it is causing 
more and more people to lose their health insurance. But it is also 
fundamentally wrong for a broader reason: because it infringes on our 
liberty.
  The Federal Government is telling every American: You must purchase 
health insurance. The individual mandate, we are going to make you 
purchase health insurance. If not, the IRS is going to come and find 
you.
  The Federal Government is telling Catholic charities and Catholic 
hospitals, Christian companies like Hobby Lobby: You must pay for 
health insurance procedures that violate your religious dictates. They 
may not violate everyone's religious dictates. There may be a lot of 
people in this country who have no religious qualms about that 
whatsoever, and that is fine. Each of us is entitled--indeed, 
encouraged--to seek out God Almighty with all of our heart, mind, and 
soul as best we can, and we will follow different paths. But I 
guarantee you, if the Federal Government can tell Catholic charities 
and Catholic hospitals: You must violate your religious beliefs or we 
are going to fine you out of business; if the Federal Government can 
tell that to Hobby Lobby, a Christian company, they can tell that to 
you too. Whatever your religious beliefs happen to be, if the Federal 
Government can say: Violate your religious faith or we are coming after 
you, that is a dangerous Rubicon we have crossed.
  We are a nation that was founded on liberty. Always defend liberty. 
You can't go wrong with that as a mantra.
  In the interest of that, I would like to share a few excerpts of one 
of my favorite books, ``Atlas Shrugged'' by Ayn Rand. Let me encourage 
any of you who have not read ``Atlas Shrugged'' to go tomorrow and buy 
``Atlas Shrugged'' and read it. What is interesting is in the last 3 
years sales of ``Atlas Shrugged'' have exploded, because we are living 
in the days of Ayn Rand.
  I will share a few excerpts that are all fundamentally about liberty 
and the liberty that ObamaCare infringes.

       Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your 
     recognition of the fact that you choose to live--that 
     productive work is the process by which man's consciousness 
     controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring 
     knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose of 
     translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth 
     and the image of one's values--that all work is creative work 
     if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done 
     by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has 
     learned from others--that your work is yours to choose, and 
     the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is 
     possible to you and nothing less is human--that to cheat your 
     way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become 
     a fear-corroded ape--

  There is a phrase you don't hear often in modern parlance.

     --on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down 
     into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity 
     is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of 
     motion: decay--

  My, is that happening across this country as a result of ObamaCare, 
people being forced to settle down into jobs that require less than our 
mind's full capacity

     --that your work is the process of achieving your values, and 
     to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to 
     live--that your body is a machine, but your mind is its 
     driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, 
     with achievement as the goal of your road--that the man who 
     has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the 
     mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, 
     that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine 
     slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader 
     prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap 
     heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a 
     hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up--that your work 
     is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any 
     killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value 
     you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or 
     love, can be only travelers you choose to share your 
     journey and must be travelers going on their own power in 
     the same direction.''

  A few other excerpts.

       What is morality, she asked. Judgment to distinguish right 
     and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon 
     it; dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by 
     the good at any price.

  Boy, that is counsel the Senate should listen to. That is counsel I 
would encourage for every Democratic Senator who feels the urge of 
party loyalty, to stand by their party, to stand by ObamaCare because 
it is the natural thing to do. Yet we saw union leaders, we saw the 
roofers union, we saw James Hoffa of the Teamsters say they cannot 
remain silent any longer. Why? Because of the suffering ObamaCare is 
visiting on so many working men and women. It is a nightmare, according 
to James Hoffa of the Teamsters. I encourage my friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, as difficult as it is to cross one's 
party leaders--I say with perhaps a little familiarity with the 
consequences of so doing that it is survivable and that ultimately it 
is liberating; that the Democratic Senators of this body maintain their 
fidelity, their loyalty not to the party apparatus, not to the party 
bosses, but to the men and women who sent them here, to the men and 
women like the union members of the Teamsters who are pleading with 
Members of Congress: Hear our suffering. ObamaCare is a nightmare.
  With that prism in mind, let me reread Ayn Rand's excerpt:

       What is morality, she asked. Judgment to distinguish right 
     and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon 
     it; dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by 
     the good at any price.

  You know, at any price? Look, at the end of the day, a Member of the 
Senate bucks his or her party leadership, and to be honest, the prices 
are all pretty piddly. What a coddled world we live in that we think 
that if someone says a cross word to you at a cocktail party or, God 
forbid, even worse, leaks a scurrilous lie to some reporter, that truly 
is a grievous insult. Goodness gracious, compared to what the people 
have gone through, compared to the suffering my dad went through being 
tortured in a Cuban prison, that is all mild. To be honest, compared to 
the

[[Page S6791]]

single moms who are just wanting to provide for their kids, give them a 
good home, give them a good example, help them get a good future, the 
retribution any political party can impose on us for daring to buck the 
leadership is so mild and inconsequential, it is not even worth 
mentioning.
  Let me encourage every Democratic Senator to try to meet that 
definition of morality:

       Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the 
     truth, and courage to act upon it; dedication to that which 
     is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.

  Let me encourage my Republican colleagues, there may be some 
Republicans who are inclined to vote for cloture on this bill, to give 
majority leader Harry Reid and the Democrats the ability to fund 
ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote, as some of my colleagues have 
publicly said they are so inclined. It is my sincere hope that between 
now and the vote on Friday or Saturday, their better angels prevail.
  Listen, any Democrat who crosses the aisle to vote with us will face 
swift retribution, but at the end of the day we have a higher 
obligation. We have an obligation to the constituents who sent us here.
  Any Republican--I know there are some Republicans who are saying: I 
am going to support cloture. I am going to support giving Harry Reid 
the ability to fund ObamaCare. Why? Because my leadership is telling me 
to, and I am a good soldier. I will salute and march into battle in 
whatever direction leadership instructs.
  I will confess that Republicans are sometimes even more susceptible 
to such commands to being orderly. Let me commend to every Republican, 
ask yourself that same test that Ayn Rand laid out.

       What is morality, she asked. Judgment to distinguish right 
     and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon 
     it; dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by 
     the good at any price.

  I can tell you this: If any one of the 46 Republicans in this body 
asks not what does our party leadership want us to do but asks the more 
important question of, what do our constituents want us to do, I tell 
you this: If I get any gathering of Texans, Texans are not conflicted. 
If I ask a gathering of Texans--and by the way, it doesn't matter what 
part of Texas--east Texas, west Texas, the panhandle, down in the 
valley.
  I was in a gathering down in the valley a few weeks ago. The Rio 
Grande Valley in Texas is the poorest part of the State.
  My friend Senator Lee knows the valley well because he was a 
missionary down in the valley. In fact, he has darned good Spanish as a 
result of living in the valley in Texas. In fact, I think that gives 
Texas a reason to claim him unofficially as a third Senator. He may not 
acquiesce to that, but we will claim him anyway.
  I was at a gathering in the valley a few weeks ago, 200, 300 people. 
I would guess a significant percentage if not a majority of the people 
in that room were probably Democrats. A majority of them were Mexican 
Americans.
  You know, I try to make a policy of giving the same remarks standing 
for the same principles regardless of whether I am talking with a group 
I think will necessarily agree with me or will not.
  The bulk of the remarks I gave to that group before taking Q and A 
from the group for some time were focused on defunding ObamaCare, and 
it was really striking that in that group, which was largely if not 
predominantly Hispanic Democrats in the valley in Texas, when it came 
to defunding ObamaCare, to stopping the train wreck that is ObamaCare, 
the result was rousing sustained applause and cheers. Why? Because if 
you get out of the partisan prison that is Washington, it is not 
complicated.
  There is a reason why labor unions want out. There is a reason the 
Teamsters, who describe that they have been knocking on doors as loyal 
foot soldiers for the Democratic Party, are saying: This is a 
nightmare. Repeal ObamaCare. Repeal it because it is a nightmare.
  There is a reason why Members of Congress, why Majority Leader Reid 
and Democratic Senators who support ObamaCare so much for the American 
people said: Good golly, get us out from under it. We certainly do not 
want to be subject to the same rules the American people are.
  There is a reason why the IRS employees' union is saying: Even though 
we are enforcing ObamaCare, please get us out from under it.
  Under the objective facts, this is not working.
  I urge every Republican who is here, before you make a decision how 
to vote on cloture on this bill on Friday or Saturday--and I think 
certainly in the time I have been in the Senate this is the most 
consequential vote I will cast and I believe any Member of this body 
will cast during the time I have been here--I ask every Republican to 
ask not simply what this party leadership wants you to do but what is 
the right thing to do for your constituents. If you gather 100 of your 
constituents together in a room and you ask them: How should I vote on 
this motion--let me frame it a little more explicitly because, you 
know, politicians are sometimes crafty characters. Some politicians 
say: I could get 100 of my citizens, and I could frame in some abstract 
procedural way how I would vote on the cloture to take up the bill to 
do the whatchamacallit and it would really be supporting the House 
bill. What do you think? We can talk fast enough that we can confuse 
some people in the room for a few minutes.
  But let me suggest to any Republican Senator, gather at random 100 of 
your constituents--I am going to suggest even broader: not 100 
Republicans, 100 constituents--and pose the following question to them: 
Should I as your Republican Senator vote to allow Harry Reid and the 
Democrats to fully fund ObamaCare with no changes, no improvements to 
address the train wreck that is ObamaCare on a purely party-line 
partisan vote of only Democrats? I will wager all the money in my bank 
account that every one of the--by the way, you could pick the bluest 
State for which a Republican Senator represents that State--I will 
wager that in that State, if you grab 100 of your constituents, it 
would not be a 50-50 proposition. I don't even think it would be a 60-
40 proposition. Your constituents overwhelmingly would say: No, don't 
vote to give Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare without fixing 
this train wreck, without stopping this nightmare.
  All that it takes for us to do the right thing is to listen to the 
people. It is not complicated. It is not rocket science. Listen to the 
people.
  Ayn Rand in ``Atlas Shrugged'' also held:

       The nation which once held the creed that greatness is 
     achieved by production is now told that it is achieved by 
     squalor.

  She also observed:

       Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of 
     your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for 
     his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty 
     and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the 
     Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any 
     achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy 
     that has ever existed on this earth.
       God has created men and women to be free creatures. It is 
     not benefiting anyone to strip them of their liberty, to make 
     them dependent on government.

  I cannot tell you how many times I have said: Thank the good Lord 
that when my dad was a teenage immigrant in Texas 55 years ago, how 
grateful I am that some well-meaning liberal did not come and put his 
arm around him and say: Let me take care of you. Let me give you a 
government check. Let me make you dependent on the government. Don't 
bother washing those dishes. Don't bother working. I am going to take 
care of your every need. And by the way, don't bother learning English. 
I respect your culture so much that I am going to lock you out of the 
business and professional classes in this country. I am going to make 
sure that if you do work, you are almost surely going to be consigned 
to menial labor because you cannot communicate with the significant 
majority of Americans.
  What a destructive thing to do to someone. If someone had done that 
to my father and he had listened, I am hard-pressed to think of 
anything that would have been more destructive.
  At the end of the day these points are not partisan or ideological; 
they are common sense. They are who we are as Americans. Ask any abuelo 
or abuela: What do you want for your grandkids? Do you want your 
grandkids dependent on government? Do you want your grandkids receiving 
government support or do you want them working? Do

[[Page S6792]]

you want them working in a job, working hard? Do you want them climbing 
the economic ladder to success? Do you want them in a career where they 
can have a better life than you had and their parents had? Do you want 
them working in a job? I don't know of a grandmother in this country 
who would find that a difficult choice. That is a choice that is basic 
common sense. It is fundamentally destructive to the human spirit not 
to be able to work and stand on your own feet.

  After standing here for 14 hours, I can say that when you are 
standing on your own feet, sometimes there is pain and sometimes some 
fatigue that is involved. But you know what. There is far more pain 
involved in rolling over, far more pain in hiding in the shadows, far 
more pain in not standing for principle, not standing for the good, not 
standing for integrity. That is what it means to be an American. We do 
the hard things.
  To all the Republicans who say fighting this fight is going to be 
very hard, I sure hope they didn't run for the Senate because they 
wanted something easy to do. I sure hope they didn't run for the Senate 
because they wanted to avoid hard challenges. To the Democrats who say, 
I couldn't buck the party leadership, gosh, it would make the White 
House mad, make the party leadership mad, and make our leadership in 
the Senate mad, we have to be united, Team, team, team. We are not a 
team. We represent the people. You know the team that each of us is on? 
It is the American team. It is a team where we have an obligation to 
the men and women who sent us here. Let me be clear: We have an 
obligation to all the men and women who sent us here. I have an 
obligation not just to Republicans in the State of Texas and not just 
to those who voted for me in the State of Texas, although there were 
quite a few voters in the State of Texas who voted for President Obama 
and voted for me.
  If you listen to Washington conventional wisdom, they would suggest 
that is impossible. I was pleased to get a number of Texans who did 
that. Even those who voted against me and disagree with everything I am 
doing, I still have an obligation to represent them and to try to use 
my best judgment and try to listen to them and fight for them.
  I am convinced that every one of the 26 million Texans in my State 
will be better. They will have a better future, a better life, and an 
environment where economic growth comes back and small businesses are 
thriving and creating jobs and not shrinking. They will have 
opportunities so they are not forced into part-time work but will have 
full-time opportunities so more people who are like my dad--teenaged 
kids who can't speak English--can get that first job washing dishes. 
That first job helps them to get the second job, the third job, and the 
fourth job.
  I believe in the American dream with all of my heart and might. The 
American dream is being jeopardized by ObamaCare, and that is a 
travesty that should outrage and horrify everyone in the Senate. For 
everyone on the Republican side who said this is hard, we might be 
blamed; there might be some political blame; let's let it all 
collapse--I have heard Republicans say, especially the pundits, Gosh, 
to get on TV--I will tell you that one of the best ways to get on TV is 
to just advise and then run away from any battle that matters. They put 
you on TV a lot if that is your advice.
  What they say is, if Republicans stand and fight this fight, the 
President and Harry Reid might force a shutdown and Republicans might 
get blamed and, gosh, that could hurt us politically. Beyond that you 
might hear--and this is the very clever Republicans--ObamaCare is such 
a train wreck and a nightmare that we just need to sit quietly. James 
Hoffa said he couldn't sit silent anymore, but Republicans say to sit 
silently and let ObamaCare collapse on its own weight.
  Never mind that Harry Reid said when it collapses on its own weight, 
it will lead us to single-payer socialized health care. Why? Because it 
will destroy the private health insurance. Never mind that. We have 
been told that if we do nothing, it will collapse on its own weight and 
everyone will blame the Democrats.
  Let me make it very clear: Who cares? Listen, if everyone will blame 
the Democrats, then consider me the person trying to actively save the 
Democrats from that blame. I would gladly celebrate any Democrat brave 
enough to stand and say: Listen, I used to think ObamaCare was a good 
idea. I supported it, and I am persuaded by the facts and by my 
constituents. This thing isn't working. People are hurting.
  When President Obama reversed course and listened to bipartisan calls 
to submit his decision to launch a unilateral military attack on Syria 
to the will of Congress, I happily and loudly praised President Obama 
for submitting to the constitutional authority of this party. When he 
went even further and listened to the calls from the American people 
not to put us in the middle of that sectarian war, I again happily and 
enthusiastically praised President Obama for being willing to change 
his mind and turn back because he listened to the voice of the American 
people. That was the right thing to do.
  For everyone who thinks this is hard, I would like to turn to some of 
my favorite remarks from a Republican President who I suspect many on 
the Democratic side of the aisle admire as well because he was one of 
the most progressive Republicans, although he was not shy in any way, 
shape or form.
  Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt was once giving a speech, and he was shot 
during the speech. He finished the speech before seeking medical 
attention. There was an old episode on ``Saturday Night Live''--the 
pages have probably never seen this--that was ``Quien es mas Macho,'' 
which means who is more macho. You know what. Teddy Roosevelt quien es 
mas macho. If you get shot while giving a speech and stand there and 
finish the speech, you win. Even Sean Connery is looking at him and 
going, wow, that guy is tough.
  I will read the words Teddy Roosevelt delivered at the Sorbonne in 
Paris on April 23, 1910. These are words for everyone who thinks this 
fight is too hard or that we shouldn't take a risk or we shouldn't risk 
political blame. These are words that every one of us should listen to:

       It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out 
     how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could 
     have done them better. The credit belongs to the man--

     Or the woman--

     who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust 
     and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who 
     comes short again and again, because there is no effort 
     without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive 
     to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great 
     devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the 
     best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and 
     who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring 
     greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and 
     timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

  Yes, you can avoid risk. You can avoid doing the hard thing. You can 
avoid doing the things where you might get politically blamed. You can 
stay silent and hope that the other party gets blamed because there 
will be political benefits for that. But I am going to suggest to you 
that is not doing our job. That is not what we were elected to do.
  We were elected to stand and fight to do the hard things for the men 
and women of this country because it is an extraordinary and 
breathtaking privilege to serve in this body. I cannot tell you how it 
brings me virtually to tears to think about the opportunity I have to 
stand here at a time when our Nation is threatened as I have never seen 
before. You know what. The tears that I talked about, and am now 
experiencing a little bit, are a very small reflection of the very real 
tears I have seen from men and women all across Texas.
  Men and women have looked me in the eyes and said: I am scared for my 
country, my kids, and my grandkids. We are losing America. We are 
losing the wonderful free enterprise system. We are losing the 
prosperity. We are losing growth.
  Will my kids and grandkids have a better life than I did? I don't 
think so. I cannot tell you how many Texans have said that. You know 
what. When you say that, that is not something you say like reporting 
the weather: It is sunny today and 78 degrees. That is heartbreaking. 
As Americans, it is fundamental in who we are. We believe in a better 
tomorrow. We believe morning

[[Page S6793]]

can come to America, and we believe our kids and grandkids will live 
with a better challenge.
  If we continue down this road, we will be mired in what I call the 
great stagnation. Over the last 4 years, our economy has grown on 
average at 0.9 percent a year. If we continue down this road, we will 
allow young people to be what economists are starting to dub ``the lost 
generation.'' I am sorry to tell young people that is what economists 
are calling them right now. This generation is coming of age at a time 
when there is no economic growth and no real prospect for that to 
change.
  What it means as a practical matter is that young people are not 
getting that first job or they are getting jobs--and as Ayn Rand 
observed--that are far less than their mind, their capacity, and their 
talent is capable of. What that means is they don't get their next job 
or their next job, so they don't develop to their full potential, and 
that stays with young people for decades to come.
  This body needs to listen to the American people. We need to 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. My question relates to the nature of our government and the 
nature of our system which is a system of laws. One of the reasons 
America has been attractive to so many people over the last few 
centuries and one of the reasons people have wanted to move here from 
all over the world is that this has always been a land of opportunity. 
It has been a place where you can be born into one station in life and 
die in a much better station. We worry that land of opportunity might 
cease to be. We worry about the fact that people are being trapped at 
the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and finding it increasingly 
difficult to move up along that ladder.
  One of the reasons this is the case is because the distinction 
between what is properly within the domain of government and what is 
properly within the domain of people is sometimes blurred. In other 
instances, that which is properly within the domain of the Federal 
Government and properly within the domain of the State and local 
governments in this country is blurred.
  On other occasions, it is because what is properly within the domain 
of the legislative branch is usurped by the executive branch or the 
judicial branch or a combination of the two. The more our legal system 
becomes deteriorated, the less faithful it becomes to the blueprint 
that was created for our government some 226 years ago, and the more we 
struggle in this country.
  I quoted James Madison earlier. I referred to something he said in 
Federalist No. 62. I have the actual text of the language, which I 
largely paraphrased earlier, and I wish to expand on it a little more 
and explain some of what he was saying.
  He writes:

       It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are 
     made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous 
     that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot 
     be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are 
     promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, 
     who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be 
     to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can 
     that be a rule, which is little known, and less 
     fixed? Another effect of public instability is the 
     unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the 
     enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and 
     uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation 
     concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting 
     the value of the different species of property, presents a 
     new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace 
     its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but 
     by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-
     citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be 
     said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not 
     for the many.
       In another point of view, great injury results from an 
     unstable government. The want of confidence in the public 
     councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and 
     profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing 
     arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes 
     in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his 
     plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? 
     What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the 
     encouragement given to any particular cultivation or 
     establishment when he can have no assurance that his 
     preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim 
     to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement 
     or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the 
     auspices of a steady system of national policy.
       But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of 
     attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the 
     people, towards a political system which betrays so many 
     marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their 
     flattering hopes. No government any more than an individual, 
     will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor 
     be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of 
     order and stability.

  We see in this an age-old warning, a warning about what happens when 
governments do certain things which tend toward voluminous legislation, 
excessive regulation, and deliberate manipulation by those who have 
access to the power lovers of government, whereby they may commandeer 
the economic machinery of an entire civilization--commandeer it to 
their advantage, and thereby secure a position at the top end of the 
economic spectrum of that society. When people do this, they very 
frequently use really long, really complex laws. They necessarily rely 
on extensive regulation, the kind of regulation that can be found in a 
2,700-page law passed by Members of Congress who have not read it, who 
pass it after being told they have to pass it in order to find out what 
is in it, who do so only to discover later that this 2,700-page piece 
of legislation has become 20,000 pages of regulation.
  As we stand this evening, or this morning, or whatever we call this 
time of day as we move forward together on this path toward standing 
with the American people, I invite my colleagues to join me on a 
journey back to a place and time not unlike our own. It was a turbulent 
time of deep division within our young Republic. George Washington 
recorded the events of March 4, 1797--his last day as President of the 
United States. Washington wrote:

       It was with a heavy heart that I left my room today 
     thinking not so much of myself as of our country . . .

  Walking out onto Chestnut Street in Philadelphia, Washington 
continued:

       I was plain George Washington now, neither general nor 
     President. Suddenly I realized I was not alone. People were 
     following me, at first only a few, then a swelling crowd.
       For a long moment, I stood face to face with them--the 
     young cobbler, the carpenter, the storekeeper, the laborer. 
     All of them stood facing me. They said not a word. I realized 
     that providence was showing me a vision of America, of what 
     it will become. I could feel assured that, come what may, 
     whether it be political bickering . . . or any other evil in 
     government, . . . our country rests in good hands, in the 
     hands of its people . . .

  A similar crowd we might say gathers every time people converge at a 
townhall meeting. It is not necessarily a crowd consisting of 
carpenters, storekeepers, laborers, and cobblers. It might well consist 
of a crowd including schoolteachers, Web designers, business 
consultants, mothers and fathers and friends.
  Every time I hold townhall meetings, as I look around the crowd and I 
see groups of people represented from those groups I described, I think 
about the fact that today, as in Washington's time, the hands of our 
great Nation rest in good hands. It rests in the hands of its people.
  So hand in hand and acting on the instincts of our better angels and 
connected in the principle of civil society and in the principles that 
allow our country to be great, we know that we the people and not we 
the government will form a more perfect union and help ensure that the 
vision of George Washington becomes the destiny of the Nation.
  Our discussions tonight have been about keeping the country in the 
hands of the people and making sure the government serves the people 
and not the other way around, making sure the people are in charge of 
their own government; that whenever the things that government does 
become destructive of the ability of the people to achieve happiness 
and secure their own lives and their liberty and their pursuit of 
happiness, it is important that the people restore to themselves the 
power which is rightfully theirs.
  Throughout the history of the world, in many civilizations, people 
have called that idea radical. They have called it crazy. They have 
called it insane. Here we call it a very American ideal.

[[Page S6794]]

  Here, tonight, we have been talking a lot about this law. We have 
been talking a lot about our ability to defund this law which we 
believe has become destructive of the people. We have been told by some 
of our colleagues--some from within our own party--that this effort is 
futile, that we shouldn't fight it because, as we are told over and 
over, we don't have the votes. Those things can change and they do 
change when the people speak to their elected representatives and they 
ask their elected representatives to do that which they were sent to 
our Nation's capital to do.
  There is a man named William Morris, a man whose political philosophy 
I don't share in many respects, but a man who occasionally said things 
that were profound and reflect broader truths.
  William Morris once wrote:

       One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being 
     considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common may 
     be foolish, but can hardly be mad; ten men sharing an idea 
     begin to act, a hundred draw attention as fanatics, a 
     thousand and society begins to tremble; a hundred thousand . 
     . . and the cause has victories tangible and real; and why 
     only a hundred thousand? Why not a hundred million and more . 
     . . ? You and I who agree together, it is we who have to 
     answer that question.

  So when we find ourselves with an idea in our head, when we find 
ourselves listening to people, people who might begin with a chorus of 
one calling out for Congress to do something to protect the American 
people, we might be inclined to dismiss that one idea coming from that 
one person as the product of madness. When two people join together, 
when 10, when 100, 1,000, 10,000, and so forth--with each order of 
magnitude, we find that the idea acquires more potency, the idea 
acquires more lasting power, the idea moves more and more people.
  The idea to defund ObamaCare is not new. It has been discussed since 
2010, since shortly after the law's enactment, since about the time 
when many people were predicting that the Republican Party might gain 
control of at least one House of Congress. That is when it began in 
earnest.
  We hoped, we expected, that once the Republican majority took hold, 
once Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 
January 2011, in the wake of the 2010 election cycle, that the 
defunding of ObamaCare would be imminent. In fact, H.R. 1, the 
continuing resolution, as I recall, was filed at the beginning of the 
last Congress and originally was written to defund ObamaCare. I am not 
quite sure why that didn't move forward, but many expected it would 
happen. It didn't happen. We have continued to pass continuing 
resolution after continuing resolution since January of 2011 to keep 
the government funded and we have done so without defunding ObamaCare. 
There have been reasons for that. There were many who expected the 
Supreme Court would invalidate ObamaCare, thus obviating the need for 
Congress to go through the process of defunding it and later repealing 
it. That didn't happen.
  There were those who expected that a Republican would be elected to 
President of the United States in the 2012 election cycle, thereby 
making it possible for ObamaCare to be repealed or perhaps at least 
stalled out with the assistance of the President and with the 
assistance of an Executive order suspending many of its major 
provisions. That, of course, didn't happen. We are now at the point 
when we are being asked to fund the operations of government 
potentially for the last time between now and the time when the law's 
major operative provisions will take effect.
  This will not be the end of the debate, assuming this effort either 
does or doesn't succeed. I have no doubt this debate will continue for 
some time. If we do not succeed in defunding ObamaCare at this point, 
it doesn't mean the cause is lost forever. It may nonetheless mean it 
becomes far more difficult to stop this law.
  Once a law such as this takes effect, it is frequently suggested it 
will be much harder to stop, much harder to defund, and much harder to 
repeal down the road. So before we take this step, I think it is 
appropriate that we consider very seriously defunding this law's 
implementation and enforcement, especially in light of taking into 
account the potentially devastating impact this law will have, could 
have, and is already having on our Nation's workers, the impact it is 
having with regard to wages, to employment opportunities, to access to 
health care, and to the cost of health care. We have to take that very 
seriously, as the House of Representatives has done in passing this 
continuing resolution.

  As we take that up, we have to remember the fate of this Nation lies 
in good hands. It lies in the hands of the American people--the people 
who were represented well by the House of Representatives when it 
passed the continuing resolution funding the operations of government, 
while defunding ObamaCare.
  I ask Senator Cruz the question: What can we do as citizens, what can 
we do as Senators, to make sure the hands of our government will, 
indeed, remain in good hands, in the hands of its people, rather than 
in the hands of a perpetual oligarchy, albeit an elected oligarchy, a 
bipartisan political establishment that might limit the freedom of the 
American people?
  (Mr. DONNELLY assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Utah for that very fine question. 
The answer as to what we can do is to do what we must, as Americans, 
what we always have, which is to take the responsibility on ourselves, 
on our shoulders, to step forward, to engage.
  Edmund Burke famously said: The only thing necessary for evil to 
prevail is for good men to do nothing.
  One of the tremendous aspects of the American character is Americans 
have never been willing to sit back and do nothing.
  People all over this country are disillusioned. They are 
disillusioned because Washington does not listen to us. They are 
disillusioned because Democratic Senators do not listen to the people 
and Republican Senators do not listen to the people. I understand that 
disillusionment. I feel the same way. Everywhere I go in Texas that 
sentiment is expressed. I do not think there is a State in the Union 
where they do not feel that sense.
  But there are moments--moments in time when we can change that. You 
think back to earlier this year, to another filibuster that occurred on 
this Senate floor with our friend Senator Rand Paul, when he was 
standing up to the administration's drone policy.
  Senator Paul began that filibuster, if I remember correctly, at 11:45 
a.m. When he started, virtually every Senator in this Chamber viewed 
what he was doing as an odd crusade. They did not support it. They did 
not even understand it. What matters if the Federal Government can use 
a drone to target a U.S. citizen, to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil? 
What matters that, thought most Senators.
  Senator Paul began a brave crusade. I would note, during that 
filibuster, I was honored to stand side by side with my good friend 
Senator Lee as we were the first two Senators to stand in support of 
that and to battle the length of those 13 hours in defense of the 
Constitution.
  During the course of that filibuster, we saw what happens when the 
American people get engaged. Because the American people got engaged at 
an incredible level, and it forced a change. For 3 consecutive weeks, 
President Obama had refused to do what he did that very next day, which 
was admit in writing that the Constitution limits his authority to 
target U.S. citizens.
  Indeed, earlier that day before the filibuster began, it so happened 
that Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. Senator Lee and I were both there as part of that 
testimony. I remember an exchange with the Attorney General where three 
times I asked the Attorney General if, in his view, the Constitution 
allowed the U.S. Government to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that 
individual did not pose an imminent threat, and three times he 
responded: I do not think it would be appropriate to do so.
  The first time he gave that response, I responded to the Attorney 
General. I said: Mr. Attorney General, you seem to have misunderstood 
my question. I was not asking about propriety. After all, he was not 
there testifying as an etiquette columnist for the local newspaper. I 
said: You are the Attorney General of the United States. You are the 
chief law enforcement officer for the United States of America. Does 
the

[[Page S6795]]

Department of Justice have a position on whether the Constitution 
allows the U.S. Government to use a drone to target and kill a U.S. 
citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent 
threat? Again, the response was: I do not think it would be 
appropriate.
  After the third time, I almost felt as if the response was: I do not 
understand this Constitution to which you are referring. Finally, he 
conceded in that back and forth: Well, when I say ``appropriate,'' I 
mean ``constitutional,'' which I find a curious notion that somehow 
``appropriate'' and ``constitutional'' are coterminous.
  You want to talk about what the American people can do? We saw during 
that, had not that filibuster and the American people mobilized, 
President Obama would have never admitted in writing what he admitted 
that next day, which was the Constitution limits his authority. And 
that matters.
  We saw another example with the gun debate. Following the tragic 
shooting in Newtown, CT--which every one of us was horrified at--the 
President, sadly, did not come out and say: Let us go after violent 
criminals.
  And listen, I think we should come down on violent criminals like a 
ton of bricks. Instead, the President, unfortunately, took it as an 
opportunity to go after the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding 
citizens, instead of targeting violent criminals, those who would prey 
on the innocent.
  The conventional wisdom in Washington was the momentum behind those 
efforts was unstoppable. Indeed, all the talking heads, the same 
talking heads who during Rand's filibuster said this is foolish, this 
is a fool's errand, this cannot work--the American people rose up and 
spoke and that was proven wrong.
  During the gun debate, those same talking heads--it is interesting, 
in the world of punditry there are no consequences for being proven 
wrong. You just keep going back to making those same gosh darn 
predictions. And you know what. If you keep making the same prediction 
often enough, eventually it is going to prove right.
  In the gun debate all those same talking heads said: You cannot stop 
it. This is unstoppable. What happened again? The American people got 
involved by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, calling their 
Senators, e-mailing their Senators, speaking out at townhalls, saying: 
Defend the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We want the 
constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to be protected.

  I remember on the floor of this Senate, when it came for a vote, 
every single proposal of the President that would have undermined the 
Second Amendment was voted down. That astonished observers. They said 
it was impossible. It was impossible until the American people engaged.
  As we discussed not too long ago with Syria, the President advocated, 
said he was going to engage in a unilateral military strike within 
days. It was imminent. It was happening. There was bipartisan support 
from the leadership of both Houses of Congress. All those same 
pundits--Mr. President, if you are noticing a pattern here, there is a 
pattern here. These same pundits over and over again said: Whatever 
President Obama says, that is inevitable. It cannot be stopped. There 
is nothing we can do about it. There is nothing to see here. Move on.
  At first the President, quite rightly, listened to bipartisan calls 
to submit that decision to the constitutional authority of Congress. I 
was quick to praise him for doing so. And, second, even more difficult, 
the President showed the wisdom, the prudence to listen to the voice of 
the American people when the American people spoke out overwhelmingly 
and said: We do not want to be involved in a sectarian civil war in 
Syria when we do not have a dog in the fight, when the rebels are in 
some significant way allied with Al Qaeda, Al-Nusra, radical 
terrorists, when there is no national security interest in getting us 
in the middle of this. It was overwhelming, and the entire ship of 
state turned on a dime. What was inevitable stopped. And it stopped 
because of the American people.
  So the question my friend Senator Lee asked--what can the American 
people do? Do the same thing. But let me tell you now, you have to do 
it 10 times louder. You have to do it in even greater volume. Because I 
am sorry to say, Members of this body are dug in at a level they were 
not dug in on drones, at a level they were not dug in on guns, at a 
level they were not dug in on Syria.
  The Democrats in this body, I am sorry to say, have not yet shown the 
willingness to speak out like James Hoffa of the Teamsters has, have 
not yet shown the willingness to speak out for their constituents and 
say: ObamaCare is failing and it is not working.
  The Republicans in this body--there are quite a few of them who are 
angry we are having this fight. They believe it is not worthy of the 
time of this institution. They find themselves offended that the 
American people would expect us not just to have a symbolic show vote 
on a ObamaCare but actually to do something. Goodness gracious, this is 
Congress. We do not do something. Let's have another symbolic vote, and 
then we can put out a press release.
  About an hour ago, a member of my staff showed me that this 
discussion--even though virtually every Senator has gone home and gone 
to sleep--that this discussion, this debate is not just trending No. 1 
in the United States, but in one way, shape, or form is trending No. 1, 
No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4. I have never seen anything like that.
  No. 2, I will confess, is Duck Dynasty, but I am going to claim Duck 
Dynasty as part of it since not too long ago I took the opportunity to 
read some words of wisdom from Duck Dynasty and I suspect that is not 
entirely disconnected.
  I have to admit, I have seen things trend No. 1. I have never seen 
them trend Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 all at the same time.
  Given the Senate Chamber has been largely empty for most of the 
night, it is self-evident that kind of involvement from the American 
people is not a factor of personalities. It is not a factor of myself 
or Mike or anyone else. And by the way, everyone who wants to distract 
from the subject of this debate will try to make it about 
personalities. If they can get the Washington press corps to write 
stories about personal flights, about back and forth, about civil war--
my goodness, how many times have we seen the words ``civil war'' in the 
last week in the press? I am wondering if reporters have it now on a 
macro: ``Alt'' ``C'' and it types ``civil war.'' Who cares? You know 
what. If you get out of Washington, DC, I do not know anyone who cares. 
What Americans care about is they want jobs back. They want economic 
growth back. They want to get back to work. They want their health care 
not to be taken away because of ObamaCare. Every effort to talk about 
anything else is all a deliberate effort to distract from the issue 
that matters.
  The reason this is trending Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 is because, for a 
moment, at least, some in this body are listening to the American 
people. I hope and believe and think that a great many Americans want 
to believe that more of us will do so, that more of us on the 
Republican side of the aisle and more of us on the Democratic side of 
the aisle will forget party, forget the battle, and actually listen to 
the people and fight to fix these problems.
  The question Senator Lee asked is: What can the American people do? I 
will say, nothing gets the attention of elected representatives more 
than hearing from their constituents in jaw-dropper numbers, in phone 
calls and e-mails and tweets and Facebook posts.
  Some Members of this body express annoyance that why would their 
constituents have the temerity to dictate to us--the solons of 
Washington--what to do. The answer is simple. Because our constituents 
are our boss. We work for them. They have every right to dictate to us.
  I will note, on a lighter note, my friend Congressman Louie Gohmert, 
who has been here all night, handed me something that was quite nice. 
It is from the Daily News. It ran on Friday, November 4, 1949. It is 
entitled ``Ode to the Welfare State.'' It reads:

       Mr. Truman's St. Paul, Minn., pie-for-everybody speech last 
     night reminded us that, at the tail-end of the recent session 
     of Congress, Representative Clarence J. Brown (R-Ohio) jammed 
     into the Congressional Record the following poem, describing 
     its author only as ``a prominent Democrat of the State of 
     Georgia'':

[[Page S6796]]

  It is titled ``Democratic Dialogue.''

     Father must I go to work?
     No, my lucky son.
     We're living now on Easy Street
     On dough from Washington.
     We've left it up to Uncle Sam,
     So don't get exercised.
     Nobody has to give a damn--

  We've all been subsidized.

     But if Sam treats us all so well
     And feeds us milk and honey,
     Please daddy, tell me what the heck
     He's going to use for money.
     Don't worry bub, there's not a hitch
     In this here noble plan--
     He simply soaks the filthy rich
     And helps the common man.
     But father, won't there come a time
     When they run out of cash
     And we have left them not a dime
     When things will go to smash?
     My faith in you is shrinking son,
     You nosy little brat.
     You do too damn much thinking son,
     To be a Democrat.

  That is from the Daily News, Friday, November 4, 1949, apparently 
inserted into the Congressional Record by a Member of Congress.
  Let's take it a different direction. We talked about liberty, liberty 
that is at stake here. I want to talk about that same principle. On one 
level, on the real, on the personal, on the hard-working American 
families, they are facing a loss of jobs. They are facing small 
businesses that are not growing. They are facing skyrocketing health 
insurance premiums. They are facing losing their health insurance.
  But on another level, we are facing an assault on liberty. Before, we 
went through some of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Now, I want to go 
further back to 1850, to read some excerpts from a classic that I would 
recommend to everyone to read, Frederic Bastiat's, ``The Law.'' The Law 
is a primer in free enterprise.

       Though expansion of government programs may be tempting, 
     the designers often have selfish aims, and the program almost 
     always thwarts the liberty and prosperity of the people.

  He warns of the dangers of programs and the way in which government 
programs deprive the people of their rights. So Bastiat observes:

       Life is a gift from God, which includes all others. This 
     gift is life--physical, intellectual, and moral life.
       But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life 
     has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, 
     developing and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish 
     this, he has provided us with a collection of marvelous 
     faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of 
     natural resources. By the application of our faculties to 
     these natural resources, we convert them into products, and 
     use them. This process is necessary in order that life may 
     run its appointed course.
       Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, 
     liberty, property--this is man. And in spite of the cunning 
     and artful political leaders, these three gifts from God 
     precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, 
     liberty, and property do not exist because men have made 
     laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, 
     and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws 
     in the first place.
       Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his 
     person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three 
     basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one 
     of them is completely dependent on the preservation of the 
     other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of 
     our individuality? And what is property but an extension of 
     our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even 
     by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it 
     follows that a group of men have the right to organize and 
     support a common force to protect these rights constantly.
       Thus the principle of collective rights--its reason for 
     existing, its lawfulness--is based on individual right. And 
     the common force that protects this collective right cannot 
     logically have any other purpose or any other mission than 
     that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an 
     individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, 
     liberty, or property of another individual, then the common 
     force--for the same reason--cannot lawfully be used to 
     destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or 
     groups.
       Property and plunder. Man can live and satisfy his wants 
     only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his 
     faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of 
     property.
       But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his 
     wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of 
     others. This process is the origin of plunder.
       Now, since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain--and 
     since labor is pain in itself--it follows that men will 
     resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. 
     History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, 
     neither religion nor morality can stop it.
       When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes 
     more painful and more dangerous than labor.
       It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to 
     use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal 
     tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of 
     the law should protect property and punish plunder.
       But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of 
     men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and 
     support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted 
     to those who make the laws.

  That would be us.

       This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in 
     the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least effort 
     possible, explains the almost universal perversion of the 
     law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of 
     checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of 
     injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by 
     the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the 
     rest of the people, their personal independence by 
     slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property 
     by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who 
     makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he 
     holds.

  I would note throughout the course of this debate, the central theme 
I have been focusing on is the disconnect between Washington and the 
people and the practice right now of Democrats and Republicans not to 
listen to the people. Let me read again that sentence from Bastiat 
written in 1850--not written in response to the Senate in 2013--in 
1850. He says:

       This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the 
     law, and in proportion to the power he holds.

  It seems almost as though Bastiat were writing about Congress right 
now, about the Obama administration granting exemptions from ObamaCare 
to the friends, to those with political influence, the giant 
corporations, and to Members of Congress. Why do Members of Congress 
get an exemption from ObamaCare that hard-working American families do 
not?
  Bastiat tells us this 160 years ago. This is done for the benefit of 
the person who makes the law and in proportion to the power he holds. 
Bastiat goes on to talk about the victims of lawful plunder.

       Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are 
     victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the 
     profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes 
     try somehow to enter--by peaceful or revolutionary means--
     into the making of laws. According to their degree of 
     enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two 
     entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain 
     political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, 
     or they may wish to share in it.

  Now, let me note at this point, this goes directly to the question 
Senator Lee asked a little bit earlier this morning: What can the 
American people do? The plundered class, the hard-working American 
families that are finding their jobs going away, that are finding 
economic growth stripped away, they are finding themselves forcibly put 
into part-time work. They are seeing their health insurance premiums 
skyrocket or are seeing their health insurance jeopardized or taken 
away. They can come together and force our elected officials in both 
parties to listen to the people--make DC listen. That is what Bastiat 
is talking about there.

       Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among 
     the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize 
     the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice 
     lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the 
     right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few 
     persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes 
     universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting 
     interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the 
     injustices found in society, they make these injustices 
     general.
       As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they 
     establish a system of reprisals against the other classes. 
     They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would 
     demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they 
     emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this 
     legal plunder, even though it is against their own interest.
       It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice 
     appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution--some for 
     their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

  It is almost as if that sentence was written about ObamaCare. I would 
suggest when you read that sentence and then you pick up and read the 
letter from James Hoffa of the Teamsters saying: We knocked on doors. 
We supported President Obama. We block walked. We phone called. We 
supported your agenda. Now we have discovered

[[Page S6797]]

that this law, which is your signature achievement that you fought for, 
is a nightmare that is hurting millions of Americans and their 
families. That is what James Hoffa said. Or, as Bastiat said:

       It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice 
     appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution--some for 
     their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

  Bastiat continued.

       Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty.
       Mr. De Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: Your doctrine is 
     only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I 
     go on to fraternity.
       I answered him: The second half of your program will 
     destroy the first. In fact, it is impossible for me to 
     separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I 
     cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally 
     enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus 
     justice being legally trampled underfoot.
       Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said 
     before, is in human greed; the other is in false 
     philanthropy.
       At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I 
     mean by the word plunder. Plunder violates ownership. I do 
     not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, 
     approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its 
     scientific acceptance--as expressing the idea opposite to 
     that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever.] When a 
     portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns 
     it--without his consent and without compensation, and whether 
     by force or by fraud--to anyone who does not own it, then I 
     say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is 
     committed.
       I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to 
     suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits 
     this act that it is so supposed to suppress, I say that 
     plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of 
     view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights 
     is even worse. In the case of legal plunder, however, the 
     person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the 
     act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder 
     rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. 
     Therein lies the political danger.
       The Law and Charity. You say: There are persons who have no 
     money, and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast 
     that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the 
     law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. 
     Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one 
     citizen or one class unless another citizen or other classes 
     have been forced to send it in.
       If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he 
     has put in it, it is true that the law plunders nobody. But 
     this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no 
     money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be 
     an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some 
     persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, 
     it is an instrument of plunder.

  I would note the adage that any legislator who proposes to rob Peter 
to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.
  Going back to Bastiat:

       With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, 
     subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and 
     welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free 
     credit, and public works. You will find that they are always 
     based on legal plunder, organized injustice.
       Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind.
       Now let us examine Raynal on this subject of mankind being 
     molded by the legislator. The legislator must first consider 
     the climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at his 
     disposal determine his duties. He must first consider his 
     locality. A population living on maritime shores must have 
     laws designed for navigation. . . . If it is an inland 
     settlement, the legislator must make his plans according to 
     the nature and the fertility of the soil.

  Frederic Bastiat--1915--explained principles of liberty that continue 
across the ages, principles of liberty that we owe it to every man and 
woman in America to protect his or her life, liberty, and property. 
ObamaCare does violence to the natural rights of every American; it 
does violence to their opportunity.
  Do you know the cruelest joke of all? ObamaCare has been justified: 
Let's help the least among us. That is a noble goal. We should all care 
about helping the least among us. The cruelest irony is that the people 
who are being hurt the most by ObamaCare are the least among us.
  The rich, as the President frequently inveighs, millionaires and 
billionaires, are not hurt by ObamaCare. They are doing just fine. In 
fact, they are doing better. The richest segment of this country is 
doing better today than they were when President Obama was elected.
  Who is getting hurt? Who is losing their jobs? Who is not finding 
jobs? Who is getting their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week? 
Who is losing their health insurance?
  I have read one letter after another from people across Texas and 
across this country, and not one of these letters said: I am 
independently wealthy, cruising on my yacht in the Caribbean, and yet 
ObamaCare has crimped my style. That is not what is happening. These 
are letters I read from the retired couple in Bayou Vista who had saved 
their whole life to buy their home, and now they are at risk of losing 
their home because of ObamaCare.
  Let me read from another constituent in Houston, TX, my hometown, who 
on July 11, 2013, wrote:

       My wife and I are currently both working jobs where there 
     is no provided health care coverage. My wife is a self-
     employed physician and I am in sales. We have never gone 
     without health coverage our entire lives.
       My father was in the military, so I had health care until I 
     graduated college. My wife had coverage through her parents 
     until she graduated. We never wanted to go without coverage, 
     so anytime our coverage had a break we went ahead and bought 
     catastrophic short-term coverage, even knowing we would have 
     coverage soon.
       While my wife was in medical school, I had employer 
     coverage, and I bought an individual policy for her because 
     it was much less costly than group coverage. When my 
     employment status changed and neither of us had employer 
     coverage, I bought individual policies for both of us. We 
     would not risk going without health insurance.
       Because we were both young and healthy at the time, the 
     policies were very affordable, about $130 a month. Purchasing 
     coverage was a no brainer.
       While in her residency, we got family coverage through her 
     work. When she finished her residency in 2012, neither of us 
     had employer coverage, so it came time for another policy. We 
     looked around at all the options for a family of four, two 
     30-year-old adults, a 2-year-old boy and a newborn girl. We 
     found a HTIP plan for $400 a month with a $10,000 deductible.
       We also had scrimped and saved so that in the event we had 
     a catastrophe we would have a deductible coverage. After that 
     our plan paid for 100 percent. This is the best coverage I 
     had ever purchased. I had become an educated consumer in 
     health care, shopping around for the best deals on 
     medications, and informing doctors of our situation so they 
     coded it properly. When we needed care we opted for urgent 
     care and physicians' offices instead of emergency rooms.
       Many of my young healthy friends now have these plans, 
     either individually purchased or through their employers. As 
     of January 1, most of these plans will go away for us, as 
     most of my friends are around 30 years old. These plans are 
     actually decreasing the cost of health care as they inspire 
     us to be educated consumers. Unlike what the President said, 
     I don't get to ``keep my plan.''
       I never thought that not purchasing insurance would be an 
     option for my family. I have done a fair amount of research 
     using the IRS info, current and estimated prices, even my own 
     insurance company's estimates. It looks like for the 
     cheapest, bronze plan, the estimated cost will be about 
     $1,600 per month, which is $20,000 per year. We don't qualify 
     for subsidies.
       If I choose not to comply, I would pay a fine which, for 
     us, amounts to about $2,000 and save the $18,000 balance in a 
     bank account. Our fine will max out at about $5,000, so I 
     will still have $15,000 per year. I will now begin paying 
     cash for my health care and negotiate with doctors and 
     hospitals myself.
       As I get older I will consider big insurance when it looks 
     like the cost-benefit ratio is better. No one in my family 
     has ever gone without coverage because health care is the No. 
     1 priority on our list. It still is, but this individual 
     mandate has caused us to consider going without insurance for 
     the first time. I would gladly keep my fine if I could keep 
     my current insurance, but that is not an option either.
       Here is one of my friends' stories. He is a high school 
     teacher and his wife is a stay-at-home mom with two kids. His 
     district pays for all of his coverage and none of his 
     spouse's. This year they opted to purchase an individual 
     plan for her because it was more affordable, $150 a month 
     versus $500. Beginning January 1, she will be forced into 
     the exchange, where her estimated cost will be about $400.
       They currently cannot afford this, and they don't qualify 
     for a subsidy because her employer offers coverage for her, 
     even though her income would qualify her for a 50 percent 
     subsidy. They will choose not to have insurance coverage on 
     them.

  Many of the young, healthy people I have talked to told me they plan 
to go without insurance--people who currently purchase individual 
plans--because the coverage would be too expensive and the fine for 
most of them is much less than the coverage.
  As was told to the American people, if you like your health coverage, 
you can keep it. We now know that promise was simply, objectively, 100 
percent false. For Americans all over this country, the facts are 
otherwise.
  It is incumbent on us, representing our constituents, to look to the 
reality of these facts.

[[Page S6798]]

  Look to the young people. I don't think you could design a plan 
designed to harm young people more than ObamaCare. It is more than a 
crying irony that some 70 percent of young people voted for the 
President. I recognize that young people didn't necessarily understand 
the consequences of ObamaCare and how it is impacting their future. It 
is one of the things on which I hope this debate will focus.
  If you are a young person coming out of school, have some student 
loans, and let's say you are hoping for a job and for a future, if you 
can't get that first job or if you are forced into part-time work, you 
are not going to gain the skills you need to get that second job, the 
third job, the fourth job, or to build a career, to get married, and to 
provide for your family.
  We read earlier from the Wall Street Journal describing how 
economists now talk about young people as the ``lost generation.'' One 
of the striking consequences of this is that young people are putting 
off marriage and putting off kids. We know that has societal 
consequences. That has societal consequences that are altogether 
detrimental. And they are doing it not for matters of individual 
choice, they are doing it because the economy is so terrible for young 
people that they have no options. They have no options to provide for a 
spouse, to provide for kids, so they rationally choose not to begin 
those families until they have a job sufficient to provide for their 
families.
  This thing isn't working. Every one of us owes it to our constituents 
to listen, to listen to the young people who are suffering, to listen 
to the single moms, to listen to the seniors, to listen to those with 
disabilities, to listen to the African Americans, to listen to the 
Hispanics who aren't getting jobs, are getting forcibly put in part-
time work, facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and who are 
losing their health insurance.
  We can vote party loyalty. That is easy to do. It is the way 
Washington often works. We can vote and say: Congress is exempted. We 
have special rules that apply to us, so it is not our problem.
  Yes, it hurts hard-working Americans. If there is one thing 
Washington knows how to do, it is ignore the plight of hard-working 
Americans. Or we can show a level of coverage that has been rare in 
this town and step up and say we will risk retribution from our own 
parties. We will stand up and speak the truth. We will stand up and 
champion our constituents. Elected officials need to listen to the 
people. Together, we must make D.C. listen.
  Mr. LEE. Will the Seantor yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. LEE. As the Senator was mentioning, the fact that it is time for 
people to stand for their own rights and it is time for the people's 
elected representatives in Washington to stand for them reminds me of 
the fact that sometimes people do take this challenge, and sometimes 
they don't. Sometimes people will square their shoulders heading into a 
challenge, and other times people will simply engage in shoulder-
shrugging and ignore problems all together.
  A few years ago I was traveling through southern Utah with my family, 
and we went to a restaurant. It was sort of a fast food restaurant that 
had a salad bar. For some strange reason, instead of ordering a 
cheeseburger, I ordered a salad. I don't know why, but I got the salad 
bar. I went through the salad bar with my plate, and I was putting all 
of these horribly healthy foods on my plate--lettuce, vegetables. Then 
I saw at the end of the salad bar something that I didn't expect, a 
little bonus. There was a little tub of chocolate pudding, and I 
thought, this is fantastic. I can feel like I am eating a healthy meal 
because I am eating a salad, but I get chocolate pudding in with salad, 
so I put a bunch of that on my salad plate.
  I sat down a few minutes later, and, of course, rather than eating 
the salad, I went right for the pudding. There was only one problem: 
The pudding was disgusting. It was spoiled rotten. It tasted as if it 
had been left out overnight unrefrigerated for 3 nights in a row, which 
is not a good thing.
  I immediately thought, I have to find somebody who works here. I have 
to tell someone that the pudding is bad so that they don't have to deal 
with any other customers eating rotten pudding. I found the nearest 
employee of the restaurant. I said to her in a sort of hushed tone of 
voice: Hey, the pudding is bad. You need to do something about it. You 
need to replace it. It is rancid. It is spoiled rotten. Please do 
something about it.
  She looked at me with a sort of blank stare. She couldn't have been 
older than maybe 17 years old, and she just said: I am not on salad. 
Then she walked away. My response to that was, I am not suggesting that 
you are on salad.
  I all of a sudden wondered whether I had stumbled across some rift 
among the employees of this particular fast food establishment. Maybe 
she didn't like the implication that she was one of the salad bar 
attendants. Maybe that was a bad thing. I don't know. All I know is 
that it was kind of strange because she worked for the same employer 
who ran the salad bar. I would have thought she would have cared about 
that. Instead, she said: I am not on salad, shrugged her shoulders, and 
walked away.
  I wonder if that is sometimes what we have too much of here in 
Washington: I am not on salad. I am not on ObamaCare. I am not on 
excessive regulation. I am not on dealing with a law that is going to 
result in a lot of Americans losing their jobs, having their hours cut, 
their wages cut, or losing access to their health care benefits.
  Well, our problems are acute. Our problems are, in fact, chronic. We 
have to do more than shrug our shoulders. What we need right now is 
more shoulder-squaring than shoulder-shrugging. We have to have people 
who will follow the admonition of Ronald Reagan, who declared more than 
30 years ago that it is morning in America again. As it is now morning 
in Washington again, it is an appropriate time of day for us to bring 
this up. To paraphrase the words of Ronald Reagan, as spoken in his 
speech at the Republican National Convention in July 1980, and to apply 
those same words today, let me just say as follows:

       Our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear 
     from those in positions of leadership are the same tired 
     proposals for more government tinkering, more meddling and 
     more control, all of which led us to this state in the first 
     place. Can anyone look at the record of this administration 
     and say: Well done? Can anyone compare the state of our 
     economy when this administration took office with where we 
     are today and say: Keep up the good work? Can anyone look at 
     our reduced stand in the world today and say: Let's have more 
     of this?
       We must have the clarity of vision to see the difference 
     between what is essential and what is merely desirable, and 
     then the courage to use this insight to bring our government 
     back under control and make it acceptable to the people. It 
     has long been said that freedom is the condition in which the 
     government fears the people and tyranny is the condition in 
     which the people fear the government.

  Throughout the duration of our history as a republic, we have enjoyed 
liberty, we have enjoyed freedom, and we have had a notable absence of 
tyranny. Sure, there have been excesses from time to time. We have kept 
those under control because the government has always been in good 
hands--in the hands of its people. When the people weigh in from time 
to time and decide they have had too much of something, it ends up 
having a benefit for everyone. Everyone benefits when the people speak 
and are heard. Everyone benefits when the people's elected 
representatives are willing to square their shoulders and stand up to a 
challenge rather than shrug their shoulders and walk away saying, as it 
were, I am not on salad.
  Today, we are all on ObamaCare. We are all on it in the sense we 
can't walk away from it. We are all on it in the sense that we have no 
choice but to confront the many challenges facing our people. There is 
not widespread agreement as to what we can or should or must or might 
do.
  In the absence of consensus, and understanding the widespread 
disruption to our economy this will create once it is fully 
implemented, some have suggested that a good compromise position might 
be to delay its impact. And the best way to fully delay it is to defund 
it--defund it for at least 1 year. The President himself has 
acknowledged the law is not ready to be implemented as written. The 
American people are reluctant to confront the many economic challenges 
this law presents.

[[Page S6799]]

It is, therefore, appropriate that we do this, and it is appropriate 
the House of Representatives passed a continuing resolution to keep 
government funded while defunding ObamaCare.
  It is for that position we have been speaking, and it is for that 
position that we continue to insist that as we approach the cloture 
vote this week, that I and Senator Cruz and a few others will be voting 
no on cloture on the bill because we support the House-passed 
continuing resolution--H.J. Res. 59. We support that, and because we 
support it, we cannot support a process that would enable Senator Reid, 
the Senate majority leader, to strip out, to gut the most important 
provision within that resolution--the ObamaCare defunding legislation--
by a simple majority vote without allowing any other votes on any other 
amendments, without allowing for an open amendment process, without 
ever allowing Members of this body to have an up-or-down vote on the 
legislation as a whole, as it was enacted, as is.
  That is what we are fighting for. Is this difficult? Yes, absolutely 
it is. Do we have consensus within our own political party? Of course 
we don't. That is one of the reasons we are standing here today, to 
persuade our colleagues and to persuade more of the American people to 
join in with us. No one Senator can do this alone. Not one of us, 
certainly by means of our persuasive abilities, will be able to do 
this. But with the American people, we can do a lot of things.
  It wasn't very long ago, it wasn't even 2 weeks ago when people were 
still saying it would not be possible to pass a continuing resolution 
such as H.J. Res. 59--one that keeps government funded while defunding 
ObamaCare. Yet when the people weighed in strongly in support of this 
measure, it became possible. I hope and I expect the same can be true 
in the Senate.
  So I would ask Senator Cruz: What is the best way the American 
people, in confronting this challenge and others similar to it, but in 
particular this challenge confronting ObamaCare, can square their 
shoulders and avoid the kind of shoulder shrugging that has resulted in 
so much expansion of government almost as if by default?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Utah for that very fine question, 
and I wish to thank the American people for doing exactly what Senator 
Lee just asked--for over 1.6 million Americans signing a national 
petition to defund ObamaCare.
  You want to know why the House of Representatives voted 
overwhelmingly on Friday to defund ObamaCare? The answer is simple: 
Because the American people rose and demanded it. At the end of the 
day, the House of Representatives is the people's House. I salute the 
House conservatives who fought and fought hard to get this done. I 
salute the House leadership. I salute Speaker Boehner for listening to 
the people.
  It is not surprising the House of Representatives would do that 
first. For one thing, the House is designed to be the people's House. 
In our constitutional structure, the House has a different role than 
the Senate. The House of Representatives is up for election every 2 
years like clockwork. In the House, you run, you get elected, you may 
get a little bit of a breather, enjoy Thanksgiving and Christmas with 
your family, and then you promptly turn around and start getting ready 
for the next election 2 years hence. Given that, the House is, by its 
nature, more responsive to the people because the risks are higher in 
the House to not being so. The House has shown over and over, when the 
elected representatives stop listening to the American people, the 
American people are very good, to use an old phrase, at throwing the 
bums out.
  The Senate, on the other hand, is similar to a battleship. It turns 
slowly. Part of that is by constitutional design. Part of that was the 
wisdom of the Framers. In any given 2-year cycle only one-third of this 
body is up for election. It is one of the things that is interesting. 
If you look at those Republicans who have publicly said they intend to 
vote for cloture, they intend to vote to give Harry Reid the power to 
fund ObamaCare with 51 Democratic votes, they intend to give Harry Reid 
the power to gut the Republican continuing resolution, most of those 
Republicans who have said that are not up for election in 2014.
  It is amazing how it can focus the mind if you have to actually stand 
before the citizens. I suppose some of the Republicans who are up in 
2016 and 2018 might think: There will be time. There will be time. The 
voters will forget. The only way to move the battleship of the Senate 
is for the American people to make it politically more risky to do the 
wrong thing than it is to do the right thing.

  When we were reading Bastiat's ``The Law,'' he talked about how do 
you prevent plunder. You make it more risky to engage in plunder than 
in hard work. The same is true of politics. You make it more risky not 
to listen to the voices of the people. How do you do that? The only way 
that has ever worked is a tidal wave of outpouring. It is what we saw 
with drones, it is what we saw with guns, and it is what we saw with 
Syria. But here it has to be bigger. It has to be bigger than any of 
those three. Why? Because the resistance is more settled in. The 
Democratic side of the aisle, the party loyalty is deeply entrenched.
  I hope by the end of this week we see some brave Democrats who show 
the courage James Hoffa of the Teamsters showed. We haven't yet. I hope 
that changes. I hope by the end of this week we see a lot more 
Republicans, even Republicans who are not up in 2014 but who may have 
some chance by the next election cycle the voters will have forgotten. 
I am not convinced of that, but it is easy for politicians to convince 
themselves of that. I hope we see Republicans saying: Listen, this is a 
conscience vote. This is a vote to do the right thing.
  I have to say that in my time in the Senate this is the first time I 
have seen Republican leadership actively whipping the Republican 
conference to support Harry Reid and give him the power to enact his 
agenda. I have never seen that before. I am quite confident it is not 
what Texans expect of me. I am quite confident, when each Republican 
goes back to his or her home State, it is not what their constituents 
expect of them.
  I am also quite confident, if and when we return home and stand in 
front of our constituents and are asked: Senator, why did you vote yes 
on cloture to give Harry Reid the power to fund ObamaCare, to gut the 
House continuing resolution, I am quite confident if the answer was: 
Our party leadership asked me to do that; I am expected to be a good 
soldier, to salute and to march into battle--you know what, none of us 
were elected by party leadership. That is true on the Democratic and 
Republican side.
  Listen, if we see Democratic Senators showing courage on this issue 
to break, I have no doubt the Democratic leadership will be very 
unhappy with them. I don't want to sugarcoat what the reaction would 
be. On the Republican side, none of us were elected by our party 
leadership. We have a different boss. Our boss is the American people. 
Our boss consists of the constituents who elected us. I am going to 
submit, if you strip away all the procedural mumbo jumbo, all the smoke 
and mirrors, our constituents would be horrified to know the games we 
play, to know this is all set up to be a giant kabuki dance--theater--
where a lot of Republicans vote to give Harry Reid the authority to gut 
the House continuing resolution to fund ObamaCare and they go home and 
tell their constituents: Hey, I was voting in support of the House. 
Boy, with support like that, it is akin to saying you are supporting 
someone by handing a gun to someone who will shoot you.
  We don't have to speculate. It is not hypothetical that maybe, kind 
of, sort of, possibly if you vote for cloture ObamaCare will be funded 
and the House of Representatives' continuing resolution will be gutted. 
We know that because Harry Reid has announced it. So any Republican who 
casts a vote for cloture is saying: Yes, I want Harry Reid to have the 
power to do that, and then I will vote against it once it no longer 
matters, once it is a free symbolic vote. I don't think those kind of 
games are consistent with the obligation we owe to our constituents.
  I made reference to the IRS employees union asking to be exempted 
from ObamaCare, and the union sent a letter where they asked their 
members please send. I want to read that letter. This is

[[Page S6800]]

prepared, presumably, by the union bosses at the IRS employees union.

       Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

  Interestingly enough, this letter is directed to the Democratic 
leaders.

       When you and the President sought our support, you pledged 
     that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep 
     them. Sadly, that promise is under threat.

  By the way, who is saying this? The IRS employees union, the people 
in charge of enforcing ObamaCare on us, the American people.

       Right now, unless you under the Obama administration enact 
     an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-
     earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-
     hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle 
     class.

  I think this letter I am reading may not be the IRS employees union; 
it may be, in fact, the Teamsters letter. I am going to set that aside 
and see if we can get the actual IRS union. It is a great letter. I may 
read it again in the course of this discussion. But I don't think that 
is the IRS letter since it is signed by James Hoffa. I am pretty 
confident that was not the IRS employees union.
  Instead, let me read another note from a constituent. But don't trust 
me; don't trust any politician on what is happening on ObamaCare; trust 
the people.
  A constituent from Spring, TX, wrote on April 12, 2013:

       My late husband worked for the same company for over 40 
     years. Because of ObamaCare, this year that company decided 
     it would no longer offer supplemental insurance to Medicare. 
     The program I was forced into has increased my monthly 
     premium by almost $100. Not only that, but the prescription 
     plan has increased the drug plan--a generic one at that--by 
     30 percent.

  Ridiculous. This body--Democrats and Republicans--needs to listen to 
the people. Together, we must make DC listen.
  Mr. RUBIO. Would the Senator from Texas yield for a question without 
yielding the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida for a 
question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. RUBIO. My first question is, What did the Senator do last night?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Florida for that question. I had a 
delightful night. I had a chance to read Bastiat, Rand, and read some 
tweets. There are few things more enjoyable than reading tweets. And I 
hope that the Senator and I and Senator Lee and many other Senators who 
participated in this--I hope we have had some positive impact on moving 
this debate forward and making clear to the American people both the 
train wreck, the nightmare that is ObamaCare, in the words of James 
Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, but also that right now too many 
members of this body are not listening to the American people, and the 
only remedy for that is this week the American people demanding that we 
make DC listen.
  Mr. RUBIO. Would the Senator from Texas yield for a followup question 
without yielding the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for another question without yielding 
the floor.
  Mr. RUBIO. First an observation. It is interesting how much times 
have changed around here. If a decade ago you were to tell someone you 
were tweeting on the Senate floor, that would not be a positive thing. 
People would think that meant something else.
  The world has changed a lot, and I think the Senator highlighted 
earlier in some of the speeches given here what a positive development 
that has been. It wasn't so long ago that in order to be able to do 
something in politics, to make a difference, to mobilize people to take 
action, you needed the benefits of the formal organizations that 
existed. You needed groups or the establishment--or whatever term 
people want to use--to get things done. But one thing that has really 
completely changed American politics is that anybody can become a 
political activist now. Because of access to social media, because of 
access to Facebook and Twitter and Vine and Instagram and all these 
other programs, anyone can now take action and speak out. Anyone can 
now connect with like-minded people halfway across the country or 
halfway around the world and begin a cause.
  In many respects, that is what I think you see happening in this 
country now. There is a lot of talk about how Washington has changed, 
how there are things happening now that didn't used to happen before. I 
am convinced that one of the reasons is because people now have access 
to things that are happening in real time and they have the ability to 
speak out on these things in real time.
  It used to be that you had to turn on the TV at 6:00 in the evening 
or 6:30 to watch the evening national news. Not anymore. News is 
reported on a minute-by-minute basis. Even as I speak now, there is 
someone out there covering it, there are people out there saying 
something about it. By and large, it has been a positive development 
because it has empowered individual Americans from all walks of life 
not just to be aware of what is happening in this Capitol but to engage 
in it, to speak out, and to be heard. At the end of the day, this 
Republic depends on that--on an informed citizenry who is also able to 
speak out on the issues of the day and communicate with the people who 
work for them.
  Let me tell you what I hear from the people I work for in the State 
of Florida. I hear tremendous concern about the future. We focus a lot 
around here on specific issues, and we should. The national debt is a 
crisis. Our Tax Code is broken. Our regulations are out of control. We 
are talking about ObamaCare right now, which has been hugely 
detrimental to the American economy and to the aspirations of 
individual Americans. But overriding all of this is the central concern 
that I find increasingly on the minds of people. Let me describe it.
  I know that as a country we are divided on a lot of issues. Look at 
the polls. Look at the elections. I know the country is divided on a 
lot of important issues. That is why this body and Congress are 
struggling to find consensus on many of the major issues we confront.
  But let me tell you what I believe is still the unifying principle 
that holds our Nation and our people together. That unifying principle 
is the belief that anyone who is willing to work hard and sacrifice 
should be able to get ahead, the idea that if you are willing to work 
as hard as you can and make sacrifices, you should be rewarded for that 
with a better life.
  By the way, when we talk about a better life, it is not a guarantee 
that you will ever be a millionaire or a billionaire, but it generally 
means the ability to find a job that is fulfilling, helps you feel like 
you are making a difference in the world, a job that allows you to do 
something you love for a living, and a job that pays you enough money 
to do things like buy a house, provide a stable environment for your 
family, and save so your kids can go to college and so that you can 
retire with dignity and security.
  As a people, we are unified in the belief that it is unfair that 
people who are willing to work hard and sacrifice, as the vast majority 
of Americans are--it is unfair when people who are willing to do that 
cannot get ahead, when those people are held back. We have been told 
our whole lives that if you work hard, if you sacrifice, if you go to 
school and graduate, if you do all these things, you will get ahead, 
that this is that kind of country.

  But now people are starting to wonder if that is still true. Across 
this country increasingly people are starting to wonder, that which we 
know as the American dream, is that still alive? They want to believe 
it still is. They believe in America, but they are starting to wonder 
if that formula I have outlined--hard work and sacrifice lead to a 
better life--if that formula still works. Why are they wondering that? 
It is not hard to understand. They are working hard. They are working 
harder than they ever have. Look at median incomes in America. Look at 
the people who feel as if their lives have stagnated. They are working 
hard. They are sacrificing. Not only are they not getting ahead, 
sometimes they feel as if they are falling behind.
  Put yourself in the place of someone who is 56, 57, 58 years old and 
worked their whole life at some company or industry. Suddenly, they are 
laid off and they can't find anyone to hire them. They were getting 
ready for retirement. Now they don't know when that is ever going to 
happen.
  Put yourself in the place of a student. You graduated high school. 
While

[[Page S6801]]

your friends were out playing around, you were studying so you could 
get good grades and get into a good school. You did that. You went to 
college. While your friends were out partying, you studied. You 
graduated with a 3.5, 4.0. You went to grad school and graduated from 
there as well. You did everything that was asked of you. Then you 
graduated, and you couldn't find a job in your career field. And here 
is what is worse: You owe $30,000 or more in student loans.
  By the way, that is an issue I know. I know Senator Lee has 
confronted that as well. I had $100,000 in student loans when I 
graduated. I grant you, it was a wise investment in my education, but 
it was an anchor around my neck for many, many years. My parents were 
never able to save enough money to provide for our education, so I had 
to do a combination of grants, work study, and student loans. When I 
came to the Senate, I still had those loans. There were months when my 
loan payments were higher than our mortgage.
  So you look at these things and you understand what people around the 
country are facing.
  Think about the small businesses. You used to work for someone. You 
were an employee, and then one day you decided: I can do this job 
better than my boss can, so I am going to quit this job and I am going 
to risk it. I am going to take every penny I have access to, I am going 
to max out my credit card, I am going to take out my life savings, and 
I am going to open a small business because I believe in my idea. And I 
will guarantee that for most people who did that, those first years 
were tough. This idea that you open a business and tomorrow you are on 
Facebook is usually not the case. Usually you struggle those first few 
years. Oftentimes, people fail in business two or three times before 
they finally succeed.
  Interestingly enough, as part of this process one of the most 
rewarding things I have been able to do is travel the country and meet 
and interact with very successful people in business and in life. It is 
amazing how many people you meet who--when you ask them how they got 
started and how they achieved, they usually focus on all the times they 
failed before they achieved. They take pride in the struggle because it 
means that they earned it, that they earned what they have. They take 
pride in that.
  But put yourself in the position of someone who went through all 
that, someone who started this business by taking out a second mortgage 
on their home and literally came upon one Friday when they didn't know 
how they were going to make payroll or stay open but somehow they 
persevered and made it through, and now that business is open and 
functioning and yet it is struggling. And they are wondering--after all 
these years of hard work and sacrifice, they feel as though they are 
slipping backward instead of moving ahead.
  There is a growing sentiment in this country about these things. Let 
me tell you why that is so dangerous. What I just described to you is 
what we have come to know as the American Dream. There is this idea 
among the minds of some that the American dream is a material thing, 
that the American dream is about how much money can you make so you can 
own more things. That may be an element of it for some people, but the 
American dream is largely about being able to earn for yourself a 
better life.
  You can only understand the American dream by viewing it from a 
global perspective. For those of us who were born and raised in this 
country, who have lived here our whole life, who don't know anything 
else, sometimes it is easy to take what I am about to tell you for 
granted. In most countries around the world, for almost all of human 
history and even today, it doesn't really matter how hard you are 
willing to work and how much you are willing to sacrifice. If you don't 
come from the right family, if you are not well connected, you don't 
get into the right schools and then you don't get into the right jobs.
  Put yourself in that position for a moment. Imagine now that you have 
big hopes, big dreams, and big talent, and your hope is to do something 
with it. By the way, it doesn't have to mean making a lot of money. 
Maybe you want to serve in philanthropy. Maybe you want to make a 
difference setting up a foundation. Maybe you are an artist or a 
musician. Whatever it may be, imagine now being trapped with all that 
talent and unable to put it into use. You would say that is unfair, and 
I would tell you that was the human condition up until 200 years ago 
everywhere in the world, and it is still the human condition in many 
parts of the globe today. The American dream is that here that is not 
true. Here, we believe that is wrong. Here, we believe that is unfair. 
Here, we believe all Americans--Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, 
Conservatives, everyone--we all believe it is unfair and it is wrong 
that someone should be prevented from achieving a better life because 
of where they come from, whom they come from, or where they started out 
in life. We believe that is unfair. We believe that is wrong. That is 
the American dream. That is us--the notion that you should be able to 
achieve whatever you were meant to be, to be able to fully utilize your 
talents in whatever way you find meaningful, the ability to have a 
career instead of a job, all these sorts of things.
  That is what we are on the verge of losing, in the minds of many 
Americans, and that is supremely dangerous to the country. Why? Because 
I personally do not believe there can be an America as we know it 
without the American dream. Without the American dream, America is just 
another big powerful country, but it is no longer an exceptional one. 
That is what is at stake in all these debates we are conducting in this 
body.
  What are the impediments? What is creating these problems we are 
facing? There may be more, but I have identified three that I hope we 
will focus on more.
  The first, by the way, is societal breakdown. It is real. This idea 
that somehow you can separate the social well-being of your people from 
their moral well-being is absurd. The social well-being from the 
economic well-being--the idea that you can separate those is absurd. If 
you are born into a broken family, the statistics tell us that the 
chances that you are going to struggle significantly increase. The 
destruction of the family structure in America, the decline of it, is a 
leading contributor to poverty and educational underperformance.
  The question for policymakers here in Washington is what can we do 
about that? Can we pass laws that will make people better parents? Can 
we pass government programs that will make families better? The answer 
is usually not. But I can tell you what we can start doing. We can 
start recognizing this is a real factor. This is not about moralizing. 
This is not about imposing our religious views or values on anyone. 
This is a free country. You have the right to believe in anything you 
want or believe in nothing at all. But you better believe this: It 
doesn't matter how many diplomas you have on the wall. If you don't 
have the values of hard work and sacrifice and respect and perseverance 
and self-discipline, if you don't have those values you are going to 
struggle to succeed, and no one is born with those values; no one. 
Those values have to be taught and they have to be reinforced.
  One of the things that made America exceptional, one of the things 
that allowed the American dream to happen is that in this country we 
had strong families and strong institutions in our society that helped 
those families instill those values in children. Today there are 
millions of children growing up in this country who are not being 
taught these values because of societal breakdown. We refuse to 
confront it at our own peril. We better recognize it and start acting 
on it as a nation because I am telling you, children who are born into 
broken families, living in substandard housing, in dangerous 
neighborhoods, with no access to health care and with difficulty 
accessing good schools, these kids have five strikes against them. They 
are going to struggle to make it unless someone addresses that, and we 
are losing an entire generation of talent because of it. We better 
address it in a way that is good for the country and also good for 
those families.
  The second issue, I would tell you, that is contributing to this is 
we have a significant skills gap in America. What that means is 21st 
century jobs

[[Page S6802]]

require more skills than jobs ever have. Here is a graphic example. Go 
to the grocery store. I was there Saturday. There used to be 12 
checkout lines. That meant 12 cashiers, right? Twelve cashier jobs. Now 
there are eight checkout lines and the other four are these machines 
where you run the card over the scan. That means those four or five 
cashier jobs are gone, right? Yes, but those jobs have been replaced by 
the jobs of the people who installed those machines, the jobs of the 
people who built those machines, the jobs of the people who maintain 
those machines. A graphic example of the 21st century. The job has been 
replaced by a new job, but the new job--to be a cashier you have to be 
trained on the site. My mom was a cashier. But to build, fix, and 
maintain those machines you have to have a higher level of skills you 
have to learn in school somewhere. Too many people don't have those 
skills. We have to fix that. For the life of me I don't understand why 
we stigmatize career education in America. There are kids who don't 
want to go to Harvard or Yale. They don't want to go for a 6-year 
degree or a 7-year degree program. They want to fix airplane engines. 
They want to be electricians and plumbers. Those are good-paying jobs. 
We need those people. We should be teaching kids to do that while they 
are still in high school so they can graduate with a diploma in this 
hand and a certificate that makes them job ready in the other. We 
should do that.
  Beyond that, our students today, many of them are nontraditional 
students. They are not just 18- or 19-year-olds who just graduated from 
high school. There, for example, a single mom is working as a 
receptionist at a dental clinic somewhere and she is the first one to 
get laid off every time things go wrong. How can she improve her life? 
By becoming an ultrasound tech or becoming any of these other 
paraprofessions you find in medicine. But to do that she has to be able 
go to school. How is she going to do that if she has to work full time 
and raise her kids? We have to answer that. Whether it is online 
programs or flexibility in study or programs that give you credit for 
life experience and work experience, we have to answer that.
  We have to also address workers who in the middle of their lives have 
lost their job, a job that is never coming back. They need to be 
retrained. By the way, the traditional college route will still be the 
ticket for upward mobility for millions of Americans but better figure 
out how to pay for it because right now you have kids graduating with 
$30,000 and $40,000 around their neck and that is going to prevent them 
from starting a family, buying a house, and moving ahead. We had better 
figure out why it is that every time more aid is made available to 
these students it gets gobbled up by these tuition increases. We better 
address that problem and we better address the skills gap.
  Here is the third, and it goes right to the heart of what Senator 
Cruz from Texas is dealing with here. The free enterprise system is the 
single great eradicator of poverty in all of human history. Free 
enterprise, American-style free enterprise, has eradicated more poverty 
than all the government programs in the world combined. You want to 
wage a real war on poverty? Encourage free enterprise. Why? Because 
free enterprise is an economic system that rewards people for hard 
work, sacrifice, and merit. Free enterprise does not ask what did your 
parents do for a living? Who do you know? Where do you summer? Who do 
you hang out with over the summer? What clubs do you belong to? Free 
enterprise doesn't ask that. Free enterprise wants to know what is your 
idea? Is there a market for it? Are you willing to work hard and 
sacrifice and persevere? If you are, there is no guarantee, but if you 
are, you have a real opportunity to make it. You want to know proof 
that that works? I have 200-some-odd years of American history to show 
you. It works.
  In fact, it works so well that other countries are trying to copy it 
in their own version. Why are there millions of people in China today 
that just a generation ago lived in deep poverty and now are consumers 
in the middle class? Why? Is it because they headed even more in the 
direction of communism or because they opened their economy to free 
enterprise principles? The same is true in Brazil, Mexico, India, all 
over the world. What are the countries that are finding increased 
prosperity and growth in the middle class doing? They are inching 
toward free enterprise, not away from it.
  Does that mean there is no role for government? No, of course there 
is a role for government. There is an important role for government. It 
provides for our national security. It is hard to grow your economy 
when you are under attack. It provides for internal security. You know, 
it is hard for people to invest in an economy if they don't know there 
is a court system that is going to enforce property rights, if they 
believe crimes will go unpunished.

  We believe in a safety net. Free enterprise doesn't work without a 
real safety net--not as a way of life. You cannot live your whole life 
on welfare and food stamps and disability unless you are truly 
disabled. That is what the real safety net is there for. It is there to 
help people who cannot help themselves and it is there to help people 
who have fallen to stand back up and try again. We believe in a safety 
net--not as a way of life but as a backstop to make people feel the 
confidence that they can invest in the future.
  What else should government be doing? As I have talked about--
national security, infrastructure, the roads and bridges we build in 
this country. It is not a jobs program but it does create the backbone 
for the economy to function. The problem is the most important thing 
government should do in all of our policymaking decisions is we must 
ask ourselves, before you do anything--you pass a law, you create a new 
program--ask yourself: Will this foster the free enterprise system or 
will it undermine it?
  To answer that question, you have to first recognize how the free 
enterprise system works. What creates prosperity and opportunity? Here 
is what creates it. When someone invents something new, a new product, 
idea, or service, when someone starts a new business or when someone 
grows an existing business, that is what creates opportunity and 
middle-class prosperity in the free enterprise system, that is what 
makes upward mobility possible, that is what allows people to climb out 
of where they started in life and improve it and leave their kids even 
better off--when people innovate, when they invest by starting a new 
business or expanding an existing one.
  As policymakers, every time we make a decision around here, if you 
want to help the middle class, the people who are trying to make it, 
make America the best place in the world to innovate, to start a new 
business or to expand an existing business.
  Do you want to know what is wrong in America today with our economy? 
Look no farther than a series of government policies--by the way, 
pursued by both political parties, although my opinion is I have not 
seen anything like the last 6 years--but a series of policies that have 
undermined the free enterprise system, policies that make it harder, 
not easier, to start a business, to expand an existing business, and to 
innovate.
  Chief among them right now before us is what the Senator from Texas 
has been talking about all night--ObamaCare. That is why we are 
passionate about this. If you watch the news a little bit, you would 
think this is all because it is President Obama's idea and the 
Republicans are against it because it is his idea and that is what is 
happening here. That is absurd. I certainly have an ideological 
objection to the expansion of government. But my passionate objection, 
at least why I am on the floor here today and why Senator Cruz is on 
the floor all night, it is not because of ideology or theory, it is the 
reality that this law is going to hurt real people. It is going to hurt 
real people. I have met those people. I have talked to those people. If 
you have been to a Walgreen's lately you know those people, too.
  Why? Because Walgreen's has announced that because of ObamaCare it 
has to get rid of its insurance program that its employees are 
generally happy with. That is why they are still working there, right? 
Now they get thrown into the great unknown.
  Here is the problem with that. Imagine if you are chronically ill or 
imagine if you have children and you have this preexisting relationship 
with a doctor.

[[Page S6803]]

They know your history. You can call them when you need them. They are 
responsive. That is why you are going there all these years. Now you 
get thrown on this new insurance program and the doctor is not on the 
plan anymore. In fact, what we are hearing from these new exchanges 
that are being set up is one of the ways we are going to lower costs is 
limit our networks: less doctors, less hospitals. That is how we are 
going to save some money and make these things affordable. That is what 
we are going to put people into? So all of a sudden these doctors you 
have been going to these years, you cannot go to them anymore? That is 
wrong. That is hurting real people.
  How about this for an example. Imagine now these small businesses I 
have met. I know the Senator talked about this, Senator Cruz. I met a 
restaurant owner--we had a small business meeting here a couple of 
months ago--from Louisiana. He testified. He has great ideas. He has 
calculated that there is a market for him to open a new restaurant. He 
owns a chain. He wants to open one more. He is not going to because of 
ObamaCare, because the costs create uncertainty about the future for 
him, because he is worried about triggering mandates he cannot 
calculate for.
  You may say he is a business owner, he already has X number of 
restaurants, why does he need anymore? Some people would actually say 
that. It is not him we are going to worry about. He would be the first 
to tell you I am going to be OK. Who is not going to be OK? If you open 
that new restaurant, he was going to hire 20 or 30 new people. There 
are 20 or 30 people in Louisiana right now who could have had a job, a 
job that could have helped them to provide for their family, a job that 
could have helped them to pay for their school. Those jobs are not 
going to be created. That is just one example. There are multiple 
examples.
  How about this one? How about if you are a part-time worker now. The 
backbone of our economy can never be part-time work, but there is 
always a place for part-time work. I worked part time before. I think 
the Senator has talked about when he had to work part time before. 
Others have. There is a place for that in our economy. Primarily it 
helps young people and retirees. For young people, it helps them to 
work their way through school. Imagine, now, if you want to work your 
way through school because you don't want to owe $50,000 in student 
loans and you are in central Florida and you work for Sea World and 
right now maybe you are working 32 hours a week part time and using the 
rest of the time to go to school. But here comes ObamaCare so now Sea 
World has announced instead of 32 hours we are going to move you to 28 
hours. That is real money. That is real money. That is hurting real 
people.
  Here is one that doesn't get a lot of attention. Medicare Advantage 
is a great choice program. It is not perfect. There are ways to improve 
it, but it is a program on Medicare that basically allows patients on 
Medicare to sign up in a managed care system that manages their care 
but for that, it adds additional benefits to their package. My mom is a 
Medicare Advantage patient. I can tell you the outcomes are generally 
better than for people who are in the fee-for-service system and the 
services they offer are valuable.
  In my mom's case she needs transportation to and from doctors' 
visits. That is one of the services the Medicare Advantage Program 
provides. ObamaCare takes money out of Advantage. You would think they 
are taking money out of Medicare Advantage to shore up the finances of 
Medicare because it is going bankrupt. No, they are taking the money 
out to fund ObamaCare.
  So what is going to happen practically is that at some point here 
over the next few months, beneficiaries on Medicare Advantage are going 
to get letters in the mail and those are going to inform them of 
services they were once receiving and are no longer receiving.
  With all the uncertainty created by ObamaCare, is it making America 
the easiest place, or an easier place, to start a business? No. Does 
ObamaCare make it easier to grow an existing business? Absolutely not. 
Does ObamaCare encourage innovation in the marketplace? Of course not. 
On the contrary, it undermines innovation in medicine. It undermines 
advances in medical technology that have added years and quality to the 
lives of millions of people.
  This thing is a complete disaster, and now we are being asked to take 
the taxpayer dollars and pour more money into this broken thing? Of 
course we are passionate about being against that. So I go out across 
the State of Florida, and everywhere I go I have people who voted for 
the President telling me this thing is hurting them.
  This is not a partisan issue. There are Democrats who are hurt by 
this. There are supporters of the President being hurt by this.
  Earlier this evening--I lost track of when it was--Senator Cruz read 
letters from the Teamsters Union and from other unions across the 
country. We received news that the union representing IRS workers who 
are in charge of enforcing this law through the fines or the tax--or 
whatever they decided to call it--want to be exempted from it. They 
don't want it to apply to them.
  By the way, all these exemptions that people are begging for--whether 
it is Members of Congress or IRS employees or unions--is shining a 
light on this reality. Big government always benefits the people who 
have access to power. That is true everywhere in the world. Why? I will 
tell you why. Big government always writes a lot of regulations, rules, 
and has a lot complexity.
  So if you are a multibillion-dollar corporation, a powerful labor 
union or a billionaire, you can come and hire the best lawyers in 
America and they will help you figure out the loopholes in those laws. 
Let me tell you what else you can do: You can hire the best lobbyists 
in Washington to help you get those loopholes written in.
  You may not be shocked to know this, but in politics, sometimes 
businesses use government regulations and laws to give them an edge 
over their competitors and to keep other people from coming into their 
industry and competing against them. It happens because in big 
government that is possible. Big government always helps the people who 
have access to power because they are only ones who can afford to 
navigate it. So if you are a major corporation or major labor union, 
you can either deal with the impacts of ObamaCare or you can work to 
get an exemption or a waiver or what have you from it.
  Who can't? I will tell you who can't. The person trying to start a 
business out of the spare bedroom of their home. By the way, I met 
someone like this. They weren't at a Starbucks, they were at a Dunkin' 
Donuts. They were using the free wi-fi, and that was their business. 
They were in the corner of the Dunkin' Donuts, and that is where they 
started their software business. Do you think they can comply with the 
complicated rules and regulations? They can't.
  ObamaCare will force people either to go underground in their 
operations or not do it at all. It is not a question of why ObamaCare 
will fail, it is an example of why big government fails, and it is not 
fair. It is not fair for people in this country who are willing to work 
hard and are willing to sacrifice. It is not fair that we are making it 
harder on them through government policies being pursued.
  By the way, ObamaCare is not the only one. We have a broken Tax Code. 
If I asked you: Please design for me a Tax Code that discourages people 
from investing money and growing their businesses, you would give me 
the U.S. Tax Code today. We have to fix that.
  Our regulations are completely out of control. There is no cost-
benefit analysis at all. These people write regulations here in 
Washington, and no one ever asks the question: How many jobs will this 
destroy? How many jobs will not be created because of this? No one asks 
those questions. They measure the theory behind what it might do, such 
as the environmental benefit and the societal benefit, but no one ever 
does the cost-benefit analysis. There is no employment impact statement 
attached to these laws. Think about the absurdity of that.
  Here we are with a huge number of people dropping out of their search 
for jobs, a huge amount of underemployment, a vast majority of the new 
jobs being created are part-time jobs, and we are passing regulations 
that make

[[Page S6804]]

it harder for people to create jobs and opportunities. It is crazy. The 
regulations are out of control.
  We are going to deal with the debt. In about 6 or 7 days the debt 
limit debate is going to come up. They want to raise it again. The 
President said: I am not negotiating on this. Let's just raise it 
again. Never mind the fact that he stood on the floor of this Senate 
less than 10 years ago and said that raising the debt limit back then 
was a failure of leadership.
  Now things have changed because a $17 trillion debt is no longer 
pressing in his mind, and that is problematic. Why? Is the debt just an 
accounting problem? That is how they talk about it on the news. They 
talk about the debt as just an accounting problem. They say: They just 
spend more money than they take in, but if they only raised more taxes 
on richer people, they would pay off the whole thing. That is not true, 
guys.
  If we took every penny away from people who made over $1 million this 
year, it doesn't even make a dent in this. Any politician who says: All 
we have to do is raise taxes and the debt is under control is lying to 
you--period.
  The sooner we confront the debt, the better off we will be as a 
people. The debt is growing because we have important government 
programs that are structured in a way that is not sustainable. They 
spend a lot more money than they take in, and it only gets worse from 
here.
  Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are important programs. My 
mom is on two of them. I would never do anything to hurt her benefits 
or people like her and that is why I am so passionate about reforming 
them. Those programs are going bankrupt, and we are going to have to 
deal with it. We cannot continue to spend $1 trillion more than we take 
in and not deal with it. The problem is the longer we wait to deal with 
it, the harder it is going to be to deal with it.

  It is no different than medical conditions, right? Think about this 
for a second: Is there any disease or medical condition that you know 
of that is easier to treat the later you catch it? Is there? Is there 
any medical condition that is easier to fix the longer you wait to deal 
with it? Of course not. What are doctors always talking to us about? 
Early detection.
  It is the same with the debt. The longer we wait to address this 
issue, the harder and more disruptive it is going to be to solve it, 
and that is what is driving our debt. People want to focus on other 
things such as foreign aid. They say: Cut foreign aid. That is less 
than 1 percent of our budget. That is not what is driving our debt. It 
is not even defense spending.
  Are there ways to save money in defense contracting, of course there 
is, but that is not the driver of the debt. The driver of our debt are 
these unsustainable programs that if we want to save them, we must fix 
them. The debt is not an accounting problem. Why? First of all, it is a 
moral problem.
  Never in the history of this country has a generation of Americans 
said to their kids: Guys, we are going to run up your tab and you 
figure out how to pay for it later. We have never had that happen in 
the history of the United States, but that is what they are doing. It 
is wrong. But it is more than that. This is not just about what taxes 
will be 50 years from now on our kids, this is about the jobs that are 
being destroyed right now.
  Let's go back to the simple equation of how jobs are created. Jobs 
are created when someone invents something or when someone starts a new 
business or expands an existing business. People look at this debt and 
say they are going to have to deal with that debt one day through a 
debt crisis. They are going to have to raise taxes, make disruptive 
changes in the government in the future. They are not encouraged about 
investing in the future now because they are fearful about the 
uncertainty provided by the debt. They are fearful.
  So there are jobs right now that are not being created. Right now 
there are jobs in America that do not exist and were not created. They 
were going to be created but were not created because of the national 
debt.
  We are going to have a debate in a few days about it. The attitude 
from a lot of people around here is: Of course, we have to raise the 
debt limit, and we should not do anything about it. I stood on the 
floor of the Senate--my chair was back there in 2011--and I said: When 
are we finally going to deal with this thing? Well, 2\1/2\ years later 
and we are still not dealing with this thing.
  This complaisance and lack of emergency about these issues is 
puzzling. You know what my fear is? My fear is that we fast forward 50 
years into the future and historians are going to write that the 
country was falling apart, they were destroying the free enterprise 
system, the American dream was crumbling, and these guys stood by and 
did nothing.
  That is what I feel is happening right now. It feels like the horror 
movies where you scream at the screen: Don't go in that room. Don't do 
it. But they do it anyway. In some ways, everything we are facing with 
the debt and ObamaCare is similar to a horror movie. We know how it 
ends if we stay on this path. We know what happens in the horror movie 
if they open the door. The bad guy is on the other side.
  It is the same thing with the issues we are facing. We know what 
happens if we continue on the path we are on now--we decline as a 
nation. The sad part is that doesn't have to happen.
  There is no reason the 21st century cannot also be an American 
century. There is no this reason the next generation of Americans 
cannot be the most prosperous people who ever lived, but it requires us 
to act. It requires us to reform our Tax Code, not as a way of raising 
taxes but as a way of creating new taxpayers through economic growth. 
It requires us to deal with regulations.
  By the way--and I think the Senator from Texas would agree with 
this--ObamaCare, as much as anything else, is a massive authorization 
to write a bunch of rules. It is not just a law, it is a bunch of 
regulations that are hurting job creation, discouraging investment, and 
discouraging people from starting a new business or expanding an 
existing business. We have to fix that, and we have to deal with the 
debt.
  All of these issues have to be dealt with. None of them get easier to 
fix as time goes on. They all get harder and more disruptive.
  I don't know how the Senator from Texas did this for 18 hours. I am 
already tired.
  I guess I will just speak personally. The one issue that makes me so 
passionate about all of this in its sum total--I often wonder what 
would my life would have been like if America had never existed. What 
if in 1956 there wasn't a place my parents could go to where people 
like them had a chance for a better life? I doubt very seriously 
whether I would be standing on the floor of the Cuban Senate. There 
isn't one now.
  I can't imagine what my life would be like if America never existed. 
If God had not given my parents the opportunity to come to the one 
place on Earth where people like them--born into poverty and little 
formal education--actually had a chance to build a better life.
  I think about the millions of people out there trying to do what my 
parents and Senator Cruz's parents did--what so many of our parents 
did, by the way. The great thing about this country is when you tell 
your story, everybody has one just like it. We are all the descendants 
of go-getters.
  Every single one of us is the descendant of someone who overcame 
extraordinary obstacles to claim their stake on the American dream. 
They overcame discrimination or poverty. In many cases they overcame 
this evil institution of slavery. This is who we are as a people. We 
are all the descendants of go-getters.
  I think about how that has changed the world. There is literally no 
corner of this planet that you cannot go to where you will not find 
people who feel frustrated and trapped. I cannot tell you how many 
times I meet people from abroad who disagree with all sorts of things 
that America does. Yet they have a begrudging admiration for it. You 
know what that admiration is rooted in? That someone just like them who 
came from where they come from, is doing extraordinary things. They are 
doing things they never could have dreamt of in the Nation of their own 
birth.
  I think we should all ask ourselves: What would the world look like 
if

[[Page S6805]]

America was not exceptional? What if America was another rich country 
in the world with a big military and some power, but it wasn't special? 
What would the world be like? The answer is: The world would be more 
dangerous, less free, and less prosperous. So when we debate the future 
of our economy--and in many ways we are debating the future of the 
world.
  If America declines, I want you to ask yourself this: Who replaces 
us? The United Nations replaces us? Really? Who replaces us? China? 
China doesn't even care about the rights of their own people. Why would 
they care about the rights of people anywhere else? Who replaces us? 
Russia? Who replaces us on the world stage?
  If America declines, who will inspire people around the world to seek 
not just freedom but economic opportunity? Who will stand as proof that 
it is a lie to tell people they can't achieve? Who will stand as an 
example that that is not true if America declines?
  The one thing that will lead quickest to America's decline is not 
simply the debt or taxes or these unconstitutional violations we see on 
a daily basis. The quickest way to decline is to undermine the American 
dream and lose our identity as the one place on Earth where anyone from 
anywhere can accomplish anything. That is the fast track to decline. 
That is why we are so passionate about ObamaCare. It is a direct threat 
to the American dream.

  The irony of it is that ObamaCare was sold as a way to help the 
people who are trying to make it. How was it sold to people? Here is 
how it was sold to people: If you are working class, if you are poor 
and you can't afford health insurance, the government is going to 
provide you with health insurance. Tell me the truth. That is what a 
lot of people perceived this to be. If they don't have insurance now, 
this is going to allow them to now have insurance--maybe for free, if 
not at a very low cost. By the way, anyone who already had insurance, 
this wasn't going to hurt them at all. That is how it was sold. That is 
how it was sold to people: This is going to be cheap, easy-to-get 
insurance for people who are struggling.
  I understand why someone who is struggling to make it would look at 
it as something that is appealing. Guess what. That is not what it is. 
People who have existing health insurance right now, many of them are 
going to lose it. When they told us we could keep what we had, they 
were not telling us the truth. People who were told this is going to 
provide them access to cheap, quality health insurance, guess what. I 
can't tell people what they are going to get because it doesn't exist 
yet. But theoretically, on October 1, people are going to have a chance 
to sign up for one of these exchanges and here is what I predict we 
will find: less choices, a higher price than we anticipated, perhaps 
higher than we can afford, and less choices in hospitals and doctors 
included in those exchanges. This is a disaster all the way around. By 
the way, while these exchanges are being set up, people may ultimately 
be getting a notice from their employer that they are going to reduce 
their hours or maybe even their job. So that is why this is a fight 
worth having.
  It is interesting to see it--Senator Cruz has not had a chance to see 
it because he has been here--but it is interesting how the news covers 
all of this. Political reporters--and they have a job to do--always 
cover this through the political angle: Who is going to win? Who is 
going to lose? If this is a college football game, who is the winner 
and who is the loser on the scoreboard and all of that kind of thing? 
They love to talk this up, and there is a place for that. People aren't 
shocked to know there are politics around here.
  This issue is so much deeper than that, though. It really is. There 
is not a lot of attention being paid to that. I think we should, 
because it is having an impact on real people in a real and powerful 
way. All of this attention being paid, if we watch the news among the 
political classes, the process: When are they going to vote? Who is 
going to win the vote? Who is going to vote which way?
  That is fine, guys. I understand that is part of this process and we 
all enjoy watching it from time to time, right? What they are missing 
is the why. Why is someone willing to stay up all night--two people, 
basically, willing to stay up all night to speak about this? Why are 
people willing to fight on this issue? Why are so many Americans 
against it? The why. No one is asking the why. The answer is because it 
is undermining the opportunity for upward mobility. That is why. We are 
not fighting here against the President; we are fighting for people--
for people who voted for us and people who will never vote for us; for 
people who voted for Mitt Romney and for people who voted for Barack 
Obama--for real people; people who may never agree with us on any other 
issue, but they are going to be heard about ObamaCare. People who, as 
we speak here, are about to wake up, get their kids ready to go to 
school, put in 8 to 10 hours at work, come back home, try to make 
dinner while they make sure their kids are doing homework, put them to 
bed. By the time all that ends, they are exhausted, and they have to 
get up and do it all over the next day and the next day and again the 
next week. The last thing these people need is another disruption in 
their life. The last thing these people need is to go to work tomorrow 
and be informed: I am sorry, but we are cutting 4 hours out of your 
work week. I am sorry, but we are changing your insurance plan, so that 
doctor you have been taking your asthmatic child to or that doctor you 
have been going to for your pregnancy, you are not going to be able to 
see them anymore because this new insurance plan does not include them. 
That is the last thing people need, and that is what they are going to 
get. That is wrong and it is unfair.
  I will close with this, and I alluded to it earlier. I hope we will 
do everything we can to keep America special, to keep it the shining 
city on the hill, as Reagan called it, because as I outlined earlier, I 
think the future of the world depends on it, the kind of world our 
children will inherit depends on it.
  I think it is important to remind us that America has faced difficult 
circumstances before. In fact, every generation of America has faced 
some challenge to what makes us exceptional and special--every single 
one. They were different, but they were challenges. This country had a 
Civil War that deeply divided it. This country lived through a Great 
Depression. This country lived through two very painful world wars. 
This country had to confront its history of segregation and 
discrimination and overcome that. It had a very controversial conflict 
in Vietnam that divided Americans against each other.
  In the midst of all that, it had to wage a Cold War against the 
expanse of communism. We forget, but there were many commentators in 
the late 1970s and early 1980s who would ask Reagan, Why don't you 
accept the fact--not just Reagan, but anybody--we have to accept the 
fact that Soviet expansion is here to stay. That was a real threat. 
Again, it is easy to forget that, but that was the way the world was 
just 25 years ago.
  Every generation of America has had to face challenges and confront 
them, and every generation has. Not only have they solved their 
problems, every generation has left the next better off--every single 
one. Now it is our turn.
  We have a very important choice to make, and it is a pretty dramatic 
one. We will either be the first generation of Americans to leave our 
children worse off or our children will be the most prosperous 
Americans who have ever lived. It is one or the other. There is no 
middle ground, in my mind, on that. When we debate the future of this 
health care law and ObamaCare, we are debating that question.
  I am reminded of the story of the Star-Spangled Banner and how it was 
written. I was reading it this morning. During the attack on the fort, 
it was hard to imagine that after that bombardment the United States 
could survive. After that bombardment the notion was there is no way 
they are going to make it through the night. But that next morning when 
the Star-Spangled Banner--when that flag was hoisted, when it was 
raised, it was a signal to the British and the world that this idea of 
freedom and liberty had survived. It is interesting how time and again 
that idea has been tested, both in external and internal conflict. My 
colleagues may not realize this, but when the Senate is in session, the 
flag is up. So, usually, when I am walking in early in the

[[Page S6806]]

morning to the Capitol, there is no flag up at 5 in the morning because 
there is nobody here. I didn't have my TV on this morning, but I looked 
over at the Capitol and I said, My goodness, the flag is still up; 
these guys are still talking. I am glad they are, because what is at 
stake is the future of our country, economically in ways just as 
dramatic as those challenges we faced at the inception of the Republic. 
This debate is not just about whether a program named after the 
President will stay in law; this debate is about a program that 
undermines the American dream, about the one thing that makes us 
special and different from the rest of the world, and if there is 
anything worth fighting for, I would think that is. If there is 
anything worth fighting for, I would think the American dream is worth 
fighting for. I think remaining exceptional is worth fighting for.

  I think after its history of poverty eradication, the free enterprise 
system is worth fighting for. I think as someone who has directly 
benefited from the free enterprise system, I personally have an 
obligation to fight for it. I hope we will all fight for it not just on 
this issue but in the debate to come next week. This is what this is 
all about.
  I will close by asking the Senator from Texas, as I highlight all of 
these challenges we face, is this issue, at the end of the day, about 
us fighting on behalf of everyday people who have no voice in this 
process, who can't afford to hire a lobbyist to get them a waiver, who 
can't afford to hire an accounting firm or a lawyer to handle all of 
this complexity? At the end of the day the rich companies in America 
are going to figure this out. They may not like it, but they can deal 
with it. They shouldn't have to, but they can. The people we are 
fighting for are the ones who cannot afford to navigate this.
  I ask the Senator from Texas: Isn't this what this is all about?
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his 
inspired comments and for his question. He is absolutely right. This 
fight is about whether hard-working Americans get the same exemptions 
and the same benefit President Obama has given big corporations and 
Members of Congress.
  I wish to respond to the inspirational remarks of Senator Rubio by 
making five comments, the last two of which I think may well be likened 
to Senator Rubio who will be inspired to ask a question in response to 
it.
  The first point is a very brief one, which is to simply thank the 
Senator from Florida for telling that story about the flag. I will 
confess as we stand here a few minutes before 7 a.m., I am a little bit 
tired. Senator Lee is probably a little bit tired. I will tell my 
colleagues, the image of the dust clearing, the smoke clearing, seeing 
the Star-Spangled Banner waving under the rockets' red glare, that 
vision is inspiring and I appreciate it. It was very kind of the 
Senator to tell that story and it is very meaningful, so I thank him.
  Secondly, Senator Rubio talked about how the political reporters have 
been focusing predominantly on the game, on the political process. He 
is right, I haven't seen any of the news coverage; we have been here on 
the Senate floor so I don't know what the coverage is. But what he 
reports doesn't surprise me because that is the nature of political 
reporting in Washington. So I am going to make a request directly to 
those reporters who are covering this proceeding--those reporters who 
are reporting this proceeding--to endeavor to have at least half of 
what they say be focused on the actual substance of this debate, on the 
fact that ObamaCare is a train wreck that is killing jobs, that is 
forcing more and more Americans to part-time work, that is driving up 
their health insurance premiums, that is causing more and more 
Americans who are struggling to lose their health insurance. My real 
request would make all of the coverage to be on that, but I know that 
is too much to ask. But I am going to suggest if all of the coverage or 
most of the coverage is on the political process, on this personality 
or that personality, or who is up or who is down, or how this impacts 
the 2042 Presidential election, I am going to suggest two things. No. 
1, that is not doing the job you have stepped forward to serve and do. 
All of us have a job. Those of us in this body elected to serve have a 
job to listen to the people and to fight for the men and women of 
America, but those of you who serve in the media have a job to report 
to the men and women of America what is happening, and not just on the 
political game.
  Secondly, I want to say, if you just report on the personalities and 
political gains, you are taking sides on this issue. Why is that? 
Because those who want to keep ObamaCare funded, those who want, on 
Friday or Saturday when cloture comes up for a vote, for Members of 
this body to vote for cloture, to give Harry Reid the ability to defund 
ObamaCare with 51 partisan Democrat votes, they want all the coverage 
to be about the personality, about the politics--about anything, 
anything, anything other than the substance. So if you choose to cover 
just the personalities and the politics, you are doing exactly what 
some partisans in this body would like, and that is, I am going to 
suggest, not responsible reporting. I know each one wants to be a 
responsible steward of informing the public, and it would strike me 
that the debate we have had here impacts people's lives in a way that 
nobody gives a flip about the politicians involved.
  A third observation about Senator Rubio's question, when he compared 
ObamaCare to a horror film, I enjoyed that comparison. In fact, in my 
mind, I heard the music from ``The Shining''--not ``The Shining,'' from 
``Psycho'' in the shower scene. And it occurred to me that perhaps one 
of the great philosophical conundrums with which we must all wrestle is 
whether ObamaCare is more like Jason or Freddy. That, indeed, is a 
difficult question. You can put forth a powerful argument for Jason 
because ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this country and when 
Jason put on his hockey mask and swung that machete, there was carnage 
like nothing else. On the other hand, we could make a powerful argument 
for Freddy, because as James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters 
said, ObamaCare is a nightmare. It is a nightmare for the men and women 
of America.
  While the Senate slept, the men and women of America didn't get a 
respite from the nightmare that is causing them to lose their jobs, 
never getting hired, causing them to be forced to be reduced to 29 
hours a week, driving up their health insurance premiums, and 
jeopardizing their health care.
  The only way they get a respite from that nightmare, the only way we 
stop--there was a movie ``Freddy Vs. Jason.'' I forget. They fought 
each other. I forget even what happened in that movie. But the only way 
we stop Jason and/or Freddy is if the American people rise up in such 
overwhelming numbers that the Members of this Senate listen to the 
people and we step forward and avert this train wreck, we step forward 
and avert this nightmare.
  Those are three observations I wanted to make at the outset. Then I 
want to make two more. I would note, Mr. President, as you know well, 
the rules of the Senate are curious at times. While I am speaking, I am 
not allowed to pose a question to another. I am allowed to answer 
questions, but not to pose a question to another Senator. But there is 
no prohibition in my asking a rhetorical question to the body, which 
may, in turn, prompt Senator Rubio to ask a question of his own and to 
comment perhaps on the rhetorical question I might raise.
  The rhetorical question I would raise to the body--and I have two I 
want to ask--but I want to start the body thinking about Senator 
Rubio's family story. And listen, I am inspired by Senator Rubio's 
story every time I hear it. I am inspired. Part of it is because his 
family, like mine--we share many things in common. His parents, like my 
father, fled Cuba. His father was a bartender. My dad washed dishes. 
His mother, I believe, cleaned hotel rooms, if I remember correctly. My 
mother was a sales clerk at Foley's Department Store.
  The question I would ask the Chamber is: What would have happened if 
when Senator Rubio's parents came from Cuba, when they arrived here, if 
ObamaCare had been the law of the land? What would have happened to his 
father and mother as they sought that job as a bartender, cleaning 
hotel rooms, if we had an economy with stagnant growth, where jobs were 
not available, and they were not able to get

[[Page S6807]]

hired? What would have happened if they had been lucky enough to get 
that job and their hours had been reduced forcibly to 29 hours a week 
against their wishes? What would have happened if they had faced the 
economic calamity for working men and women--for those struggling--that 
is ObamaCare? I wonder--I have thought many times about what would have 
happened to my parents. I know it would have been catastrophic in our 
family. But I wonder how it would have impacted the Rubio family if 
ObamaCare had been the law when Senator Rubio's parents came to this 
country seeking the American dream. Would it have benefited them or 
would it have harmed them?
  (Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. RUBIO. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question without 
losing the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. RUBIO. I heard the rhetorical question the Senator posed to the 
body, and it involved a direct question about how my family would have 
confronted those challenges, so let me back up and talk about that for 
a second because while it is my family--and I always refer to it--the 
reason why I got in politics and my view of the issues of the day are 
all framed through my upbringing, as all of ours are. You cannot escape 
where you come from or what you were raised around. It influences the 
way you view the world and the way you view issues, and the experience 
my family had has influenced me.
  I earlier talked about the student loans I once had. I paid them off 
last year, by the way, with the proceeds of a book, which is available 
now in paperback, if anyone is curious. But anyway, all joking aside, 
when I wrote that book, it required me to go back and learn a lot more 
detail about my parents. Because like anybody else, when you grow up 
you listen to your parents talk and you kind of repeat it to other 
people, but when you are growing up and you are in a hurry, you do not 
always have time to sit down and listen to the details. This actually 
forced me to go back and learn details about their lives.
  What ended up happening is I ended up meeting and discovering two 
people whom I never knew. I knew something about them. I had grown up 
with them. But I knew my parents in their forties and fifties. I did 
not know them in their twenties and thirties. Sometimes when you are 
young, you forget your parents used to be young too. Sometimes you 
forget that when they were your age, they had their own dreams and 
their own hopes and their own aspirations. And they certainly did.
  It reminds me, as I learned about these stories, I learned that when 
they came to this country, it was not an instant success. The immigrant 
experience rarely is. You do not just get here and a week later you are 
running a very successful company or whatever. It does not work that 
way. My parents struggled. They were very discouraged those first few 
years. My dad bounced from temporary job to temporary job. My mom was 
hurt in an accident making aluminum chairs at a factory. She cut her 
hand.
  They struggled. Those first years were tough. But they persevered, 
and what ended up happening was my father found a job as a bar 
assistant, basically, on Miami Beach. Then eventually, through hard 
work, he was promoted to bartender, and then one of the top bartenders 
at the hotel. It was not going to make him rich, but it made him 
stable.
  By 1966, 10 years after they had arrived, they felt so confident in 
the future they bought a home. Five years after that, they were so 
confident that even though they were both over 40 years of age, they 
had me and then my sister a year and a half after that.
  The Senator asked the question rhetorically to the Chamber--and I am 
going to answer it--what would it have been like if a program such as 
this would have been in place? But it is not just a program such as 
this. It is not just ObamaCare. It is all the other things the 
government is doing. To answer that question, I have to focus on why 
they had opportunities to begin with.
  Why was my dad able to raise our family working as a bartender at a 
hotel on Miami Beach, and then in Las Vegas, and then back in Miami? 
Because someone who had access to money risked that money to open that 
hotel. That was not a government-run hotel. That hotel existed because 
people who had access to money--I do not know if they borrowed it; I do 
not if it was their own; I am not sure of the history behind it--but 
someone with access to money said: Instead of leaving it in the bank or 
investing it in another country, I am going to risk this money and open 
and operate this hotel. The result is the jobs my parents had existed.
  But that is how you open a business. How does it continue? How does 
that business survive? It survived because Americans--after they were 
done paying their taxes and all their other bills--had enough money 
left over in their pocket to get on an airplane and fly to Miami Beach 
or to Las Vegas and stay three or four nights at the hotel where my 
parents worked.

  The answer to the Senator's question is, the reason why my parents 
were able to own a home and provide us a stable environment in which we 
grew up was because free enterprise works. Free enterprise works. It 
encouraged someone with access to money to open those hotels, and it 
left enough money and prosperity in people's pockets after they paid 
their bills and their taxes so they could take a vacation and go to 
hotels where my parents worked. Without people in those hotels, there 
is no job for our parents. They were able to achieve for us what they 
did because of free enterprise.
  To answer the Senator's question about the impact of ObamaCare, 
anything that would undermine free enterprise would have undermined 
those hopes and those dreams. And ObamaCare is undermining it.
  I cannot say for certain what would have happened. But here is a 
possibility. ObamaCare could have encouraged the hotel they worked at 
to move employees from 40 hours to 28 hours, hire two bartenders part 
time instead of one. That would not have been good. ObamaCare could 
have led them to hire two cashiers at the Crown Hotel in Miami Beach 
instead of one--two part-timers like my mom. That would not have been 
good. Even beyond that, because ObamaCare is cutting people's hours all 
over the country, because ObamaCare is keeping people from getting 
hired all over the country, because ObamaCare is costing people their 
jobs all over the country, I suspect the number of visitors to that 
hotel would have been diminished.
  When you lose your job, when you get moved from full time to part 
time, the next move you make is not to get on an airplane and go on 
vacation. The next move you make is to scramble to make up the 
difference. That is called personal discretionary spending, and people 
do not do that when they are uncertain about tomorrow. ObamaCare would 
have made many Americans uncertain about tomorrow. It is going to make 
many Americans uncertain about tomorrow. The bottom line is, it would 
have directly and indirectly harmed my parents' aspirations for 
themselves and our family.
  Here is what is troublesome. There are millions of people in this 
country today trying to do what my parents did. If you want to find 
them, walk out of this building and walk three blocks to the nearest 
hotel and you will meet them there. They clean the hotel rooms. They 
serve food at the restaurants. They cater the banquets, as did my dad 
or the gentleman or the lady standing behind that little portable bar 
serving drinks at the next function at which we speak. They are right 
down the street.
  They are in the halls of this building. You will meet them. They have 
a little vest on. You will see them with a little cart, cleaning the 
bathrooms and the floors and providing an environment where we can 
work. These are people who are working hard to achieve a better life 
for themselves and oftentimes for their children. These are folks, many 
of whom have decided: I am going to sacrifice and work a job so my 
children can have a career.
  I cannot tell you how many of the people who work in this building I 
have talked to, such as the company that caters our lunches or are in 
the cafeterias here. I cannot tell you how many of them have said to me 
the reason why they are working these jobs is because they hope one day 
their children

[[Page S6808]]

can do something such as stand on the floor of this Senate.
  I say to Senator Cruz, that happens to be our story. That happens to 
be the American story too. We forget that some of the greatest heroes 
in the American story are not the people who have been on the cover of 
magazines. Some of the greatest heroes in the American story are not 
people who have had movies made about them. Some of the greatest heroes 
in the American story are not the famous people who are on CNBC being 
interviewed all the time about how successful they are. They are heroes 
too. But some of the greatest heroes in the American story are people 
you will never learn about, about whom books will never be written, 
whose stories will never be told. Some of the greatest heroes in the 
American story are people who have worked hard at jobs--back-breaking 
jobs, difficult jobs--so their children can have careers.
  I want you to think about what that means. Think about reaching a 
point in your life when you realize, you know what, for me, this is 
about as far as I am going to be able to go--because of age, because of 
circumstances--but now the purpose of my life will become making sure 
all the doors that were closed for me are open for my children. Imagine 
that. Because that is what millions of people are living right now.
  It is not that they are not talented, it is not that they are not 
smart, except they are 45 or 40 or 46, and time is running out on them. 
But what America is going to give them a chance to do is, it is going 
to give them a chance to open doors for their children that were closed 
for them.
  They are not going to be able to leave their children trust funds. 
They are not going to be able to leave their children millions of 
dollars. They are not going to be able to leave their children a home 
even. But they are going to be able to allow their children to inherit 
their unfulfilled dreams and fulfill them.
  There are millions of people in this country who are trying to do 
that right now. There are people who work in this Capitol who are 
trying to do that right now. There are people working within blocks of 
here who are trying to do that right now. ObamaCare is going to make it 
harder for them to do that. It is ironic because ObamaCare was sold as 
a plan to help people like that. Instead, because it undermines the 
free enterprise system, it is hurting them.
  Many of those people who are being hurt may not have realized it yet. 
I think the job of leadership is to explain the consequences to people. 
But in the end, I feel as though we have an obligation to fight on 
their behalf. I feel as though we--especially those of us who are a 
generation removed from that experience--have a special obligation to 
fight for that.
  The American story is not the story of people who have made it and 
then say: Now everyone is on their own. The American story is the story 
of people who have succeeded and want others to succeed as well. That, 
by the way, is one of the fundamental differences between the view of 
big government and the view of free enterprise. Big government believes 
that the economy cannot really grow, and so what we need government to 
do is divide it up among us. Right? The economy is a limited thing. 
There is only so much money to go around, so we need the government to 
step in and make sure the money is distributed fairly. That is what we 
are going to use taxes for. That is the view big government has.
  What makes America different is we rejected that. We said that is not 
true. We believe in free enterprise, and free enterprise believes the 
economy can always continue to grow bigger.
  That means if you are successful you can stay successful, and other 
people can become successful as well. What makes America special is 
that free enterprise believes you do not have to make anybody worse off 
in order to make someone better off. That is different from the rest of 
the world, and it works.
  I remember growing up, especially when I lived in Las Vegas. There 
were not a lot of--back then, especially, there were not a lot of 
family friendly things to do on the weekends. One of the things we used 
to do--my parents liked to do this--they would drive us through the 
nice neighborhoods with the nice houses. I remember Liberace's house 
was in Las Vegas. It was one of the nice houses.
  They would drive us through these neighborhoods and they would show 
us these houses. When we looked at these houses they would not say to 
us: Look at the people living in those houses, look at how much money 
they are making. That is unfair. Right? They are making all that money, 
and that is why we are struggling. The reason why we live in a small 
house is because people like them live in big houses.
  They did not teach that to us. On the contrary. Do you know what they 
used to say to us. Look at what these people accomplished through hard 
work and sacrifice. That can be you if that is what you want. Look at 
what these people were able to do. That can be you.
  That is the difference in some ways between us and the rest of the 
world. We have never been a place of class envy and class warfare. We 
have always pointed to these stories as an example of what you can do 
as well. We celebrate success in America. It inspires us because we 
know it is not a zero sum game. We know that you can be successful and 
I can be successful. We know that you can have a successful business 
and I can have a successful business.
  We know that in order for me to be more prosperous I do not have to 
make anyone less prosperous. That is a big deal, because that is not 
the way the world has functioned for most of its history. For most of 
its history, governments did not view it that way and peoples did not 
view it that way. They always viewed that there had to be a winner and 
there had to be a loser. One of the things that made us really unique 
is that we never viewed it that way. In America we have viewed it as 
you can be a winner and I can be a winner. We can both benefit from 
each other, because that is how free enterprise works.
  In free enterprise you need your customers to be well off. You need 
your customers to be doing well economically. You cannot afford to 
bankrupt people by raising your prices because then they cannot buy 
stuff from you. It is all interrelated. Last year during the campaign 
there was this big debate about job creators, whether or not you 
realize it. Every time you go shopping at a department store you are a 
job creator. Every time you order something on the Internet you are a 
job creator. Every time you spend money in our economy you are a job 
creator.
  Some people open a business. But every American is a job creator 
because in the free enterprise, the better off you are the better off 
we are. And we can all be better off. That is not the direction we are 
headed. That is one of the things that they are trying to influence in 
this debate on ObamaCare. They are trying to argue that this is an 
effort to deny people something. Not true. This is an effort to protect 
people from something, especially people that are vulnerable to this. I 
repeat; I am telling you that I have talked to a lot of successful 
people, people that are making a lot of money or have made a lot of 
money. They do not like ObamaCare but they are going to be fine with 
it. They are going to deal with it. They can afford to deal with it. 
They do not like it. They are going to have to make decisions in 
business that they do not want to make. But they are going to figure 
out how to deal with this one way or the other.
  At the end of the day, they are going to be fine with whatever we do. 
They are not going to be the ones who are going to be hurt by this. The 
ones who are going to be hurt by this are the people who are trying to 
make it, the people whose hours are going to be cut, whose jobs are 
going to be slashed, who are going to lose benefits that they are happy 
with.
  Sadly, because they are so busy with their lives, working and raising 
their kids, they may not realize why all of this is happening until it 
is too late. So the question the Senator posed to the body was a very 
insightful one. It goes to the heart of what this debate is about: Who 
are we fighting for? What are we fighting about?
  I fear that too many people that are covering this process think this 
is all about an effort to keep the President from accomplishing 
something that he feels strongly about. Not true. This is an effort to 
fight on behalf of people who are going to be hurt badly. This is

[[Page S6809]]

an effort to fight on behalf of people who do not have the influence or 
the power to fight here for themselves. That is why we are here. This 
is an effort to fight on behalf of people who are trying to do what my 
parents did. This is an effort to fight on behalf of the people who are 
trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of their home--
probably in violation of the zoning code, but they are trying to do it.
  This is an effort to fight on behalf of the people who are working 
every single day to achieve their full potential. This is an effort to 
fight on behalf of people who are working hard at jobs that are hard to 
get up for in the morning to go do. But they are going to go do it, 
because the purpose of their life is to give their kids the chance to 
do anything they want.
  Do you how many people I know like that? You cannot walk 10 steps in 
my neighborhood without running into people like that. The whole 
purpose of their life, the singular focus of their life, is to make 
sure that their kids have a chance to do all the things they never got 
the chance to do. Do you know how many people there are like that 
around this country? They depend on the jobs that are being destroyed 
by ObamaCare. They depend on the opportunities that are not being 
created because of ObamaCare. That is wrong. I hope we will be 
successful with this effort.
  Now, people are going to focus on how the vote is going to go down. 
This is not going end here, guys. We are not going to stop talking 
about this no matter how the vote here ends up. We are going to 
continue to do everything we can to keep this from hurting the American 
people because it undermines the essence of our Nation.

  The reason why I am so passionate about this goes right to the heart 
of the question the Senator asked, because ObamaCare and big government 
in general make it harder, not easier for people that are trying to do 
what my parents did to achieve their dreams.
  I think the question of Senator Cruz goes to the heart of what this 
debate is all about. I would yield back to the Senator to encourage him 
to continue to highlight the impact that this law is having on real 
people and their real lives, because I think it is going take some time 
to break through the narrative that this is all a big political fight, 
that this is between the President and his opponents.
  Whether this law was called ObamaCare or not, we would have to oppose 
it, because it is hurting real people who are trying to achieve the 
American dream.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Florida for his answer on how the 
law would have impacted his family. I will say this: I have no doubt 
that at every gathering in every hotel where Senator Rubio speaks, 
there is not a bartender, there is not a waiter, there is not a 
dishwasher in the room who does not look over and think: I wonder if 
some day my daughter, my son, could be in the Senate.
  What an extraordinary statement. Do you know what. If we were in 
almost any other country on earth you could not say that. In most 
countries on earth, if you are not born into a family of power and 
prestige and influence, you have no chance whatsoever of serving in a 
position of significant political leadership. Only in America. That is 
the opportunity this country is. I have no doubt of the inspiration it 
serves every day when Senator Rubio shares his story.
  I have no doubt also that Senator Rubio is right that if ObamaCare 
had been the law when his parents came from Cuba, when they were 
immigrants, when they were looking for jobs, when they wanted to 
support their family and eventually their young family when they had 
kids, that if they had not been able to get those jobs or if they had 
had their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week so they could not 
earn enough to provide for their children, to give them the food, to 
give them the education, to give them the housing that they needed, it 
could have had a dramatic impact.
  If ObamaCare had been the law, it may very well have been the case 
that Senator Marco Rubio would not be in the Senate right now, because 
it may have been that his parents would have struggled so much to make 
ends meet that they would not have been able to provide for him as a 
young boy the way they did, to give him the opportunities they gave 
him. He might not be here and our country would be far the poorer.
  I know for me and my family, if my dad had not had that opportunity 
to get a job washing dishes for 50 cents an hour, if my mom had not 
gotten the opportunity to get her first jobs, there is a very good 
possibility I would not have had the chance to represent Texas.
  When you cut off opportunity for those who are struggling to climb 
the economic ladder, it impacts for decades. It does not just impact 
them, but their children and their children's children. That leads to a 
second rhetorical question that I want to ask the Chamber, but it would 
not surprise me if it prompts, in turn, a question from Senator Rubio.
  That is, Senator Rubio and I both have the privilege of representing 
States in which there is a tremendous Hispanic community. We both come 
from the Hispanic community, were raised in the Hispanic community. We 
both have the great honor of representing a great many Hispanics, he in 
Florida, me in Texas.
  Some of the discussion of the Hispanic community focuses on his 
parents, like my father, who were young immigrants struggling, who may 
not speak English and who are on the first or second rung of the 
economic ladder. That describes a great many in the Hispanic community 
but there are others who are not necessarily in that circumstance.
  In the United States there are right now approximately 2.3 million 
Hispanic small business owners. The Hispanic community is tremendously 
entrepreneurial. There are roughly 50 million Hispanics in the United 
States. That means roughly 1 in 8 Hispanic households is a small 
business owner. So the question I would pose, rhetorically, to the 
Chamber, is, what is the impact of ObamaCare on the Hispanic community? 
What is the impact of the crippling impact on jobs, of the punitive 
taxes, of the 20,000 pages of regulations? What is the impact on those 
2.3 million Hispanic small business owners? What is the impact on 
economic growth and achieving the American dream? What is the impact on 
the Hispanic community, because I am convinced there is no ideal that 
resonates more in the Hispanic community than the American dream, than 
the idea that any one of us, regardless of who our mother or father is, 
regardless of where we come from, any one of us through hard work and 
perseverance, through the content of our character can achieve the 
American dream.
  The question I would pose: Has ObamaCare made it easier or harder to 
achieve the American dream? How has ObamaCare impacted the Hispanic 
community?
  Mr. RUBIO. Would the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. CRUZ. I would yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. RUBIO. The Senator asked actually a great question. We talk about 
people who are trying to make it. We talk about the people who are 
working hard to sacrifice and to leave their children and families 
better off.
  A disproportionate number of people who are trying to do that find 
themselves in minority communities. You asked about the Hispanic 
community. I live in a Hispanic neighborhood even now. I live just 
blocks away from the famed Calle Ocho, 8th Street, in Miami.
  If you have never been, I encourage you to come. The President 
visited an establishment about 4 blocks from my house, I think back in 
2010 when he was in town campaigning for one of the candidates. 
Literally, I mean literally, every business, one after another after 
another is a small family-owned or family-operated business.
  Every single one. It is the bakery, next to the dry cleaner, next to 
the liquor store, next to the grocery store, next to the uniform shop 
that sells uniforms next to the gas station, next to the banquet hall. 
It goes on and on and on. I invite you to come down and see it. There 
is a Popeyes there, and you will find a McDonald's. But even those 
franchises, by the way, are owned by families.
  Literally, every business on 8th Street, on Calle Ocho, just blocks 
away

[[Page S6810]]

from my house, one after the other after the other, is a small 
business. So are all of my neighbors.
  I have a neighbor who runs an electronic alarm company and another 
neighbor who runs a pool-cleaning business. I am just speaking about my 
neighborhood. That is the story of the country.
  Listen, there are very successful people, Americans of Hispanic 
descent, who started out as a small business and now are a big business 
and have been very successful too of course. It is sort of like the 
rest of the population. It reflects the concerns of whatever challenges 
they are facing.
  But an enormous percentage of Americans of Hispanic descent also 
happen to be people who are trying to accomplish the American dream. 
Perhaps the strongest burning desire you will find in minority 
communities in general--and in particular the one I know best, the 
Hispanic community--is that burning desire to give their kids the 
chance to do everything they couldn't. Maybe by the time you got here 
you were already into your late twenties or early thirties. Because you 
could succeed, there are many stories of people who have come here at 
that age and have accomplished extraordinary things. They started in 
small business, and before you knew it they were being publicly traded. 
That is a great part of the American story. We celebrate that.
  But there are also countless people who worked jobs their whole life. 
That is what they end up doing. They worked those jobs so their kids 
could have the opportunity to get ahead. That is a very prevalent story 
in the Hispanic community.
  Interestingly enough, the Hispanic community is very diverse on a lot 
of different things. Obviously, we have a strong Cuban-American 
presence in South Florida, but we also have a significant presence from 
South America. My wife's family is from Colombia. We have a very 
vibrant Venezuelan community, by the way, coming to the United States 
to escape Big Government gone horrible.
  They just posted--if you read this yesterday--posted military 
officers at the toilet paper factory in Venezuela because they are not 
producing enough toilet paper. They think it is some sort of 
capitalist, imperialist plot to deny the people of Venezuela toilet 
paper. They have now stationed troops at the toilet paper factory.
  This is a country where many of those who find themselves on the 
American left love going down and extolling the virtues of Chavez, 
about how great a country it was. They can't--well, let me not say on 
the Senate floor what they cannot do anymore--but they are struggling 
to provide toilet paper for their people.
  That is how Big Government works. If you want to see another 
socialist paradise, go to Cuba. The infrastructure is struggling and 
people are trying to get out of that economy. There are no political 
freedoms in Cuba, but the economic freedoms are a disaster.
  It is because Big Government does not work. Compare that to Chile, to 
Panama, to Colombia. Compare Colombia to Venezuela, two countries 
living next together.
  A decade ago Colombia was caught in a deep struggle with drug lords 
and drug cartels. They still have problems with the guerrillas and the 
FARC, things such as that, but Colombia has turned things around. Why? 
Two things; one, real leadership at the political level; and, two, free 
enterprise. They embraced free enterprise.
  We have a free-trade agreement with Colombia. There is prosperity in 
Colombia. Compare that with next-door Venezuela, an energy-rich 
country, a country that is rich with oil, a country that has natural 
resources and advantages that Colombia doesn't have, Venezuela. They 
can't even produce toilet paper because Big Government failed.
  In fact, there has been a massive migration of experts in the oil 
industry leaving Venezuela and moving to Colombia. Compare to Mexico. 
Mexico still has some challenges, but Mexico has a vibrant middle 
class. There is a real middle class in Mexico, and it is growing. Look 
at the moves the new President is making. They are not going to open 
the oil industry there the way we would do it in the United States, but 
they are going to make changes to the oil industry because they want to 
grow and they want to create prosperity.
  This holds great promise for our country. Stronger integration 
between Canada, the United States, and Mexico is very promising. We can 
cooperate on all sorts of things from energy to security issues. I 
think that holds great promise. North American energy has the 
opportunity to displace energy coming from unstable parts of the world 
such as the Middle East.
  But how is Mexico growing its economy? What is Mexico thinking in 
order to grow its economy and provide more prosperity for its people. 
They are thinking about embracing more free enterprise.
  Look at the countries in Latin America that are succeeding: Peru, 
Chile, Panama, Mexico, Colombia. I hope I am not leaving anyone out. 
These are countries that are moving ahead.
  They have struggles and challenges, and it is not a clear upward 
trajectory because there are challenges in the global economy, but they 
are moving ahead.
  Look at the countries that are a disaster: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, 
Ecuador, and Nicaragua. What is the difference? What is the starkest 
difference between these countries other than perhaps the individual 
lunacy of some of these individuals in this country. What is the 
difference?
  The difference is the countries that are failing and embarrassing 
their people are the countries that are embracing Big Government and 
socialism. The countries that are providing middle-class opportunities 
and upward mobility are the countries that are embracing more and more 
free enterprise.
  When you ask about the Americans of Hispanic descent, these are the 
countries they came from. They came here to get away from Big 
Government. Why is there a vibrant and growing Venezuelan community in 
Miami-Dade County where I live? Because Big Government is destroying 
Venezuela.
  Why are there over 1 million Cuban exiles living in Miami, New 
Jersey, and concentrated in different parts of the country, including a 
sizable community in Houston, TX? Because they came here to flee, not 
just Big Government, but the oppression that comes from very Big 
Government, socialism and Marxism.

  Why do people cross the border from Mexico and come into the United 
States in search of jobs and opportunities--because for a long time 
Mexico didn't embrace free enterprise policies. It is now 
increasingly--and what is happening in Mexico, a vibrant and growing 
middle class, a sense of upward mobility. Every country has challenges. 
They have challenges in Mexico, but they are trying to turn it around 
and they are doing some good things to try to do that because they are 
embracing free enterprise.
  The unique thing about it, Senator Cruz, is that Americans of 
Hispanic descent, particularly those here in the first generation or 
the second, have come here to get away from Big Government policies, 
because in countries that have Big Government, you are trapped. You are 
trapped. In countries that have Big Government, the people that come 
from powerful families and powerful enclaves, they are the people who 
keep winning.
  In places where the government dominates the economy, as is 
disproportionately the case, and the countries that immigrants come 
here from, those are the places where the same people keep winning.
  The biggest company 50 years ago is still the biggest company. The 
richest family in the country is still the richest family. The 
President is the grandson and the son, over and over.
  That is what Big Government does. It traps people in the 
circumstances of their birth.
  What happens if you are a talented, ambitious, and hard-working 
person living in a country like that, frustrated and trapped? You try 
to get to the only country in the world where people like you even have 
a chance, the United States.
  We have millions of people living in this country of Hispanic descent 
that experience that, that know what it is like to live in a place 
where you are trapped in circumstances of their birth. The reason why 
they love America is because here they are not limited by that.
  I have said oftentimes--and I think you would share this perception 
in the

[[Page S6811]]

story of your father, Senator Cruz--it is true that immigrants impact 
America. It is true they do. Immigrants impact America, they contribute 
to America, they change America.
  But I promise you that America changes immigrants even more. You find 
that in the Hispanic community, the impact that America has on 
immigrants once it opens opportunities for them. Long before my parents 
became citizens, they were Americans in their heart. That is still 
true. You will still find that out there in the Hispanic communities. 
You will still find people who understand how special this country is 
because of the opportunities it is giving them and their children. This 
is why I think they will and are starting to understand how damaging 
this law may be.
  If you watch Spanish-language television, they are running these 
advertisements now, talking about sign up for ObamaCare, it is good for 
you. They are making it sound like this is going to be cheap and free 
insurance for people. When you are working hard 10, 12 hours a day and 
not making a lot of money, maybe your employer doesn't provide health 
insurance and along come these politicians telling you we are going to 
give you health insurance cheap and free. It is enticing, but it is not 
what is going to happen. When people realize that, not only are they 
going to be upset, they are going to be livid.
  When they go to work one day and they tell them: Guess what. You are 
now a part-time worker, they are going to be livid. When they go to 
work because they are working part-time because of where they go to 
school and they lose hours, they are going to be livid.
  When they go back to work one of these days, they may be working at 
one of these places where they have health insurance, as over 70 
percent of Americans do, and they are happy with it. All of a sudden 
they found out: You know that health insurance you have, that is not 
our health insurance anymore. You have to go on this Web site and shop 
for a new one.
  If they go on the Web site today they can't shop for anything. It 
isn't set up yet. They are going to be livid.
  When we talked about defending people who are trying to make it, 
people who are working hard to persevere and move ahead, I think that 
is the epitome of what you will find in the Hispanic community in this 
country. That is the typical story of people who are here. They are 
working hard to get ahead and they want their children to have a better 
life than them.
  There is only one economic system in the world where that is possible 
and that is the American free enterprise system. ObamaCare directly 
undermines it. If for no other reason we should repeal ObamaCare 
because it undermines the free enterprise system--the single greatest 
eradicator of poverty in human history, the free enterprise system. It 
is the only system in human history that allows people to emerge from 
poverty and into a stable middle class and beyond, the free enterprise 
system. It is the only economic system in human history that rewards 
hard work, sacrifice, and merit, the American free enterprise system. 
ObamaCare is undermining it.
  As I yield back to the Senator, is it not the case that what we are 
doing is not to stand against ObamaCare. We are fighting against the 
only system in American history, American free enterprise, where upward 
mobility is possible for so many people.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Florida for his passion, for his 
heartfelt commitment to opportunity and understanding.
  This is not about the rich and powerful. We are rich and powerful. 
The rich and powerful are just fine with ObamaCare. Indeed, the rich 
and powerful are better than just fine with ObamaCare. The rich and 
powerful get special exemptions. The rich and powerful get treated 
better because they are buddies with the current administration. Big 
business and giant corporations get exemptions from ObamaCare. Members 
of Congress get exemptions from ObamaCare.
  Mark my words, if Congress doesn't act to defund ObamaCare to stop 
this train wreck before the end of the President's administration, 
unions are going to end up getting an exemption from ObamaCare. It is 
going to be everyone who is a political friend of the administration, 
has juice and has power, will get extensions.
  The people who are left, you have nothing to worry about unless you 
don't happen to have several high-paid Washington, DC, lobbyists on 
your staff, unless you happen just to be a Hispanic entrepreneur, a 
single mom or a hard-working American trying to provide for his or her 
family, then maybe you will have something to worry about. But you are 
not going to get the exemption because what the Senate has been saying 
to you is exemptions for everybody else but not for hard-working 
American families.
  I believe if it doesn't apply to everyone, it should apply to no one. 
The Senate shouldn't be picking and choosing winners and losers and who 
are the favored political class.
  The Senator from Florida talked about Cuba. Some, particularly in 
Hollywood, like to lionize Cuba as this workers' paradise, but I would 
note Cuba has socialized medicine. Majority leader Harry Reid has 
stated his intention that he believes ObamaCare will lead, inevitably, 
to socialized medicine, to single-payer, government-provided health 
care. Some in Hollywood have lionized Cuba as this workers' paradise. 
Yet I am reminded of a comment President Reagan said in the midst of 
the Cold War.
  The funny thing he said is if you go to the Berlin Wall and look at 
the Berlin Wall, the machine guns all point in one direction.
  The same thing is true about Cuba. People talk about, the workers' 
paradise. The funny thing about Cuba, the rafts all go in one 
direction.
  In the decade since Fidel Castro seized control and began brutally 
oppressing the people of Cuba, destroying that once great Nation I am 
not aware of a single instance since the day of that revolution of one 
person getting on a raft in Florida and heading over to Cuba--ever. I 
am not aware of it ever happening. So if socialized medicine is this 
oasis, if we are to believe the Michael Moores of the world in 
Hollywood, one would expect Floridians to be jumping on rafts. You 
know, that 90 miles, it crosses both ways. In fact, Floridians can 
probably get a better boat than they can in Cuba, but nobody goes that 
way. They flee to freedom. They flee to America.

  What gives freedom such vibrancy--you want to talk about what matters 
to the Hispanic community, you want to talk about what matters to the 
African-American community, you want to talk about what matters to 
single moms? It is the opportunity to work. It is the opportunity to 
get a job. When we talk about what matters to young people, it is the 
opportunity to start a career and to move toward advancing to providing 
for your family, to having the dignity and respect of working toward 
your dreams, toward your passions, toward your desires. ObamaCare is 
stifling that, and that is a tragedy. It is a tragedy. And the only way 
it will stop is if this body begins to listen to the American people. 
Together, we must make D.C. listen.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from 
Texas yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. How is the Senator doing?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kansas. And I will tell the 
Senator, I am doing fabulous. I am inspired and I am motivated by the 
American people.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I saw a black car down there in the parking lot with a 
Texas license plate, and I figured that was the Senator's. Didn't see 
him in it. Everybody was wondering as they got up this morning, after 
listening to the Senator last night, whether he would still be 
standing, but here he is. I appreciate this.
  I think the thing I appreciate the most--and the question will 
follow, Mr. President--is how the Senator has conducted himself because 
throughout the night he has had some folks at least making their point 
of view, which is obviously very different from his. Sometimes folks in 
this body get a little critical--arrows and slings--and although not 
necessary, those wounds heal. But in each and every case of a person 
who has brought a different point of view, the Senator has very deftly 
and very skillfully, acting like a Senator, respected their point of 
view. Not once did I see him do anything else.

[[Page S6812]]

  I gave up about midnight, by the way, my wife about 11. She fell 
asleep. But I thank the Senator for that. I thank him for being truly 
senatorial and basically doing what Senators do; that is, respect 
everybody's point of view.
  I especially liked the comment of Bernie Sanders, whom I also like. 
You wouldn't know it, but he does have quite a sense of humor. A 
different point of view but very honest about it. So I thank the 
Senator for that.
  If the Senator wants breakfast, if he is about ready to sit down, I 
will be happy to buy him breakfast. But we will let that go.
  The other thing I want to ask is how does the Senator feel coming 
here as a new Senator and knowing how the Senate used to operate and 
knowing that in the Senate I came to, every Senator, on an important 
issue, had the opportunity to offer an amendment. It could be germane 
or it could not be germane. But for the last 5 years that has not been 
the case. There have been a few exceptions when we have had what is 
called regular order. Folks back home don't know what regular order is, 
but it is the way the Senate used to operate. It is the difference 
between the Senate and the House. It is the reason I left the House and 
ran for the Senate, because I wanted to have that opportunity to be an 
individual Senator.
  Last year I made a reference to the farm bill, which has somewhat 
something to do with what the Senator is talking about because it 
involves the ability of America to feed not only us but a very troubled 
and hungry world. Of course, food helps your health, obviously, but you 
show me a country that cannot feed itself and I will show you a country 
that is in chaos. So we do farm bills. They are much maligned. Right 
now not too many people even care about them, but they are terribly 
important. And farmers and ranchers now see no certainty out there 
because, like the health care law, at the end of this fiscal year the 
farm bill is going to expire, and they wonder what on Earth we are 
doing. We are in a perfect storm.
  In the last farm bill--not this one, in the last farm bill--in 
talking to the majority leader--whom I affectionately call Smoking Joe 
because he is a fan of boxing and Joe Frazier--I said: We can do this 
in 2\1/2\ days. And the chairperson of the committee, Senator Stabenow, 
also obviously weighed in, but we did the farm bill in 2\1/2\ days. 
That was a record.
  The first amendment on the farm bill was the amendment of the Senator 
from Kentucky dealing with Pakistan and saying no more aid to Pakistan 
until they freed that doctor who was very helpful to our intelligence 
community with regard to what happened with Osama bin Laden. What did 
that have to do with the farm bill? Nothing.
  Rand Paul came to me and said: Do you think we can get this 
amendment?
  I said: Yes. We have an open rule.
  There were 73 amendments considered--73; this last farm bill, only 
about 10, probably less than that. Senator Thune had very key 
amendments, Senator Johanns had very key amendments, Senator Grassley 
had key amendments, and I, the former chairman of the House agriculture 
committee, the former ranking member, had some key amendments. All of 
the senior members on the agriculture committee, all of us who had 
contributed to that process were locked out--sorry, it is over, no 
amendments. What is that all about?
  We have a one-person rules committee in this Senate. And if there is 
anything I am upset about, it is the lack of ability and the lack of 
opportunity for the Senator from Texas or Kentucky or Kansas or anybody 
else in this body to offer an amendment.
  So here we are--what is it--5 days away from the law that says: 
Prescribed by law, these exchanges and everything that has anything to 
do with the unaffordable health care act is going to take place. And 
the Senator has demonstrated time and time again, with every allegory 
one can possibly come up with, how this is a train wreck.
  Yesterday afternoon, when the Senator started--well, it was in the 
evening--I came to the floor and said: Look, isn't it worth the fight, 
isn't it worth the effort--and the Senator is making the effort, and I 
appreciate that so much--knowing this is the first, second, and third 
step--skip to my Lou, my darlin'--going right into socialized medicine? 
And who says that? Well, let's start with the President; then the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius; then Nancy 
Pelosi in the House; and then the distinguished majority leader here 
saying: Yes, we want a single-payer system.
  A single-payer system means national health care; it means socialized 
medicine; it means, as the Senator has pointed out during all of this 
rather unique and incredible time he has taken before the Senate, the 
government pays for it, which means we all pay for it and premiums go 
up and the insurance companies have a heck of a time and there will be 
exactly what the Senator has described in Cuba. I am hoping it won't be 
that bad, but at least he has pointed it out.
  So my question to the Senator is, after all of that rambling rose, 
wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be in the best interests of this body, 
wouldn't it be in the best interests of Americans to open this Senate, 
go back to regular order, and at least have an opportunity to offer 
amendments?
  Some of the folks who were somewhat critical of the Senator said: 
Well, what are you going to offer?
  There are about five amendments I would like to offer. I don't know 
what the Senator thinks the key amendments are that he would like to 
offer as a positive answer as opposed to shutting down the Affordable 
Health Care Act with a lack of funding. We could only do that partially 
because a lot of it gets in with taxes, and that is the mandated funds 
we allegedly can't touch. But would the Senator please list about two 
or three amendments he would like to offer.
  I think I would like to see the medical device tax repealed, but, 
again, that is one of those mandatory things we have to deal with in 
the Finance Committee, of which I am a member. But let's get on the 
positive side of this and say: OK, if the Senator had the opportunity 
to offer amendments and everybody else had an opportunity to offer 
amendments--and the Senator has spent a great deal of time here 
overnight. What was it--2:40 in the afternoon? That is what they keep 
flashing on the news. Quite frankly, I was listening to Ray Price 
singing ``For the Good Times,'' and I flipped over to FOX News, and 
there you were again. I thought, my Lord, there he is, still standing 
and still talking.
  So give me just about three amendments the Senator might offer. We 
shouldn't do more than three things because people forget about it 
after three.
  There is one other thing I want to mention. I got a lot of derision 
and a lot of criticism when this bill was first passed. I serve on the 
HELP Committee--Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We spent a great 
deal of time on this bill. I had three amendments to prevent rationing 
by the rationing board. Everybody says they are not rationing, but they 
are. So those decisions are not being made by the patient and doctor, 
they are being made by appointed bodies or we can use the term 
``bureaucrats.'' That is usually a pejorative term. At any rate, I was 
upset, and I said: We are riding hell for leather into a box canyon, 
and there are a lot of cactuses in the world. We don't have to sit on 
every one of them, but, by golly, we are. We are about to do that. And 
I had some other allegories we use in Dodge City, KS, and I had a few 
marine stories to tell, and then I got derided even on national news: 
Oh my gosh, here is this cowboy from Dodge City. I am not. I am an old 
newspaper person.
  At any rate, I am in here saying we are going into a box canyon only 
to find out four or five other people now have referred to it as a box 
canyon. We are in it. Everybody understands what a box canyon is, and 
we have to ride out. So when we are riding out, what are we going to 
do, I would ask the Senator from Texas. Give me three amendments.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his very fine question, 
and I will make a couple of general points about the Senator from 
Kansas first, and then I will answer his important question.
  I want to say that Senator Roberts is an old lion in the Senate. He 
was here last night, he was here this morning supporting us, and that 
is a big

[[Page S6813]]

deal. The Senator from Kansas is a respected leader of this body, a 
graybeard, and, I would note, a very well-liked Senator.
  One point I will make about Senator Roberts is that, in my humble 
opinion, I think he is one of the two funniest Senators in the 
Republican conference. I would say Senator Roberts and Lindsey Graham 
both have a fantastic sense of humor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will be happy to yield for a question but not yield the 
floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the question is, some people are funny and some 
people are humorous. I may be one of the most humorous, but Senator 
Graham is truly funny.
  Mr. CRUZ. I will note on that question that I can provide no response 
other than to say, as they say in mathematics, QED. That point is 
granted.
  But I will note that for the Senator from Kansas, as a respected 
senior Senator, to come and support this effort and even more 
importantly for the Senator from Kansas to have the courage to disagree 
with party leadership and express a willingness to vote against 
cloture--because doing so would allow the majority leader of the 
Senate, Harry Reid, to fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote 
with no input from Republicans--takes courage.
  I guarantee you, it is noticed that Senator Roberts is standing with 
us. It is noticed that Senator Sessions is standing with us. It is 
noticed that Senator Enzi is standing with us. It is one thing for the 
young Turks, it is one thing for those who have been dubbed the ``wacko 
birds'' to be willing to stand and fight, but when we see senior elder 
statesmen of the Senate standing side by side, I would suggest we are 
starting to see what I hope will happen this week, which is seeing 
Republicans unify.
  I would like to see all 46 Republicans vote together on cloture on 
Friday or Saturday, whenever that vote occurs. I would like to see all 
of us stand together and vote against cloture because we say we can't, 
in good conscience, with the commitments we have made to our 
constituents, vote to allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare on a 
straight 51 partisan party-line vote. I would like to see that happen, 
and I would note that Senator Roberts' presence here at night and in 
the morning is beneficial to making that happen. I hope it causes other 
respected leaders in our party to give a second thought that perhaps 
the division in the Republican conference is not benefiting the Nation 
or benefiting the Republican Party. Perhaps it is not serving the 
interests of our constituents.
  Before I answer the question directly, that point is an important 
point to make--that the Senator's support is significant.
  I also wish to acknowledge Senator Roberts' very kind compliment 
about the way I have endeavored to conduct myself.
  Senator Mike Lee has always conducted himself with respect for the 
views of others, not speaking ill of any Member of this Senate--
Republican or Democrat. That is certainly what I have endeavored to do, 
and it is meaningful.
  Senator Roberts comments that it is his judgment we have had some 
modicum of success achieved. I would note that characterization is at 
least mildly at odds with what one might think if one simply read the 
New York Times. If one read the New York Times, one would expect that 
perhaps I am leaning over, biting my colleagues with bare fangs. So I 
appreciate the observation of the Senator from Kansas that, in his 
judgment, we have not conducted ourselves that way. The reason is 
simple: The New York Times wants to spill gallons of ink on 
personalities, on people, on politics, and on anything except the 
substance.
  I would have been perfectly happy if not a single story coming out of 
this ever mentioned my name. If every story just focused on: ObamaCare, 
is it working or not? Is it helping the American people or is it 
hurting? If every story simply said the Senate stayed in session all 
night because ObamaCare is a train wreck; because ObamaCare is a 
nightmare--in the words of James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters; 
because the American people are losing their jobs or being forced into 
part-time work or are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums or 
are losing their health insurance, that is why the Senate was here. So 
I would be thrilled if all of the coverage focused on the substance 
instead of the distraction that is the silliness that is the back and 
forth.
  Senator Roberts posed a very important question, and it went to 
process. It went to how this proceeding is moving forward.
  There used to be a time when this body was described as the world's 
greatest deliberative body. I don't think anyone familiar with the 
modern Senate would describe it as that, because this body doesn't work 
anymore. This body is no longer a deliberative body. This body is now 
an instrument of political power used to enforce the wishes of the 
Democratic majority, both on the minority but more importantly on the 
American people, disregarding the American people's views and the 
American people's concerns.
  So what are we told? In the Senate of days of old there were two 
cardinal principles that were the essence of what it meant to be in the 
Senate: one, the right to speak; and, two, the right to amend. For a 
couple of centuries any Senator could offer any amendment on just about 
anything. That is what made this process work, open amendments.
  Did that make a few people take votes they didn't necessarily want 
to? Yes. But if we are being honest with our constituents, that 
shouldn't trouble you. If you are telling your constituents what you 
believe and if you are voting your principles, there shouldn't be a 
vote you are afraid of. Votes are only problematic if you are trying to 
tell your constituents one thing and trying to do something else in 
Washington.
  What is the process that is supposed to play out here on this 
continuing resolution and this continuing resolution to defund 
ObamaCare--to fund all the Federal Government and defund ObamaCare?
  We are told that, first, there is going to be a vote on cloture on 
the bill to shut off debate. If 60 Senators vote to do so, if 
Republicans cross the aisle and join Harry Reid and Senate Democrats in 
shutting off debate, we are told we will get one amendment--apparently 
drafted by the majority leader Harry Reid--and that amendment will fund 
ObamaCare in its entirety and will gut the House bill, will 
deliberately do it. That is the stated intent. We are also told that 
other amendments will not be allowed.
  In the course of this discussion we have discussed a number of other 
amendments, all of which I think would be terrific. One amendment the 
Senator from Kansas mentioned would be an amendment to repeal the 
medical device tax. I would note that is an amendment which we had a 
vote on in the budget process, and an overwhelming majority of Senators 
in this body voted for it. My recollection is nearly 80 Senators voted 
for it. Yet it didn't pass into law because of the peculiarities of the 
budget process. So that is an amendment presumably that, if it were 
allowed, would be adopted. I would suggest that is perhaps the reason 
why it won't be allowed: because it would be adopted.
  Repealing the medical device tax would take one aspect of ObamaCare--
the punitive, crippling tax that is hammering the medical device 
industry, that is driving medical device companies out of business or 
near out of business, that is hammering jobs and that is restraining 
innovation--that is restraining medical device innovation. We know with 
certainty that if there is not innovation, if there is not research and 
development, if there is not investment in medical devices, there will 
be new medical devices that aren't discovered. There will be people 
whose pain is not alleviated, whose suffering is not alleviated, 
perhaps whose lives are not saved. So that would be one of them.
  Another amendment I think we ought to have a vote on would be Senator 
Vitter's amendment to revoke the exemption that President Obama, 
contrary to law, unilaterally put in place for Members of Congress and 
their staff. Senator Vitter's amendment would subject every Member of 
Congress, every staff member, and the political appointees of the Obama 
administration to the exchanges just as millions of Americans are going 
to be.

[[Page S6814]]

  Indeed, I supported an amendment that some Republican Senators have 
talked about that would expand Senator Vitter's amendment to all 
Federal employees because our friends the Democrats frequently tell the 
American people what a wonderful thing ObamaCare is: Look at this 
tremendous benefit we are bringing the American people. If it is so 
wonderful, then the majority leader and the Democratic Senators and the 
congressional staff should be eager to get it if it is such a 
tremendous improvement. If it is so wonderful, President Obama--after 
all, his name is on the bill, ObamaCare in the popular vernacular--
should be eager to get--his political appointees who are forcing it on 
us should be eager to get it and the Federal employees should be eager 
to get it. We all know they are not.
  We all know this exemption came after a closed-door meeting in the 
Capitol with the majority leader Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators 
where, according to press reports, they asked: Please let us out from 
under this, because it will be so devastating, we don't want to lose 
our health care.
  I understand that. Look, I would not be eager myself to be on the 
exchanges. I am certainly not eager for my staff to be on the 
exchanges. Many of them are very concerned about it. I may lose very 
good staff over it. But I think there is a broader principle, which is 
that different rules should not apply to Washington that apply to the 
American people.
  If we are willing to subject millions of Americans to the exchanges, 
if we are willing to let people lose their health insurance, as is 
happening all over this country--take the UPS. UPS recently sent 
letters to 15,000 employees saying you are losing your spousal 
coverage. Your husbands and wives who were covered are losing their 
coverage.

  President Obama promised: If you like your plan, you can keep it. 
That has proven categorically wrong.
  A great many of those husbands and wives who had health insurance may 
be forced onto these new exchanges with no employer subsidy. That is a 
lousy place to be. It is exactly the lousy place to be that Members, 
Senators, and congressional staff are complaining, Don't put us in that 
briar patch. But if Congress is going to put the American people in 
that briar patch, then you had better believe we should be there with 
them. And if we don't like it, the answer isn't exempt us, the answer 
is exempt the American people. If it is intolerable for us to endure, 
it should be intolerable for the American people.
  Another amendment I think we ought to vote on is an amendment 
stripping the IRS of enforcement authority on ObamaCare. We have seen 
the political abuses the IRS is capable of. I don't know anyone who is 
eager to have the IRS have the world's largest database of our health 
care information.
  (Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. On that point, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. There are six Federal agencies in the meta database that 
are involved in it. When I kept inquiring, when the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, asked the 
representative from the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services--CMS, 
referred to in the health provider community as ``It's a Mess''--and 
said, Who is the navigator? This is before we understood that it was 
pretty much all community organizers. There are three basic 
organizations in Kansas, 1.5 million, and so they are out there 
knocking on doors.
  The problem is we don't know what people are signing up for, or they 
don't know and I don't know, and we have made all sorts of inquiries.
  Finally I got the 16 pages that you have to fill out to be eligible 
to sign up and the 61 pages that you had to fill out then to be a 
member of the exchange. That got a lot of news. So they reduced the 
number by simply reducing the font size from about 16-point or 12-point 
down to 8-point. They said, Just read more carefully. I got to page 3.
  I would not put down the information they wanted to know. There have 
been stories about scammers who are looking at these regulations or 
these signup sheets--no matter how big they are--saying, Aha, if they 
have to give their Social Security number, I can call them and say it 
is the law and you are going to have a lot of fraud and abuse. Maybe 
the IRS can take a look at that.
  One other thing about the IRS. The Finance Committee in a bipartisan 
effort--we haven't held many hearings, but we are getting closer and 
closer to what happened with the IRS denying people First Amendment 
rights. I would give a lot of credit to Senator Hatch and Senator 
Baucus working in a bipartisan effort.
  Along about November there is going to be quite a story. There is a 
V, and we have Lois Lerner here, and it goes up here to the Justice 
Department and it goes wider. We are getting a lot of communications. 
We are not making a lot of hearings about it, not standing in front of 
the mirrors. So we will get there.
  But the Senator makes an excellent point about the IRS. With all the 
problems they have had over this denial of First Amendment--not only to 
the tea party groups, conservative groups, but pro-Israel groups and a 
whole bunch of other groups, and they are still doing it.
  Consequently, the Senator has made an excellent point. Why on Earth 
would we want the IRS to be in charge of your health care, not to 
mention five other agencies, in a huge database? That information 
should be between you and your doctor, and you should have to break 
down the doggone doors in the dead of night in order to get that kind 
of information, as opposed to giving it to the Federal Government with 
all those different agencies with all sorts of opportunity for fraud, 
abuse, and virtually everything else.
  I am sorry to get wound up on that, but the Senator made an excellent 
point and I am trying to think of a question to make this legal.
  Doesn't the Senator think this is a trail we don't want to go down?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kansas for that excellent 
question. I would like to make two points in response, and I want to 
give an opportunity to the Senators from Kentucky and Oklahoma who are 
both waiting, I believe, to ask questions, so I want to move 
expeditiously, allowing them to do so. Before that, it is important to 
address the very good point the Senator from Kansas raised.
  I would say as the first observation, there are at least three more 
amendments that ought to be voted on in connection with the continuing 
resolution. One the Senator from Kansas suggested is an amendment 
defunding these navigators, defunding this slush fund that is being 
used to basically fund liberal special interest groups in the States, 
much like the stimulus, yet another plan that is used to write checks 
to groups that are little more than political action groups. That would 
be a vote we should have.
  Another vote we should have is a vote to protect the privacy of our 
information. The IRS has created the largest database in history of our 
personal health care information, and there has been report after 
report that the protections and the privacy of cyber security are 
pitifully, woefully inadequate; that there are identity thieves, that 
there are unscrupulous characters getting ready to mine those 
databases.
  The Senator from Kentucky, who shortly will ask a question, has been 
a leader on privacy. The idea of the Federal Government collecting 
personal information about all of our health care and then putting it 
in one place so, A, the Federal Government can have it; and, B, if it 
is poorly secured, anyone can break in and steal it. We ought to have 
an amendment to require real protections for our privacy before any of 
this goes online.
  Yet another amendment we ought to have is--the President has 
unilaterally delayed the employer mandate. We ought to have a delay of 
the individual mandate. I note the House passed that and a substantial 
number of Democrats voted for it.
  That went through 6 amendments and I am pretty sure we could come up 
with more. I note that earlier in the evening I had an exchange with 
Senator Kaine from the State of Virginia who asked a question. I forget 
the exact terms of it, but to paraphrase, he said: Can't we work 
together on improving ObamaCare, stopping it from being--he didn't say 
this, but this is me saying it--to stop it from being this

[[Page S6815]]

train wreck, the nightmare, the disaster that it is? My answer was: 
Absolutely. We should fix it, we should have amendments, and I listed 
some of these we discussed now. The problem is, I suggested to the 
Senator from Virginia, you should address your concern to majority 
leader Harry Reid, because he is the one who is shutting down the 
process, saying the Senate is not going to operate with open amendment, 
we are not going to have an opportunity to improve it.
  Let me make a final point. In terms of the political theater that is 
Washington, why does this matter right now? There are lost Republicans 
who would like votes on everything I said, and there is some virtue to 
getting a vote. But to be honest, many Republicans are fighting to get 
that vote in some context where it is purely symbolic. They are real 
happy because every Republican can vote together and every Democrat can 
vote against it, and then it can become fodder for a campaign ad.
  Let me suggest a far better approach is to have these amendments 
voted on in a context where they can be passed into law. The continuing 
resolution is that context. Everyone understands that at one stage or 
another. This is must-pass legislation. Everyone understands that we 
will fund the Federal Government. We have to fund the Federal 
Government. Nobody wants a government shutdown.
  We may get one if Harry Reid and President Obama force one, but 
nobody wants it. So voting on it now in the context of this continuing 
resolution is different from a symbolic vote, a political vote, because 
it actually could fix these problems. It is not simply Washington 
symbolism. That is why I find it all the more striking that so many 
Senate Republicans are suggesting they may be willing to vote with 
majority leader Harry Reid and with the Senate Democrats to cut off 
debate, to allow one amendment drafted by the majority that would 
totally fund ObamaCare that would gut the House bill and shut off every 
other amendment.
  If this were any other context, my colleagues on the Republican side 
would be up in arms. We would see the so-called old bulls of the Senate 
united in saying the process is being abused, and we would get 46 
Republicans voting against cloture.
  By the way, nobody, if there were any other context, would make the 
silly arguments that voting for cloture is really supporting the bill. 
The majority leader has indicated that once cloture is granted he is 
going to introduce an amendment to gut the bill and go the exact 
opposite way, allowing him to do so in a 51-vote partisan vote. That is 
not supporting the bill; it is undermining the bill.
  The stakes of this fight right now are whether this body is willing 
to listen to the American people--whether Democrats are willing, 
whether Republicans are willing. I would say what has to happen to 
change how this body operates is that we must make DC listen.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a procedural question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Last night at 10 o'clock I was privileged to be down here 
with the Senator and we went over a lot of things. Something happened 
this morning. I went home, I went to bed, I ate. I am back here now.
  The Senator from Kentucky has been waiting 40 minutes. I am not going 
to use his time, but what I would like to do is this. Something 
happened after I left last night, after a statement I made having to do 
with Hillary health care. I want to share that with the Senator. But I 
do not want to do it now on his time. Hopefully, if you are going to be 
here at 9 o'clock I would like to get back in line and share what 
happened last night after I left here. Is that all right?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I can tell him as I said 
at 2:30 in the afternoon yesterday that I intend to stand against 
ObamaCare as long as I am able to stand. At this point I feel confident 
that at 9 a.m., I will still be able to stand. There will come a point 
when that is no longer the case, but we have not yet reached that 
point.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky allowing me to 
come in front of him.
  Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question of the Senator from 
Kentucky without yielding the floor.
  Mr. PAUL. There has been some discussion. The Senator from Kansas 
recently put this question forward, how we would fix ObamaCare if we 
were allowed to. I think there are two parts to that. The first part of 
the question is, will we be allowed to offer any amendments to try to 
make ObamaCare less bad, to try to fix ObamaCare? Will Republicans, 
which is virtually half of the country, be allowed to participate in 
this process at all?
  ObamaCare was passed with entirely Democratic votes, not one 
Republican vote. It is a policy that has been very partisan. It is a 
policy that now even supporters of ObamaCare are saying: My goodness, 
this is going to really be a problem for the country. But the Senator 
is exactly right, we are getting ready to go through a process where 
there are going to be no amendments on fixing ObamaCare. There will not 
be one thing offered.
  Former President Bill Clinton is saying there are problems with it, 
the Teamsters, Warren Buffett, the 15,000 people at UPS who lost their 
spousal insurance are saying there is a problem with this. Are we going 
to be allowed to offer amendments?
  It appears as if there will not be any amendments. It appears there 
is nothing forthcoming that there will be a need to debate. This is 
important for the American people because this is being portrayed as 
the Republicans are obstructionists, that Republicans don't want to do 
this, Republicans don't want to do this.

  It is exactly the opposite. The President wants 100 percent of 
ObamaCare as he wrote it, as the Democrats wrote it, with no Republican 
input. So when we go around the country and people say why can't you 
guys get along, figure out some way of making our health care system 
better, it is because we are getting 100 percent of ObamaCare as 
written by the President and it is his way or the highway.
  What he is talking about is really, even though they say the 
opposite, he wants to shut the Government down. They salivate at 
shutting the government down. Over the last 3 months as the Senator 
brought this issue forward, who has been talking about shutting the 
government down? Has the Senator been talking about it? No. Have I been 
talking about it? No. We have been specifically saying we don't want to 
do that. Who talks about shutting the government down, nonstop, every 
day? The Democrats, the President, and their liberal friends in the 
media.
  As I get to my question, what I want to ask is about how we would fix 
it. I think Senator Roberts is right. The other side says they don't 
have any answers, they are not willing to fix ObamaCare. The truth of 
the matter is we have been talking about this for years now but we have 
been drowned out by the ObamaCare I want everything all the time, 
everything I want I am going to get. There are many fixes for our 
health care.
  I am a physician and practiced for 20 years. I saw it every day. The 
No. 1 complaint I got: Health insurance costs too much. So what did 
ObamaCare do for health insurance costs? It drove them up. It did 
absolutely nothing. Even they are admitting it. But you have to 
understand why health care costs went up. Health care costs went up 
because we are mandating what health insurance.
  People say I would like to have my kids covered. Sure we can cover 
your kids, but it is not going to be free. It is going to have a cost. 
So everything the people say they want is not free. It elevates the 
price of your health insurance. When you elevate the price of health 
insurance, what happens? Poor people have more difficulty buying their 
health insurance.
  What else did ObamaCare do that we did, that is exactly the opposite 
of what we should do. There is something called health savings accounts 
that originated about 10 or 15 years ago. They were expanded gradually 
and they were the best thing to happen to health care probably in the 
last 30 years. But what happened? We went the opposite way. ObamaCare 
is now narrowing the health savings account. Why are the health savings 
accounts important? Because you can save

[[Page S6816]]

money tax-free, you can carry it over from year to year, and then you 
can buy higher deductibles. So contrary to what people think, it may be 
counter-intuitive to some people, the way to fix health insurance is to 
have higher deductibles, because what does that mean? Cheaper 
insurance. You want cheaper and cheaper insurance. As you have higher 
deductibles, you have cheaper insurance. When you have cheaper 
insurance, you have all this extra money that you can use to pay for 
day-to-day health care. When you do that, what happens? You drive the 
price of health care down. I know that is exactly right.
  As you increase deductibles, as you get the consumer involved in 
health care, your prices go down. In my practice as an ophthalmologist, 
there are two things that insurance did not cover at all and the prices 
were reduced most dramatically in the two areas in which the health 
insurance did not cover anything. If you want to buy contact lenses, 
most of the time health insurance doesn't cover it. The price went down 
every year. Lasik surgery to get rid of the need for glasses, much more 
expensive but the price went down for 20 years because the consumer 
paid.
  What would the consumer do--or the patient? The average patient calls 
4 doctors before they have Lasik surgery, so the thing is they drive 
prices down. People say I don't want to pay more out of pocket, I want 
to pay less. That is a natural impulse to want to pay less. You may pay 
less at the door, but you are paying more for premiums. Or if you are 
not paying it and your employer is paying more for premiums, what ends 
up happening is there are fewer jobs.
  I know the Senator from Texas is familiar with philosopher and 
parliamentarian and French writer Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat often talks 
about the seen and the unseen. It is the consequences that are visible 
to the naked eye before you get started, but then there are the things 
you didn't realize were going to happen, the unintended consequences. 
It is like saying let's have government build the hospitals. Let's have 
government hire the doctors. Let's have government build everything. We 
would see all these bright, shiny things and we would not see where the 
money came from, where the money was not spent, where the economic 
growth could have occurred. What we have to think about when we think 
about ObamaCare is we have to think about do you believe in freedom or 
coercion? ObamaCare is riddled with mandatory, mandatory this, 
mandatory that, I think there are several mandates.
  When you hear the word mandate that is not freedom, that is your 
government telling you that you have to do something. It should be 
about mandatory versus voluntary. We should have bills that originate 
here that say you are free to do things. We have gone the opposite way. 
We are taking away freedom and we are adding mandates. At its core, 
ObamaCare is about freedom versus coercion and as you add in these 
levels of coercion, not only do you lose your freedom, they cost money 
so it becomes more expensive.
  We took a health care system where 85 percent of the people had 
insurance and we made it more expensive for everybody. We made it more 
expensive by mandating what goes into the insurance. For example, for a 
30-year old, or for a 32-year-old, it is illegal to buy a high 
deductible policy. You will not hear this. ObamaCare has made it 
illegal to buy a high deductible policy. You can get it under age 30 
but not over 30. Why would you want that? Maybe you are a plumber in 
your own business and you want to have a $5,000 deductible so up can 
pay $1,000 a year in premiums or $2,000 a year in premiums. But how do 
you ever get there? You never get there unless you allow freedom. You 
need the freedom of the marketplace. Instead of limiting it, realize 
what you are getting. When you ask for ObamaCare you are getting 
ObamaCare, you are getting mandates, but you are getting limited 
choices. Freedom means choices. Mandates, coercion, means less choices.
  The exchanges will be very few choices. I will be on the exchanges. I 
will have to go to the exchange in Kentucky and buy my insurance. I am 
not very happy about it. In fact I think if I have to do it I think 
Justice Roberts ought to have to do it. Justice Roberts loves ObamaCare 
so much I am for voting to have Justice Roberts trot on down to the 
ObamaCare registry, the ObamaCare index, and get his insurance like the 
rest of us.
  We talked about some amendments to include people, I think everybody, 
all Federal employees. If ObamaCare is so good, everybody ought to get 
it. The thing is we would be so fed up that we would rebel in this 
country. That is what I think the Senator from Texas has started, 
hopefully a rebellion against coercion, rebellion against mandates, a 
rebellion against everything that says that big government wants to 
shove something down your throat, they say take it or we will put 
people in jail. People say we aren't going to put anybody in jail. The 
heck they won't. You will get fined first. If you don't pay your fines, 
you will go to jail. They are telling you that you have to take their 
health insurance as they conceived of it, with absolutely no Republican 
input. Not one Republican vote, and they are unwilling to have any 
amendments.
  What is this fight about? This fight is about whether or not we are 
going to have a society or a Congress where we can debate over how to 
fix things. ObamaCare is a disaster. Even its own authors are now 
saying it is a train wreck waiting to happen. Even the President, who 
is in love with this ObamaCare, is saying it is going to be a problem. 
He is delaying the individual mandate. He is delaying the individual 
mandate.

  But realize on another level what some of our complaints are. Some of 
our complaints are that by making it mandatory, and by him doing it 
after the fact, he is not obeying the law. This is pretty important.
  We talk about the rule of law a lot of times around here, but what is 
important about the rule of law is that Congress passes legislation and 
the President can sign it and execute it. ObamaCare was passed with 
only Democratic votes. But here is the thing, he is now amending it 
after the fact.
  We saw one of the union officials coming out with a gleeful smile on 
his face from the White House. Is he going to get a special deal that 
nobody else gets? Is the President going to come to your town or my 
town in middle America and meet with me and give people in my town an 
exemption? No. He has been giving exemptions to his friends. This is 
patently un-American, and it is unconstitutional. We will fight this 
through the court cases, but it will take a year or so before we can 
get to the Supreme Court.
  Can the President amend legislation? Can he write legislation without 
the approval of Congress? That is what he is doing. His argument would 
be: I am trying to fix the problems the legislation created. Yes, the 
legislation was 2,000 pages and nobody read it, and then they created 
20,000 pages of regulations.
  We have no idea who to call in many of the States. If you do know who 
to call and there has been an exchange set up, there are limited 
choices. Where you might have had hundreds of choices, you will now 
have two or three choices. Where you once had freedom, you are going to 
have coercion. Where you once had the ability to buy cheaper insurance 
and pay your out-of-pocket expenses on a day-to-day basis yourself and 
buy cheaper insurance, it will no longer exist because the government 
now says they know what is best for you. They know what you should do. 
Your choices have gone out the window.
  We talked about amendments. If we were allowed to have amendments and 
the ability to try to fix ObamaCare, I would try to bring the price 
down. The best way to bring the price down is not to tell people they 
have to have a deductible or an HSA, but it is to expand their ability 
to choose an HSA. An HSA is a health savings account.
  Before ObamaCare, you could put $5,000 a year in your HSA, and now it 
has gone to $2,500 a year. If you have a child who is autistic or a 
child with spinal bifida or a child with a severe learning disability, 
you can spend $10,000 a year on their health care in trying to help 
them adapt to life.
  Right now what is happening is they are limiting that ability. Health 
savings accounts should be unlimited. We should take them from $2,500, 
where the President has squashed them, and make them unlimited. If you 
get lucky

[[Page S6817]]

and don't get sick, your health savings account should be able to go 
into your kid's education. Health savings accounts should not be for 
just the family but for every individual of the family. They should be 
enormous over time, and then you would buy cheaper insurance.
  This is also the answer as to how you drive the price down. Here is 
something, as a physician, people would say to me: I went to the 
hospital and had heart surgery that cost $100,000. When I looked at my 
bill very closely, the mouthwash was $50, and I was infuriated. I would 
say: Did you call? Did you try to negotiate with the hospital? They 
would answer: No, my deductible is $50.
  When you have a low deductible and you don't have to pay, you are not 
connected to the product. Unless you are connected to the product, 
prices don't come down. This is a fundamental aspect of capitalism. 
That is why when you go to Walmart or any retail store such as Hobby 
Lobby, the prices are bid down because there is competition and you ask 
about the price.
  Think about it. If you went to Walmart and your copay was $10 every 
time you went to Walmart, would you ever look at any prices after you 
paid $10? You can see what would happen to the entire retail world if 
we had health insurance for buying goods. If you had a health insurance 
copay of $100 to buy a car, the price of cars would go through the roof 
because you wouldn't care about the price. This is about having some 
sense.
  The people who gave you ObamaCare are not bad people. They have big 
hearts but not necessarily big brains. They want to help people, but 
they have not figured out that the unintended consequences of ObamaCare 
are that part-time workers will have less hours, and full-time workers, 
who are on the margin, as far as their hours go, with a business that 
is struggling will lose their jobs.
  If I have 51 employees, I may go back to 49 employees if I am 
struggling. If I have 1,000 employees, and I provide health insurance 
for them but my competitor decides to dump them on the government 
exchange, maybe I have to do that too so I can compete because maybe I 
have to offer the lowest price. Maybe the end result of ObamaCare is 
the people it was intended to help are precisely who it is going to 
hurt.
  I think we have to think this through. We have to think as a society 
whether we are for choice or against choice, whether we are for 
mandates or for volunteerism. I think it is very important that we look 
beyond the immediacy of what we are trying to do, and, as I said, I 
don't discount the motives of the people on the other side. I think 
they want to help people, but I think they are going to hurt the people 
they want to help.
  As we look at this ObamaCare debate and this disaster, there is 
another question you might ask: If ObamaCare is such a great thing, you 
would think you could give it away--this is something that will be 
free. And they are having trouble giving it away. So what have they 
done? They are spending tens of millions of dollars to advertise to you 
that it is such a great thing. If you can't sell somebody something 
that is free, I think there is a problem. ObamaCare is free and they 
can't sell it. They have enlisted the President now to sell it. They 
are going to barnstorm all across America selling something that is 
free. They will have government agents on planes flying hither and yon, 
knocking on your door, saying: Please take this free health care. 
Please sign up for free health care. If you cannot sell free health 
care, there must be a problem with it.
  We are spending tens of millions of dollars on TV, and millions more 
having people going door to door to convince people that it is a good 
idea. Ultimately we should try to help those who cannot help 
themselves, but in order to figure out how you want to help the 15 
percent who don't have health insurance, we should have looked at the 
problem more carefully. Of the 15 percent who don't have health 
insurance, one-third of them are young and healthy and make more than 
$50,000 a year. So one-third of the problem had nothing to do with not 
being--well, it did have something to do with not being able to afford 
it. It had to do with the health insurance costing too much. So we 
should have tried to figure out how we lower health care costs, and if 
you are a young, healthy person, we should have expanded health savings 
accounts. There are ways we could fix this.
  What I would ask the Senator from Texas is: Does he see a way 
forward? Does he see that we can get the other side to come forward and 
tell the American people that, yes, we made some mistakes? We made some 
mistakes, and even our friends are telling us we made these mistakes 
and we want to work with you. Because I think the problem, the 
perception out there is that we don't want to work with them, but it is 
completely the opposite of the truth. The truth of the matter is, as I 
see it, they won't work with us. They won't open the process and we 
can't have a debate. We are having a debate, but where is the other 
side? Why can't we influence legislation? Why can't we be part of 
trying to fix health care? I don't know if ObamaCare is fixable, but 
health care is fixable.
  The main problem of health care is price. It costs too damn much. Can 
we fix that? Could they come to the Senate floor and say: We are going 
to have amendments, we are going to have an open amendment process, and 
we are going to try to fix ObamaCare?
  Does the Senator see an opening where maybe the President would 
compromise and come and say: Yes, I am willing to work with you in 
order to fix health care in this country?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his very fine 
question. The answer is absolutely yes, I believe there is an opening 
to do that. I believe we can address the train wreck and the nightmare 
the American people are facing that is ObamaCare. We can address the 
very real harms that are being visited upon Americans as a result.
  I want to note that the Senator from Kentucky has been a clarion 
voice for liberty. That is one of the many things I appreciate about my 
friend Senator Rand Paul. I think my favorite phrase from his question 
is a phrase that occurred about midway through his question where he 
said something to the effect of: We need a rebellion against 
oppression. I like that phrase. That is a particularly excellent turn 
of a phrase. I will confess that it reminded me of a movie series that 
was in the theaters when the Senator from Kentucky and I were both 
kids--young adults--and that was the ``Star Wars'' franchise and the 
discussion of a rebellion against oppression. I think it captures a lot 
of what is going on here. We started this debate some 18 hours ago 
talking about the divide between the Washington establishment that is 
not listening to the American people, that is forcing its will on the 
American people, and the people of this country.
  I will confess that phrase of rebellion against oppression conjured 
up to me the Rebel Alliance fighting against the Empire--the Empire 
being the Washington, DC, establishment. Indeed, immediately upon 
hearing that phrase, I wondered if at some point we would see a tall 
gentleman in a mechanical breathing apparatus come forward and say in a 
deep voice, ``Mike Lee, I am your father.''
  This is a fight to restore freedom for the people. This is a fight to 
get the Washington establishment--the Empire--to listen to the people. 
And just like in the ``Star Wars'' movies, the Empire will strike back. 
But at the end of the day, I think the Rebel Alliance--the people--will 
prevail.
  The Senator from Kentucky asked: Can we actually make real progress 
in this? Yes, if the people do it. To be perfectly honest, the Senator 
from Kentucky can't get it done; I can't get it done; Senator Mike Lee 
can't get it done. I don't think there is an elected official in this 
body who can get it done. Only the American people can speak with a 
loud enough volume that it forces, No. 1, all 46 Republicans to unite, 
as we should be uniting, against cloture and say: No, not a single 
Republican will vote to give Harry Reid and the Democrats the ability 
to force through a single amendment that guts the House continuing 
resolution, that funds ObamaCare, and has 51 partisan Democratic votes 
and shuts out all other amendments; and No. 2, if the people rise up in 
sufficient numbers.
  I believe the Democrats have good faith. We will ultimately have no 
choice but to do the same thing--listen

[[Page S6818]]

to the people. During this debate we have read and we have discussed 
the letters from the roofers union, the letter from the Teamsters. Each 
of them used the same phrase: They ``could remain silent no more.'' 
Both of those letters began by saying they were Democrats who supported 
the President, who supported Democrats for the Senate, supported 
Democrats for the House, who had campaigned and worked for them, yet 
they ``could remain silent no longer'' because ObamaCare is hurting 
millions of Americans. In the words of James Hoffa, president of the 
Teamsters, it is a nightmare.
  If they can remain silent no longer, then I say to the Senator from 
Kentucky, I do have faith that there will be Democratic Senators who 
will feel the same pang of conscience to remain silent no longer but to 
actually speak up for the American people. But it will only happen when 
Republicans are united. If Republicans are divided and throwing rocks 
at each other, we cannot expect Democrats to cross their leadership. 
The Republicans have to unite first in order to get Democrats to come 
together and listen to the people. You want to know what this whole 
fight is about? Together we must make DC listen.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I have a followup question for the Senator 
from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question, but I will not yield 
the floor.
  Mr. PAUL. One of the questions that should not only be asked of the 
Senator but should be asked of the President: Why doesn't the President 
voluntarily take ObamaCare? It is his baby, and if he loves it so much, 
why doesn't the President take it? He could voluntarily go on the 
exchanges. I am sure they would welcome him down at the DC exchanges. 
In fact, I think that ought to be a question they ought to ask him at 
the press briefing today: Mr. President, are you willing to take 
ObamaCare? If you don't want it, why are we stuck with it?

  So if the President can't take it, if Chief Justice Roberts doesn't 
want it--here is the thing. If we want to see a rebellion, we should 
ask Federal employees to take ObamaCare--that is what my amendment 
says--not just Congress. I am willing to take it. I don't want it. I 
absolutely don't want it, and I have been frank about it. I am not a 
hypocrite. I didn't vote for it, I think the whole thing is a mess, and 
I don't want it. But the thing is, if I have to take it, I think the 
President ought to get it. He ought to get a full dose of his own 
medicine.
  I think Justice Roberts should get it. I think he contorted and 
twisted and found new meaning in the Constitution that isn't there. So 
if he wants it so much, if he thinks it is justified, if he is going to 
take that intellectual leap to justify ObamaCare, he ought to get it. 
There are millions of Federal employees. They don't want it. Guess who 
they vote for usually?
  I think it is a partisan question. I think if we were to put it 
forward and say ObamaCare is such a wonderful program for everybody, 
let's give it to the Federal employees, my guess is we wouldn't get a 
single vote from the opposition party, but we will not even get a 
chance because they don't want to talk about it: ObamaCare is good. We 
want to shove it down the rest of America's throat, but we exempt 
ourselves.
  I have a constitutional amendment. I frankly think Congress should 
never pass any law if they are exempted from it. I think there is an 
equal protection argument for how it would be unconstitutional for us 
to do so. Yet we have done it repeatedly.
  But my question to the Senator from Texas is, What does he think? 
Does the Senator from Texas think maybe we should ask the President to 
come down today and sign up for ObamaCare? I think we should ask him 
that today, every day, and henceforth: Mr. President, if it is such a 
good idea, why don't you get it?
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and my 
answer is, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Indeed, if the Washington 
press corps would focus on the substance of this debate, on the issues 
that matter to the American people, the reporters would ask the 
question at every news conference the President conducts and at every 
opportunity they have: Mr. President, are you willing to be subject to 
ObamaCare, to be put on the exchange that millions of Americans are 
being forced to do? They would ask the majority leader of the Senate, 
and indeed every Democratic Senator who met with the President and who, 
according to press reports, at whose behest Members of Congress were 
exempted.
  If the press were doing the job of a watchdog press holding leaders 
accountable, actually speaking truth to power, they would ask every 
Democratic Senator not once, not twice but over and over and over: Are 
you willing to be put on the exchanges without an employer subsidy, 
just like millions of Americans who are losing their health insurance 
because of ObamaCare? If not, why?
  As I have noted multiple times during the course of this debate, I 
very much support what Senator Paul suggested about making every 
Federal employee subject to ObamaCare. Let me be clear. Doing that is a 
lousy thing to do to Federal employees. It is a lousy thing to do to 
Members of Congress. It is a lousy thing to do to congressional staff. 
None of them like it. As the Presiding Officer and I know well, it is 
hard to find an issue that causes more dismay, if not panic, among 
congressional staff than the idea that they might be thrown into the 
exchanges with no employer subsidies, as will millions of Americans; 
ironically enough, including, presumably, many of the staff who worked 
on drafting ObamaCare, and it is why the American people are so fed up 
with this. It is a manifestation good enough for thee but not for me.
  Washington plays by separate rules. The rich and powerful, those who 
stroll through the corridors of power, they get exemptions, just not 
hard-working Americans. If you are at home and it happens to be the 
case that you have two or three high-paid Washington lobbyists on your 
payroll, you may be in good shape. You might get an exemption. But if 
you don't have the ability to walk into the West Wing, if you don't 
have the ability to pull the levers of power, then what President 
Obama, the majority leader, and the U.S. Senate are saying to you is 
you are out of luck. We answer to the friends of this administration 
but not to the American people. Listen, I think under no circumstances 
should Members of Congress be treated better than what we are doing 
under the law, forcing upon millions and millions of Americans.
  I would note that during the course of this debate, I have been 
privileged to receive support from a great many Senators but two in 
particular I wish to mention right now: Senator Rubio and Senator Paul. 
I wish to mention them because on any measure of hipness or coolness, I 
will readily concede I can't hold a candle to them. Indeed, I remember 
in the debate over drones, Senator Rubio began quoting from rap lyrics, 
and I will confess to being clueless enough that I didn't even know 
what he was referencing. I was sure it was something far too hip for me 
to know. Although I will note I did read Toby Keith lyrics, but that is 
probably not quite the same genre, and I will note that Senator Paul 
has a following of, as he describes it, folks in Birkenstocks and 
beards and earrings, a different sort of cool that again I could not 
remotely hope to compete with. I am a lawyer from Texas.
  But what I can try to do to keep up--because, after all, we all have 
a little bit of competitiveness in wanting to keep up--I would like to 
provide a little more detail about something I referenced earlier, 
which is the speech that Ashton Kutcher gave at the Teen Choice Awards. 
To be honest, referring to the Senator from Florida and the Senator 
from Kentucky as cool, as terrific human beings, as both of them are, 
it is almost oxymoronic, because I think I will take it as a given that 
there is no politician on the planet who would actually qualify as 
cool. Ashton Kutcher I don't know and I don't expect to ever meet. Yet 
at the Teen Choice Awards he gave a speech that I thought was 
remarkable. He was there to accept an award for playing Steve Jobs in 
the movie ``Jobs,'' and he did much more than accept a trophy. He 
talked about the importance of hard work.
  His speech was so remarkable that I took the opportunity and tweeted 
out because, frankly, Ashton Kutcher can reach young people in a way 
that I

[[Page S6819]]

never can, that no Member of the Senate can, and I thought the message 
was important and it is important because of a principle that is 
imperiled by ObamaCare. Let me read from the relevant portions of Mr. 
Kutcher's speech. He said:

       I believe that opportunity looks a lot like hard work. I 
     have never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was 
     always just lucky to have a job. Every job I had was a 
     stepping stone to my next job, and I never quit my job until 
     I had my next job. So opportunities look a lot like work.

  He went on:

       The sexiest thing in the entire world is being really smart 
     and being thoughtful, and being generous. Everything else 
     is--

  And he used a mild expletive for manure.

       It's just ``manure'' that people try to sell to you to make 
     you feel like less. So don't buy it. Be smart, be thoughtful, 
     and be generous.

  Then he ended his speech by saying:

       Everything around us that we call life was made up by 
     people that are no smarter than you. You can build your own 
     things. You can build your own life that other people can 
     live in. So build a life. Don't live one, build one. Find 
     your opportunities, and always be sexy.

  I salute that message. I think it is a message that I hope every 
young person in America hears. But it is also a message that embodies 
what is imperiled by ObamaCare.
  What Mr. Kutcher talked about ``I was always just lucky to have a 
job. I never had a job in my life that I was better than,'' it makes me 
think about my father. When he came from Cuba, his first job was 
washing dishes making 50 cents an hour. He was lucky to have that job. 
He certainly was not better than that job. If he hadn't had that job--
the next sentence Mr. Kutcher said: ``And every job I had was a 
stepping stone to my next job.'' As we have discussed during this 
debate, if he hadn't had that first job, he wouldn't have gotten his 
next job as a cook. If he hadn't had that job, he wouldn't have gotten 
his next job as a teaching assistant. If he hadn't had that job, he 
wouldn't have gotten his next job as a computer programmer at IBM. If 
he hadn't had that job, he wouldn't have been able to start a small 
business and work toward the American dream.
  We want to talk about the tragedy of ObamaCare. It is the millions of 
young people, the millions of single moms, the millions of Hispanics, 
of African Americans who are struggling, who want to achieve the 
American dream and who, because of ObamaCare, can't find a job. Because 
of ObamaCare small businesses are not hiring, they are not expanding. 
Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs.
  That first job washing dishes, if ObamaCare were the law in 1957, I 
think there is a very good chance my father never would have gotten 
that job washing dishes. If he had gotten the job, if ObamaCare were 
the law, I think it is virtually certain his hours would have been 
forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, and he couldn't have paid his way 
through college on 29 hours a week. So one of two things would have 
happened. He either would have had to drop out of college or he would 
have had to get a second job at 29 hours a week and juggle the balance 
between each of them.
  That is what is so critical about this issue, is maintaining the 
opportunity for those struggling to achieve the American dream.
  Secondly, I wish to share with my colleagues some more material. 
During the wee hours of the morning, we had the opportunity to consider 
some excerpts from Ayn Rand. I want to point to some more excerpts from 
Ayn Rand that I think are relevant to the battle before this body.
  First, from ``Atlas Shrugged:''

       We are on strike, we, the men of the mind. . . . We are on 
     strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the 
     creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on 
     strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness 
     is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is 
     guilt.

  Another on the filibuster, on the effort of the American people to 
get Washington to listen to us, from ``The Fountainhead'':

       Integrity is the ability to stand by an ideal.

  Also from ``The Fountainhead'':

       . . . no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. 
     It's so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an 
     idea.

  That particular quote I think more than anything is addressed to our 
friends in the media. I wish to read it again:

       . . . no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. 
     It's so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an 
     idea.

  I, like every Member in this body, am a flawed human being, a man of 
many imperfections. If a reporter wants to write on those 
imperfections, there is no shortage of material. But as long as they 
are writing on those, they are not talking about the ideas. As long as 
they are writing about the personality, they are not talking about the 
American people who are suffering. As long as they are writing about 
the personalities, and the back-and-forth, the game playing and the 
insults and all of the nonsense, they are not talking about the 
millions of Americans who are desperate for greater opportunity, 
desperate for a job, desperate for work to provide for their families, 
desperate to hold on to their health insurance. We read letter after 
letter after letter of real live people who are losing their health 
insurance.
  Another quote:

       Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of 
     your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: For 
     his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty 
     and absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the Morality 
     of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any 
     value, and grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever 
     existed on this earth.

  Another from ``The Fountainhead'':

       Throughout the centuries there were men who took first 
     steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. 
     Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that 
     the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and 
     the response they received--hatred. The great creators--the 
     thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors--stood 
     alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought 
     was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The 
     first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was 
     considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. 
     Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed 
     vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. 
     But they won.

  Let me suggest that quote speaks directly to the millions of 
Americans who are speaking up right now, who are saying Washington says 
we can't stop ObamaCare. Washington says we have to accept this train 
wreck, this nightmare. There is nothing we can do. Yet the message, as 
Rand says, is that if the American people stand together, if they 
believe in their vision, together we can make DC listen.
  Indeed, also from ``Atlas Shrugged'' in terms of the divide we see in 
this body, as Rand observed:

       There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and 
     the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man 
     who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by 
     accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the 
     middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to 
     pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit 
     out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood 
     of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who 
     dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the 
     robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker 
     and the fool to meet each other halfway.

  (The Acting President pro tempore assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. President, I would suggest that comment speaks volumes to this 
dispute. As we observed during the middle of the debate, there are some 
Members of the Democratic Conference--indeed, one we discussed: Senator 
Sanders from Vermont--who openly embraces his ideas. Indeed, there was 
a time when he ran for public office not as a Democrat but as a 
Socialist.
  Mr. Sanders and I agree on very little when it comes to public 
policy. But I will say this, I respect his fidelity to his principles. 
I respect the honesty with which he embraces them. And as I observed 
earlier in this proceeding, I would far rather a Senate with 10 Bernie 
Sanders and 10 Mike Lees to a Senate where the views, the actual 
commitments, are blurred by obfuscation.
  When it comes to the Republican side of the aisle, there are some 
Senators who have been quite open in saying they do not think we can 
defund ObamaCare. I will respect any Republican Senator who says: I am 
convinced we cannot do this and, therefore, I am voting for cloture 
because we cannot do it, and so I am voting against it. I do not agree 
with that. I think that is a defeatist philosophy. But it is an honest 
philosophy.

[[Page S6820]]

  I would suggest it is far different for a Republican to say: I am 
going to vote for cloture, I am going to vote for Harry Reid and 51 
Democrats the ability to fund ObamaCare in its entirety with no 
amendments, no changes whatsoever, but at the same time I am going to 
go to my constituents and say: I fully, I enthusiastically support 
defunding ObamaCare. Indeed, I am leading the fight. That is not being 
honest with the American people.
  If we are to listen to the people, part of listening to the people is 
being honest with the people. Part of listening to the people is 
embracing, quite candidly, the position we hold. If those Members of 
this conference want to disagree with this strategy and say we agree 
with Harry Reid, that ObamaCare should not be defunded on the 
continuing resolution, then let them say so openly, not cloaked in 
robes of procedural deception and obscurity. Let them say so openly to 
the American people. And let them make their case. That has the virtue 
of truth.
  On ObamaCare, in ``Atlas Shrugged'' Ms. Rand wrote:

       There's no way to rule an innocent man. The only power any 
     government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, 
     when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One 
     declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes 
     impossible for me to live without breaking laws. . . . But 
     just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or 
     enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation 
     of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's 
     the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you 
     understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

  That is a profound insight on the train wreck, on the nightmare that 
is ObamaCare.
  One statement the Senator from Kentucky made that I would disagree 
with slightly--the Senator from Kentucky said President Obama is 
committed 100 percent to ObamaCare, to making no changes, no 
alterations, to defending it as is, not to improving it. Actually, I do 
not think that is accurate. I think what the President has done is far 
worse than that, actually, which is the President has opposed 
legislative changes to fix the tremendous failures in ObamaCare that 
are hurting the American people, but the President has over and over 
unilaterally--abusing executive power--disregarded the law.
  When the President decided unilaterally that the employer mandate 
that was set to kick in on January 1 of next year would be delayed for 
a year for big businesses, there is no basis in law for him to do so. 
The statute says otherwise. But his decision was simply: L'etat c'est 
moi. I am the state; therefore, this is delayed.
  Likewise, when the President made the decision that the eligibility 
verification for subsidies, written into the statute, would not be 
enforced, that is contrary to law. The President does not have the 
authority to disregard the statute. If he does not like it, he can come 
to Congress and ask for an amendment. But the statutes written in the 
law books are binding law, and he simply announced: No, they are not. I 
am not going to enforce it.
  Of all the different unilateral changes, that may be the most 
consequential. It is one of the least discussed, but it is 
consequential because its effect is essentially to encourage liar 
loans. Whether you are eligible for subsidies or not, just say you are, 
and we are not going to check to find out.
  Perhaps most egregious was the President's action exempting Members 
of Congress. The statute provides that Members of Congress shall be 
subject to ObamaCare, shall be put on the exchanges without employee 
subsidies, just like millions of Americans.
  Mr. President, as you and I both know well, that had Members of 
Congress, that had congressional staff in a panic. So majority lead 
Harry Reid and Democratic Senators met with the President and, 
according to the public press accounts, asked for an exemption, said: 
Please exempt us--although the statute is clear. It was written that 
way, I would note, because of my friend, Senator Chuck Grassley, who 
added that amendment on the principle that if we are going to put a 
burden on the American people, we should feel it, we should have skin 
in the game.
  According to the press reports, the President said he would take care 
of the problem. Shortly thereafter, his administration did so and said: 
We are going to disregard the law of the land. We are going to 
disregard the statute.
  Let me say, when the President of the United States begins picking 
and choosing which laws to follow and which laws not to follow, when 
the President of the United States looks at this mess that is ObamaCare 
and begins pulling out the eraser and saying: I am going to erase this 
part of the statute, I am going to erase this part of the statute, and 
I am going to pick that it applies to these people, but I am going to 
pick that it does not apply to these people, that is the height of 
arbitrary enforcement. It is also contrary to his constitutional 
obligation. Article II of the Constitution obliges the President to 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed. To deliberately, 
willfully, and openly refuse to enforce the law is the antithesis of 
taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. Indeed, it is taking 
care to refuse to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
  That is the pattern we have seen. For any President to do so, 
Democrat or Republican--and I can tell you this: If there were a 
Republican President in office, and he were saying: I am going to 
disregard the laws of the United States, I can promise you I would be 
right here on the floor of the Senate decrying that Republican 
President, just as loudly as decrying President Obama for disregarding 
the law.
  Look, I think ObamaCare is a disaster. I think it is a train wreck. I 
agree with James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters: It is a 
nightmare. But I do not think the President can just say: I am going to 
refuse to apply it to everyone. You have not heard me call on President 
Obama granting a lawless exemption to everyone. He did not have 
authority to grant an exemption to big business. He did not have 
authority to grant an exemption to Members of Congress. He does not 
have authority to grant an exemption to the American people. Only 
Congress does.
  That is why Congress needs to act. That is why this body, why 
Democrats in this body, why Republicans in this body, need to listen to 
the American people. Together we must make DC listen.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for a 
question but not yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I mentioned a few minutes ago, when I was here last night 
something was said, and I went back and I got some phone calls because 
people did not believe it. I say to my good friend Senator Cruz, I 
think sometimes people like you who are living this issue 24 hours a 
day--literally 24 hours on this day--may assume people understand the 
significance of some things that they do not. Because I got these phone 
calls last night when I was talking about--and I quoted our leader here 
in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid. A couple days ago on the PBS program 
``Nevada Week in Review,'' Senate majority leader Harry Reid was asked 
whether his goal was to move ObamaCare to a single-payer system, and 
his answer was: ``Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.''
  I know I said this last night. But a lot of people did not realize 
that because there is--and if the Senator does not mind, I am going to 
take a few minutes here to kind of set the question up because I think 
it is important.
  As the Acting President pro tempore will remember, since he was in 
the other body when I was elected many years ago to the House of 
Representatives--I recall at that time nobody thought the Republicans 
would ever be a majority of anything, the House or the Senate. I know 
that would have pleased the Acting President pro tempore. It is kind of 
interesting because we became very good friends, and yet we are 
philosophically apart from each other.
  But I observed four things, and I did not think about this until this 
morning and how this subject fits into this. At the time Republicans 
were totally insignificant in the House of Representatives, so I spent 
my time sitting on the floor, and I listened and I observed some 
things, and I actually wrote a paper about this. I am going from memory 
now, but I recall in this paper I said there are, in my opinion, four 
flawed premises on which Democrats' policies are based, and I listed 
those four flawed premises. They were: The cold war is over. We no 
longer need a strong military. Punishment is not a

[[Page S6821]]

deterrent to crime. Deficit spending is not bad public policy. And then 
the fourth one: that government can run our lives better than people 
can. Well, I kind of went through that.
  I remember so well that one time there was an amendment on the 
floor--and I know those who were there at the time will recall this--
that we were going to take some of these closed bases, because of the 
cost of incarceration for prisoners, and we were going to take those 
and take the fences and turn them around to keep people in instead of 
people out. Well, that made sense.
  So I had an amendment on a bill, and it was a bill that I remember 
was a big punishment bill that became very controversial at that time. 
But I had that amendment to do that, and they defeated the amendment. 
The reason they defeated it was they said: We cannot expect our prison 
population to live in such substandard housing. Then I remembered, wait 
a minute. I was in the U.S. Army. I lived in that housing. I know a 
little bit about that. So that was kind of the punishment.
  Then at the end of the Cold War--you know, so we do not need the 
military--a lot of them were saying: We need to cut back. And we did. 
We actually cut back, and Republicans and Democrats agreed at that 
time. But now it has changed because what we are doing now--I call it 
the Obama disarming of America. I can remember--and a lot of times when 
you talk about people as being liberals or conservatives, you are not 
name-calling, you are saying: What is the involvement of government? A 
liberal believes the government should have a greater involvement in 
our lives. Conservatives believe the government has too much control 
and, therefore, we do not need to do that.
  Anyway, I went to Afghanistan when the first budget 4\1/2\ years ago 
came out.
  I stood over there knowing I would get national attention, knowing 
this would be the first step in what I call the disarming of America by 
Obama. So I stood over there. I recall in that very first budget he did 
away with our only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22; he did away with 
our lift capacity, the C-17; he did away with our future combat system, 
which would have been the first advancement in ground capability in 50 
years; and he did away with the ground-based interceptor in Poland. By 
the way, we are paying dearly for that now because we realize now, with 
Iran having the capability they have and our intelligence saying they 
are going to have a delivery system by 2015, we need to have something 
to defend that coast. Then we went through, and, of course, if you 
extend the budget of the President, it took $487 million out of the 
military.
  So I just wanted to say that is true. This is after several years, 
way back when I was in the House of Representatives. Deficit spending, 
not bad public policy--that is something we have heard quite often from 
some of our more liberal friends on the other side.
  But the fourth thing is that government can run our lives better than 
people can. Now, I tell my friend from Texas, this goes all of the way 
back to the late eighties; this observation was made by me. That is 
exactly what we are looking at today--a recognition by some people that 
somehow government can run this system better than people can.
  So last night when I was honored to stand with my good friend from 
Texas--I recall having been here back during the Clinton 
administration. We had a thing called Hillary health care. That goes 
right along with the same thing. So a lot of the phone calls I got last 
night after being on the Floor with you were people saying: Well, I do 
not even remember that. I did not know we tried that before.
  The big point here is that they thought it was over, it was done. 
They were going to have Hillary health care; as Senator Reid said, yes, 
a single-payer system. This is what they want. That is what they wanted 
back in the early and middle nineties. So we had Hillary health care. 
They thought it was over. They said: It is over; we are not going to 
win this. Consequently, you know, a lot of people actually believed 
that.
  Last night I talked about after we finally had victory. It happened 
that there was a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal by the AMA 
saying that we embrace Hillary health care because they thought they 
were going to lose it.
  That is kind of where we are today. At that time they thought there 
was no way in the world we were going to win this. They were going to 
be able to defeat it because it was a done deal.
  That is why I admire our good friend Senator Cruz for having the 
tenacity to stay in here and recognize that we went through this once 
before. If we did it once before, we can do it again.
  The reason Hillary health care lost way back in the middle nineties 
was that people realized it as socialized medicine. Again, you ask the 
question. It does not work anywhere else. It does not work in Sweden, 
Great Britain. Why would it work here? And the answer? I know they will 
never say it, but what they are thinking is, well, if I were running 
it, it would work. It is kind of a mentality that government can run 
our lives better than people can.
  So I want to say one thing before I ask my question; that is, I have 
had a great blessing in my life, which is getting to know a great 
American whose name is Rafael Cruz. Rafael Cruz came to this country 
the tough way. He recognized from his past experience what real freedom 
is.
  I have some quotes here that I wrote down because I use these quite 
often. He said: ``Our lives are under attack. ObamaCare is going to 
destroy the elderly by denying care, by even perhaps denying treatment 
to people who are in catastrophic circumstances.'' I hear people say 
all the time that this will never happen in America. It is happening in 
America. It is happening in America, and our rights are being eroded 
more and more every day.
  In one of his speeches he gave not too long ago, he said:

       I think the most ominous words I've heard was in the last 
     two State of the Union addresses, when our President said, 
     ``If Congress does not act, I will act unilaterally.''

  Scarily reminiscent of how things were done in Cuba. A law that no 
Republican voted for is now the law of the land; governing by decree, 
by Executive order, just like Cuba, the country he left behind.
  This is Rafael Cruz, who happens to be the father of our own Senator 
Ted Cruz. He is one who came over. He escaped the very overbearing 
power of government to come here for that reason.
  So I look at that, and I remember one of the greatest speeches--I 
have said this often. I know a lot of people do not agree with it. 
Probably the greatest speech I have heard in my life was ``A Rendezvous 
With Destiny'' by Ronald Reagan. In his speech, he tells the story of 
someone who could have been Rafael Cruz, someone who was escaping from 
Communist Castro Cuba to come to this country and risking his life.
  In his speech ``Rendezvous With Destiny,'' Ronald Reagan said--this 
is way back when he was the Governor of California. He said: The boat 
came up. It washed up on the shore in southern Florida. There was a 
woman there, and he was telling the woman about the atrocities in 
Communist Cuba.
  When he was through, she said: Well, we do not know how fortunate we 
are in this country.
  He said: No, we are the ones who are fortunate because we had a place 
to escape to.
  Does that not tell the story? That was a government running 
everything. They escaped that and came to this country, risked their 
lives, and they are over here.
  I know that my kids--Kay and I have 20 kids and grandkids. I was 
listening last night when the Senator was reading a bedtime story to 
his little kids. Ours are not little kids anymore, but my grandkids 
are. The Senator stopped and said: What kind of America, what kind of 
America are these kids going to be inheriting? Why is it popular now? 
Why would someone who believes government should have a larger role in 
our lives be reelected? What has happened to the American people and 
the values we held for so many years so close to us?
  Well, that is a hard thing to answer. But I know there are several of 
them--people who have experienced that, leaving slavery to come to this 
country.
  By the way, last night when I was reading the various things, I did 
not have any statements from the people from Oklahoma, so I was reading 
from

[[Page S6822]]

Louie Gohmert, who represents the eastern part of Texas. He had a lot 
of anecdotal stories from people in East Texas--just like Oklahoma. We 
are not that far apart. But since that time, someone called last night 
and they said: You should use stories from Oklahoma.
  K. Matheson said:

       Stand with Senator Ted Cruz. Defund ObamaCare. A single-
     payer health care system is nothing more than a socialized 
     system.

  She is from Bethany, OK. I do not want to give her last name. She did 
not want it given.
  Sue said:

       Thank you. What's to protect people from being victims of 
     identity theft with all of these so-called advisors having 
     access to people's financial and health care records? Why 
     aren't members of Congress, the White House and their staffs 
     included?

  Well, they should be included. We have been talking about that. The 
Senator from Texas has been talking about that.
  We had a tweet that came in this morning. It said:

       What allows the executive branch to pick & choose who must 
     follow ObamaCare & what parts to enforce?

  So we have got a lot of that stuff. But the thing I wanted to bring 
up last night--one of the things--is that something really good is 
happening. We are talking about the bad things, but there is another 
opportunity. We have a great guy in Oklahoma by the name of Scott 
Pruitt. He is our attorney general. In fact, I tell my friend Senator 
Cruz that while he was running for attorney general, I flew him around. 
Aviation is kind of my thing. I was flying him around the State. I got 
to know him quite well. He told me at that time that he saw this threat 
coming. So what he has done is he has filed a lawsuit.
  I am proud to say that Oklahoma and the attorney general, through the 
courts, are leading the charge to dismantle ObamaCare and put an end to 
its onerous taxes. Just last month a judge overseeing the lawsuit ruled 
against a motion filed by the administration to dismiss the case, which 
means the case will proceed. Well, that was a major obstacle. No one 
thought he would be able to overcome this motion to dismiss. So it is 
still out there.
  The law is a train wreck. We know that. There have been several 
proposals to prevent further damage. We need to defund the law. We need 
to make sure no additional taxpayer money would be used.
  If he is successful, that will affect some 34 States that are in the 
same situation as Oklahoma. If he is successful, that is going to pull 
the funding out of ObamaCare, and it could be that just one guy in the 
State of Oklahoma will be responsible for that. So this is happening.
  Yes, there are all of the efforts that are taking place here, 
primarily by my good friend from Texas, but we are in Oklahoma. We are 
involved in this too. We are hoping to be able to have that 
opportunity.
  I want to mention one other thing because this came in. I am going to 
read this. It is a letter. It is not all that long, but I think it is 
really revealing. It says:

       I cannot tell you how distressed I am with regard to the 
     Affordable Health Care Act--

  This came from Lynn in Oklahoma. This came in last night--

       Obama-care. I am fearful for my kids, now 18 and 20. There 
     is the effect it is having right now--employers are not 
     allowing their workers to have full-time hours. They are 
     hiring more part-time workers to make up the difference for 
     the company so they won't be penalized for not providing 
     health insurance. Both of my kids are unable to get full-time 
     employment. For a year, my daughter was able to work 40-plus 
     hours a week. Then, with the implementation of the ACA, no 
     one can work over 29 hours a week. Instant pay cut. My son, 
     who just graduated from high school, finally found a job at a 
     restaurant, and they give him 4 hours a day. He is still 
     looking.
       Additionally, I have adult friends whose hours are being 
     cut at UCO so they don't get penalized for not providing 
     health insurance to their part-time people, adults with 
     families getting their wages cut--

  This is just a normal citizen out there. This is not a professional. 
This is what people are thinking, at least in my State of Oklahoma and 
I think throughout the Nation.

     --adults with families getting their wages cut so the 
     employer does not have to pay for health insurance. Did you 
     not think employers would not find a way out of this at the 
     expense of the American people? Is everyone in Washington so 
     blind or is it selfish?
       My husband's employer now wants to penalize us if I choose 
     to stay on his health coverage rather than take the inferior 
     health care package at my employment.
       Mr. Inhofe, I dedicated my life to raising my kids and 
     taking care of my family. I currently make $12.25 an hour. I 
     have a bachelor's degree. It would be senseless for me to pay 
     for health care on a salary when my husband's health care is 
     so much better, and I have been on it for the last 13 years.

  Thirteen years. She would have to give that up.

       He takes care of me as my husband. I should not be 
     penalized for wanting to work full time at this juncture of 
     my life. If his company pushes the issue, I feel as if I will 
     not be able to stay employed full time, which is a violation 
     of my basic human rights. Now that my kids are grown, I need 
     and want to work. At 52 it is highly unlikely that I am going 
     to make a wage that is going to allow me to pay for health 
     insurance. It is against my constitutional right to force me 
     to purchase health insurance I do not need. The law is 
     unconstitutional and un-American. Please tell me what we can 
     do. The American people deserve to be able to work full time 
     without being penalized.
       I am tired of Washington and its dirty politics. Everyone 
     in Washington should be held to the same laws it passes for 
     the American people.

  Amen.

       Each one of you need to have the same health coverage 
     expenses that we have.
       I feel as if our country is headed, at lightening speed, 
     for a major breakdown. What are you going to do to stop it 
     and how can I help? I am frightened for the future of my 
     children and the future of America. I am tired of DC 
     politics.

  That was Lynn from Oklahoma City. This came in last night. I have 
several others that just came in overnight.
  But I think the thing that people did not realize and that we were 
able to talk about last night was the fact that this has happened once 
before, and they came dangerously close to pulling it off back in the 
middle nineties.
  You know, I have to say this. There is a brilliant strategy going on 
right now. I didn't realize it until yesterday. There are some pro-
ObamaCare people who are doing robocalls. I know the occupier of the 
chair knows what robocalls are, but a lot of people do not. These are 
automated calls where they call and a voice comes on and it gives a 
message. People listen to that. Sometimes they believe it, sometimes 
they do not. Most of the times they do.
  So there are robocalls that are going on by the pro-Obama health care 
people, going to the strongest opponents of ObamaCare and trying to 
make people think they are supporting it. It is to confuse the 
electorate. When you stop to think about it, that is pretty brilliant, 
and they did it.
  All day yesterday there were calls going around my State of Oklahoma 
by someone. The message was something like this: This is Joe Smith. I 
am with the ABC tea party--these are not tea party people, but 
nonetheless that is how they identify themselves--your Senator Jim 
Inhofe is supporting ObamaCare and you have to call his office. This is 
what his number is.
  We started getting calls and people didn't even know there were 14 of 
us who joined together with Senator Cruz about 6 weeks ago. I was 1 of 
the 14 and one of the strongest supporters of his cause. Yet they were 
trying to make people believe something else just to confuse them. 
Frankly, it is dishonest, but it is brilliant.
  When we are looking and we are seeing what happened, what is going on 
today, I do applaud my friend. I feel guilty, I have to say to my 
friend, Senator Cruz, because I left him last night at 10 o'clock.
  I went home, had dinner, and went to bed. I got up and he was still 
talking. That is the depth of his feeling about this. I believe what we 
learned, a lesson we can remember back in the middle of the 1990s, the 
lesson we learned there, when it was all over, we had lost, but we 
didn't lose because the American people came to our aid. We were a 
minority at the time, but they came to our aid and we turned this whole 
thing around. That is exactly where we are today.
  My question to my good friend, Senator Cruz, is I believe that 
history could repeat itself. Does the Senator?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his learned insight 
for that very good question. The answer, in short, is yes. Yes, yes, 
absolutely, I think to use the same phrasing majority leader Harry Reid 
used when asked

[[Page S6823]]

if he supported single-payer government socialized health care.
  I wish to make three comments in response to Senator Inhofe's 
question and his thoughts that he has shared with this body. First is 
simply a word of thanks to the Senator from Oklahoma. Senator Inhofe is 
an elder statesman of this body. He has served many years. He has 
earned the respect of his colleagues on the Republican side of the 
aisle and on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  From day one, when Senator Mike Lee began this fight, Senator Inhofe 
has been with us on saying ObamaCare is such a train wreck, such a 
nightmare, such a disaster that we should defund it.
  I observed earlier, it is one thing for the young Turks, the so-
called wacko birds, to stand in this spot. It is another thing 
altogether to see elder statesmen, Senator Inhofe, Senator Pat Roberts, 
Senator Jeff Sessions, and Senator Mike Enzi, standing with us.
  That is significant, particularly when the leadership of our party is 
publicly urging Republicans to go the other way. I am grateful for the 
friendship. I am grateful for your steadfastness. I am grateful for the 
principled and courageous willingness of the Senator from Oklahoma to 
fight for the American people.
  I will say it makes a real difference. If you trust what is written 
in the media, this battle is doomed. Indeed, I recall reading a day or 
two ago an article that purported to be an objective news story--not an 
editorial--by a reporter allegedly reporting on the news that began 
with something like: The fight to defund ObamaCare, which is doomed to 
fail.
  That was reported as a fact. There was no editorializing, apparently. 
That is just an objective fact that it is doomed to fail.
  I would say the momentum has been steadily with us. They said this 
fight was doomed to fail 2 months ago. We saw the American people 
unite, over 1.6 million Americans, signed a national petition saying 
defund ObamaCare now because it is a train wreck, it is a disaster, and 
it is hurting Americans.
  They said it was doomed to fail, the House of Representatives would 
never pass a continuing resolution conditioned on defunding ObamaCare. 
It wouldn't happen.
  Then last Friday the House of Representatives did exactly that 
because courageous House conservatives stuck their neck out and because 
House leadership, in an action for which I commend them, listened to 
the American people.
  This week the press says it is doomed to fail that Republicans be 
united. Yet I would note seeing elder statesman after elder statesman 
come down and support us, it indicates the momentum that is with this 
movement. Listen, this is not a movement by any 1, 2, 3 or 100 
Senators. This is a movement from the American people.
  Why are we seeing momentum move in favor of defunding ObamaCare? Why 
are we seeing momentum for Republicans in favor of voting against 
cloture so as to deny Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare on a 51-
partisan vote? Because the American people are rising up and their 
voices are being heard. That is the first point I wished to make in 
response to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Before the Senator continues, would he yield for one 
followup question.
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield to the Senator for a question but not the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. It was interesting. I don't think I have ever been 
referred to as the senior statesman, but I kind of like that. I 
wondered, when the Senator mentioned the four of us coming down--he put 
us in that category. We have been here for a while. There is one thing 
we all four had in common. We all had a career in the real world first.
  One of the problems we have that I have observed, I say: What do you 
want to do?
  The reply is: Oh, I want to be a Member of Congress.
  So they leave the fraternity house and they move to Congress. They 
have never been in the real world.
  People ask me the question: what should I do if I want to get into 
politics. I say go out for at least 15 years, live under this system, 
and learn how tough things are. In my case I spent over 20 years, did a 
lot of building and developing in the State of Texas where Senator Cruz 
is from. I have talked to his father, Raphael, several times about 
this.
  I remember there I was doing things that Americans are supposed to 
do. I was making money, losing money, expanding the tax base.

  Yet the obstacle I had all during those years was the Federal 
Government, and I was doing what Americans are supposed to be doing. I 
remember that is when I decided.
  The last thing I did down in Texas, a pretty good-sized development, 
and I had to go to 25 governmental agencies to get a dock permit. I 
thought, wait a minute, they are supposed to be on our side. I decided 
I would run to come to Congress and try to save the free enterprise 
system.
  That is what all four of us have in common. We may have been here for 
a while, but we are here with a cause and here with experience.
  How abusive government can be. I have not seen a time when the abuse 
is greater than it is today on what is happening to us, to think that 
we have a policy by the President, as he has been able to sell the 
idea, get the votes, get it through, and it is socializing medicine. It 
is something that has failed year after year after year in every 
country where they have tried to do it.
  Does my friend from Texas see anything different about the United 
States of America, how socialized medicine would work here when it 
hasn't worked anywhere else?
  Mr. CRUZ. I think the Senator from Oklahoma raises a very good 
question. The clear facts are everywhere in the world socialized 
medicine has been implemented, it hasn't worked. It produces results 
consistently. We can predict where socialized medicine leads. It leads 
to scarcity. It leads to waiting periods. It leads to poor quality 
health care. It leads to government rationing. It leads to government 
bureaucrats deciding what health care you can get and what health care 
I can get.
  If you go in for a health treatment, a government bureaucrat may say, 
Mr. Inhofe, you can get that treatment in 6 months or maybe a year. On 
the other hand, perhaps your mom goes in for a treatment and the 
government bureaucrat may say: Ma'am, I am afraid you don't get that 
treatment. We have determined on our schedule we are not allowing it.
  That is what happens with socialized medicine. If you want not to be 
able to pick your doctor, if you want a government bureaucrat making 
health care decisions for you instead of you and your doctor, then you 
should welcome what Majority Leader Reid says is the inevitable result 
of ObamaCare. That is single-payer government socialized medicine. That 
is where this law is headed.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield one last time for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield to the Senator for a question without yielding the 
floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I hope my wife will forgive me, because I know she is 
watching, or I suspect she is watching because she has an equal 
interest in this issue for a totally different reason.
  Kay and I have been married--our 54th wedding anniversary is coming 
up. We have 20 kids and grandkids.
  She went through an experience, and our whole family went through the 
experience with her a short while ago, less than 1 year ago. She 
discovered she had a serious heart problem with the aortic valve. I 
have to praise her for not telling me anything about it for 4 months. 
She knew she was going to have to have this very serious operation. She 
is only 1 year younger than I am. She knew she was going to have the 
operation and she didn't want to say anything because she didn't want 
to worry me. She was writing things out about what things would go to 
what kids because she didn't think she was going to make it. She 
thought there was a good chance she wouldn't. We went through that 
experience with her.
  I will tell you what is funny. All our grandkids call us--my name is 
Inhofe, so ``I'' is for Inhofe so they called us Mom I and Pop I. That 
is how they have referred to us. Since she had a valve put in her heart 
that was from a cow, instead of calling her Mom I, they call her Moom 
I. She went through this very difficult procedure with the best medical 
care in St. John's Medical Center in Tulsa, Dr. Robert Garrett, all the 
nurses, all the people all the way down.

[[Page S6824]]

  I was thinking, that is my first experience at my age, my senior age, 
of seeing this system work.
  Where would she have been in Canada? I have talked to people and they 
said: No. At her age she would have waited in such a long line that she 
probably would not have been able to make it.
  It is serious things she is going through. I don't think I am the 
only one who has had this experience, but that was a wakeup call. I 
would hope and suggest to the Senator that other people speak up, even 
though it is somewhat uncomfortable. I thank God we had the system that 
allowed Kay and me to be able to look forward to our next 54 years of 
marriage.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for that excellent 
question, and I will make several points in response; first, is hearing 
that story of your wife and her courage. It reminds me, I will confess, 
I knew there were many reasons why the Senator and I had become 
friends, why I like and admire the Senator. I discovered yet another. 
It sounds as if the Senator and I married very similar women.
  If it is anything like our marriage, at least in my marriage, I 
married way, way, way above myself.
  I will tell you a story that your story reminded me of, which is my 
wife Heidi was taking a car to the airport. The car was hit. It was hit 
by another car, T-boned. The driver was very upset. Heidi called 911, 
and an ambulance came and took the driver to the hospital. Heidi 
proceeded to call a cab and take the cab to the airport, got on a plane 
and flew to a business meeting she had in New Mexico.
  At the end of the meeting she noticed: Gosh, I am kind of hurting. My 
head hurts and my shoulder hurts. She went to the hospital that 
afternoon in New Mexico and discovered she had both a concussion and a 
broken collarbone.
  Much like Senator Inhofe relayed, Heidi did not share this news with 
her husband until that evening. She didn't call me when the accident 
occurred. She didn't call me even when she got the diagnosis. She 
called me and was describing her injuries to me. She said: Sweetheart, 
I wanted to let you know I had a car accident. I am all right, but I do 
have a broken collarbone. I have a concussion.
  Oh, my goodness. It is very disconcerting when your wife tells you 
that. She was describing where it happened. As she described the street 
in Houston, I am thinking: Wait, if it happened in Houston, what are 
you doing in New Mexico if you were in a car wreck in Houston?
  She said: I got on a plane and flew, without going to the doctor, 
with a broken collarbone and concussion and went to the business 
meeting, completed the business meeting, before bothering to get 
treated.
  Let me say to anyone watching this, I do not commend my wonderful, 
love of my life, wife's conduct to anyone who has had an accident. I 
would suggest getting medical treatment immediately. I would strongly 
suggest not following the path of the wife of the Senator from Oklahoma 
and my wife and not telling your husband.
  I would strongly encourage, call your spouse and let them know. I 
certainly urge, should that happen again to my wife: Sweetheart, please 
let me know when it happens and not 12, 14 hours later.
  But it is the virtue of marrying strong women who know what they want 
and are able to tackle the world. I, for one, am blessed and I have no 
doubt that you feel deeply blessed with 20 kids and grandkids. You 
know, the psalmist talks about my cup runneth over, bountiful 
blessings, and 20 kids and grandkids certainly qualifies as that.

  Indeed, an additional point I wanted to make is I wanted to thank the 
Senator from Oklahoma for his very kind comments about my father. As 
the Senator knows, my father has been my hero my whole life. I have 
admired him for as long as I can remember.
  I also want to note something particularly meaningful the Senator 
from Oklahoma did. Every week in the Senate there is a prayer 
breakfast. It is a bipartisan prayer breakfast, which is nice. There 
are not a lot of bipartisan things we do here in the Senate. There are 
a number of Senators who attend regularly, Republicans and Democrats, 
and they invite a different Senator each week to share his or her 
testimony, share some thoughts. Some weeks ago I was invited to do so, 
and I felt honored to have the opportunity. I had attended the prayer 
breakfast a number of times.
  The way it typically works is another Senator is asked to introduce 
whoever is speaking that day. So at this particular prayer breakfast 
Senator Inhofe was asked to introduce me. It is really quite 
interesting to me. Almost anyone, when asked to introduce someone, 
would do so fairly easily. Maybe they would print out a bio to pick a 
little biographical fact or two. Most treat introductions as fairly 
routine efforts, but Senator Inhofe didn't treat it that way. He picked 
up the phone and he called my dad. He picked up the phone and he called 
my college roommate. He picked up the phone and called one of my 
dearest friends here in Washington, for whom Heidi and I are the 
Godparents of their kids.
  The Senator made these calls totally out of the blue and said: Hi, 
this is Jim Inhofe. I have been asked to introduce Ted and I was 
wondering if you could share any particular stories, and they shared a 
few mildly embarrassing stories. Actually, I give them all credit for 
finding exactly the right balance of stories that were just 
embarrassing enough but not quite so scandalous that the blood drains 
from your face when they are told. I would say that showed a personal 
level of consideration that is unusual in this town and I appreciated 
that.
  I thanked the Senator then, but I wanted to take this opportunity to 
thank the Senator publicly for putting that degree of personal 
consideration in trying to tell not just that I went to so-and-so 
college and did this and this--not just the empty biographical facts--
but in trying to put a little color on who this individual is.
  The final point I will make is a point that goes to the substance of 
some of the remarks the Senator from Oklahoma made in the process of 
asking his first question, which is he talked about the battle of 
HillaryCare. I think it is quite fitting to the battle we are having 
right now over defunding ObamaCare. When the battle over HillaryCare 
was occurring--I remember it well--I was in law school. I wasn't 
serving in the Senate. If you remember the context at that time, when 
HillaryCare was playing out, all of the media said this is unstoppable. 
All of the media said this is going to happen and there is nothing the 
hapless Republicans can do to stop it. Indeed, there were a number of 
Republicans who came forth and said: We can't stop this, so we propose, 
what I derisively referred to at the time as--perhaps due to being a 
law student--HillaryCare light.
  I remember watching that. During the course of that debate, I almost 
put my boot through the television set. I remember yelling at the TV 
set a sentiment that perhaps maybe more than a few people watching us 
feel, where you feel you don't have a voice in the process. Certainly, 
as a law student I didn't have a voice in the process. But I remember 
yelling at the TV set: What on Earth do we believe? What are we doing? 
If we are going to accede to marching down the road to socialized 
health care, what the heck are we doing? I remember saying: All right. 
To heck with all of this. I am going to move to an island and fish all 
my life. Heck, I'm Cuban. I like to fish. That would be a great life.
  And Senator Inhofe will remember, because he was part of this effort. 
At the time I was particularly focused on the Senator from my State of 
Texas, Senator Phil Gramm. Senator Gramm had been a hero of mine for a 
long time. Indeed, I am particularly honored that the desk at which I 
sit used to be Senator Phil Gramm's desk. His name is written on the 
side drawer.
  This is one of the curious traditions of the Senate; that Senators, 
when they leave the Senate, scrawl their signatures on the drawer of 
the desk. You are actually encouraged to deface government property, 
and with some frequency. I hope the next individual fortunate to have 
this desk appreciates it. I find it an inspiration to sit at the desk 
that was Senator Phil Gramm's.
  But I remember at the time, when it seemed the whole stampede in the 
Republican conference back then was listening to the media, which was 
saying:

[[Page S6825]]

You can't win. You must accede to this. HillaryCare is unstoppable. I 
remember Phil Gramm walking out to a microphone and saying, in his 
inimitable drawl: This will pass over my cold, dead political body.
  I have to tell you, when Phil Gramm said that, it was fairly lonely. 
He didn't have a whole lot of allies when he marched out and did that. 
Senator Inhofe knows, because he was part of that fight and he bears 
the scars from that fight. But because of that leadership and standing 
and fighting--it was very interesting that it ended up where we saw 
Republicans looking all around, and Gramm was standing there and he 
didn't get killed. They all essentially ran behind him saying: Yeah, 
yeah, what he said. But I am convinced if we hadn't had a handful of 
leaders back then who had the courage to not read the papers and 
believe all those who were saying: Oh, we have to concede, the papers 
say they have already won, we are going to HillaryCare, if we hadn't 
had a handful of leaders willing to buck the conventional wisdom and 
saying we can win, when they are being told no you can't, ObamaCare 
would have passed 19 years earlier and it would have been called 
HillaryCare instead. That is the power of leadership.
  So everyone in this body who said 2 months ago and who are saying 
this morning that we can't win this fight, I point out that history is 
replete with example after example after example of those who stood up 
and listened to the American people and fought for the principles, for 
the values the American people share, fought for the interests of the 
American people, and who, with the support of the American people, won 
those fights.
  That is what we are fighting for. Listen, it is my hope that by the 
end of this process we will see all 46 Republicans unite in opposing 
cloture and saying: No, we are not going to allow Harry Reid and a bare 
majority of Democrats on a partisan political vote to fund ObamaCare. 
It is my hope over time, once that happens, we start to get one 
Democrat after another, after another to come with us.
  Now, will that happen now? Probably not. As long as Republicans are 
publicly divided, no Democrat is going to join us. But if we unite as 
Republicans, and if particularly those Democrats running for reelection 
in red States where their citizens passionately oppose ObamaCare and 
the damage it is doing to the economy, and the damage it is doing to 
jobs, and the damage it is doing to all of the people who are being 
hurt--if they hear from more and more and more of their citizens, 
5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000--that starts to change the count.

  People have asked over and over: What is the end game? How can you 
possibly win? I can't win. There is no way I can win, nor can any 
elected official win. The only way we can win is with the American 
people. That is it. When people ask: What is your end game, it is very 
simple. I have faith in the American people. And ultimately I have 
faith, or at least hope, in the 100 Members of the Senate.
  I share the frustrations of Americans across this country that 
politicians on both sides of the aisle don't listen to people, that 
instead the political establishment in Washington protects itself, 
maintains its power, entrenches its power and does things like exempt 
itself from ObamaCare while letting the American people suffer under 
this train wreck of a disaster--this nightmare. But I also know at the 
end of the day, if enough people speak up, that every Member of this 
body at some point is compelled to listen to the constituents he or she 
represents. It is why I am so encouraged by the outpouring we have seen 
over the last 19\1/2\ hours, with all of the people engaged, all of the 
people tweeting the hashtag ``MakeDCListen.''
  The citizen activists are transforming this debate. Listen, all of 
Washington wants to tell you, the citizen, it can't be done. You cannot 
win. Your view will not be listened to. The disaster, the train wreck, 
the nightmare--and I have used the word nightmare over and over. Let me 
be clear, for those who are just tuning in, where nightmare comes from. 
Nightmare is not my term. Nightmare is the language that James Hoffa, 
president of the Teamsters, used to describe ObamaCare because it is 
hurting millions of Americans. So at some point I believe, I hope, 
Republicans will unite and that Democratic Senators will start 
listening to their people.
  It is striking if we listen to the letter from Mr. Hoffa. With 
permission I want to share that letter again, because I think it is 
powerful, it is potent. It is something, frankly, I think every 
Democrat in this body who is supporting ObamaCare, who is opposing 
defunding ObamaCare, who is going to vote with the majority leader, 
should be asked about by reporters. I think the President should be 
asked about this letter.
  Let me just read it. These are not my words, these are the words of 
the president of the Teamsters.

       Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi: When you and the 
     President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (the 
     ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have 
     now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. 
     Right now, unless you and the Obama administration enact an 
     equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned 
     health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour 
     work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

  Now, that is not a Republican saying that. That is not a politician 
saying that. That is the head of the Teamsters, who supported 
ObamaCare. The letter continues:

       Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-
     line workers in the American economy. We have been strong 
     supporters of the notion that all Americans should have 
     access to quality affordable health care. We have also been 
     strong supporters of you.

  I remind you, this letter is addressed to Senate majority leader 
Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

       In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, 
     gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and 
     raised money to secure this vision.

  So it is worth emphasizing the Teamsters are not fair-weather 
friends. They have been active, aggressive, full-throated members of 
the Democratic coalition and played a significant part in helping to 
elect this Democratic majority in the Senate and helping elect this 
President.

       Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

  What vision is that? The vision of electing Democrats as a majority 
in the Senate, electing the President. Why? Because ObamaCare is the 
law of the land and they are discovering it isn't working. What does 
Mr. Hoffa say next?

       Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep 
     concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory 
     interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the 
     destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know 
     first- hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded 
     and met with a stone wall by the White House and the 
     pertinent agencies.

  Now, let me stop at this point and make a comment. For all of you at 
home who are not leaders of powerful unions and who have been major 
supporters of the President of the United States, major supporters of 
the Democratic majority in the Senate, my guess is you may not have the 
same access to the west wing, to the Oval Office, to the office of the 
majority leader of the Senate as James Hoffa, head of the teamsters 
does. Yet James Hoffa, head of the teamsters says in writing that he 
was met with a stone wall by the White House and pertinent agencies.
  Listen, if a major union--that in its own words had boots on the 
ground, went door-to-door to get out the vote, ran phone banks and 
raised money to secure a democratic vision--was met with a stone wall, 
what do you think we the citizens will be met with? Do you think this 
administration listens to a single mom working at a diner who is saying 
ObamaCare is slamming her and making her life harder? Do you think this 
administration listens to you even if the politically powerful are 
lamenting what is happening with them?
  Mr. Hoffa continues:

       This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have 
     repeatedly received successful interpretations for their 
     respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last 
     week's huge accommodation for the employer community--
     extending the statutorily mandated ``December 31, 2013'' 
     deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

  Notably, two things are included there. One, Mr. Hoffa on behalf of 
the Teamsters said that deadline for the employer mandate is 
statutorily mandated; that the law requires it. What he is saying there 
is that the President is

[[Page S6826]]

ignoring the law because it is statutorily mandated. No. 2, it is a 
gift for big business that is not being given to others.
  Mr. Hoffa continues:

       Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for 
     you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended 
     consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are 
     already creating nightmare scenarios:
       First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep 
     employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous 
     employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this 
     obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact 
     is two-fold: Fewer hours means less pay while also losing our 
     current health benefits.

  This is the president of the Teamsters saying ObamaCare is causing 
workers to have their hours forcibly reduced. That means less pay, and 
they are losing their current health insurance. Anytime the majority 
leader of the Senate goes on television and says that ObamaCare is 
working terrifically, this letter stands in stark contrast to that 
assertion.

       Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit 
     health insurance plans like the one in which most of our 
     Members participate. Those non-profit plans are governed 
     jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. 
     Our health plans have been built over decades by working men 
     and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the 
     administration, our employees will be treated differently and 
     not eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, 
     many employees will be relegated to second-class status and 
     shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance 
     plans.

       And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won't 
     receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they'll be 
     taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these 
     restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours 
     unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of 
     viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

  This next paragraph is critical:

       On behalf of the millions of working men and women we 
     represent--

  Let me note, that is not hundreds, that is not thousands, that is 
millions of working men and women we represent:

     --and the families they support--

  So millions more

     --we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of 
     the Affordable Care Act that will destroy--

  not weaken, not undermine, not slightly impair but destroy

     --the very health and wellbeing of our members along with 
     millions of other hard-working Americans.
       We believe that there are commonsense corrections that can 
     be made within the existing statute that will allow our 
     members to keep their current health plans and benefits just 
     as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, 
     however, that promise is hollow.
       We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but 
     the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans 
     including members of our respective unions.
       We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.
       James P. Hoffa, General President, International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters.

  When you have the Teamsters coming out and saying this is hurting 
millions of working men and women and their families, it begs the 
question: If Mr. Hoffa can no longer remain silent, if the Teamsters 
can no longer remain silent, how long can the Democratic Members of the 
Senate remain silent?
  I have no doubt Mr. Hoffa and the Teamsters received harsh criticism 
for this letter, because politically this letter was inconvenient for 
the party they have supported with time, blood, and treasure. Yet Mr. 
Hoffa said: We can no longer remain silent because of the devastation 
being inflicted on the working men and women of America.
  If that is true, I am hopeful that among the 54 Democrats in this 
body we will see first one and then maybe two and then maybe three and 
then maybe a dozen Democrats with the same courage that James Hoffa 
shows, the courage to say, Listen, I am willing to make a statement 
that is contrary to the political leadership of the party I belong to 
and have fought for.
  To any Democrats who are contemplating doing so, let me note that 
bucking your party's leadership inevitably provokes a reaction, 
inevitably provokes expressions--and often strong expressions--of 
displeasure. But let me also encourage any Democrats, there are worse 
things in life than a few harsh words being tossed your way. To be 
honest, that pales compared to the suffering of the working men and 
women of this country who are losing their jobs, who are losing their 
health care, who are being forced into part-time work. Any politician 
who whines ``Someone has said something mean about me'' has totally 
lost perspective compared to the hurt the American people are feeling. 
So I am hopeful.
  I want to appeal to the better angels of our Democratic Senators that 
they show the same courage Mr. Hoffa showed to be willing to buck party 
leadership and speak out for the men and women who are your 
constituents.
  I make that same plea to the Republicans, that you show the courage 
to buck party leadership and stand up to the men and women who are your 
constituents who are suffering under ObamaCare. Any Republican who 
votes for cloture, who votes to give Harry Reid the ability to fund 
ObamaCare on a 51-vote partisan vote is directly participating in and 
responsible for funding ObamaCare.
  If a Republican wants to say openly, I don't think we can defund 
ObamaCare; I don't agree with this fight, so I am siding with Harry 
Reid because on principle I think it is right, I don't agree with that, 
but I respect that view. You are entitled to that view. You are 
entitled to articulate that view. But I will tell you this, I don't 
think you are entitled to vote with Harry Reid and the Democrats, give 
Harry Reid and the Democrats the ability to fund ObamaCare, and then go 
to your constituents and say, I agree with defunding ObamaCare. You 
don't get it both ways.
  If we are going to listen to the people, we need to be honest with 
the people and tell them what we are doing. That is what this fight is 
about, whether Democratic Senators and Republican Senators will listen 
to the people. We need to make DC listen.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for questions and comments without 
yielding the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend from Louisiana for a 
question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. VITTER. I appreciate the Senator's comments, and certainly his 
correct recitation about what the real impact of ObamaCare is across 
the country, particularly for hard-working men and women. And the 
Senator is right. These descriptive phrases such as ``nightmare'' and 
another one is ``train wreck,'' are not his words, they are not my 
words. They are actually words from supporters of the law.

  ``Nightmare,'' as the Senator pointed out, comes from the leader of 
the Teamsters, a very powerful organization on the Democratic side 
politically that strongly supported the law.
  The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that helped write the 
law called ObamaCare implementation a ``train wreck'' a few months ago. 
Not coincidentally, that was right before he announced he wasn't 
running for reelection.
  I appreciate the notation of those descriptions from folks on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, from folks who helped pass ObamaCare. 
This is clear proof that this is not ready for prime time, causing real 
pain and dislocation to hard-working Americans: job loss, folks being 
moved into part-time work, jobs not being created, folks losing the 
health care they have now which they enjoy.
  But did the Senator know, I think the leader of the Teamsters, James 
Hoffa, is even more upset today than he was when he wrote that letter 
because in the intervening time something else has happened, which is 
that the administration bailed out Congress with a special exemption, 
with a special subsidy, with a special rule, hasn't helped the working-
class Americans Mr. Hoffa represents through the Teamsters, but has 
bailed out Congress?
  That is what I have an amendment on the CR about. It would be a 
germane amendment. I will present it. Unfortunately, it seems clear 
that the plan is for the majority leader to block out all amendments, 
including mine, except the ones he chooses that would take out the 
defunding language from the House-passed bill.
  Again, what I am talking about is a special bailout exemption subsidy 
for Congress. This goes back to the original ObamaCare debate, and our 
distinguished colleague Senator Grassley of Iowa proposed language 
which so many of us strongly supported that said every Member of 
Congress and all congressional staff would have to go to the

[[Page S6827]]

same fallback plan under ObamaCare as there is for all Americans. First 
it was called the public option, then eventually the exchange.
  Amazingly, happily--I was pleasantly surprised at the time, that 
language got in the bill and was passed into law. That became a classic 
case of what Nancy Pelosi said: We have to pass the bill to figure out 
what is in it. Because after that language got in the bill and passed 
into law, then lots of folks around Capitol Hill read that provision 
and they said, Oh, you know what, they said, Wait a minute. We can't 
live with this. We can't deal with this, because we are going to be in 
the same fallback plan as there is for every other American with no 
special treatment. We can't deal with that.
  Then, because of that, furious lobbying started on the Obama 
administration, folks such as the distinguished majority leader talking 
directly to President Obama himself, saying, We need a bailout. We need 
a special fix, a special rule just for us.
  Sure enough, that lobbying yielded results. By many press reports, 
President Obama got personally involved to ensure that a special rule 
was issued by his administration. The draft version of it was issued 
conveniently just after Congress left town for the August recess and 
got away from the scene of the crime. That draft rule is completely 
improper, completely illegal, because it goes beyond the statute and is 
inconsistent with the statute, but it is a special exemption for 
Congress. It essentially does two things:
  First, even though the ObamaCare statute explicitly says that every 
Member of Congress, all congressional official staff have to go to the 
exchange, the rule basically negates that in a way and says, Well, we 
don't know what ``official staff'' means, so we are going to leave it 
up to each individual Member to decide which of their staff is official 
and which is not, who has to go to the exchange and who doesn't.
  The statute doesn't say that. The statute is very clear: All 
congressional official staff have to go to the exchange. There is no 
discretion to individual Members.
  Then the second thing that this special rule, this special exemption 
does is even more egregious. It says, Oh, and by the way, whoever does 
go to the exchange, whatever Members and whatever congressional staff 
do go to the exchange, they get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that 
follows them there. That is not in the statute. That is nowhere in 
ObamaCare. That is nowhere in that Grassley provision as passed into 
law. In fact, there are other sections of ObamaCare that make it 
crystal clear that employees who go to the exchange lose their previous 
subsidy from their large employer that they may have enjoyed 
previously. That is clear in the law, completely inconsistent with this 
illegal rule made up out of thin air.
  So Washington is getting a special exemption, a special bailout, a 
special subsidy completely unavailable to other Americans. That is not 
right, and that is why I have an amendment. I tried to present it last 
week, was blocked out by the majority leader. I am here again on the 
CR. It is important, it is necessary we vote, and we should, before 
October 1, when this illegal rule will otherwise go into effect.
  My amendment is simple. It negates that illegal rule. It says, Yes, 
every Member of Congress, all congressional staff. And, oh, by the way, 
other Washington policymakers--the President, the Vice President, all 
of their political appointees--have to go to the exchange with no 
special treatment, no special exemption, no special subsidy unavailable 
to other Americans. So if you are a lower paid staff member and you 
qualify by your income for a subsidy available to every other American 
who goes to the exchange at that income level, fine. That is certainly 
available. That is equal treatment. That is Washington being treated 
like the rest of America, but no special exemption or bailout or 
subsidy, only those available to all other Americans going to the 
exchange.
  We need a vote on this provision. It is directly relevant to the CR. 
It is directly relevant to this debate.
  This illegal Obama administration rule will go into effect October 1 
unless we act. That is why I demanded a timely vote last week. 
Unfortunately, it was blocked out by the majority leader. After 
threatening and bullying did not work, he claimed he had no objection 
to the vote. But still he did not let it happen.
  Here we are in the CR debate and that is why we need that debate and 
that vote now. What the problem is, and it is clearly the plan of the 
majority leader, it is clear this upcoming cloture vote would block all 
that out again. The majority leader would get his select amendments to 
take out of the House bill the provision that defunds ObamaCare but 
nobody else would get any other amendment. I would not get a vote on my 
amendment. There are plenty of other relevant and germane amendments. 
We would not have votes on those. That is the plan being laid out for 
this week and that is what voting yes on cloture on the bill will 
enable. So I cannot do that.
  I commend the Senator from Texas for helping lead this fight, helping 
point out the dangers and the tragedies of ObamaCare, particularly for 
working men and women and also for supporting the broader effort to 
make sure, however America is treated, Washington should be treated 
exactly the same. That should be the first rule of democracy.
  The Founders talked about that basic principle, Federalist Paper No. 
57 by Madison. He specifically talks about this basic principle: 
Whatever is good for America needs to be good for Washington. Whatever 
is applied to those who are ruled needs to be applied equally in full 
force and in the same way to those who make up the rules. That is what 
this specific part of this debate is all about.
  I again thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this and 
the general issue. I ask, does he think, now that that special 
exemption has come out since the Hoffa letter, would he guess Mr. Hoffa 
is more or less upset now that Washington has been protected but the 
working Americans Mr. Hoffa represents are still in the dire straits 
described in that letter?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for that very good 
question. I thank him also for his support of this effort, his vocal 
support, his support from day one. I thank him for appearing with us 
last night, appearing with us today, standing together to defund 
ObamaCare, standing together to oppose cloture because it would empower 
Harry Reid and the Democrats to fund ObamaCare with a partisan 51-vote, 
party-line vote. It would shut out amendments to address and ameliorate 
the harms that are coming from ObamaCare that are hurting hard-working 
Americans.
  As to the question the Senator from Louisiana asked, I certainly do 
not want to put words in Mr. Hoffa's mouth. He is quite capable of 
speaking for himself. But I cannot imagine, given the language of his 
letter, that the exemption for Congress would be in any way different 
from the exemption for big business. They are both exemptions for 
political friends of the administration. According to the language of 
his letter, he expressed dismay that they and other political friends 
of the administration did not get an exemption.
  I will note part of that letter is asking: Give us a special 
exemption too. But that did not happen. But I will make a prediction. 
If the Senate doesn't act now, doesn't defund ObamaCare, if it doesn't 
stand and stop this, before President Obama leaves the White House he 
will grant an exemption to those union bosses. It is the trifecta of 
the privileged classes being excepted. I understand politically it was 
an inopportune time to grant that now. It would be lawless, it would be 
contrary to law to grant an exemption to the union bosses but it is 
also contrary to law to grant an exemption to big business and Members 
of Congress and that hasn't slowed the President down. If he is willing 
to disregard the law for them, there is no reason to think he would not 
be willing to disregard the law for his union boss friends except for 
the fact right in the middle of the defund debate it is not rocket 
science that that would not be ideal politics.
  The courage of the Senator from Louisiana in introducing his 
amendment--he has endured vilification that has been beyond the pale 
and I appreciate his courage standing for the basic principle that 
Congress should be bound by the same rules as everyone

[[Page S6828]]

else. The American people, millions of Americans, should not be put 
onto exchanges subject to pain that Members of Congress are not. We 
should not operate under the principle one rule for thee, a different 
one for me.
  For all of you who say this fight is not winnable, I would like to 
share a letter talking about fighting and winning unwinnable fights, 
because none of us can win this fight but the American people can.
  Fans of Rush Limbaugh know that every year he reads something that 
his father wrote about the true story of the price paid by the signers 
of the Declaration of Independence. I think it is fitting to read this 
morning. It is called ``The Americans Who Risked Everything.''
  ``Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor''

       It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind 
     was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, 
     redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new 
     thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen 
     shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who 
     was ill at home.
       Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The 
     temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't 
     nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, 
     with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. 
     Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they 
     would not be used today.
       The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept 
     locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, 
     so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by 
     passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight 
     stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson 
     records that ``the horseflies were dexterous in finding 
     necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them.'' All 
     discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.
       On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a 
     panoply--consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized 
     from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and 
     Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they 
     were taking it ``in the name of the Great Jehovah and the 
     Continental Congress!''
       Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency 
     measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. 
     ``Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of 
     Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops 
     at New York.''
       Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the 
     whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once 
     more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best 
     writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress 
     hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-
     side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. 
     They cut the phrase ``by a self-assumed power.'' ``Climb'' 
     was replaced by ``must read,'' then ``must'' was eliminated, 
     then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was 
     cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called 
     ``their depredations.'' ``Inherent and inalienable rights'' 
     came out ``certain unalienable rights,'' and to this day no 
     one knows who suggested the elegant change.
       A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were 
     eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of 
     wrangling, the document was put to a vote. Here in this hall 
     Patrick Henry had once thundered: ``I am no longer a 
     Virginian, sir, but an American.'' But today the loud, 
     sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the 
     vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the 
     custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence 
     was adopted.
       There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and 
     cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought 
     of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its 
     hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems 
     before adjourning for the day.
       Much To Lose
       What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the 
     Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, 
     committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of 
     you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are 
     almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, 
     know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What 
     happened to them?
       I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the 
     names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, 
     Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.
       Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were 
     under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half--
     24--were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were 
     landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, 
     ministers, and politicians. With only a few exceptions, such 
     as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of 
     substantial property. All but two had families. The vast 
     majority were men of education and standing in their 
     communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 
     18th Century. Each had more to lose from revolution than he 
     had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in 
     America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He 
     signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read 
     his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben 
     Franklin wryly noted: ``Indeed we must all hang together, 
     otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately.'' Fat 
     Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of 
     Massachusetts: ``With me it will all be over in a minute, but 
     you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone.''
       These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason 
     was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was 
     already at anchor in New York Harbor.
       They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed 
     intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from 
     hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply 
     asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was 
     equality with the mother country they desired. It was 
     taxation with representation they sought. They were all 
     conservatives, yet they rebelled. It was principle, not 
     property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of 
     them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them 
     became state governors. One died in office as vice president 
     of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. 
     Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded 
     the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from 
     Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and 
     philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not 
     Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)
       Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced 
     the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in 
     June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: 
     ``Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? 
     Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let 
     her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish 
     the reign of peace and law. ``The eyes of Europe are fixed 
     upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that 
     may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the 
     ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. 
     She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may 
     find solace, and the persecuted repost.
       ``If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of 
     the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity 
     at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever 
     will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens.''
       Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was 
     not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their 
     delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the 
     signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to 
     the Declaration.
       William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to 
     see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of 
     personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, ``but in no 
     face was he able to discern real fear.'' Stephan Hopkins, 
     Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As 
     he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: ``My hand 
     trembles, but my heart does not.''
       ``Most Glorious Service''
       Even before the list was published, the British marked down 
     every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to 
     treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. 
     Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. 
     All who had property or families near British strongholds 
     suffered.

  Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered--and his 
estates in what is now Harlem--completely destroyed by British 
Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. 
Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the 
efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

       William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to 
     escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to 
     Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for 
     seven years. When they came home they found a devastated 
     ruin.
       Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York 
     confiscated and his family driven out of their home. 
     Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the 
     cause.
       Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his 
     timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was 
     barred from his home and family.
       John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return 
     home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, 
     and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her 
     deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his 
     homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was 
     hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated 
     by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had 
     already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never 
     saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever 
     finding his family.
       Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College 
     of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied 
     the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. 
     They trampled and burned the finest college library in the 
     country.
       Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, 
     had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his 
     wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but 
     a Tory sympathizer betrayed

[[Page S6829]]

     them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and 
     brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a 
     common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally 
     arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. 
     The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer 
     harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate 
     looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. 
     His family was forced to live off charity.
       Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate 
     and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year 
     after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made 
     it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. 
     In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own 
     fortune and credit almost dry.
       George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family 
     from their home, but their property was completely destroyed 
     by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.
       Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to 
     flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had 
     several narrow escapes.
       John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, 
     lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he 
     came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even 
     some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and 
     troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When 
     he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: 
     ``Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they 
     shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most 
     glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country.''
       William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and 
     home burned to the ground.
       Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health 
     broken from privation and exposures while serving as a 
     company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to 
     seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his 
     young bride were drowned at sea.
       Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., 
     the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the 
     British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as 
     prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were 
     singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end 
     of the war, the British in the meantime having completely 
     devastated their large landholdings and estates.
       Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in 
     command of the Virginia military forces. With British General 
     Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American 
     guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord 
     Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into 
     Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were 
     making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson 
     remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American 
     gunners and asked, ``Why do you spare my home?'' They 
     replied, ``Sir, out of respect to you.'' Nelson cried, ``Give 
     me the cannon!'' and fired on his magnificent home himself, 
     smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite 
     over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by 
     pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer 
     peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's 
     property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, 
     impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.
       Lives, Fortunes, Honor
       Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, 
     nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were 
     captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. 
     Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 
     children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one 
     time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their 
     homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. 
     Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or 
     went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation 
     they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.
       And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham 
     Clark.
       He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary 
     Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British 
     prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship 
     Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The 
     younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because 
     of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. 
     With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one 
     could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British 
     request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would 
     recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter 
     despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, 
     must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with 
     his answer: ``No.''
       The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by 
     their every deed that they made no idle boast when they 
     composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. ``And 
     for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on 
     the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to 
     each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.''
       My friends, I know you have a copy of the Declaration of 
     Independence somewhere around the house--in an old history 
     book (newer ones may well omit it), an encyclopedia, or one 
     of those artificially aged ``parchments'' we all got in 
     school years ago. I suggest that each of you take the time 
     this month to read through the text of the Declaration, one 
     of the most noble and beautiful political documents in human 
     history.
       There is no more profound sentence than this: ``We hold 
     these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
     equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
     unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and 
     the pursuit of Happiness . . . ''
       These are far more than mere poetic words. The underlying 
     ideas that infuse every sentence of this treatise have 
     sustained this nation for more than two centuries. They were 
     forged in the crucible of great sacrifice. They are living 
     words that spring from and satisfy the deepest cries for 
     liberty in the human spirit. ``Sacred honor'' isn't a phrase 
     we use much these days, but every American life is touched by 
     the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom, 
     tested by blood, and watered with tears.

  That is the story of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. 
It is the story of our shared legacy.
  I will make this note to my friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle, as Benjamin Franklin wryly 
noted: Indeed, we must all hang together, otherwise we should most 
assuredly hang separately.
  That is the message all of us should think about. Are we going to 
hang separately because we disregarded the will and the view of our 
constituents and have given in to the Washington establishment or are 
we going to stand together and say: Let's break the broken pattern of 
Washington, of empty showboats, of fixed procedures, and ignoring the 
will of the people? Instead, let's come together--much like James 
Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, has--and say: We will remain silent 
no longer. We cannot ignore the suffering of the millions of Americans 
who have lost their jobs, cannot find jobs, have had their hours 
forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, facing skyrocketing health 
insurance premiums, and are losing or are at risk of losing their 
health insurance.
  Our constituents, the American people, are hurting and suffering, and 
it is the role of Congress to answer their call. All of us must listen 
to the people. Together we must make DC listen.
  Mr. RUBIO. Would the Senator from Texas yield for a question and a 
comment without yielding the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida for a 
question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. RUBIO. First of all, that is a very inspirational letter that the 
Senator read, and it reminds us of our shared legacy as a nation. It 
also makes me appreciate the freedoms we have in this country, and the 
opportunity to stand here today and have this vibrant debate. I am 
reminded that around the world people don't have this opportunity. I am 
reminded that around the world people are still losing not just their 
freedom but their lives for the purposes of speaking out.
  I will confess that I hope we can avoid the hanging part of the 
situation the Senator have outlined, and I am sure we will because we 
are so blessed to live in this Republic.
  I do something every week where I take letters from my constituents, 
read them in a video on the air, and then I answer them. I call it the 
constituent mailbox. I have been doing that since I have gotten here. 
It is important because it allows us to answer the real questions of 
real people, and their comments.
  They are not always nice letters, by the way, but we address those 
too because that is important. One of the benefits we have with the 
advances in technology is that the people we serve and work for can now 
reach us directly and speak to us in real time as opposed to the days 
gone by where people had trouble accessing their elected officials.
  So, with Senator Cruz's indulgence--as you have given me time but 
have not yielded the floor--I would like to read a few e-mails I have 
received.
  The first e-mail is from someone named Luis. He lives in Cutler Bay, 
FL, which is south Florida down where I live in Miami-Dade County.
  Here is what he writes:

       There are so many companies with a large number of part 
     time workers. The latest company Trader Joes in which I have 
     a family member will lose her part time health benefits 
     because of ObamaCare. She works as a substitute English 
     teacher in New Jersey and the job does not offer any health 
     benefits to part time substitute teachers. She has to be a 
     full time teacher in order to receive

[[Page S6830]]

     health benefits. She decided not to leave her job at Trader 
     Joes because they offered her health benefits as a part time 
     worker. Put yourselves as present grandparents and parents in 
     her own situation what a hard pill to swallow. What is she 
     supposed to do now?

  This letter talks about a family member of hers who is a part-time 
teacher in New Jersey, but also works at a restaurant called Trader 
Joe's. The reason why she works there is for the health benefits that 
she is offered, but now she is losing that. Unfortunately she is not 
alone.
  This is an article from Bloomberg from September 19 of this year. It 
highlights all these upheavals that are going on by private employers. 
UPS is dropping coverage for employed spouses; IBM is reworking its 
retiree benefits. Let me explain that one for a second. They are going 
to send their retirees to the private exchanges. They said the move was 
made to help keep premiums low for the rest of their workers that are 
impacted by ObamaCare.

  Walgreens, the largest U.S. drugstore chain, has told 160,000 workers 
that they must buy insurance through a private exchange rather than 
continuing to have it offered by the company, by Walgreens. They are 
not alone. Stanford University researchers voiced concerns in a study 
last week. They wrote that ``the rising premiums can drive workers from 
employer plans to coverage under the health law, boosting costs for the 
government by as much as $6.7 billion.''
  There are other examples of businesses that are doing this. I talked 
about Trader Joe's. That is a closely-held supermarket chain. I said a 
restaurant. I apologize, it is a supermarket chain. It said it would 
end health benefits next year for part-time workers.
  This is the real disruption in real lives. So one thing is to stand 
here and have people debate about the theory of ObamaCare and what 
great things it might do for some people, according to the supporters 
of this law. Another thing is to put a human face on the story. We 
already know, just from this e-mail alone, of one person in America, 
living in New Jersey, a part-time teacher and a worker at Trader Joe's 
who has lost her benefits and will now be thrown into this uncertain 
world of exchanges, because of this law, because of ObamaCare.
  Here is another e-mail. This one comes from Kissimmee, FL. That is in 
central Florida. My colleagues may know that as the home of Walt Disney 
World. This is from Patty. She writes:

       As mentioned in your letter--

  She is referring to a letter I sent to Secretary Sebelius--

     urging her to visit Sea World to discuss the impact of 
     ObamaCare that will be enacted in the near future, I--

  Patty, the writer of this letter--

     am a part-time employee at Valencia College in Orlando.

  Valencia is a community college. By the way, I am a big fan of 
community colleges. They are the backbone of retraining, but also the 
only access point available to many of our people. So if you are out 
there trying to work to support your family--let's say you are a single 
parent trying to raise three kids and you have to work during the day--
community college is also one of the few places where you can get an 
advanced degree and the skills you need for a better job. One of the 
best ways to improve your pay and your economic security is to get an 
education. Community colleges are an access point for people all over 
the country. I am a huge fan of community colleges. We have great ones 
in Florida. She is a part-time employee of Valencia College in Orlando. 
She continues:

       My hours too have been cut from 29 hours to 25 hours to 
     avoid any negative impact of the Obamacare health care act. I 
     have numerous e-mails from my supervisor and human resources 
     stating that my hours are being cut specifically because of 
     this.
       I have lost the hours that made it possible to live in a 
     severely reduced income and know that I will never get those 
     hours back as positions have been created by the extra hours, 
     so we have more people working and earning less. I am not 
     really asking anything; I'd just like you to know what this 
     government is doing to my ability to survive.

  This is not an e-mail from a millionaire or a billionaire. This is 
not an e-mail from someone who has made it and is making a ton of cash. 
This is an e-mail from a part-time worker at a community college with 
desperation that comes out in the e-mail: a part-time worker losing 
hours. Did we know what those hours mean, 4 hours a week of a pay cut 
to someone? She writes about it. She says: ``I would just like you to 
know what this government is doing to my ability to survive.''
  Do we want to know why a growing number of Americans are starting to 
doubt whether the American dream is still alive? Read this e-mail.
  Unfortunately, we are hearing stories about this all the time. Here 
is an article from CNBC published Monday, September 23, this week. It 
leads off with this line:

       With open enrollment for Obamacare about to begin, small- 
     and medium-sized businesses are not hiring because of the 
     uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the new law, 
     the CEO of the Nation's fifth-largest staffing company said 
     on Monday.
       Companies are really not interested in hiring full-time 
     people. ``That's really the issue with Obamacare,'' Express 
     Employment Professionals boss Bob Funk told CNBC's ``Squawk 
     Box'' on Monday.

  By the way, Mr. Funk is the former chairman of the Kansas City 
Federal Reserve.
  Now, someone--the former auto czar at Treasury, Mr. Steve Rattner--
disputes his assertions. He says:

       I don't think with the approach of Obamacare you see in the 
     numbers people suddenly stopping hiring.

  Mr. Funk argues--and he counters very persuasively--he says:

       We're out there on Main Street and Obamacare is affecting 
     the job hiring picture. Whether it's in the numbers or not, 
     it is affecting small and medium-sized businesses. They're 
     not going to hire until they know what their costs are going 
     to be.
       We don't know what the rules are going to be, but they 
     haven't written half of the rules . . . and it is affecting 
     businesses out there. That's why our industry is growing 
     quite rapidly.

  So here we have a person tied to the government basically saying 
these guys don't know what they are talking about; the numbers don't 
bear this out. And then we have someone who reminds them that he is on 
the front lines. That is what Mr. Funk is doing. He is very clear. He 
says, ``We are out there on Main Street and Obamacare is affecting the 
job hiring picture.''
  Listen again to what Patty from Kissimmee says in her e-mail. This is 
what she says:

       I have lost the hours that made it possible to live in a 
     severely reduced income and know that I will never get those 
     hours back as positions have been created by the extra hours.

  Do my colleagues know what she is saying? She is saying what they 
have done is reduced her hours and then just hired additional people to 
make it up. They have created another part-time job to make up for it. 
This is the impact of ObamaCare.
  By the way, with all due respect to my colleagues, I will tell my 
colleagues right now in case people are wondering, every single member 
of the Republican Conference here in the Senate is prepared to repeal 
ObamaCare right now. The debate we are having in the party is about the 
tactics, the right way to do it. The one thing I would say, however, is 
what the last day has provided us, which is an extraordinary 
opportunity to tell these stories.
  There is more. Here is an e-mail from Bill in Panama City, FL. That 
is in northwest Florida, a great place for spring break if you are in 
college and can afford to go. Maybe you lost your part-time job so now 
you can't. Bill says:

       This is just a note to let you know that you can include me 
     as another one of your constituents who has seen my health 
     care cost go up by over $200 a month. I also just learned 
     that my girlfriend, who works for a major corporation, is 
     losing her health care after she retires because of 
     Obamacare. I hope you will continue your fight to defund this 
     disastrous bill.

  I wish, Bill, that--I obviously feel terrible for the situation you 
are facing and certainly for the situation your girlfriend is facing. 
Unfortunately, you are not alone.
  Let me read something to my colleagues that Jim Angle from Fox News 
published on the 24th of this month, I guess that was yesterday, right? 
He tells the story of Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, KY, and of 
their two boys. He leads off by saying:

       These are just the kind of people who should be helped by 
     ObamaCare, but they recently got a nasty surprise in the 
     mail.
       ``When I saw the letter when I came home from work,'' Andy 
     said, describing the large red wording on the envelope from 
     his insurance carrier, (it said) ``your action required,

[[Page S6831]]

     benefit changes, act now.'' Of course I opened it 
     immediately.

  Guess what that letter that was in the mail said? It had stunning 
news. His insurance--the insurance for his family, his two boys, his 
wife and him--insurance they were buying on the individual 
marketplace--was going to almost triple next year, from $333 a month to 
$965 a month. In the letter, the carrier made it clear that the 
increase was in order to be compliant with the new health care law.
  He goes on to say:

       This isn't a Cadillac plan, this isn't even a silver plan. 
     This is a high deductible plan where I'm assuming a lot of 
     risk for my health insurance for my family. And nothing has 
     changed, our boys are healthy--they're young--my wife is 
     healthy, I'm healthy. Nothing in our history has changed to 
     warrant a tripling of our premiums.

  His wife adds:

       Well, I'm the one that does the budget. Eventually, I've 
     got that coming down the pike that I gotta figure out what 
     we're gonna do, to afford a $1,000 a month premium.
       The insurance carrier, Humana, declined to comment, but the 
     notice to the Mangiones carried this paragraph: If your 
     policy premium increased, you should know that this isn't 
     unique to Humana--premium increases generally will occur 
     industry-wide.
       Increases aren't based on your individual claims or changes 
     in your health status.

  It continued:

       Many other factors go into your premium, including: ACA 
     compliance--

which is ObamaCare--

       Including the addition of new essential health benefits.

  Robert Zirkelbach, who is the spokesman for American Health Insurance 
Plans, which represents insurers, explains that:

       For people who currently choose to purchase a high-
     deductible, low-premium policy that is more affordable for 
     them, they are now being required to add all of these new 
     benefits to their policy. That,

  He says,

     is going to add to the cost of their health insurance 
     premiums.

  This is a real life story. It is not a letter from a millionaire or 
billionaire, and this is not the story of a millionaire or billionaire; 
this is the story of a husband and wife and two children who are buying 
insurance as individuals from the individual marketplace who will now 
have to cobble together another $700 a month and they have no idea how 
they are going to do it. This is the real story of ObamaCare. Here it 
is. These are the people we are supposed to be helping. These are the 
people who--when they passed this thing, they went around telling 
people, We are going to help you get insurance. These are the people it 
is supposed to be helping, but look what it is doing. I wish that was 
the only example, but I have an e-mail here from Florida that says 
that, too. Here is another one from Barbara in Palm Coast, FL:

       I am a master's level RN who up until last week held a good 
     job with good benefits. Due to the many new restrictions on 
     employers, I have been reduced to part-time without benefits 
     at age 64.

  It is starting to sound like a broken record.

       Many healthcare workers are being cut in hours due to 
     Obamacare. My company tried to offer me an insurance plan 
     that I could afford to purchase, but I received a letter 
     stating that it didn't meet the standards of the Affordable 
     Care Act, and so I had until January 1st to purchase more 
     costly insurance or have consequences.

  She writes:

       This is a terrible, despicable law--

  And I agree--

     that has damaged many more people than just myself.

  Then she closes with this extremely powerful sentence. This is not 
from a millionaire or a billionaire, from the infamous 1-percenters 
that we hear these protesters against. This is from a nurse in Florida, 
and here is what she finishes with:

       I just want to live in a free country where I can work hard 
     and support myself. Repeal Obamacare.

  Well, one may ask themselves: Is this really happening? People are 
losing access to their coverage? Let me read something from a 
conservative, rightwing newspaper, ``The New York Times,'' dated 
September 22, 2013:

       Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost 
     consumers less than expected under President Obama's health 
     care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: Many 
     insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors 
     and hospitals available to consumers.

  One more impact of ObamaCare.

       . . . They have created smaller networks of doctors and 
     hospitals than are typically found in the commercial 
     insurance plans.

  In a new study, the Health Research Institute of 
PricewaterhouseCoopers, the consulting company, says that ``insurers 
passed over major medical centers'' when selecting providers in 
California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee, among other 
states.

       In New Hampshire, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, a unit 
     of WellPoint, one of the Nation's largest insurers, has 
     touched off a furor by excluding 10 of the state's 26 
     hospitals from the health plans that it will sell through the 
     insurance exchange.
       Anthem is the only commercial carrier offering health plans 
     in the New Hampshire exchange.

  What does this mean? Let me tell my colleagues what it means. 
ObamaCare says if you can't find insurance, we are going to set up 
these government exchanges. Theoretically, that is not a terrible idea. 
You go online, you shop between different companies, they compete 
against each other, you find a price that works for you, you find 
coverage that works for you, and that is where you are going to be 
required to go. That is where the people who got cut off from Walgreens 
insurance plans have to go now. It is where a bunch of other people 
have to go.
  What are these companies doing? There are a couple of things 
happening. First, in States such as New Hampshire, only one insurance 
company applies. There is no choice. There is no competition. The 
exchange is one company: Anthem.
  No. 2, what are these companies doing in order to offer these plans? 
They are basically narrowing the doctors and the hospitals that will 
see you. One may say, at least I get to go to a hospital or a doctor. 
Let me tell my colleagues where the problem is. Remember what they said 
when this passed? If you have health insurance and you like it, if you 
have a doctor and you are happy with that doctor, you can keep it? Not 
if you are on the exchange. If they are narrowing the number of people, 
the number of doctors and providers, that means chances are that you 
will no longer be able to keep going to the same doctor and the same 
hospital you were going to before.
  So now let's work that out. Let's walk through this for a second. Put 
yourself in the position of this nurse who wrote to us. Let's say you 
are chronically ill. Let's say your child has asthma or some other 
condition. Let's say you have four healthy kids but you have to take 
them to the doctor at least once a year, right? You love the doctor you 
go to. They know your family and your history. When you have a problem 
you can call them on the phone at 2 in the morning and you get a call 
right back, avoiding emergency room visits, by the way; you can get 
your doctor on the phone. Now you wake up and all of a sudden your 
company comes to you and says the insurance plan you are on right now, 
we are not offering it anymore, go get it on the exchange.
  So you go over to the exchange and you find two things: No. 1, it is 
more expensive, and, No. 2, your doctor ain't on the plan. That is a 
broken promise. That is specifically what they said this law would not 
do, and that is what it is doing.
  This is the real-life story of what is happening. You want to know 
why there is passion about this issue? You want to know why every 
Republican Member of the Senate wants to repeal this thing? You want to 
know why privately some Democrats wish it would go away? Because of 
this. This is whom we are fighting for. This is not just a fight 
against a bad law. This is a fight on behalf of people across this 
country who are going to get hurt by this.
  By the way, I have no idea--these people who have written me or 
others who are suffering, I do not know whom they voted for in the last 
election. It does not matter. I do not know if they ever voted for me 
in 2010. I do not know if they supported the law when it first came 
out. But I know they are being hurt by this, and I know they are being 
hurt by this in ways that will hurt all of us, that will hurt every 
single one of us.
  I talked about it earlier this morning. I repeat it today: There is 
nothing more important than preserving, reclaiming, and restoring the 
American dream. It is the essence of what makes us special as a 
country. It separates us from the world.

[[Page S6832]]

  What is the American dream? It is pretty straightforward. This is a 
country where if you work hard and you sacrifice, you should be able to 
get ahead and earn a better life for yourself and for your family. Does 
this sound like the story of a law that is making it easier for people 
to get ahead? Does being moved from full-time to part-time work make it 
easier to get ahead? Of course not. Does losing a doctor whom you are 
happy with make it easier for you to get ahead? Of course not. Does the 
fact that businesses are not hiring make it easier to get ahead because 
they are afraid of ObamaCare? Does it make it easier to get ahead? Of 
course not. Does having your hours reduced from 29 to 26--or whatever 
the figure was I read a moment ago--does that make it easier to get 
ahead? Of course not.
  If for no other reason, this law needs to be repealed because of the 
impact it is having on the American dream. I will reiterate what I have 
said time and again on this floor and here as part of this process: You 
lose the American dream, you lose the country. What you have then--what 
you have then--is just another rich and powerful country but no longer 
an exceptional one.
  The American dream is at the cornerstone of what makes us different 
and special, and it is being threatened by this. That is why I feel so 
passionately that we must do everything we can--everything we can--to 
call attention to what this is doing and try to change it.
  I think if nothing else, Senator, the great service of these last--
what is it now? 19 hours, as your tie continues to loosen--if nothing 
else, I think people today across this country know more about this law 
and its impacts than they did 1 day ago. If nothing else, the people in 
this country are now increasingly aware of all the implications of this 
law on their lives, on their dreams, on their hopes, and on their 
families.
  I believe this is just the beginning, and I hope we can prevent these 
harmful effects from happening. But it does not sound like it. It 
sounds like there are still people here who are willing to shut down 
the government unless this thing is fully funded, unless we continue to 
pour your hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The irony of it is, for Luis in 
Cutler Bay, for Patty in Kissimmee, for Bill in Panama City, for 
Barbara in Palm Coast, FL, for all the people who were cited in these 
articles, for the Mangione family in Louisville, KY, guess whose money 
is paying for this disaster. Yours. Your taxpayer dollars are paying 
for this catastrophe because of the stubbornness of saying: This is our 
law, and we are going to go through with it, no matter all these 
anecdotal things that are coming out.
  By the way, the only way you can get relief from the negative impacts 
of this law is if you can afford to hire a lobbyist to come up here and 
get you a waiver. The only way you can avoid some of the disastrous 
impacts of this law is if you can somehow figure out a way to influence 
this administration to write the rules in a way that benefits you.
  That is wrong. That is wrong. I hope we will do something about this. 
I think the last 19-some-odd hours have been a huge step in that 
direction.
  I guess my question to Senator Cruz would be: I am sure he is getting 
letters such as these from Texas and across the country given the 
events of the last day. This is what this is all about, isn't it? This 
is not a fight just against a law; this is a fight on behalf of the 
people who are being hurt by it in the most fundamental way possible. 
It is hurting their hopes and dreams they have for themselves, for 
their families. It is undermining the American dream. Is that not what 
this is all about?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the junior Senator from Florida, and I would note 
that is precisely what this is about. This is a fight for the millions 
of men and women who are facing a stagnant economy, who are facing jobs 
that are drying up or disappearing altogether, who are finding 
themselves being forcibly put in part-time work, being forced to work 
29 hours a week or less, who are finding their health insurance 
premiums skyrocketing, and who are being threatened or facing already 
their health insurance being taken away. All of these are the very real 
consequences of ObamaCare right now for millions of Americans.
  Listen, there are people in this body who in good faith 3\1/2\ years 
ago could have believed this was a good idea, it might work. I did not 
think it at the time, but I understand that people in this body did.
  At this point, with all the evidence, I would suggest that case can 
no longer be made, that the evidence is abundantly clear. It is why the 
unions are jumping ship. It is why Members of Congress have asked for 
an exemption. It is why it is now abundantly clear that this train 
wreck, this nightmare, is hurting Americans all over this country.
  I will note a couple of things. First of all, I note that my 
assistant majority leader is on the floor, and I would make a request 
that either--I do not know if the assistant majority leader is in a 
position to speak for the majority leader or, if he is not, I would 
make a request, if the majority leader is monitoring this proceeding, 
that he come to the floor because I would like to promulgate a series 
of unanimous consent requests. I do not want to surprise the majority 
leader or the assistant majority leader, so I would like the 
opportunity to explain those requests before promulgating them, to give 
Democratic Party leadership an opportunity to think about it, to spend 
a little bit of time contemplating it, to make a decision whether they 
would consent.

  So I would make a request, unless the assistant majority leader is 
prepared to speak for the majority leader, that I would ask that the 
majority leader, if he can--I know his schedule is certainly very 
busy--but I would ask if he can come to the floor so I may lay out the 
unanimous consent requests that I would like to promulgate.
  I would also note that for some time Senator Grassley from Iowa has 
been waiting, and he has requested time to raise a question. So if 
Senator Grassley at this point would like to ask a question----
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a dialog with 
the Senator from Texas without jeopardizing his control of the floor, 
if I could have consent for that purpose.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. On the condition that it does not jeopardize in any way my 
full control of the floor, I am amenable to that request.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, I do not come in the place of the majority leader. 
He will speak for himself. We do not know what the Senator's unanimous 
consent requests might be. If the Senator would articulate it, describe 
it, I am sure we will take it under consideration, as we do with any 
request from any Senator. But this comes as a surprise at this moment, 
as the Senator can understand.
  I just wished to come to the floor and continue the dialog we started 
last night. After listening to my friend and colleague Senator Rubio 
describe a situation, I wanted to ask the Senator from Texas, if I 
could, a question about the situation he described.
  Senator Rubio talked about the insurance exchanges and the insurance 
marketplaces and the fact that some of the lowest cost health insurance 
plans that are being offered have limitations as to doctors and 
hospitals that a person can use under those low-cost plans.
  I would ask the Senator from Texas--I talked to him last night about 
Judy, who is a housekeeper at a motel in southern Illinois. She is 62 
years of age. She has worked her entire life, has never had health 
insurance one day in her life--not once--never had it offered by an 
employer, never could afford it, and now will be able to have health 
insurance for the first time in her life, and she qualifies under 
Medicaid in the State of Illinois. She will not pay for it. It is going 
to be coverage. In her case, even a limitation on doctors and hospitals 
is a dramatic improvement over no doctor, no hospital, and relying on 
emergency rooms for her diabetes.
  So I would ask the Senator from Texas, try to put yourself in the 
shoes of this woman who has worked her entire life. If you are being 
told you have a limitation on doctors and hospitals you can use, but 
you have health insurance, isn't that a dramatic improvement over a 
lifetime of no health insurance?
  That is what ObamaCare is going to offer to her for the first time in 
her life. To say that we should not give her that opportunity is akin 
to someone

[[Page S6833]]

saying: If you can't fly first class, you can't get on the airplane. 
Listen, a lot of people would be glad to sit back in economy if they 
could just make the trip that the Senator and I can make because we are 
blessed with health insurance.
  I would say to the Senator, as you condemn ObamaCare, I go back to 
the question I asked you last night: Judy, 62 years old, a lifetime of 
work, diabetes, first chance to get health insurance--do you want to 
abolish the ObamaCare program that will give Judy that first chance?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question, and I 
would respond threefold.
  No. 1, for Judy, as the Senator describes her circumstances, I would 
certainly support health care reform that increases competition and 
increases free market alternatives that lower the rate of health 
insurance that is available to people by allowing interstate 
competition, creating a national marketplace. But, in my view, any 
health care reform should empower individuals and patients to make 
health care decisions in consultation with their physicians--not having 
a government bureaucrat get in between them and their doctor.
  If I may finish the remainder of my points, concomitantly, the 
Senator has told the story of Judy, and I do think we should have 
reforms to address her circumstance, but over the course of the last 
many hours we have read scores, if not hundreds, of stories that are a 
small representation of the thousands or millions of people who are 
losing or are in jeopardy of losing their health insurance right now. 
They have to be balanced in this equation as well.
  ObamaCare is causing people all over this country to lose their 
health insurance or be at risk of losing their health insurance, and I 
am sure if I were to promulgate the question to the Senator from 
Illinois: Do you want all of these people who are losing their health 
insurance to lose their health insurance--all of the names I read--I am 
sure the Senator would say no. But to date, no one on the Democratic 
side of the aisle has proposed any way to fix that.
  Let me make a second point, and then I am going to have a third 
point. Then, if the Senator would care for another question, I am happy 
to do my best to respond.
  The second point: The Senator from Illinois made a reference to Judy 
not needing to be in first class but being content to be in coach. I 
think that analogy is a powerful one, but what it highlights is the 
special exemption that has been put in place for Members of Congress. 
Because President Obama has put an exemption in place for Members of 
Congress that says: Members of Congress will fly first class, to use 
the Senator's airline analogy, but average Americans who are being 
forced onto exchanges, where their employers cannot subsidize their 
premiums, are not even flying coach. They are being put in the baggage 
department.
  I will say I agree with the intent and the spirit of Senator 
Grassley's amendment to ObamaCare that was adopted, that is part of the 
law that the President is disregarding, which is that if we are going 
to force millions of people to lose their health insurance, be forced 
into these exchanges, then we should have skin in the game. Congress 
should not be treated any better than the millions of Americans we are 
forcing onto the exchanges.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CRUZ. Let me make my third point, and then I am happy to yield at 
that point for a question.
  The third point is twice I have read in the course of this debate the 
letter from Mr. Hoffa, the head of the Teamsters.
  I assume the Senator from Illinois has read that letter. In fact, I 
expect the Senator from Illinois has had direct conversations with the 
author of that letter. I do not know that.
  I would ask the Senator from Illinois, No. 1, has he read that 
letter; No. 2, does he think Mr. Hoffa is telling the truth; and No. 3, 
in particular, does he agree with the following paragraph?

       On behalf of the millions of working men and women we 
     represent and the families they support, we can no longer 
     stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care 
     Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our 
     members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

  So my question is, does the Senator believe Mr. Hoffa is telling the 
truth when he says that? If so, does the Democratic majority in this 
body have any plans, any proposals, any amendments to fix that problem 
for what Mr. Hoffa describes as ``millions of working men and women'' 
whose health care will be--the word he uses--destroyed.
  I am happy to hear the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas for this dialog. First 
class health care. Let me tell you who has first-class health care. The 
Senator from Texas has first-class health care. The Senator from 
Illinois has first-class health care. You see, Members of Congress, 
Members of the Senate and the House, under the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program, have the best health insurance in America. We fly 
first class. Our employer, the Federal Government, as it does for every 
other employee, pays 72 percent of the monthly premium. Some 150 
million Americans have that benefit where an employer pays some share 
of it. Ours pays 72 percent. We are lucky. We are fortunate. So are our 
families and so are our staff.
  But what the Senator is saying in abolishing ObamaCare, you not only 
want to fly first class, you do not want other people to get on the 
plane. Fifty million Americans have no health insurance. You want to 
abolish the opportunity through the marketplace for them to buy 
affordable health insurance for the first time in their lives for many 
people. That is what it comes down to.
  Don't say you want Members of Congress treated like everybody else if 
you are currently under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. 
May I ask Senator Cruz, are you currently--you and your family--covered 
by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which includes a 72-
percent employer contribution from the Federal Government for your 
family's health care protection?
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the Senator's question, but I will answer the 
Senator's question when the Senator first answers the three questions I 
asked him, none of which the Senator has chosen to answer, namely: Have 
you read Mr. Hoffa's letter? Do you agree with that paragraph? Do you 
think he is telling the truth? What, if anything, does the Democratic 
majority purport to do about millions of working men and women whose 
health care, according to Mr. Hoffa, is being destroyed?
  I would note that the Senator from Illinois made an allegation 
impugning my motive, saying that I wanted 50 million people to be 
denied health care. Let me be very clear. That statement is 
categorically false. I want a competitive marketplace where health care 
is accessible, it is affordable, where it is purchased across States 
lines, where it is personal, where it is portable, and where people 
have jobs so they can get health insurance. ObamaCare is what is 
denying health insurance to millions of Americans. If you do not take 
my word for it, I assume you do not contend that Mr. Hoffa is being 
less than truthful?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to respond to that. If this were a 
courtroom--and you are an attorney, and I once practiced law myself--I 
would say: Your Honor, the witness refused to answer the question about 
his very own health insurance policy.
  Now let me address the issue about Mr. Hoffa. I have been approached 
by many labor unions. Some of them have Taft-Hartley plans, some of 
them have trust fund plans, some have multistate plans. They need 
provisions made in the ObamaCare law to deal with their specific 
circumstances.
  Under the ordinary course of legislative and congressional business, 
over the last 3 years we would have addressed these anomalies in the 
ObamaCare program. Sadly, we cannot get anyone to come to the table 
from the Senator's political party. Now 42 or 43 times the House 
Republicans have voted to abolish ObamaCare. Not once have they 
proposed sitting down to work out any differences, work out any 
problems within the law. I am prepared to do that. I have told the 
labor unions, including Mr. Hoffa, the same. I know the administration 
feels the same. But, unfortunately, those who are opposed to this plan 
want it to descend into chaos. They want as much confusion,

[[Page S6834]]

as many problems as possible. They do not want to work to cover the 50 
million uninsured in America.
  What the Senator just described and said he could sign up for, 
frankly, is ObamaCare. We are talking about a marketplace. Do you know 
how many companies will be offering health insurance in the State of 
Texas under the ObamaCare plan? Let me make sure I get this correct. My 
understanding is that at least 54 plans are going to be offered in the 
State of Texas--54. There will be choice and a marketplace for the 
first time ever for many people who were stuck with one plan or who 
could not get into any plan.
  Let me ask you this question as we get back to this point. Does the 
Senator still believe we should abolish the provision in ObamaCare that 
says you cannot discriminate against people with preexisting conditions 
who apply for health insurance?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will answer that question. Since I have not yielded the 
floor, I would like to make a broader point after that and have a 
colloquy. I will point out why, which is that we are operating under 
some time constraints. So I want to do what the Senator asked of 
detailing the unanimous consent requests that I want to promulgate so 
he and the majority leader may consider them. I also want to be 
respectful of Senator Grassley and Senator Sessions, who have been 
waiting to speak. The Senator and I have engaged in multiple exchanges, 
both now and earlier, and so I want to be respectful of the other 
Senators on the floor.
  But let me answer the question. I believe we should repeal every word 
of ObamaCare. I think it has failed. I agree with James Hoffa that on 
behalf of millions of working men and women and the families they 
support, that ``the Affordable Care Act will destroy the very health 
and well being of our members, along with millions of other hard-
working Americans.'' So I think we should repeal it. I think we should 
defund it in the interim. This is not a fight over repealing, it is a 
fight over defunding it. Then I think we should adopt free market plans 
to lower prices, make health care more affordable, make it portable, 
and allow it to go with individuals.
  Mr. DURBIN. Now will the Senator answer my question of whether his 
family is protected by the government-administered Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program--the best health insurance in America--where 
his employer, the Federal Government, pays 72 percent of his monthly 
premium? Will the Senator from Texas for the record tell us--and those 
who watch this debate--whether he is protected.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to tell the Senator. I am eligible for it. I am 
not currently covered under it.
  Let me note that the Senator from Illinois embraced the analogy and 
said: Yes, we in Congress have first-class health care. Under his 
analogy, he wants to stick Judy in coach class. What Senator Grassley's 
amendment was all about is, you know what, if you stick Judy in coach 
class, guess what. Members of Congress are going back in coach class. 
The Senator and I may disagree. I do not think Judy is in coach class, 
I think she is down in the baggage claim.

  Regardless, in his hypothetical the Senator is conceding that the 
congressional health care plan right now is better than Judy's under 
ObamaCare, and he is saying that he supports a special exemption for 
Members of Congress that Judy does not get.
  I agree with Senator Grassley's amendment that we should not be 
forcing millions of Americans into coverage we are not willing to 
experience. I recognize the passion of the Senator, but I would note 
that I have not yielded the floor.
  I would like to describe the unanimous consent requests that I would 
like to promulgate. I would ask the assistant majority leader and the 
majority leader to confer with my staff and simply let me know if these 
requests would be amenable. I am not promulgating them at this time 
because I do not want to surprise leadership staff without giving you 
time to consider them.
  The first unanimous consent request that I would propose to 
promulgate is a request that we vitiate the cloture on the motion to 
proceed that is scheduled this afternoon and agree by unanimous consent 
to proceed to this bill. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any Senator 
in this body who opposes proceeding to this bill. I think all of us 
agree that we should proceed to this bill, we should keep the 
government open. Some of us think we should keep the government open 
and defund ObamaCare, others think we should fund it, but to the best 
of my knowledge, no one disagrees. So if the majority is amenable, I 
would propose vitiating the cloture motion and simply agreeing to the 
motion to proceed. That would be the first unanimous consent request I 
would promulgate if it is agreeable to the majority.
  The second unanimous consent request that I would promulgate is, if 
it is agreeable to the majority, as I understand in the timing, all of 
the delays are put in place. Cloture on the bill would be scheduled to 
occur on Saturday. In my view, in order to defeat cloture on the bill--
you know I want to defeat cloture on the bill. That is no secret. I 
think the best chance to defeat cloture on the bill is for this bill to 
be visible to the American people--highly visible. So accordingly, I 
would be amenable to shortening the time for postcloture debate such 
that that vote on cloture on the bill occurs on Friday afternoon rather 
than Saturday. Why is that? Because I think that on a Friday afternoon, 
a lot more American people are going to pay attention to what we are 
doing than a vote on Saturday during football games and when people are 
paying attention to other things. That may or may not be amenable to 
the majority, but if it is, we can shorten this time by a period 
because I think we have a better chance in prevailing in this fight if 
that vote--I note the majority leader is here. I do not know if he 
heard the initial unanimous consent, which, if it is amenable to the 
majority leader, we would negotiate the language with him and 
promulgate.
  So the first one I offered, Mr. Leader--and I have not yielded the 
floor, but I am describing during my time on the floor the unanimous 
consent requests I would promulgate if the majority would be amenable. 
The first would be to vitiate the cloture request and simply agree on 
the motion to proceed because to my knowledge everyone in this body 
agrees we should proceed to this bill, although we have sharp 
disagreements on what we should do.
  The second unanimous consent request, if it is amenable to the 
majority, that I would suggest--and I think the majority leader heard 
this as he was walking in--is to agree to shorten the time of 
postcloture debate such that cloture on the bill would occur Friday 
afternoon rather than Saturday. The reason is--I am being very 
transparent about my reasoning. I think it is better for this country 
if this vote is at a time that is visible for the whole country so that 
the American people have a voice in it. I think sticking it in Saturday 
in the middle of football games disserves that objective.
  Then the third request--if the majority leader would be amenable--I 
would put forward is, as I understand it, under the rules of the 
Senate, in some 35 minutes, my time will be automatically cut off as 
the new legislative day begins and it begins with a prayer. When I 
started this filibuster yesterday afternoon, I told the American people 
that I intended to stand until I could stand no more. I will observe to 
the majority leader that although I am weary, there is still at least 
strength in my legs to stand a little longer. So the third thing I 
would simply ask is if the majority would consent to allow me to speak 
until the conclusion of my remarks and then begin the next legislative 
day and have the prayer at the conclusion of those remarks. If the 
majority says no, then my time will end at noon under the rules of the 
Senate. So it is entirely up to the majority whether to let me continue 
to speak. But given that I began by saying I will speak until I can 
stand no more, I believe I should at least ask if those consents are 
amenable.
  I would note that under the rules of the Senate, if the majority 
leader cares to ask a question, I can yield for a question in which he 
might share his views or, if the majority leader wants to think about 
it, to discuss it with his staff, then I would note that the majority 
leader could simply convey to my staff if any or none of those 
unanimous

[[Page S6835]]

consent requests are amenable. If none of them are, that is fine and we 
will conclude at noon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, is there a consent?
  Mr. CRUZ. I want to clarify. I have the floor. I have not yielded the 
floor to anyone. Neither the majority leader nor any other Member has 
the right of recognition right now. If the majority leader wishes, he 
may ask me to yield for a question. I might yield for that limited 
purpose. But other than that, no one has the floor, if I understand the 
rules of this body correctly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRUZ. So I make that note. If the majority would care to ask a 
question, I would be amenable to yielding for a question. If the 
majority leader would not, that is certainly his prerogative, and I am 
happy to continue talking about the issues this debate has focused the 
country on because they are issues of vital importance.
  Mr. REID. I am without a question.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would simply note to the majority leader 
that if those unanimous consent requests are amenable, I would ask that 
his staff convey that to my staff. If they are not, I would ask that 
his staff convey that to my staff simply so we know which way to 
proceed. Regardless, I want to make sure before we wrap up because I 
assume now in 31 minutes we will be concluded. I want to yield to 
Senator Grassley in just a moment because I do not want to miss--I 
apologize to Senator Grassley, but I do not want to miss the 
opportunity within the limited time to do something that is imperative 
that I do, which is to thank the men and women who have endured this 
Bataan Death March. I want to take a little bit of time to thank them 
by name.
  I would like to start by thanking the Republican floor staff and 
cloakroom. I thank Laura Dove for her fairness, for her dealing with 
crises and passion on all sides, and for her effectiveness in the job. 
This is an interesting occurrence to occur so early in her job. I thank 
her for her service.
  I wish to thank Robert Duncan, Patrick Kilcur, Chris Tuck, Megan 
Mercer, Mary-Elizabeth Taylor, and Amanda Faulkner.
  I wish to thank Democratic floor staff and cloakroom: Gary Myrick, 
Tim Mitchell, Trish Engle, Meredith Mellody, Dan Tinsley, Tequia 
Delgado, Brad Watt, and Stephanie Paone. I wish to thank the clerks and 
Parliamentarians. I wish to thank the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at 
Arms, and the Secretary of Senate employees.
  The Parliamentarians are Elizabeth MacDonough, Leigh Hildebrand, Mike 
Beaver; the Legislative Clerk, Kathie Alvarez; the Journal Clerk, Scott 
Sanborn; the Bill Clerk, Mary Anne Clarkson; the Daily Digest, 
Elizabeth Tratos; the Enrolling Clerk, Cassie Byrd; the chief reporter, 
Jerry Linnell;  Congressional Record, Sylvia Oliver, Val Mihalache, Pam 
Garland, Desi Jura, Joel Breitner, Doreen Chendorain, Julie Bryan, 
Patrick Renzi, Mark Stewart, Wendy Caswell, Ann Riley, Patrice Boyd, 
Mary Carpenter, Octavio Colominas; captioning, JoEllen Dicken, Jim 
Hall, Sandy Schumm; Sergeant at Arms and Secretary of the Senate 
employees; the Senate pages, many of whom I caused to miss school. I 
appreciate you all for enduring this, and all those who work in the 
Capitol complex.
  I wish to thank my entire staff, many of whom have been here all 
night.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a note of 
sincere gratitude to my staff, who worked tirelessly to help me prepare 
and sustain extended floor remarks. I especially appreciate their 
appearance in the Chamber throughout the night, which was a great 
source of encouragement. I extend my appreciation to each of the 
following individuals:

       Chip Roy, Chief of Staff; Sean Rushton, Communications 
     Director; Amanda Carpenter, Speechwriter & Senior 
     Communications Advisor; Catherine Frazier, Press Secretary; 
     Josh Perry, Digital Director; Brooke Bacak, Legislative 
     Director; Jeff Murray, Deputy Legislative Director; Scott 
     Keller, Chief Counsel; John Ellis, Senior Counsel; Bernie 
     McNamee, Senior Domestic Policy Advisor and Counsel; Kenny 
     Stein, Legislative Counsel; Alec Aramanda, Legislative 
     Assistant; Max Pappas, Director of Outreach & Senior 
     Economist; Victoria Coates, Senior Advisor of National 
     Security.
       Jeremy Hayes, Military Legislative Assistant; David 
     Milstein, Research Assistant; Dougie Simmons, Director of 
     Scheduling; Christine Shafer, Deputy Director of Scheduling; 
     Kimberly Henderson, Administrative Director; Dan Soto, IT 
     Director; Amy Herod, Scheduling Assistant & Assistant to the 
     Chief of Staff; Hunter Rome, Legislative Correspondent; 
     Samantha Leahy, Legislative Correspondent; Martin Martinez, 
     Legal Assistant; Melanie Schwartz, Legislative Correspondent; 
     Caitlin Thompson, Legislative Correspondent; Ben Murrey, 
     Legislative Correspondent; Brittany Baldwin, Press Assistant; 
     Nico Rios, Staff Assistant; John Landes, Staff Assistant.

  I wish to thank Democratic Senators who have presided: Senator 
Baldwin, Senator Manchin, Senator Warren, Senator Donnelly, Senator 
Kaine, Senator Murphy, Senator Schatz, Senator Baldwin again, Senator 
Donnelly, Senator Durbin, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Markey.
  I wish to thank the Republican Senators who have spoken in support of 
our efforts: Senator Sessions, Senator Rubio, Senator Paul, Senator 
Inhofe, Senator Enzi, Senator Roberts, Senator Vitter, and very soon, 
Senator Grassley.
  I wish to thank the House Members who have come over. Representative 
Amash, Representative Broun, Representative Hudson. I wish to make a 
special note of Representative Gohmert who was here the entire night 
enduring this.
  I wish to make a point, particularly to the floor staff and to 
everyone: You all didn't choose this. I appreciate the hard work and 
diligence going through the night. That is not part of your typical job 
responsibility. I would not have imposed on your time and energy if I 
did not believe this was an issue of vital importance to the American 
people. I wish to thank you for your hard work, diligence, and 
cheerfulness through what has been a very long night.
  I wish to thank, second to last, Senator Mike Lee. Senator Mike Lee 
began this fight. Senator Mike Lee has been here throughout the course 
of this battle. Senator Mike Lee has been always cheerful, always 
focused, always ready to march into battle and always ready to focus on 
the ultimate objective, which is serving the American people by 
standing and fighting to stop the train wreck, the nightmare, the 
disaster that is ObamaCare.
  We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Senator Lee's principle, for 
his courage, for his bravery under fire. I feel particularly honored to 
serve as his colleague and consider him a friend.
  Last, I wish to thank the American people. I want to thank people all 
across the country who watched on C-SPAN, tweeted, engaged, and have 
been involved in this process. This is ultimately about the American 
people. What this whole fight is about is whether this body, the 
Democratic Senators and the Republican Senators, will change the broken 
ways of Washington and start listening to the people. That is what this 
fight is all about.
  With those thank yous, I apologize, but I felt obliged to conclude 
before 12 o'clock when my time will be cut off by force. I will note at 
this point Senator Grassley had wished to ask a question.
  I am prepared to yield for a question if Senator Grassley wishes to 
ask me a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend from Texas to yield to me, without losing 
his right to the floor, for a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so yield?
  Mr. CRUZ. With the reservation that I do not lose the right to the 
floor, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, first, this is not a filibuster. This is 
an agreement that he and I made that he could talk.
  Let me say this: We are going to have a vote about 1 o'clock today. 
After that is over, we will follow the rules of the Senate. My goal is 
to get this to the House of Representatives as quickly as possible.
  I think a lot of this time has been--without talking about what has 
transpired at this point--I would hope that we could collapse the time 
dramatically and move forward so the House of Representatives can get 
what we are going to send back to them.
  There is a possibility they may not accept what we send them. They 
may

[[Page S6836]]

want to send us something back. If we use all this time under the rules 
as they now exist----
  Mr. CRUZ. I have decided to not yield my right to the floor. I was 
amenable to a colloquy. The majority leader is giving a speech.
  Given that, as I understand, the majority leader is not going to 
consent to extend the time, I have 24 minutes, I am going to reassert 
my time on the floor since I have not yielded my time on the floor.
  Mr. REID. If I could ask for a unanimous consent agreement with my 
friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRUZ. There is objection. I am sorry. I cannot be asked to 
consent to an unnamed consent agreement.
  Given that the majority leader, as I understand, is not going to 
consent to extend my time, then let me say quite simply to the majority 
leader that I will yield time to him for a question when the majority 
leader is prepared to yield to the American people. But I am not 
prepared to yield prior to that because Senator Grassley, Senator 
Sessions, and Senator Inhofe are waiting to speak. I believe they are 
endeavoring to listen to the American people. If the majority is going 
to cut off and muzzle us in another 24 minutes, then at this point I 
don't feel it is appropriate to allow the majority leader to consume 
that time.
  I will note to any Senators who were here--if anyone would care, I 
know a number of Senators are waiting to ask questions, I am prepared 
to yield to a question from any of them.
  Mr. REID. I have a question I wish to ask my friend from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a 
question without losing the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. REID. Between 12 and 1 o'clock, would my friend yield to Senator 
McCain for 15 minutes of that time?
  Mr. CRUZ. That question is asked, but it will not prove necessary, 
absent the consent that I promulgated. I am assuming it would not be 
acceptable to the majority because my time will end at noon. There is 
nothing left to yield because, as I understand it under the Senate 
rules, when the new legislative day begins and the prayer begins, my 
time yields.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, he has the right to speak from 12 o'clock 
to 1 o'clock. What I am asking the consent for is would he allow, 
during that period of time, Senator McCain to speak for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CRUZ. It is my understanding my time expires at noon. Absent a 
consent to extend it, I will honor the Senate rules and allow my time 
to expire at noon, so there is nothing to yield.
  I will note Senator Sessions is standing.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. CRUZ. Given the majority leader has cut off our time in 20 
minutes, no, I am sorry, I do not. The majority leader was welcome to 
come down any time in the last 20 hours and ask parliamentary inquiries 
or questions. I would note Senator Durbin did so, Senator Kaine did so, 
others Senators did so.
  At this point, our time is expiring and I wish to allow other 
Republican Senators who appeared and asked to ask questions to have the 
opportunity to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. May I direct a question to my friend from Texas?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for one more question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. REID. The question is the Senator seems to not understand that he 
has time, after the prayer is given at 12 o'clock, time until 1 
o'clock. During that period of time my question was, because the 
Senator still has the floor, would the Senator yield 15 minutes to John 
McCain.
  Mr. CRUZ. It is my intention, if the consent request that I asked is 
not agreed to, to accept the end of this at noon under the Senate 
rules.
  Mr. REID. I understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield for a 
question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thought that a very gracious question of the author 
of unanimous consent, that we would vitiate the vote and 30 hours of 
debate. The Senator asked very little in exchange for it, other than to 
continue to talk.
  Mr. CRUZ. Let me briefly clarify, I asked nothing in exchange for 
that. None of those were contingent on each other. Those were three 
independent unanimous consent requests--which the majority leader 
wanted consent to any of those. It wasn't an offer of horse trade, it 
was simply--I think all three of those make sense. I think any one of 
the three of them makes sense. If he chooses to reject them all, that 
is his prerogative and that is fine. I was only suggesting we not waste 
this body's time by doing so.
  Mr. SESSIONS. To follow up on that then, it seems to me that what the 
Senator was saying would be an offer that most everyone here would be 
pleased to receive and accept, unless they have some surreptitious 
motive.
  In addition, I think the Senator's continued request to be allowed to 
continue to speak is reasonable. I think the Senator has earned the 
right to ask that. The Senator has now spoken. The American people are 
watching the fourth longest time any filibuster or floor time has been 
held by a Senator. I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. It 
will allow the Senator to continue to express the concerns that he has 
expressed. I am somewhat taken aback that it wasn't agreed to.
  Again, to make clear, it would seem to me little if any reason that 
they would object to that, the majority would object to that.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Alabama.
  I would note that unfortunately I am not surprised that none of the 
consents were taken. I note the first two consents, one would think, 
would be quite amenable. Yet, look, throughout this debate, the problem 
has been the majority does not wish to listen to the American people 
and doesn't want a debate in front of the American people, particularly 
about the merits of ObamaCare. They don't want to talk about how 
ObamaCare is failing millions of Americans. They don't want to talk 
about how millions of Americans are losing their jobs and how they are 
not being hired. They don't want to talk about how millions of 
Americans are facing being pushed into part-time work. They don't want 
to talk about how millions of Americans are either losing their health 
insurance or are at risk of losing their health insurance.
  This process is all about, sadly, the Democratic majority not 
listening to the American people. The whole purpose of this filibuster 
was to do everything we could to draw this issue to the attention of 
the American people so the American people could be heard.
  If the American people speak with sufficient volume, I continue to 
have confidence that this body, that the Senators on both sides of the 
aisle, will have no choice but to listen.
  Given that we have 16 minutes remaining, I inadvertently omitted in 
my thank yous the doorkeepers by accident.
  The doorkeepers were: Tucker Eagleson, Dawn Gazunis, Elizabeth 
Garcia, Rocketa Gillis, Marc O'Connor, Laverne Allen, Daniel Benedix, 
Cindy Kesler, Scott Muschette, Tony Goldsmith, Jim Jordan, Megan 
Sheffield, David West, Denis Houlihan, and Bob Shelton.
  Let me say for any of the floor staff or others, if I inadvertently 
omitted someone, please accept my apology. It was my intention to 
endeavor to thank anyone. If I have made an inadvertent omission, that 
is my fault and I take responsibility for it.
  I wish to note also that an additional Member of Congress, 
Congressman Steve King, has joined us. I wish to thank Congressman King 
for joining us.
  I would note, as we are in the last 15 minutes, that if my friend and 
colleague Senator Mike Lee wished to ask a question, I would be 
prepared to yield as we are wrapping up.

[[Page S6837]]

  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield for a question without yielding the floor.
  Mr. LEE. From day 1, there have been those in the Washington 
establishment who have been working against this, and it was the 
American people who stood up in strong support of us. It was the 
American people who served as the heroes of this story who spoke 
overwhelmingly to the Congress and spoke overwhelmingly to the House of 
Representatives and convinced the House of Representatives to pass this 
great continuing resolution--one that keeps government funded and 
allows it to avoid a shutdown while defunding ObamaCare. That is what 
this effort has been all about. It has been all about the people we are 
trying to protect from this horrible law.
  Across the country Americans stayed up with us overnight forging this 
argument, helping us distribute this argument, choosing to forego sleep 
and to show their support of this effort, and we greatly appreciate 
that. I want to take a moment to reflect on how all of us who have been 
up all night feel right now--with dry eyes, with a certain amount of 
grogginess, and yet ultimately this is an exhilarating moment. It is 
exhilarating because we are inspired by the American people who have 
informed this message and who have expressed their views so well and so 
forcefully, and I am grateful to have been part of this effort.
  I ask the Senator from Texas: As we come to the end of this uphill 
climb we have experienced over the past 24 hours, give or take, we see 
the cards are somewhat stacked against us. Today, although Washington 
may appear to have the upper hand, in our hearts don't we know the 
American people are with us, and don't we know the American people will 
have the final word, and that as George Washington predicted a couple 
of centuries ago, this country will always remain in good hands--in the 
hands of its people?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend Senator Lee from Utah, and I think that 
is exactly right. At the end of the day it is the United States of 
America--``we the people''--who are sovereign. Ultimately every Member 
of this body works for ``we the people.'' The reason there is such 
profound frustration across this country, the reason this body is held 
in such abysmally low esteem is that for too long Washington has not 
listened to the American people. Every survey of the American people, 
no matter what State, no matter whether you are talking Republicans, 
Democrats, Independents or Libertarians, the answer is always the same: 
The top priority for the American people is jobs and the economy.
  The Presiding Officer and I both began serving 9 months ago as 
freshmen in this body. I will tell you my greatest frustration in this 
body during those 9 months is that we have spent virtually zero time 
talking about jobs and the economy. We spent 6 weeks talking about guns 
and taking away people's Second Amendment rights. But when it comes to 
jobs and the economy in this Senate, it doesn't even make the agenda.
  We spend no time talking about fundamental tax reform. We spend no 
time or virtually no time talking about regulatory reform. When it 
comes to defunding ObamaCare, the single biggest thing we could do to 
restore jobs in the economy, the Democratic majority is not interested 
in that conversation. Indeed, for the bulk of this conversation, with a 
couple of exceptions, the Democratic majority chose not to engage in 
the debate. Why? I would submit it is because on the merits, on the 
substance, the defense of ObamaCare is now indefensible.
  There may have been some, even many, who 3\1/2\ years ago, when 
ObamaCare was adopted, believed in good faith it was going to work. But 
at this point the facts are evident that it is not. At this point we 
have seen small businesses all over this country who are losing the 
ability to compete, who are not expanding, who are staying under 50 
employees, who are not hiring, and who are forcing employees to move to 
part-time work.
  According to the Chamber of Commerce survey of small businesses, half 
of small businesses eligible for the employee mandate are either moving 
to part-time workers or forcing full-time workers to go part time. This 
is not a small problem. This is not a marginal problem. This is a 
problem all over the country. We are talking to millions of small 
businesses. Another 24 percent, I believe is the number, are simply not 
growing, are staying under 50 employees, which means they are not 
hiring people.
  So anyone in America right now who is struggling to find a job--and 
small businesses provide two-thirds of all new jobs--small businesses 
are crying out that ObamaCare is killing them. Unfortunately, the 
Senate is not hearing their cries. For the millions of Americans who 
are facing the threat of being forced into part-time work, 
unfortunately, the Senate is not hearing their cries. For the millions 
of Americans who are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums and 
facing the reality or the risk of losing their health insurance, the 
Senate is not hearing their cries.
  The people who are facing this are not the wealthy, they are not the 
powerful, they are not, as the President likes to say, the millionaires 
and billionaires. They are the most vulnerable among us. They are young 
people who are being absolutely decimated by ObamaCare. They are single 
moms who are working in diners, struggling and suddenly finding their 
hours reduced to 29 hours a week. The problem is 29 hours a week is not 
enough to feed your kids. Single moms are crying out to the Senate to 
fix this train wreck, to fix this disaster. And for the struggling 
single moms, for young people, unfortunately, the Senate is closed for 
business.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, will the good Senator yield for a 
question without yielding the floor?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the 
floor, although I would note we have all of 6\1/2\ minutes until the 
time will expire.
  Mr. RISCH. I will be brief. I want to talk briefly and ask a question 
about the area the Senator was just talking about. My good friend 
Senator Rubio made reference to the story I am going to tell. My good 
friends on the other side of the aisle are good about bringing out 
pictures of people with sad faces. My only regret is I don't have a 
picture of somebody with a sad face, but I can assure you these people 
are greatly saddened by this.
  We had a hearing in the Small Business Committee and we brought in 
people from around the country, small businesses who are suffering 
under this terrible burden. The Senator was not here in the middle of 
the night when this abomination was shoved down the throat of the 
American people on a straight party-line vote. I can assure him that we 
fought it tooth and nail, but now the American people are having to 
live with this, and so it is good to be reminded again of what we have 
here.
  But this gentleman operated a business called Dot's Diner in 
Louisiana. He had, I forget whether it was six or seven diners, and 
this man was living the all-American dream. He had quit a very good 
job, cashed in his retirement, borrowed money and he and his wife 
opened this diner. The diner did well because they worked hard. Like 
the Senator did all night tonight, sometimes they worked that hard. 
They opened more diners and were just about to open another one when 
the Senate announced they were going to force ObamaCare on the American 
people and on the small businesses of this country.

  They immediately stopped their plans to open a new diner and then 
looked at what ObamaCare was going to cost them. The cost of ObamaCare 
was substantially higher than the profits they were making in the 
business every year. So what they did, they went and got counsel and 
said: How can we get around ObamaCare? What they were told is, if you 
have 49 employees, you are outside of ObamaCare. So given that, what 
they did is they closed the diners and got down to 49 employees and 
that is where they are.
  Will the Senator tell me, because I would like to hear his thoughts 
on that and whether he believes the American government that our 
Founding Fathers fought for and died for should be visiting this on the 
American people, particularly on small businessmen who are the backbone 
of this economy?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his question and for his 
steadfast leadership and willingness to

[[Page S6838]]

stand and fight for the American people to stop this train wreck that 
is ObamaCare. And the answer to my friend's question is: Of course not. 
Small businesses all over this country are getting hammered by 
ObamaCare, and the real loses are not even to the small business 
owners. The real losers are the people, the teenaged kids who would get 
hired, the single moms who would get hired, the African Americans, the 
Hispanics who are suddenly finding themselves without a job or are 
being forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week and denied the opportunity to 
get to that first rung of the economic ladder, which would then get 
them to the second, the third, and the fourth.
  Millions of Americans are hurting under ObamaCare. It is my plea to 
this body, to the Democrats, that they listen to the unions that are 
asking on behalf of millions of Americans who are struggling to repeal 
ObamaCare, that we not have a system where the rich and powerful or big 
corporations and Members of Congress are treated to a different set of 
rules than hardworking Americans. President Obama has granted illegal 
exemptions to big businesses and Members of Congress. I don't think the 
American people should be subject to harsher rules.
  So my plea to this body is that we listen to the American people, 
because if we listen to our constituents, the answer is: Defund this 
bill that isn't working, that is hurting the American people, that is 
killing jobs and forcing people into part-time work, that is driving up 
health insurance premiums and that is causing millions to lose or to 
fear they will lose their health insurance.
  As the time is wrapping up, I will close by noting that at noon we 
will have a prayer. I think it is fitting this debate conclude with 
prayer, because I would ask that everyone in this body ask for the 
Lord's guidance on how we best listen to our constituents, listen to 
the pleas for help that are coming from our constituents.
  The final thing I will do is to make two unanimous consent requests I 
mentioned, and the majority leader may or may not agree to them. The 
first is:
  I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote at 1 p.m. be vitiated 
and that at the conclusion of my remarks the motion to proceed to the 
resolution be agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, my friend has had an 
opportunity to speak. I will speak for a longer time period in a few 
minutes about statements he has made in the last several hours. But he 
has spoken.
  At 1 p.m. the Senate will speak, and we will follow the rules of the 
Senate. I have said very clearly on a number of occasions that we 
should be moving quickly to get this to the House as soon as we can.
  I object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, my second request is:
  I ask unanimous consent that if a cloture motion is filed on the 
underlying measure, that cloture vote occur during Friday's session of 
the Senate, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we are going to have a 
cloture vote at 1 o'clock and any consent agreements after that I will 
be happy to listen to them. At this stage, I object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRUZ. Well then, it appears I have the floor for another 90 
seconds or so, and so I simply will note for the American people who 
have been so engaged that this debate is in their hands. Ultimately, 
all 100 Senators--all 46 Republicans, all 54 Democrats--work for you. 
The pleas from the American people--certainly those in Texas--are 
deafening. The frustration that the United States Senate doesn't listen 
to the people is deafening. So I call on all 46 Republicans to unite, 
to stand together and to vote against cloture on the bill on Friday or 
Saturday; otherwise, if we vote with the majority leader and with the 
Senate Democrats, we will be voting to allow the majority leader to 
fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote of 51 partisan votes.
  The American people will understand that. Voting to give that power 
to the majority leader, I would suggest, is not consistent with, I 
believe, the heartfelt commitment of all 46 members of this conference 
who oppose ObamaCare. The only path, if we are to oppose ObamaCare, is 
to stand together and oppose cloture. I ask my friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle to listen to this plea.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of February 29, 
1960, the hour of 12 noon having arrived, the Senate having been in 
continuous session since convening yesterday, the Senate will suspend 
for a prayer from the chaplain.

                          ____________________