Tax Reform Act of 2014

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.

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.

That is most assuredly correct.

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.

I would agree with all of that.

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.

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.

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.

I appreciate the question from the Senator from Virginia. Let me say I appreciate the good faith and seriousness with which he approaches

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.

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

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

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

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.

I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor.

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,

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.

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.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

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

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,

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.)

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a half mile radius.

But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991.

During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.

Sadly, Syria is just the latest example.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Syrian military has used air- dropped and ground-based cluster munitions near or in civilian areas.

In October, residents of Taftanaz and Tamane reported that helicopters dropped cluster munitions on or near their towns. One resident told Human Rights Watch:

On October 9, I heard a big explosion followed by several

smaller ones coming from Shelakh field located at the north

of Taftanaz. We went to see what happened. We saw a big

[bomb] cut in half and several [bomblets] that were not

detonated. I personally found one that was not exploded.

There were small holes in the ground. The holes were

dispersed and spread over 300 meters.

Another resident reported that an air-dropped cluster munitions released bomblets that landed between two neighboring schools.

Last month, Human Rights Watch issued another report that Syrian forces used ``notoriously indiscriminate'' ground-based cluster munitions near Idlib and Latamenh, a town near Hama.

Not surprisingly, the residents of these towns also reported that many of the bomblets were dispersed over a wide area, failed to explode, and killed or maimed innocent civilians.

One resident of Latamneh told Human Rights Watch:

I heard a big explosion followed by smaller ones. . . . I

saw wounded people everywhere and small bombs covering the

streets. The damage caused to the buildings was minimal. I

saw a lot of unexploded bomblets.

One civilian was killed during the attack and 15 more, including women and children, were wounded. Another civilian was later killed by an unexploded bomblet. One video shows a baby with shrapnel along his right arm.

Videos taken after the incident also show that the civilians who came across the munitions were unaware of the deadly power of an unexploded bomblet.

Men, and even children, can be seen handling these weapons as if they were toys or simply souvenirs from the war.

Now, the United States has rightly condemned the Syrian military's use of cluster munitions against innocent civilians.

However, our moral leadership is hampered by the fact that we continue to maintain such a large arsenal of these deadly weapons and our continued resistance to international efforts to restrict their use.

In fact, the United States maintains an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

According to the most recent data, only 30,900 of these 728 million submunitions have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than one percent failure rate.

That accounts for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. arsenal.

So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the one percent standard, but our arsenal still overwhelmingly consists of cluster bombs with high failure rates.

How then, do we convince Syria not to use these deadly weapons?

While we wait, the international community has taken action.

On August 1, 2010, the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster munitions and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years-- formally came into force. To date, it has been signed by 111 countries and ratified by 77 countries.

This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan.

It includes 33 countries that have produced or used cluster bombs.

But it does not include the United States.

The United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty.

This is unacceptable.

Instead, the Pentagon continues to assert that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''

Recognizing that the United States could not remain silent in the face of widespread international efforts to restrict the use of cluster munitions, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June, 2008 stating that, after 2018, the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited.

This policy is a step in the right direction, but would still allow the Pentagon to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for five more years.

That runs counter to our values. I believe the administration should take another look at this policy.

In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.

On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.

The administration should complete this review without delay.

Until then, we are still prepared to use these weapons with well- known failure rates and significant risks to innocent civilians?

What does that say about us?

The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist that meet the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait until 2018?

This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own

policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' policy essentially postpones any meaningful action until 2018.

If we do nothing, close to twenty years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians.

We can do better.

First, it should be noted that in 2007, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision that prohibits the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.

That ban has been renewed on an annual basis and remains on the books.

Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by five years and extends the ban on the sale and transfer of cluster munitions with high failure rates to our own arsenal.

For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster munitions with failure rates of more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002.

In conclusion, let me say that Senator Leahy and I remain as committed as ever to raising awareness about the threat posed by cluster munitions and to pushing the United States to enact common- sense measures to protect innocent civilians. This body constantly talks about America's moral leadership, and this is the perfect opportunity to exercise it.

Senator Leahy and I continue our efforts for people like Phongsavath Souliyalat.

Last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Laos and met Phongsavath, a 19-year old Lao man who lost his eyesight and his hands to a bomblet just three years before.

The bomblet that injured Phongsavath was dropped more than 30 years ago during the Vietnam War. It lay unexploded, a de facto landmine, until his 16th birthday.

Sadly, he is not alone. The U.S. dropped 270 million bomblets over Laos, and 30 percent failed to explode.

According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, civilians in one- third of Laos are threatened by unexploded ordinance, and only one percent of that area has been cleared.

Since the Vietnam War, more than 20,000 people have been killed or injured by these deadly weapons. All of them were innocent civilians that the United States did not intend to target.

After Phongsavath described the suffering of those who, like him, had been injured by unexploded bomblets, Secretary Clinton replied: ``We have to do more.''

I agree wholeheartedly. As a first step, Congress should pass the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a seven year period.

As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.

Nepal has a per capita income of $540.

Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty.

The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $3 a day.

Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people.

Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels signed a peace accord.

Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a new constitution.

Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a new constitution.

Challenges persist for Nepal's economy.

In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on garment imports were removed.

This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers with cheaper labor markets.

The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000 and 10,000.

Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47 million in 2011.

The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10.

The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to 21 percent.

Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garments are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.

In essence, we are penalizing an impoverished country which cannot afford it. This makes no sense.

I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

The purpose of the Nepal Trade Preferences Act is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less.

Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal.

But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.

In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries.

With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most, Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue.

Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market.

But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports.

By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of living for the Nepalese people.

Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences, and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this legislation.

Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this commonsense measure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's poorest countries.

This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of their citizens living on less than $1 a day.

Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent.

In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of U.S. tariffs.

Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports.

Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as the 60th largest source of U.S. imports.

So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S. tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent with our values?

Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the beneficiary countries in this bill.

Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so. These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope for millions of people struggling with poverty.

But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity.

This is not about pitting one developing country against the other. Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and

ensuring that we help all of those in need.

In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability.

Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts.

Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity.

Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that hold out the best hope for export growth.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past.

By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their own two feet.

We will also help ourselves.

First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets.

This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own country.

But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference programs for these countries.

We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage.

Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for terror.

There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific countries is far less than any military intervention.

We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume a larger role and contribute more effectively.

When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance helps.

Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more options.

It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on apparel imports.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific countries.

Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about this bill.

First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the absence of rule of law.

Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference program?

Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation.

This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis.

That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights.

So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.

If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our efforts will fail.

Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on domestic manufacturers.

If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal.

Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American consumer. We should seize this opportunity.

I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this important initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 1320 which is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, central to any debate over immigration is the need to secure our borders. The American people are overwhelmingly unified on that proposition. We must secure our borders. Unfortunately, the bill before this body--the Gang of 8 immigration bill--does not secure our borders.

Right now our borders are anything but secure. In fiscal year 2012 there were 364,768 apprehensions along the southwest border. Forty-nine percent of those apprehensions were in Texas.

The Border Patrol reported in 2012 463 deaths, 549 assaults, and 1,312 rescues. And this is just a tiny fraction of those actually harmed crossing the border illegally. In fiscal year 2012 there were 2,297,662 pounds of marijuana and nearly 6,000 pounds of cocaine seized at the southwest border.

The trafficking we are seeing is not just human life, but it is also drugs that are destroying the lives of countless young people and Americans across our country. From April 2006 to March of 2013 over 9 million pounds of marijuana, cocaine, meth, and heroin has been seized just in Texas, $182 million in currency has been seized, over 4,000 weapons have been seized. Madam President, 392 cartel members have been arrested in Texas since 2007, 33 cartel-related homicides in Texas just since 2009, and 78 instances where shots were fired at law enforcement officers in Texas.

The insecurity of our borders is causing human tragedies in our country, many of which are occurring in my home State of Texas. A brutal example can be found in the situation faced by my constituents in Brooks County, TX, a county in South Texas 60 miles southwest of Corpus Christi, 90 miles from Laredo. Seemingly far removed and peaceful, Brooks County is the site of an extreme problem: hundreds of thousands of people coming here illegally, many of them from countries other than Mexico, attempting to cross the harsh terrain on foot, cutting across private property to avoid detection by the understaffed Border Patrol.

According to news sources, 400 to 500 illegal immigrants cross Brooks County on foot every single night--400 to 500 a night. The Washington Post recently wrote a piece about Brooks County and described the situation as follows:

There has been a surge in illegal migrants, mostly from

Central America, trying to sneak around the checkpoint by

cutting through the desolate ranches and labyrinths of

mesquite brush that parallel the highway.

They arrive in South Texas by riding the freight trains up

through southern Mexico and along the gulf coast. Smugglers

float them across the Rio Grande to safe houses and border

cities such as Brownsville and McAllen, then drive them north

toward Houston and San Antonio along U.S. Route 281.

Several miles before the Falfurrias Border Patrol

checkpoint, the smugglers pull over, and that's where the

migrants start walking.

Because they are either paid in advance or based solely on how many people they successfully deliver, smugglers often leave illegal immigrants in places such as the sometimes 30-mile overland hike, which is undertaken at a brutally fast pace, and sadly the harsh land and climate lead to the death of many.

The Washington Post interviewed one of my constituents, Mr. Presnall Cage, on that point. He said:

``I don't want the bodies here anymore,'' said Presnall

Cage, whose family's 43,000-acre property is directly west of

the highway checkpoint. ``A more secure border would mean

fewer deaths,'' he said.

The system we have is not humane. It is cruel, and it results in terrible human tragedies.

The Washington Post went on to describe the situation Mr. Cage faces.

Some of the migrants find their way to Cage's ranch house,

as three groups of people had done the week before. ``I feel

so sorry for them,'' he said. ``They have no idea what

they're getting into.'' Cage has placed dozens of water

faucets around his property. But a sinking feeling sets in

whenever he sees a pair of sneakers laid across a path or a

shirt tied to a branch near the road, typical last-ditch

distress signals.

When winter arrives and quail hunters come to his ranch with dogs, more bodies show up. Last year 16 bodies were found on Cage's ranch. Sixteen men, women, and children lost their lives because of our broken immigration system.

Sadly, the 16 found on Mr. Cage's ranch represent only a small fraction of the 129 bodies found in just Brooks County last year. The county spent $159,000 last year to recover and bury those who went unclaimed. They are buried at the Sacred Heart Burial Park. They are spread across three sections of the cemetery. In those three sections, the graves do not have names.

The remains of a human being lie marked only by simple aluminum markers carrying serial numbers or sterile descriptions: ``Unknown Female,'' ``Bones,'' or ``Skull.''

No one who cares about our humanity would want to maintain a system where the border isn't secure, where vulnerable women and children entrust themselves to corrupt coyotes and drug dealers and are left to die in the desert. This is a system that produces human tragedy, and the most heartbreaking aspect of this Gang of 8 bill is that it will perpetuate this tragedy. It will not fix the problem. It will not secure the borders.

Linda Vickers, who is a constituent from Brooks County, wrote me about the situation she faces:

In all the years I have lived here (since 1996) I have

never seen or been confronted by so many illegal immigrants.

Since May of last year the numbers have continued to rise. .

. . But I have never seen it like this! Nor, have I ever felt

this unsafe in my own home and on my own ranch as I do right

now. I have had so many gang members (MS-13, Pistoleros,

etc.) around my house that I now feel it is not ``if'' I will

be assaulted, but ``when.''

Linda Vickers' husband is a veterinarian, Dr. Mike Vickers. Like many other ranchers in Brooks County, Mike speaks Spanish and he worked for Mexican ranchers for years as a vet until the travel became too dangerous. Dr. Vickers gave the following statement of his own:

I live on a Brooks County ranch with my wife, Linda. In

2012, 129 bodies of deceased illegal aliens were found in our

County on private ranch land. Most of these bodies were found

within 15 minutes of our front door in any given direction!

We believe these bodies represent only 20-25% of the actual

number of illegal immigrants dying in this area. . . . In one

week of last July, I personally rescued 15 people (most were

Central Americans) that were lost and close to dying from

dehydration and heat exhaustion. . . . This same week I found

a deceased person that had been laid across a dirt road in

order to be found. He was a 31 year old man from El Salvador.

A system that perpetuates these human tragedies is cruel. It is the opposite of humane. Yet the bill before this Senate, the Gang of 8 bill, encourages illegal immigration now and more in the future if it is passed.

Apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley are projected to be higher in fiscal year 2013 than in any year since 2000, and the number of apprehensions to date, after only 8 months, is already more than the total apprehensions in fiscal years 2002 to 2004 and 2007 to 2011.

This is a chart of the apprehensions of what Homeland Security refers to as OTMs--those who are other than Mexican--because a significant number of people coming into this country illegally are not from Mexico but are from other nations.

The black line represents apprehensions of OTMs along the southwest border, and the white line represents apprehensions in Texas. You see two clear spots--one in the mid-2000s, coming up right upon the consideration of the last major amnesty bill, and we saw apprehensions spike dramatically as people were incentivized by that offer of amnesty to risk their lives coming here illegally, and we see again a second spike happening right now.

DHS statistics show apprehensions on the southwest border are up 13 percent versus the same time last year--from 170,223 in 2012 to 192,298.

The Gang of 8 bill encourages illegal immigration in many ways, one of which is by prohibiting immigration law enforcement from detaining or deporting any apprehended illegal immigrant if they ``appear to be eligible for instant legalization'' and requiring that they be allowed to apply for amnesty. In other words, what this bill does is it handcuffs law enforcement from enforcing our immigration laws. We should not be surprised that when you handcuff law enforcement, the result is more and more breaking the law.

The Gang of 8 bill allows illegal aliens who have been previously removed to, in the Secretary's discretion, be eligible for legalization even if they have illegally reentered the country yet again. And neither the Gang of 8 bill nor many of the alternative border security proposals that have been introduced do enough to meaningfully secure our borders.

The last time this body passed major immigration reform was 1986. In 1986 the Federal Government made a promise to the American people. The Federal Government said: We will grant amnesty to some 3 million people who are here illegally. In exchange, we will secure the borders. We will stop illegal immigration. We will fix the problem. The American people accepted that offer. What happened in 1986 was that the amnesty happened, 3 million people received it, and yet the border security never happened.

I was struck last week when the senior Senator from New York stood at his desk and said: When this bill passes, illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. It was an echo from the debate in 1986. In 1986 that same promise was made to the American people: Just grant amnesty and illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. Do you know what we have learned? If legalization comes first, border security never happens.

One of the major questions before this body is, Which should come first, legalization or border security? I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, want border security first before any legalization. Yet the Gang of 8 bill and the alternatives before this body don't require even a single additional Border Patrol agent prior to legalization. The Gang of 8 bill does not require that a single foot of fencing be built along the border prior to legalization. The Gang of 8 bill does not require a biometric exit-entry system prior to legalization.

Unlike the Gang of 8 bill, the amendment I have called up does provide real border security. It does what we have been telling the American people, but it actually follows through on it. Prior to legalization, my amendment would do a number of things. No. 1, it would triple the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border. Today there are a little over 18,000 Border Patrol agents on the border, but our border is not secure. This bill triples that. This bill quadruples the number of cameras, sensors, helicopters, fixed-wing assets, technology, and infrastructure on the border. This bill requires that we complete all 700 miles of the fencing required by law in the Secure Fence Act. This bill requires real-time sharing of information among Federal law enforcement agencies. This bill requires that we complete and fully implement the US-VISIT system, including biometric exist- entry. And this bill requires that we establish operational control over 100 percent of the southern border.

Proponents of the Gang of 8 bill suggest that we don't need additional border patrol. I have to say that it is interesting seeing Senators who represent States that are very, very far away from the border standing up with complete confidence and sharing what we need to do to secure the border.

I can tell you, every time I have been to the border in my home State of Texas, the No. 1 answer that has been given from people on the ground--how do we fix this? How do we secure the border? How do we make it so you are not at risk from Mexican drug cartels and from the constant human tragedy of illegal immigration? The No. 1 answer you get over and over from law enforcement on the ground is this: More boots on the ground.

Let me put things in perspective in terms of what exactly we are talking about with boots on the ground. We need to have sufficient resources to secure the border. And let's take as a comparison the border versus New York City. In New York City, there are 34,500 NYPD officers. The area those 34,000 officers are policing is 468 square miles. That is a density of about 73 officers per square mile. By contrast, the border has 18,516 Border Patrol agents, but instead of policing 468 square miles, they are policing approximately 200,000 square miles. That is a density of 0.1 agents per square mile.

Let's look at it in a different way to get a sense of the differential there is right now. In New York City, 34,500 NYPD officers, as represented by this chart, are policing about 470 square miles--that little dot. By comparison, roughly half this number of Border Patrol agents are policing a square that large. And that is why law enforcement on the border says that whenever you spot those who are coming here illegally--even if you spot them, even if you find them, there is a delay in getting Border Patrol agents there to apprehend them, and by the time they are there, many of them have escaped and fled into the interior.

Why focus on inputs? One of the reasons to focus on inputs is that this administration in particular has demonstrated both a willingness to disregard the law and less than complete fidelity to truth. Proponents of the Gang of 8 say there are provisions in this statute that require that DHS fix the problem. I would like to point out a couple of provisions of current law.

If you look right now at current law, current Federal law requires:

Ports of entry shall use equipment and software to allow

the biometric comparison and authentication of all travel

documents.

That was enacted in law in 2002. Has it happened? No. It is one of the things in the civics classes we teach our kids: Congress passes a law, the President signs it, and suddenly it occurs. It doesn't occur if the Executive doesn't implement it. And the statement of the head of the travel entry programs at CBP in 2011 was:

The operational costs of a biometric program at this time

would be inordinately expensive and the benefits not

commensurate with the costs.

Despite the fact that the statute, the words on the paper say we have to have a biometric system, we do not, and the Obama administration made it perfectly clear they do not intend to change that.

Look at another provision of current law. Current law provides the DHS Secretary shall--not may, not might--``shall provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing'' over 700 specified miles.

How much of that has happened? Madam President, 36.6 miles of double- layered fence is currently standing. The statute says there shall be 700. DHS has built only 36. Words on a paper don't secure the border.

A third example of current law right now that the Obama administration is disregarding, current law provides DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano must ``achieve and maintain operational control'' over the entire border.

What does Janet Napolitano say? She says: ``Look, operational control, it's an archaic term.''

DHS doesn't even measure it anymore, much less require it.

Why? Because when they were measuring it they found it wasn't being achieved, the border wasn't secure. So rather than enforce it, they just erased the metric that demonstrated they are not fixing the problem.

There are two fundamental questions this body needs to consider when it comes to border security. No. 1, do we have real border security? Do we fix the problem, stop providing empty promises? The Gang of 8 bill has empty promises that will do nothing to secure the border. I think the American people are tired of empty promises.

The amendment I have offered will put real teeth in border security: triple the number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border; quadruple the cameras, sensors, drones, helicopters, and other technology and infrastructure as appropriate; ensure that we fix the problem.

No. 2, there is a fundamental question: Which comes first, legalization or border security? The Gang of 8 bill says let's have legalization first and then border security is a promise that will happen in the future. We have been down that road. That was the exact same path we took in 1986. In 1986 Congress told the American people we will grant legalization now, and on Tuesday I will pay you the cost of a hamburger. In the future, we will secure the border. Three decades later it still has not happened.

The only way to make it happen is to require border security first, to put the incentives on the Federal Government. Talk is cheap. We need to fix the problem.

In closing, I ask you, Madam President, and I ask the American people to focus on the cost, the human tragedy of our current system. In 1986 there were 3 million people here illegally. They were granted amnesty and the Federal Government promised the problem would be solved. Three decades later the border is still not secure, and there are 11 million people here illegally.

If this body passes the Gang of 8 bill, it will grant immediate legalization and it still will not secure the border. In another 10 or 20 years we will be back here, but it will not be 3 million or 11 million; it will be 20 million or 30 million people here illegally. If that happens, there are going to be a lot more graves like this, a lot more little boys, little girls, a lot more men and women who will never achieve the potential they could because of our system. It is a perverse system that encourages good people who just want a better life--they want a better life for their kids--and with our system, because we do not enforce the law, they risk their lives, they entrust themselves to human traffickers who assault them, who sexually violate them, who leave them to die in the desert.

The American people are overwhelmingly unified that, No. 1, we need to secure the border. And, No. 2, any bill that this body passes should have border security first and then legalization, not the other way around. There is an old saying that is popular in Texas: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

In 1986, Congress asked the American people: Trust us with legalization first and border security later. We learned it never happened. You know what. I don't think the American people are ready to be fooled a second time. I hope this body will adopt the amendment I have introduced to provide real border security and to ensure that border security occurs first, before legalization.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of last year. With this in mind, we must ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has the tools necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a disaster.

In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud that to file the Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013. I want to thank my colleague Senator Thad Cochran for cosponsoring the bill and for helping me to make improvements. I am also appreciative that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Mark Pryor also have cosponsored the legislation. This bill will make two important improvements to SBA's disaster assistance programs for businesses. The first provision builds off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for the loan. The second provision in the bill also authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This provision removes a limitation that, for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy, would allow experienced SBDC counselors to come in to a disaster area while local SBDCs are being stood back up following a catastrophic disaster. Lastly, to ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas, there also is legislative language in Section 4 encouraging the SBA to ensure it reimburses SBDCs for these disaster-related expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so.

In particular, Section 2 of the bill that I am filing today would clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000 that SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out of these productive discussions.

I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009 that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced during the 111th Congress. A similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice that Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009 by a vote of 389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009 by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. During the 112th Congress, this provision passed the Senate on December 28, 2012 by a vote of 62- 32 as part of H.R. 1, the Senate-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act that subsequently was enacted into law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and has previously passed both chambers of Congress.

Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA disaster loans for their business. This requirement is understandable for large loans between $750,000 and $2 million. However, business owners complained about this requirement being instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business. SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure loans.

Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA.

This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding to disasters.

To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal

residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets.

As previously mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures.

Section 3 of this bill removes an unnecessary prohibition in the Small Business Act that currently prohibits SBDCs from other states to help out in areas impacted by disasters. In particular, this provision authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state SBDCs to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This is because, as you may know, SBDCs are considered to be the backbone of the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development efforts, and are the largest of the agency's OED programs. SBDCs are the university based resource partners that provide counseling and training needs for more than 600,000 business clients annually. From 2007 to 2008, the counseling and technical assistance services they offered lead to the creation of 58,501 new jobs, at a cost of $3,462 per job. Additionally, they estimate that their counseling services helped to save 88,889 jobs. These centers are even more critical following natural or manmade disasters. That is because SBDCs help impacted businesses in navigating Federal disaster programs, insurance programs, and in creating new business plans following a disaster. For that reason, we must ensure that there is continuity to have SBDC counselors on the ground in disaster areas.

For example, right after Hurricane Katrina our SBDCs in Louisiana were severely limited in what they could do because of the widespread damage to homes and facilities utilized by their counselors. On the other hand, their counterparts at the Florida SBDCs had a wealth of disaster expertise and were willing to assist but were prohibited from providing assistance to small businesses outside their geographic area. In 2012, we experienced similar challenges following Hurricane Sandy but SBDCs in Louisiana, Florida or elsewhere were prohibited from helping their counterparts in the Northeast even if they wanted to help recovery in New York or New Jersey and doing so would not impact their operations back home. For smaller scale disasters, local SBDCs will respond to disasters in their own areas. However, for large scale, catastrophic disasters, this provision could make a significant difference for impacted small businesses.

In fact, on December 13, 2012, my committee received excellent testimony from Jim King, Chair of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, ASBDCs, and State Director of New York State Small Business Development Center. Mr. King outlined the symbiotic relationship between different SBDC state chapters and how they currently assist each other after disasters. He specifically noted that, ``I was also privileged to have the opportunity to work with the SBDC in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and visited New Orleans as one of five State Directors invited to share thoughts with my counterpart there, Mary Lynn Wilkerson, to evolve a strategy for recovery. I should note that Mary Lynn has returned the favor many times over since Hurricane Sandy devastated our area, with materials, information and support, which has been greatly appreciated.'' He also later noted that ``Starting almost immediately after the disaster, staff in other states and programs began reaching out with offers of assistance and words or experiences of support . . . The experiences gained from disasters in Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana and many other places reinforce the value of the SBDC network in meeting the needs of small business in times of disaster.'' I believe that these current relationships will be further strengthened by enacting this legislation. C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe, President/CEO of ASBDC noted this in his February 10, 2013 letter to my office, noting that, ``Allowing SBDCs to share resources across state lines or other boundaries for the purposes of disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little different from utilities sharing linemen.'' At the same time, however, I encourage SBDC chapters across the country to establish more of these partnerships pre-disaster so that their SBDC counterparts can be there post-disaster. SBDC chapters that are, unfortunately, battle hardened from multiple disasters should not be the only chapters that bear fruit from these partnerships with their counterparts.

Furthermore, I note that Section 3 of the bill has previously been passed out of committee and has been approved by the full Senate during past sessions of Congress. So this provision has a strong record of bipartisan support. During the 110th Congress, this provision was approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on May 7, 2007 as Section 104 of S. 163, the ``Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007.'' S. 163 was subsequently passed by the full Senate by unanimous consent on August 3, 2007. Unfortunately, this provision was not enacted into law before the adjournment of the 110th Congress. In the 111th Congress, this provision was again approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on July 2, 2009 as Section 607 of S. 1229, the ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009'' but was not enacted into law before the adjournment of that Congress. Lastly, during the 112th Congress, the provision received 57 strong bipartisan votes on July 12, 2012 as Section 433 of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the ``Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012.'' My Republican colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, Vitter, Scott Brown, and Heller all voted in support of the amendment. Although it was not ultimately enacted into law, the provision was subsequently included in separate pieces of legislation introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe and myself. This provision was included as Section 433 of S. 3442, the ``SUCCESS Act of 2012'' that I introduced on July 25, 2012 as well as Section 433 of S. 3572, the ``Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Business Act of 2012'' that Senator Snowe introduced on September 9, 2012.

Lastly, Section 4 is a new provision that I worked with my colleague Senator Cochran to include in the legislation. This section addresses past instances where SBDCs were not sufficiently reimbursed post- disaster by the SBA for disaster-related expenses. Section 3 provides clear Congressional intent that, in authorizing the SBA to allow out- of-state SBDCs to assist in disaster areas outside their geographic location, the agency must also ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas. If the SBA approves for these SBDCs to deploy staff or resources to a disaster area, the agency must in turn ensure that it reimburses SBDCs for these expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so. I thank Senator Cochran for bringing this to my attention on behalf of his local SBDCs, and look forward to working closely with him to enact this provision into law.

In closing, I believe that these commonsense disaster reforms will greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. First, the major proposals in this legislation are neither new nor untested. Next, this approach has already received support from the following groups from across the country: the Association of Small Business Development Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, the St. Tammany Economic Development Foundation, the Northeast Louisiana Economic

Partnership, and the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. With that in mind, the Senate should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can make these reforms today and help one business impacted by a disaster tomorrow, we will have done what our constituents sent us here to do: make good laws.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.