[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.
____________________