Floor Statements

Mr. President, I intended to give remarks and then promulgate a series of unanimous consent requests. However, the majority leader requested, for purposes of scheduling, that I begin with the unanimous consent requests, which I am happy to do to accommodate his schedule. I ask that at the conclusion of these unanimous consent requests, I be given 20 minutes to speak to lay out the reasons why I believe the majority should cede to these unanimous consent requests.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 72, making continuing appropriations for veterans' benefits for the fiscal year 2014, which was received from the House.

I ask further consent that the measure be read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Reserving the right to object, I thank my friend from Washington State. I know she talked about leaving no man or woman behind. I would note the continuing resolution the House has passed to fully fund the Veterans' Administration treats our veterans the same way the House and Senate have already treated active-duty military.

Just a few days ago, this body unanimously passed a bill that said the men and women of the military would be paid. Unfortunately, it seems to be the position of the majority in this body that veterans should be treated not as well as our active-duty military and, in particular, that the full funding of the VA should be held hostage to every other priority the Democrats in this Chamber must have.

I understand the Democrats in this Chamber are committed to ObamaCare with all of their hearts, minds, and souls, but the veterans of this Nation should not be held hostage to that commitment. It is likely, given the majority's refusal to negotiate, refusal to compromise, refusal even to talk to find a middle ground--it is likely that this shutdown, instigated by the Democratic majority, will continue for some time, and during that time we ought to be able to find common ground that, at the very minimum, our veterans shouldn't pay the price.

If moments from now my friend from Washington simply does not object, by the end of the day the VA will be fully funded. If, as we all expect, she does object--if she repeats the objection her majority leader and her party have made throughout the course of this week--then much of the VA will remain shut down because of that objection.

She has asked if we can reopen the entire Federal Government. If the request is not granted to refund every single priority in the Federal Government that the majority party wants, then the VA will remain without sufficient funds.

I find that highly objectionable, and I object.

Mr. President, the second unanimous consent request I will promulgate:

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3230, making continuing appropriations during a government shutdown to provide pay allowances to members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces, which was received from the House; I ask further unanimous consent that the measure be read three times and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, no one watching these proceedings should be confused. We are in a shutdown because President Obama and the majority leader of this body want a shutdown, because they believe it is in the partisan interests of their party to have a shutdown.

Four times the House of Representatives has come to us, four times the House of Representatives has endeavored to meet a middle ground, and four times the majority leader and every Democrat in this body has said, No, we will not talk, we will not compromise, we will not have a middle ground, and 100 percent of the priorities of the Democrats in this body must be funded or they will insist on a shutdown.

I thank my friend from Illinois for making clear that the members of the Reserve components of our Armed Forces, in his judgment, are not worthy of being paid during the shutdown that the Democrats have forced. I could not disagree with that judgment more strongly. Let us be clear.

This bill that has passed the House doesn't mention ObamaCare; it has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It simply says the exact same thing my friend from Illinois already agreed to, which is that the active-duty men and women of the military would not be held hostage and would be paid if it so happened that the Democrats forced a shutdown.

Apparently, the position of the majority of this body is that we have a double standard, that Reserve members are not treated as well as active-duty members; that Reserve members will not get their paychecks.

Let's be clear that this bill could be on the President's desk for signature today if my friend from Illinois would simply withdraw his objection. Unfortunately, in a move I think reflects a level of cynicism not befitting of the responsibility all of us have, my friend is prepared to object and to say that

not just veterans but Reserve members shall be held hostage in order to force ObamaCare on the American people; that that is the objective. I guess now the Democratic Party has become the party of ObamaCare, by ObamaCare, and for ObamaCare all of the time, and every other priority recedes. So veterans are told, Your concerns do not matter unless we can use you to force ObamaCare on the American people. Reserve military members are told, Your concerns do not matter unless we can use you as a hostage to force ObamaCare on the American people. That is cynical. We ought to take these individuals off the table.

I note my friend from Illinois spoke of the great many Federal employees who have been furloughed. I would be very happy to work in a bipartisan manner to cooperate with my friend from Illinois to bring a great many of those Federal employees back to their vital responsibilities. But, unfortunately, the position the Democratic Party has taken is that not a one of them will be allowed to come back until this body agrees to force ObamaCare on the American people, despite the jobs lost, despite the people being forced into part-time work, despite the skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and despite the millions of people who are at risk of losing their health insurance.

I find that highly objectionable and I object.

Mr. President, I now promulgate my third unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 70, making continuing appropriations for National Park Service operations, which was received from the House; I further ask unanimous consent that the measure be read three times and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the Senator from New York for his heartfelt concern for the Republican Party. I note that the Senator from New York stated that I ``have advocated shutting down the government.'' That statement, unfortunately, is a flatout falsehood, and I know the Senator from New York would not do so knowingly, so it must have been a mistaken statement. Because throughout the course of this debate I have said repeatedly in every context we should not shut down the government, a shutdown is a mistake, and I very much hoped that the majority leader would not force a shutdown on this country. We are in a shutdown because the Democrats in this body have refused to negotiate, refused to compromise.

I would note as well, I am quite grateful for the majority leader's admonition this morning toward civility on the floor and the admonition from the Senator from Illinois toward rule XIX. That is an admonition well heard. Indeed, it was quite striking. It has been several days since I have been to the floor of the Senate, and yet I feel I have been here in absentia because so many Democrats have invoked my name as the root of all evil in the world. Indeed, the same majority leader who gave an ode to civility just a few days ago was describing me and anyone who might agree that we should stop the harms of ObamaCare-- describing us as ``anarchists.'' So I think the encouragement toward civility is an encouragement that should be heard across the board.

I would note also that my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have

described what they claim to be as the piecemeal approach as following my priorities. Several Democrats have used that language publicly. I must note, I find it quite ironic because if I were to stand here and say it is my priority and not the priority of the Democrats to fund veterans, it is my priority and not the priority of the Democrats to fund the National Guard, it is my priority and not the priority of the Democrats to fund our national parks, it is my priority and not the priority of the Democrats to fund research for health care, they would, quite rightly, be able to rise and claim under rule XIX that I was impugning their motives.

I cannot imagine a greater insult than to claim it is not the priority of Members of this body to treat fairly our veterans, and yet what I find so striking is that so many Democrats go out publicly and embrace that. They say: Funding the veterans is Cruz's priority, not ours.

Yet I will note, even on that front, the funding proposals the House of Representatives has passed are not even the House's priorities-- although under the Constitution they have a legitimate role laying out their priorities for funding--they are President Obama's priorities.

Just a few days ago, the President gave a speech to this country, a speech that all of us watched closely, in which the President said if a shutdown occurred ``veterans who've sacrificed for their country will find their support centers unstaffed.''

The President also said, with regard to parks, as we are discussing now, and memorials: ``Tourists will find every one of America's national parks and monuments, from Yosemite to the Smithsonian to the Statue of Liberty immediately closed.''

To the credit of the House of Representatives, they listened to the President's speech, they listened to President Obama's priorities, and the House of Representatives acted with bipartisan cooperation. They said: Mr. President, we have heard your priorities. Let's fund them. Let's work together.

I would note my friend from Maryland a moment ago gave a speech about how important it is, he thinks, that we should fund food inspectors in the Department of Agriculture and also our intelligence community. I would note to my friend from Maryland, I fully agree with him and, indeed, would be happy to work arm in arm and to fund the intelligence community, fully fund them today. The only impediment to that happening is that the Democrats in this body are objecting, and that is what should be abundantly clear.

When it comes to parks, when it comes to memorials, we have all read about World War II veterans being turned away from the World War II Memorial. We have all read about Mount Vernon, which is privately owned--the Federal Government blocking the parking lots.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

I am happy to yield for a question from the majority leader.

I thank the majority leader for his question. At his request I began with these unanimous consent requests. It was my intention to give my remarks at the end. But I would note, in each of the objections, my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have chosen to stand and give their remarks. If remarks are to be given by the Democrats, then it is certainly appropriate that some response be given. So if the courtesy the majority leader was asking was that none of the remarks that his friends and colleagues make have any response, that was not a courtesy I was prepared to give. I was prepared and am prepared to work and cooperate on timing but not to allow only one side of the discussion to be presented.

The modification----

Reserving the right to object, the modification that the Senator from New York has suggested is that he is unwilling to open our national parks, to open our memorials, unless every other aspect of the government is opened immediately and ObamaCare is forced upon the American people. That is, quite simply and directly, saying that the Senate will not respond to President Obama's priorities.

President Obama gave a speech to this country saying we should open our parks, we should open our memorials. The House of Representatives said: Mr. President, we, the Republicans, will work with you to do that, and today the Democrats in the Senate are objecting and saying: No, we want every park closed, every memorial closed. All of that will be held hostage until ObamaCare is forced on every American.

I find that highly objectionable, and I object.

Mr. President, the fourth unanimous consent request that I would promulgate: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 73, making continuing appropriations for the National Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2014; I ask further consent that the measure be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would note that the majority leader made a plea for compromise. I think most Americans want to see a compromise. The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already.

It is the view of every Republican in this body and, indeed, every Republican in the House that ObamaCare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing ObamaCare but simply it should be defunded. They funded the entire Federal Government and defunded ObamaCare. It came to the Senate. The majority leader and 54 Democrats voted in lockstep to say: No, absolutely not. We will not talk. We will not compromise.

The House then came with a second compromise. They said: Fine. If the Senate will not agree to fully defund ObamaCare, then let's all agree to a reasonable 1-year delay.

President Obama has already delayed ObamaCare for big business. Let's treat hard-working American families at least as well as big business. Let's have a 1-year delay, because we are seeing how badly this thing has worked. Now that is a big compromise from defunding.

It came over to the Senate. The majority leader and 54 Senate Democrats said: No, absolutely not. We will not talk. We will not compromise. Shut the government down.

The House came back a third time and said: Okay. How about we simply delay the individual mandate, one small portion of ObamaCare, and we revoke the congressional exemption that President Obama illegally gave Members of this Congress to exempt us from the burdens of ObamaCare that are inflicted on millions of Americans.

That offer represented an enormous compromise from the view of Republicans that ObamaCare should be repealed in its entirety. What did the Senate say? Did the Senate say: Let's sit down and work something out? Did the Senate say: Let's meet and find a middle ground? No. The majority leader and 54 Senate Democrats said: Absolutely not. No, we will not talk. We will not compromise. Shut the government down. That is why the government is shut down right now.

Just a moment ago, the majority leader gave his latest offer. It was: Give us everything we demand, 100 percent, no compromise, no middle ground. That is the position of the Democrats in this body. That is not a reasonable position. That is not the way people work together to find a middle ground.

You know, it was reported that the majority leader urged the President not even to talk to congressional leaders. The President apparently had a change of heart and sat down with congressional leaders and had what, by all accounts, was an extraordinary conversation, where President Obama told Congressional leaders: I called you over here to say I am not going to talk to you. I am not going to negotiate. I must admit, that is a remarkable conversation, to call someone over to say: Hi, good to see you. We are not going to talk.

If this matter is going to be resolved, we need to see good faith among Members on both sides. Republicans have repeatedly been offering compromises to resolve this shutdown. Unfortunately, the behavior of the majority party in this body has been my way or the highway.

One can only assume their stated public belief, from a senior administration official from the Obama administration who said: We think we are winning politically.

I am paraphrasing.

But we don't care when the shutdown ends.

That is a paraphrase. That is not exact. But that was certainly the thrust of the statement by what was described as a senior administration official. I think that is cynical. I think that is partisan. I do not think that is what we should be doing. So I wish the majority leader and the Democrats would accede to what should be shared bipartisan priorities. But it appears right now that they are not, that their position is: Give us everything. Fully fund ObamaCare and force it on the American people. That I cannot consent to. So I object.

Mr. President, Bismarck famously talked about legislation being like making sausages. There are aspects of both that are not pretty. I wish we saw our elected leaders in both parties working together to listen to the American people.

You know, the majority leader talks about a meeting at the White House. I will note, he noted that I was not at that meeting. That is certainly true. But the statement that the President said he would not negotiate came directly from Speaker Boehner who was at that meeting, who came and gave a press conference immediately thereafter.

I know the majority leader is not impugning the integrity of the Speaker of the House or disputing that that is exactly what President Obama said and what the position of the Democrats is. Their position is: Give us 100 percent of what we want or the government stays shut down. That, quite simply, is not reasonable.

I would like to address for a moment a few of the arguments that have been raised against these very reasonable bipartisan proposals to fund essential priorities in our government because I think the arguments do not withstand scrutiny. There are some on the Democratic side of the aisle who have said: We are not going to pick and choose. Indeed, the majority leader said: There is no reason to have to choose between government priorities.

Let me suggest that is the essence of legislation. We have a $17 trillion debt, because far too many people have said, as the majority leader just did, there is no reason to choose between priorities; we should spend on everything.

I would note also that what the Democrats in this Chamber deride as a piecemeal strategy is the traditional means of appropriating and legislating. The only reason we have this omnibus continuing resolution is because Congress has failed to do its job to appropriate on specific subject matters.

So we should be considering the VA on its own merits. I would note, the majority leader is right, that the House bill funded the most critical components of the VA: pension, home loan, GI bill, and disability payments. But I would readily accede to the majority leader that if he would like a continuing resolution that funds the entirety of the VA, including the elements he laid out, I think we could reach a unanimous consent agreement on that within hours.

The traditional means of legislating is one subject at a time. It is not typical when considering funding for the VA that the argument be about unrelated matters, whether it is the Department of Agriculture or ObamaCare. The way this body has always operated is it has considered one subject matter at a time--except when Congress has failed to appropriate, and then everything has gotten lumped together in a giant omnibus bill. But there is no reason for that.

Secondly, every bit as critically, we have done it already. This is not theoretical. At the beginning of this proceeding the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill saying: Let's fund the men and women of our military. When it came over, a great many people expected the majority leader to do what the majority leader just did-- to object to funding the men and women of our military. Indeed, some 20 Republican Senators came to the floor prepared to make the argument that we shouldn't hold the men and women of the military hostage. Yet, much to our very pleasant surprise, the majority leader reconsidered. He decided, one must assume, that it was not defensible to hold hostage the paychecks of the men and women of the military. The majority leader agreed, and this body unanimously passed funding for the men and women of the military. He said: Regardless of what happens with a government shutdown, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines should not be held hostage. They should get their paychecks.

Indeed, I rose on the Senate floor. I commended the majority leader for doing the right thing and for acting in a bipartisan manner. Yet, sadly, that was the last of that behavior we were to see. I hope that majority leader returns. I hope the majority leader who said we are going to fund the men and women of our military returns to say the same thing to our veterans. I hope that majority leader returns to say the same thing to our National Guard. I

hope that majority leader returns to say the same thing to our parks and war memorials. I hope that majority leader returns to say the same thing to the National Institutes of Health and to say the same thing to children who are facing life-threatening diseases such as cancer.

We may not be able to resolve 100 percent of this impasse today; there are differences. To resolve those differences will take sitting down, talking, and working through the matters of this disagreement. One side of this Chamber is prepared to do this. The Democrats are not. In the meantime, it ought to be a bipartisan priority to fund our veterans.

A second possible objection--I can see some watching this debate who think, well, OK, but if you fund the VA, doesn't that mean the Democrats have given in on ObamaCare? Somehow it has to be connected to ObamaCare, right?

As every Member of this body knows, the VA is totally disconnected. The VA bill that passed the House doesn't implicate ObamaCare, doesn't mention ObamaCare, and does nothing on ObamaCare. We have a disagreement on ObamaCare. Part of this body thinks it is a terrific bill. Part of this body thinks it is a train wreck, a disaster that is hurting millions of Americans. That is an important debate. Whether our veterans get their disability payments shouldn't be held hostage to resolving that debate. It is exactly like the bill my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle already voted for to fund the men and women of the military. It is exactly the same. They have done it once, and yet, for whatever reason, they have made a decision that certainly appears to the public to be cynical and partisan.

There should be no confusion. The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly voted to protect our veterans and fund the VA, and 35 Democrats joined Republicans in the House to do that--35. It was bipartisan legislation. It came over here. Every Senate Republican agrees we should fund the VA, we should pass this bill. There is unanimity. Indeed, the President, when he addressed the Nation, said his priority was to fund the VA. We have Republicans and Democrats in the House agreeing we should fund the VA. We have Republicans in the Senate and a Democratic President of the United States agreeing we should fund the VA. Sadly, we have Democrats in the Senate and a majority leader in the Senate objecting and stopping the VA from being funded.

If my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle simply stood right now and withdrew their objection, by the end of the day the VA would receive its funding. If my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle simply stood and withdrew their objection, by the end of the day our friends in the Reserves would receive their paychecks or have the paychecks and the funding returned. If my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle withdrew their objection, by the end of the day our national parks and memorials would have their funding and we would be able to open our Statue of Liberty and open our war memorials. By the end of the day we could restore the funding to the National Institutes of Health.

Let me note that there are many other priorities. My friend from Maryland, when he was talking about other priorities, said there are a great many aspects of government. For example, earlier this week the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the NSA testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The head of national intelligence said that some 70 percent of civilian employees in the intelligence community have been furloughed and that represents a real threat to our national security. If that is right, where is the Commander in Chief? Why is the President of the United States not saying: Regardless of what you do in the rest of the budget, don't expose us to national security threats. Let's fully fund the Department of Defense. Let's fully fund our intelligence agencies.

Indeed, I would note that one Senator, the junior Senator from Arizona, asked the head of national intelligence: Have you advised the President that Congress should pass a continuing resolution funding the intelligence community as we did for the members of the Armed Forces?

The answer from the head of national intelligence, appointed by President Obama, was this: Yes, Congress should do it, and, yes, I will advise the President.

Now we have Senate Democrats who are not listening to the testimony and advice of the members of our intelligence community who say there is a grave national security threat against which we are not adequately prepared to defend ourselves. Surely partisan politics should end. Surely at that point we should be able to come together and say: We can keep fighting on ObamaCare. We may have disagreements, and eventually we will work it out, but surely we shouldn't expose our national security to threats from terrorists or attacks on our homeland in the meantime. That ought to be 100-to-0.

At the end of the day, there is only one explanation that makes sense for why you saw one Democrat after another standing up and objecting: No, don't fund the VA. No, don't fund the Reserve members of our military. No, don't fund the parks. No, don't fund the memorials. No, don't fund the National Institutes of Health.

The only explanation that is at all plausible is that many Members of this body agree with some of the pundits that this shutdown benefits the political fortunes of Democrats. I hope people are focused on things other than political fortunes and partisan politics because I know each one of us takes seriously the obligation we have to our constituents back home. I hope that is not going on, but it is hard for the American people not to be cynical when they read about Mount Vernon--which is privately owned and operated and doesn't get its money from the Federal Government--being effectively forced to shut down because the Federal Government blocked the parking lots and put up barricades to prevent people from going to Mount Vernon. It is hard not to be cynical when we read about what my friend Senator John Thune told me about Mount Rushmore. The Federal Government erected barricades on the roads leading to Mount Rushmore--spent the money to do it, mind you. There is a shutdown. They spent the money to erect the barricades. The problem is that those aren't Federal roads, those are State roads. The Governor said: Take them down. The only conclusion that is possible there is that we are seeing cynical, partisan, gamesmanship--a decision by President Obama and, unfortunately, by Democrats in this body that inflicting maximum pain on the American people will yield political benefits.

We ought to be able to agree that our veterans are above politics. We ought to be able to agree that our war memorials are above politics. We ought to be able to come together and agree that defending national security and defending against terrorist threats is above politics. Everyone in Congress is prepared to do so except for the majority leader and the Senate Democrats who are insisting that everything be shut down.

If a Federal Government worker is at home today furloughed, you should know that the reason is in large part because the Senate Democrats refused to let you come back to work, because we could agree, for significant portions of the Federal Government, to come back to work Monday morning if, simply, the Democrats would stop objecting and stop insisting that they get everything on ObamaCare.

Let me note that the issue on ObamaCare is very simple. Is there a double standard? President Obama has exempted Big Business and has exempted Members of Congress. Yet he has forced a government shutdown to deny that savings exemption to hard-working Americans, millions of hard-working Americans who are losing their jobs, being forced into part-time work, facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and losing their health insurance.

Let me remind this body of the words of James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters: ObamaCare is destroying the health care--he used the words ``destroying the health care of millions of working men and women in this country.'' If you don't believe me, perhaps James Hoffa--who put it in writing that it is destroying the health care of millions of men and women--will underscore what this fight is about. All of the seniors, all of the people with disabilities, all of the people who are now

getting notices that they are losing their health insurance--that is what this fight is about.

At a minimum, we ought to agree on common priorities. We ought to come together today, right now, and fund the VA. We ought to come together today, right now, and fund our reservists in the National Guard. We ought to come together today, right now, and fund our national parks, open our memorials, and stop barricading and sending police officers to prevent World War II veterans from visiting to the World War II Memorial. We ought to come together, right now, to fund the National Institutes of Health because everyone agrees on that.

The decision to hold those priorities hostage because the Democrats want to force ObamaCare on everyone--it is not related to them, has nothing to do with them, and it is all about political leverage. That is not the way we should be doing our jobs. We should be listening to the people, and we should make DC listen.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, it is no secret that the majority leader Harry Reid and I disagree on a great many

topics. Yet I rise today in praise of Senator Reid. In particular, I wish to praise Senator Reid for agreeing to pass the bill the House of Representatives passed at 12:30 in the morning yesterday that would fund our military.

For weeks President Obama and Senate Democrats have been threatening to hold in jeopardy the paychecks of the men and women of our military if there is a government shutdown. I commend the majority leader for agreeing to pass it, for not objecting, for not standing in the way.

For everyone who thinks that compromise is impossible in Washington, that working together is impossible in Washington, I would point to this as an example. That bill passed the House of Representatives unanimously. It came over to the Senate, and a few minutes ago we all saw it pass the Senate unanimously. It should be able to be on President Obama's desk for signature by tonight.

That is exactly as it should be. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who risk their lives defending our Nation should not have their paychecks held hostage to any potential government shutdown in Washington. I salute the majority leader for doing the right thing. I salute the Senate Democrats for not blocking the paychecks of the men and women in the military, taking them off the table and saying, regardless of what happens, we are going to pay our troops. That was the right thing to do.

I also note, for those who would like to see a resolution of this impasse, I, for one, don't wish to see a government shutdown. I think it is unfortunate that the majority leader seems bound and determined to force a government shutdown. In the course of the past several weeks we have seen the House of Representatives repeatedly attempt to compromise. In my view and the view of a great many Republicans is that ObamaCare is a disaster, a train wreck, a nightmare. Of those last two terms, the term train wreck comes from the Democratic Senator who was the lead author of ObamaCare. Nightmare is the term that was used by Teamsters president James Hoffa.

My view is we should repeal it in its entirety. I would note that was not my starting position on this debate. It was not the starting position of the House of Representatives. Instead, they started with the position that it should be defunded, which itself represented a compromise. The House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the entire Federal Government, every bit of it, except for ObamaCare and to defund ObamaCare.

They sent it over to the Senate and what did the majority leader, what did the Democrats do on a straight party-line vote? Every Democrat voted no, absolutely not. We reject it in its entirety. They voted, in effect, to force us into a shutdown.

The House of Representatives was not done with that. They came back at 12:30 in the morning late Saturday night, early Sunday morning and passed yet another continuing resolution that represented a second compromise where yet again the House said, we want to fund the government, we don't want to shut down, we want to keep government going. Instead of defunding, which is what the House preferred, the House instead said: Let's delay ObamaCare, let's delay it. President Obama has already delayed it for giant corporations. He has already exempted Members of Congress. Both of those actions were contrary to law.

The House of Representatives said let's delay it for ordinary families the same way it has been delayed for big companies. It shouldn't be the case that giant corporations get treated better by the Federal Government than hard-working American families.

That was a compromise, and it was a compromise even though the Senate under Majority Leader Reid had not compromised at all and held an absolutist position. At 12:30 in the morning, early Sunday morning, the House voted on that.

Did the Senate come back yesterday? No, we did not. The majority leader could have called the Senate back. We should have called the Senate back. We were only 48 hours away from a government shutdown, but apparently the majority leader made the decision it was more important for Senators to be home on vacation, home playing golf, home doing anything but being here on the floor of the Senate doing the people's business.

Instead, many Senators came back today. We voted only a couple of hours ago and once again Majority Leader Reid and every single Senate Democrat voted to shut down the government, responded to the House's second compromise--not with any discussion, any compromise, not with any middle ground, but simply said no.

The position of the Senate Democrats is absolutely not. Are we going to listen to the millions of young people coming out of schools who are not able to find jobs because of ObamaCare? The majority leader says no. Are we going to listen to the millions of single moms who are struggling to feed their kids and finding themselves forcibly put into 29 hours a week because of ObamaCare? The majority leader says no. Are we going to listen to millions of recent immigrants who are struggling to provide for their families and facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums? The majority leader says no. Are we going to listen to millions of retirees, people with disabilities, and spouses who are covered on their spouse's health insurance plans, all of whom are losing or at risk of losing their health insurance? The majority leader says no.

Instead, the majority leader shared with this body that I was--and I wrote this down--the ``chief Senate rabble-rouser.'' I am not entirely sure what that is. I wasn't aware that was an official designation.

I would note previously the majority leader from the floor of the Senate had described me as a ``schoolyard bully.''

It is entirely the majority leader's prerogative if he views the way to carry out his job as engaging in personal insult and ad hominem attacks. I, for one, do not intend to reciprocate.

I note that what he seems most dismayed about is in the past 2 weeks the voices of the American people have begun to be heard in this body. In the past 2 weeks the voices of millions of Americans losing their health insurance, losing their jobs, being forced into part-time work, millions of Americans who are struggling, have begun to be heard. We have begun to make DC listen. Apparently, the voices from our constituents, from the men and women of America, apparently to the majority leader, constitute ``rabble-rousing.'' I have a different view of what our responsibility is.

I would also note that the majority leader told us only moments ago, ``We have had enough. We are not going to negotiate.''

I find that quite remarkable because to date it has been the House of Representatives that has been negotiating, that has been compromising and has been trying to find a way to resolve this so we can keep the government running and at the same time answer millions of Americans who have been hurting. The answer from the majority leader over and over has been no, no, no, we will not compromise, we will not talk.

As the majority leader said, he hasn't compromised yet and he doesn't intend even to negotiate. This is unfortunate.

I yield to the Senator from Texas for a question.

I thank my friend, the senior Senator from Texas. I think he is exactly right. Indeed, the conduct of the majority leader, as it has recently been reported in the press, the majority leader advised President Obama do not even engage in conversations or negotiations with congressional leaders.

As the senior Senator from Texas observed, the House is repeatedly trying to solve this problem to keep the government funded and to do it in a way that responds to the millions of people who are hurting under ObamaCare.

The answer for the majority leader over and over and over has simply been, no, we will not talk, we will not negotiate, we will not compromise, we will not listen to the American people.

I am reminded of the old philosophical question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear, does it make a noise?

Likewise, if the House endeavors to compromise responsibly, and the majority leader and the President refuse to participate at all, can you solve the problem?

Ultimately, the only way to solve the problem is for Washington to listen to the people. If Majority Leader Reid insists on forcing a government shutdown, then we may face a government shutdown. I think that is an irresponsible course of action.

If the House of Representatives acts tonight, I believe this Senate should come back immediately and pass the continuing resolution, whatever the House passes. I don't know what it will be, but it will be yet another good-faith effort to keep the government running and to address the train wreck of a law that is ObamaCare, and I very much hope this body begins to listen to the people.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, 3\1/2\ years ago, perhaps reasonable minds could have differed over whether ObamaCare would work. Perhaps reasonable minds could have differed over whether it would cripple the economy. Perhaps reasonable minds could have differed over whether it would be devastating to millions of Americans. Today, that is no longer the case.

Today, we have seen the impact of ObamaCare. We have seen what it is doing. ObamaCare is a train wreck. It is a nightmare, to use the word used by the lead Democratic author in the Senate, and a union leader who previously supported ObamaCare. ObamaCare is the single largest job killer in the country. ObamaCare is forcing Americans all over our Nation into part-time work, to working 29 hours a week or less.

ObamaCare is causing health insurance premiums to skyrocket all over this country. ObamaCare is jeopardizing the health care for millions of Americans, threatening that they will lose their health insurance altogether. It, quite simply, is not working.

Perhaps saddest of all, the Senate is not listening. The Senate Democrats are not listening to the millions of Americans who are being hurt by ObamaCare. If you are a young person right now coming out of school, and finding door after door closed to you because small businesses are not growing, because jobs are not there, because we have the lower labor force participation in decades, Senate Democrats are not listening to you.

If you are a single mom right now, perhaps waiting tables at a diner, and you are seeing your hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week--29 hours a week is not enough to feed your kids. But that is what ObamaCare is doing to you. Senate Democrats are not listening to you. If you are a recent immigrant trying to raise a young family, working hard and seeing your health insurance premiums skyrocket, and you are wondering how on Earth you are going to be able to pay these rising premiums while still meeting the needs and expense of your young family, Senate Democrats are not listening to you.

If you are retired, if you are a person with disabilities, getting notice from your insurance carrier that the policy is going to be dropped because of ObamaCare or if you are concerned that you will be getting notices--so many others across this country have been--Senate Democrats are not listening to you.

If you are married and on your spouse's health insurance, and you have received a notice like 15,000 employees at UPS recently received a notice, telling them that their spousal coverage was being dropped, that their husbands and wives were losing their health insurance because of ObamaCare, Senate Democrats are not listening to you.

If you are a union worker working hard to provide for your family to seek the American dream, and you are discovering that the health insurance that you liked, that you have worked for, that you have paid for, is going to be taken away from you because of ObamaCare, Senate Democrats are not listening to you.

Perhaps some might say, how could it be that this is happening? Surely Senate Democrats would listen to the American people if that sort of suffering were happening. Well, if you do not take my word for it, let me urge you to take the words of James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters. I would like to read a portion of a letter Mr. Hoffa wrote recently to Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

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, ObamaCare will shatter not only our hard-

earned benefits but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour

work week that is the backbone of the American middle

class.

That is not me speaking, that is James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-

line workers in the American economy. We have been strong

supporters of the notion that all Americans should have

access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been

strong supporters of you.

I would note this is addressed to Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground,

gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and

raised money to secure this vision.

The vision of a Democratic majority in the Senate. So how is that Democratic majority in the Senate working out for union workers across the country? Well, the next sentence in this letter is:

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

I would note this is the exact same sentiment I expressed a moment ago. Senate Democrats are not listening to you. The letter continues:

Time is running out. Congress wrote this law; we voted for

you. We have a problem. You need to fix it. The unintended

consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are

already creating nightmare scenarios:

Note that word ``nightmare'' which I started my remarks by quoting. That is not my word, that is the Teamsters describing ObamaCare. Indeed, the letter concludes by saying:

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 the elements of the Affordable

Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of

our members along with millions of other hardworking

Americans.

Let me note, No. 1, Mr. Hoffa says millions of working men and women. Not hundreds; not thousands; millions. What does Mr. Hoffa say is happening to those millions of working men and women? That their health care is being destroyed. Destroyed is the word he used. What answer do we get today from the Democrats in the Senate? Nothing.

President Obama has granted exemptions from this failed law to big business and to Members of Congress. So the friends of the administration do not have to bear the burden of the law's collapse, but hard-working Americans, those without lobbyists, without friends in the corridors of power, are getting no exemptions from Senate Democrats. That is wrong.

In roughly an hour, if Senators vote as they have announced publicly they intend to vote, this body will vote to put back, to restore the funding for ObamaCare and to gut the House continuing resolution. But the good news is, the process is not over. It is going to go back to the House of Representatives. I salute the House for having the courage to stand and fight and defund ObamaCare. I remain confident, hopeful, and optimistic that the House will stand their ground, will continue the fight, which means this issue is coming back to the Senate.

That is good news. That is good news, No. 1, for Republicans. It is unfortunate that there has been Republican division on this issue. When it comes back to the Senate after the House stands their ground yet again, we will have an opportunity for Republicans to come home, for Republicans to stand together. I very much hope the next time this issue is before this body in a few days, all 46 Republicans are united against ObamaCare and standing with the American people, that we listened to the American people the way Senate Democrats are not.

Let me tell you I hope also that it is not just 46 Republicans. Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle go home to their States, they listen to their constituents. They are hearing the suffering from the men and women who elected them. It is not easy to disagree with your political party. But at the end of the day, what we are doing here is bigger than partisan politics. What we are doing here is fitting for 300 million Americans across this great country.

So I hope when this issue comes back, when the House stands their ground and sends it back to us, instead of just exercising brute political power, as this body is getting ready to do, I hope the Senate Democrats begin listening, that they begin listening to young people, that they begin listening to single moms, that they begin listening to immigrants, that they begin listening to people who are retired, people with disabilities, that they begin listening to married people, that they begin listening to union workers, all of whom are suffering under ObamaCare.

This is an opportunity for the Senate to return to the finest traditions of this body, where we listen to and fight for the American people. That has not happened in a long time. But I am very hopeful that we are in the process of seeing it begin to happen now.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy.) The clerk will call the roll.

Since the Senator from Tennessee has made reference to me, I ask unanimous consent that I might engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Utah.

I cannot imagine it would extend beyond 10 minutes.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator

from Tennessee supporting the majority leader.

I know the Senator from Tennessee is learned on Senate procedures. I know he must have made a misstatement when he, moments ago, suggested that those of us who participated in the filibuster the other day somehow changed our position in voting for the motion to proceed.

A reason I know the Senator from Tennessee is mistaken is because during the course of that filibuster, I explicitly stated I support the motion to proceed. I stated that 1 week before the filibuster, repeatedly. I have always stated that the vote on the motion to proceed, the vote on cloture to the motion to proceed was going to be unanimous. Indeed, I would note I offered a unanimous consent request during that filibuster that we vitiate the cloture and all agree to proceed because everyone in this Chamber--I said I expect the vote to be unanimous--everyone in this Chamber wants to proceed to this bill.

The Senator from Tennessee being learned in Senate procedure knows that there is a big difference between that vote on Wednesday, which I might note, when the vote tally was done there for Republicans, I put my--not only did I vote yes early, but I put my recommendation for every Republican to vote yes because, of course, we should get on the bill.

The vote tomorrow on cloture on the bill is a very different bill. I know the Senator from Tennessee is quite aware of that. The vote tomorrow is a vote to cut off debate on the bill. So as I said during the filibuster 2 days ago, as I have said for weeks, it is the vote tomorrow, cloture on the bill, that matters because anyone voting tomorrow in favor of cloture is voting in favor of granting the majority leader the ability to fund ObamaCare.

I know my friend from Tennessee understands that. So I am sure his statement suggesting that the vote on the motion to proceed meant anything other than what it obviously meant, I know that was a statement in error.

I appreciate the comments of my friend from Tennessee. I would note that he suggested this is confusing. I guess I do not think it is all that confusing. The Senator from Tennessee says a vote in favor of cloture is a vote in favor of the House bill and in favor of defunding ObamaCare. If that is the case, then the question I would pose to my friend from Tennessee: Why is majority leader Harry Reid going to vote the same way you are proposing to vote? Why is every Democrat in this Chamber going to vote the way you are proposing to vote? If this is a vote in favor of defunding ObamaCare, is it the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee that the majority leader and the Senate Democrats are confused about this vote?

Does the Senator from Tennessee dispute that the vote Wednesday was a vote to take up the bill; whereas, the vote tomorrow will be a vote that will do two things--if there are 60 votes. If enough Republicans cross the aisle and join majority leader Harry Reid and the Democrats, it will, No. 1, cut off all debate, and it will--No. 2, what makes the vote tomorrow so significant is the majority leader has already filed an amendment.

That amendment guts the House continuing resolution and funds ObamaCare in its entirety. Given that that amendment is pending, and if cloture is invoked that amendment can be passed with 51 votes. Does the Senator from Tennessee disagree that once cloture is invoked, Harry Reid, the majority leader, will be able to fund ObamaCare with 51 votes?

I appreciate that question from my friend from Tennessee. There are several pieces of it. One, he asked: Would the House Republicans like for us not to invoke cloture? I can tell the Senator this morning I spoke to over a dozen House Members who explicitly said: It would be fantastic if Senate Republicans could show the same unity we did and vote against cloture because Majority Leader Reid has filed an amendment to gut our language.

I would also note the Senator from Tennessee keeps expressing confusion. I have to admit, I do not think the American people are confused. I would ask the Senator from Tennessee, you agreed a moment ago, if I understood you correctly, that if 60 Senators vote in favor of cloture, majority leader Harry Reid will be able to fund ObamaCare in its entirety.

Let me ask the counterpart. If 41 Republicans stood together and voted against cloture, because we said we do not support the amendment that Majority Leader Reid has filed to fund ObamaCare--when we told our constituents we opposed ObamaCare we meant it. So we are not going to be complicit in giving Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare.

Would majority leader Harry Reid be able to proceed and fund ObamaCare if 41 Republicans stood together against cloture?

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to ObamaCare. I rise today in an effort to speak for 26 million Texans and for 300 million Americans.

All across this country Americans are suffering because of ObamaCare. ObamaCare isn't working. Yet fundamentally there are politicians in this body who are not listening to the people. They are not listening to the concerns of their constituents, they are not listening to the jobs lost or the people forced into part-time work, to the people losing their health insurance, to the people who are struggling.

A great many Texans, a great many Americans feel they don't have a voice. I hope to play some very small part in helping provide that voice for them. I intend to speak in opposition to ObamaCare, I intend to speak in support of defunding ObamaCare, until I am no longer able to stand, to do everything I can to help Americans stand together and recognize this grand experiment 3\1/2\ years ago is, quite simply, not working.

I also say at the outset that I am particularly honored to be standing side by side with my friend and colleague Senator Mike Lee from Utah. Senator Lee has shown visionary leadership in standing and taking the mantle of leading the effort to defund ObamaCare and to challenge this train wreck of a law, and Senator Lee has been repaid at times with vilification from official Washington.

In my judgment there is no Senator in this body, Republican or Democrat, who is more principled, who is more dedicated, who is more fearless and willing to fight for the principles that make this Nation great than is Senator Mike Lee. It is a singular privilege to serve with him and to stand side by side with him and so many others in this body, and, even more importantly, so many millions of Americans all across this country.

There is a problem in Washington, and the problem is bigger than a continuing resolution. It is bigger than ObamaCare. It is even bigger than the budget. The most fundamental problem and the frustration is that the men and women in Washington aren't listening. If you talk to the man and woman on the street, that is the message you hear over and over again: Why don't they listen to me? Why don't they hear what we have to say? They aren't listening to the millions of people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, across the spectrum who say our elected officials get to Washington and they stop listening to the people.

We just had a 6-week recess during August where a substantial percentage of Members of Congress chose not to hold townhalls during the 6 weeks we had to be back in our home States, not even to give their constituents a chance to say their views, because it is very easy when those of us who are in elected office have been here for a long time to believe Washington knows better; to believe that all the solutions are found in Washington, DC, and the rest of the country is better--as they say of small children--seen but not heard.

We need millions of people to get an answer. Millions of people are asking for accountability, for responsibility, for truth from their elected officials, truth about how ObamaCare is failing the men and women of America. It is time, quite simply, to make DC listen. That is a point I intend to make over and over, because it is fundamentally what we are trying to do. We are trying to gather the American people to make DC listen.

The whole debate we are having is not over strategy. It is not about process. It is not about procedure. If you read the papers it looks like it is. If you read the papers it is all sorts of confusing cloture on the motions to the what-the, to the which-the. To anyone outside of DC, their eyes glaze over. Even to anyone in Washington, DC, their eyes glaze over.

This is also not about pollsters. It is not about pundits or consultants or those who are making money back and forth on the political process. They have always been with us, and I am confident they will remain with us for all time. The problem is DC is not listening. The problem is our elected leaders are not listening to their constituents.

Everyone in America understands ObamaCare is destroying jobs. It is driving up health care costs. It is killing health benefits. It is shattering the economy. All across the country in all 50 States--it doesn't matter what State you go to, you can go to any State in the Union, it doesn't matter if you are talking to Republicans or Democrats or Independents or Libertarians--Americans understand this thing is not working.

Yet Washington is pretending not to know. Washington is pretending to have no awareness. Instead we have politicians giving speeches about how wonderful ObamaCare is. At the same time they go to the President and ask for an exemption from ObamaCare for Members of Congress.

If ObamaCare is so wonderful, why is it that its loudest advocates don't want to be subject to it? I will confess that is a very difficult one to figure out.

DC is using a rigged process to keep ObamaCare funded, to keep this job-killing bill funded. What they want to do fundamentally is ignore the men and women of America and keep up with business as usual. People wonder why Congress has such low approval ratings. I remember when all 100 of us were in the historic Senate Chamber for a bipartisan meeting. Multiple Senators stood and expressed frustration with the low approval ratings that Congress has. It varies--sometimes, 10, 12, 14 percent-- but it is always abysmal.

Some suggested the reason was that we are not legislating enough. We just need to pass some more laws and the American people will be happy. I have to admit, that does not comport with just about anything I have ever heard in the State of Texas. That doesn't comport with anything I have ever heard from constituents. I am going to suggest the most fundamental reason Congress remains in the low teens in approval ratings is because Congress is not listening to the American people.

Every poll that has been done for years, when we ask the American people what is their top priority, the answer is consistently jobs and the economy--over and over, jobs and the economy. That is national. That is in your State, my State. That is in all 50 States. Jobs and the economy is the answer you get. It is also not partisan. You can ask Republicans, ask Democrats, you can ask Independents. They say we need jobs, we need economic growth back.

Yet I will tell you, Madam President--you and I have both served in this institution some 9 months, not very long, but in the time we have been here we have spent virtually zero time even talking about jobs and the economy. It doesn't make the agenda. It apparently is not important enough for this body's time. We spent 6 weeks talking about guns, talking about taking away law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment rights, and we spend virtually no time talking about fundamental tax reform, about regulatory reform, about getting the economy going. And politicians wonder why it is that Congress is held in such low esteem. This is unfortunately a bipartisan issue, on both sides.

We need to do a better job of listening to the people. If the top priority of the American people is jobs and the economy, I am going to suggest the top priority of Congress should be jobs and the economy.

Madam President, you and I should both be scratching our heads, trying to think about a time when we weren't talking about jobs and the economy because, I tell you, we certainly have not gotten it taken care of yet. The American people are frustrated because their elected officials do not listen.

When we are home on the campaign trail, we say we listen. Yet something about this Senate floor, something about Washington, DC--I don't know if it is the water, something in the air, the cherry blossoms, but people get here and they stop listening to the American people.

As I traveled throughout the State of Texas--I spent the month of August and the beginning of September traveling virtually every day on the road throughout Texas and across the country listening, hearing the stories. The American people are hurting. This is a difficult time. The very rich, they are doing fine. In fact, they are doing better under President Obama than they were before. But hard-working American families are struggling and their life has become harder and harder and harder.

ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this country. The American people want to stop this madness, and so do I. In Washington, we pass million-dollar bills, billion-dollar bills no one has ever read, often without even voting on them. We call it unanimous consent. It is only unanimous because they don't let anyone know.

In Washington, we spend $2 trillion more than last year and then tell voters we saved money. The system is deliberately designed to hide what we are actually doing.

In this debate right now over ObamaCare and the continuing resolution, voting to pass bills is called procedure, as if it doesn't matter. We pretend it doesn't matter. It does matter. Our leaders right now demand approval for bills before they are amended: Everyone come to the floor, vote for the bill. Then we will amend it to make it say the opposite of what it says right now, but you have already voted so don't worry about it. We are told to agree to the bills without even knowing what the final product will be and that is what is happening right now. Our leaders in both parties are asking us to support a bill, to cut off debate on a bill without even knowing what is in it.

It is as the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once observed: Pass it to find out what is in it. That is how Washington does business.

Let me tell you how this is likely to unfold. Senate majority leader Harry

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

The central vote the Senate will take on this fight will not occur today and it will not occur tomorrow. The first vote we are going to take on this is a vote on what is called cloture on the motion to proceed. Very few people not on this floor have any idea what that means and even, I suspect, a fair number of people on this floor are not quite sure what that means. That will simply be a vote whether to take up this bill and to begin debating this bill. I expect that vote to pass overwhelmingly, if not unanimously. Everyone agrees we ought to take this up, we ought to start this conversation.

The next vote we take will occur on Friday or Saturday and it will be on what is called cloture on the bill. That is the vote that matters. Cloture on the bill, the vote Friday or Saturday, is the vote that matters.

Why is that? Because that vote is subject to a 60-vote threshold. If Republicans vote with Democrats, then this body will cut off debate on the bill. Cloture is simply cutting off debate. It is saying we are not going to talk about it anymore, we are silencing the voice of the Senate, we are silencing the voice of the people, and we are cutting off debate.

Why does that matter? Because once cloture is invoked, the rules of the Senate allow the majority leader to introduce the amendment to fund ObamaCare and then to have it pass with just 51 votes, not 60--51. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, there are more than 51 Democrats in this body. Postcloture, after this body has voted to cut off debate, the Democrats can vote on a straight party-line vote to fund ObamaCare. Madam President, I am going to let you in on a dirty little secret. When that happens, every Republican, if we get to that point, will vote against it and every Republican will then go home to his or her State and say: Look, I voted against ObamaCare.

That is actually the preferred outcome, to have a vote but yet to have the result be business as usual continue in Washington. It is a little bit akin to the World Wrestling Federation, wrestling matches where it is all rigged. The outcome is predetermined. They know in advance who is going to win and lose and it is all for show. There are some Members of this body, if we could have 100 show votes, saying here is what we are for, but mind you, none of them are actually going to change the law, none of them are actually going to occur, none of them are going to make one iota of difference to the American people because they will never become law, but we will get to vote over and over again in proving how committed we are to principle A, B, C, D or E, that curiously would make a significant number of Senators happy.

Our constituents deserve more--no more fake fights, no more hiding our votes, no more games, no more trying to fool the American people. We need to make DC listen--make DC listen. I want to stand and fight for the more than 1.6 million Americans who signed a national petition against ObamaCare and to the millions more who did not because they were told by a politician it is not possible--don't even try to fight because it is not possible.

I am reminded of a children's story. My wife Heidi and I are blessed to have two little girls, Caroline and Catherine, ages 5 and 2, and one of their favorite children's stories, actually from when I was a kid, is ``The Little Engine That Could''--the train going up that said over and over again, ``I think I can. I think I can.''

I have to say, if we listen to a lot of Members of this body, the message would be simple. That little engine can't. What they say to that train when it starts at the bottom of the hill is, no, you can't.

I think I can. I think I can.

No, you can't. No, you can't. We can't win. You can't stop ObamaCare. It cannot be done. It is impossible. There is nothing we can do.

Are millions of Americans out of work? Yes. Are millions of Americans struggling? Yes. Are millions of Americans seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket? Yes. Are millions of Americans at risk of losing their health insurance because of ObamaCare? Yes.

But Washington tells our constituents: No, no, never mind. It can't be done. It cannot be done. It is impossible. The rules of Washington say this cannot be done.

And we wonder why this body has such low approval among the people. When we go out and tell the American people it cannot be done, there is nothing that can be done to stop ObamaCare, what we are saying is we are not willing to do it. We are not willing to stand and fight.

We are willing to give speeches. Oh, yes, if we want to have a speech contest, we can line up and fall over backward who can give the best speech against ObamaCare. But when it comes to actually standing and fighting, when it comes to actually having the opportunity to listen to the American people, an awful lot of Members of this body, at least so far, have not shown up to battle.

There are a lot of folks in the Washington establishment who do not want to hear from us. The chattering class is quick to discipline anyone who refuses to blindly fall in line. That is the way Washington plays. There are rules. We are not supposed to speak for the people. There is a way things are done in Washington and make no mistake, DC depends upon Americans not paying attention.

They know most Americans are quite reasonably working too hard to provide for their family. They are too busy spending time with their friends and family. They are too busy working to try to make sure their family is provided for. They are going to church. They are dealing with the day-to-day burdens of life. You know what they have learned? The American people have learned when we get involved, even then it seems as though Washington politicians rarely listen.

I believe that can change. I am standing here today to salute, to celebrate the American democratic system. I am standing here today to suggest that if Senators listen to their constituents, if we listen to the American people, the vote would be 100 to 0 to defund ObamaCare. Even those Senators who voted for it who might have believed it would work. Many of us would have disagreed. Had I been here, not surprisingly, I would have voted against ObamaCare 3\1/2\ years ago. A number of Members in this body voted in favor of it. Regardless of how Members voted 3\1/2\ years ago, one of the great virtues of life is learning, looking at the evidence, looking at the facts, and seeing when something is not working.

Look at the labor unions. Three-and-a-half years ago the labor unions were enthusiastically supporting ObamaCare. Why? Because they heard the promises. They heard it was going to work, and that it would be a bonanza for all. They believed the promises, and that is understandable. Yet one of the things we have seen this year is one labor union after another after another saying: Whoa. This thing isn't working. This thing is hurting us. This thing is hurting our Members.

(Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)

By the way, the people whom it is hurting are hard-working men and women and hard-working American families. They are the ones getting hammered.

James Huff, the president of the Teamsters, has said ObamaCare is destroying the 40-hour workweek. It is destroying the backbone of the American middle class. That is not me saying that, that is not any politician from Washington saying that, that is the Teamsters.

We should submit the question to the American people: Do the American people want to destroy the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class? That is not a close question. People talk about how we are a 50-50 Nation and how there is a tight partisan divide. I don't believe it. I think on questions such as that there is an overwhelming majority of Americans who say of course we should not destroy the 40-hour workweek. Of course we shouldn't break the backbone of the American middle class.

If more politicians listened to the people, we would respond and avert this train wreck. Yet the politicians of Washington tell us: Don't worry about it. ObamaCare is going to be peachy keen. The Senate is too busy to do anything to avert this train wreck.

Mind you, the Senate is not too busy to exempt ourselves from it. We know enough to say: We don't want to be a part of this thing. The American people know it can't be done. Nothing can be done. We need to accept it.

Americans have never been people who accept failure. Americans have never been people who accept impossibility. If we look to a ragtag bunch of colonists in the 18th century, the idea that we would stand up to Great Britain, the British Army--the most mighty military force on the face of the planet--was impossible. It can't be done. I guarantee that all of the pundits we see going on TV and intoning in deep baritone voices: This cannot be done--if we were back in the 18th century, they would be writing messages in dark ink and sending it by carrier pigeon, saying: This cannot be done. You can't stand up to the British Army. It can't be done. It is impossible. Accept your subjugation. Accept your taxation without representation. Accept that this is impossible.

If we fast forward to the Civil War--a time of enormous pain, anguish, and bloodshed in the United States--there were a lot of voices then who said the Union cannot be saved. It cannot be done. Accept defeat. I suspect those same pundits, had they been around in the mid- 19th century, would have written the same columns: This cannot be done.

If we go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany--look, we saw it in Britain. Neville Chamberlain told the British people: Accept the Nazis. Yes, they will dominate the continent of Europe, but that is not our problem. Let's appease them. Why? Because it can't be done. We cannot possibly stand against them.

In America there were voices who listened to that; I suspect the same pundits who said it couldn't be done. If this had happened in the 1940s, we would have been listening to them. Even then they would have made television. They would have gotten beyond the carrier pigeons and letters and they would have been on TV saying: You cannot defeat the Germans.

If we go to the late 1960s when a President, John F. Kennedy, told this country: We are going to send a man to the Moon--when John F. Kennedy told this country we are going to send a man to the Moon, there were a lot of people who said: It cannot be done. It is impossible. It cannot be done. Yet John F. Kennedy had the vision to say Americans can do things--whatever we set our minds to.

If we go to the late 1970s and 1980s, we were in the midst of the Cold War. I remember growing up in the Cold War. I remember being told the Soviet Union cannot be defeated. It cannot be done. We have to accept malaise. We have to accept second-class citizenship. They have a lot of weapons. We cannot possibly stand up to the Soviet Union.

There was a President--a President whom I admired deeply, President Ronald Reagan--who had the temerity to say: What is your strategy on the Cold War? Answer: We win, they lose.

At the time those same Washington founts of wisdom said: It can't be done. No, no, no, we can't win. Winning is a two-dimensional strategy. We need to be much more nuanced than that. We need to push for detente, whatever that means. We need to push for something short of actually winning.

So we get to ObamaCare, and what do all of those voices say? It cannot be stopped. It can't be done. We cannot defund it. By any measure ObamaCare is a far less intimidating foe than those I have discussed, with the possible exception of the Moon. The Moon might be as intimidating as ObamaCare. Yet those same voices of Washington give the same message that they have said over and over and over again, which is the opposite of the message of the little engine that could: No, you can't. It can't be done. No, we can't.

What should we have instead of you know what? We hear echoes from the past battles. We ought to have a vote where we can go to our constituents and say: By golly, we really, really, really dislike ObamaCare. Can we add a couple of more reallys? I want to make it clear that it is really, really, really.

We wonder why our constituents look at us and say: What on Earth are you doing? Do you actually care that we are losing our jobs? Do you actually care that we can't find a job? Do you care that our small businesses are not growing? Do you care that health insurance premiums for people who are struggling are skyrocketing? Do you care that more and more Americans are losing their health insurance?

We don't need fake fights. We don't need fake votes. We need real change. We need a better economy. We need more jobs. We need more freedom. And what is critical in doing that is stopping ObamaCare because Americans should not have to worry about what Washington is doing to them, what Washington is doing to make their life harder, what Washington is doing to take away their job, what Washington is doing to drive up their health insurance premiums, what Washington is doing to jeopardize the health insurance they have now.

I cannot tell the Presiding Officer how many times across the State of Texas I have had men and women come up to me--some with disabilities and some in wheelchairs--and say: Please, stop this bill. Stop ObamaCare because I don't want to lose my health insurance. It is jeopardizing the health insurance coverage I have now.

We all remember when President Obama told the American people: If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Now at the time that sounded good. Any of us who liked our health insurance wanted to keep it. We liked that promise. That is the kind of promise we like from our candidates and our officeholders.

Yet as I mentioned earlier, one of the great faculties of higher reason is the ability to learn--the ability to learn from evidence and facts. We have learned that promise did not, in fact, meet reality because the reality is millions of Americans are at risk of losing their health insurance.

A few weeks ago UPS sent a letter to 15,000 employees and it said: We are terminating spousal health insurance because of ObamaCare. Their husbands and wives were told: Sorry, your health insurance is gone. Remember, the promise was: If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. For those 15,000 UPS employees--for their husbands and wives-- that promise has been disproved by reality. This body would step up and stop ObamaCare if we did just one thing: if we listened to our constituents. So together that is what we have to do: Make DC listen.

A lot of folks in Washington are angry we are even having this fight. A lot of folks in Washington are angry--it is fascinating how many politicians in Washington think this isn't even worth our time. I will point out, as is usually the case--almost always the case--the Senate floor is largely empty. Everyone's schedules are apparently busy enough that standing and coming together to stop ObamaCare doesn't make it onto the priority list. We ought to have all 100 Senators on this floor around the clock until we come together and stop ObamaCare. If they talked to their constituents, that is what they would like. If they would talk to their constituents, their constituents would say: What possibly do you have to do that is more important than getting the economy moving again and bringing back jobs? What possibly do you have to do that is more important than stopping me from losing my health insurance or stopping me from losing my health care? That is what I hear from my constituents over and over again. I am confident the Presiding Officer hears it from his constituents. Every one of us hears it from our constituents because that is what Americans are saying in all 50 States. We should not have to worry about what the next rule, the next regulation, or the next tax is that is going to be handed down from the DC ruling class.

ObamaCare alone has produced over 20,000 pages of regulation. I am confident the Presiding Officer has not read 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations. I can tell the Presiding Officer I have not read 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations. I would wager all the money in my bank account there is no Member in this body who has read 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulation.

Yet what is Washington telling small businesses all across the country? You

are bound by 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulation, and more and more is coming. There is another 3,000 pages added every 6 months. So it is going to keep coming and coming and coming.

I remember doing a tele-townhall several months ago, and a woman who owns a small business asked: How do I comply with all of these regulations? How do I comply with the burdens of ObamaCare? It was quite striking. She said: I don't even know where to start. I will confess that I felt embarrassed because I said: Ma'am, I don't know how to tell you that.

The complexity is so much that it is causing more and more small businesses to stay small--avoid ObamaCare altogether. They can't decipher the rules and regulations so they don't. If they have under 50 employees, they can get out from under it.

I cannot tell you how many small businesses are not hiring right now. If they have 30 or 40 employees, they are not subject to ObamaCare, but if they get the fiftieth employee, that fiftieth employee better be one heck of an employee, because the instant he or she shows up on the payroll, boom, the entire business is subject to 20,000 pages of regulations and crushing costs.

To the men and women at home today who are out of a job, I point out to you that if it were not for ObamaCare, every small business that has an opportunity to expand right now and is not expanding because of ObamaCare--that is a job you are not able to get.

Do you want to know why the job economy is so bad, why there are so few jobs, why we have the lowest workforce participation in decades in the United States? Small businesses generate two-thirds of all new jobs in the economy, and small businesses have been hammered under ObamaCare unlike ever before.

If we listened to our constituents, we would step forward and act to avert this train wreck. The only way that will happen is if the American people demand it, if together we make DC listen. That is what this fight is about. It is about ensuring that the American people have a voice, ensuring that those who are struggling, those who are without a job, those who are afraid of losing their health insurance--that Washington listens to them, that Washington acts on their needs.

Anyone who wants to know why this body is held in low esteem only has to look out to the empty chairs. If you are out of a job, wondering what the Senate is doing to get our economy moving, to help small businesses create new jobs so you can go to work and provide for your family, the answer is displayed right in front of you.

If you are concerned about the health care for yourself, for your family, if you are seeing more and more people losing their health insurance and you are saying: ``What about my family? What if I lose my health insurance because of ObamaCare?'' and you ask what the Senate is doing to listen to you, the answer, right now, is an empty Chamber.

Our system was based on a profound notion: that sovereignty resides with the American people, that every one of us--sometimes people in the Senate behave as if they have no bosses, as if they are autonomous rulers. And Washington is a little bit of a town that treats the people in Washington--they behave like kings and queens of their own fiefdoms. Yet every one of us has a whole lot of bosses. In my instance, I have 26 million bosses back home in Texas. Who are the 26 million Texans whom I work to represent? Those who supported me and those who did not. It is my job to represent every one of them, to fight for every one of them. The most fundamental problem, bigger than ObamaCare, is the problem that Washington has stopped listening to the American people.

It is quite striking that in discussions about ObamaCare among elected officials, we hear more complaints about ``I don't like all the phone calls I am getting from my constituents'' than we do about ObamaCare. It is apparently an imposition on some Members of this body for their constituents to pick up the phone and express their views. It is viewed as somehow illegitimate. How dare they? Apparently, standing on those steps and taking the oath of office invests 100 people with somehow greater wisdom, greater insight, more brain cells. Our constituents--there is a tendency in this town, particularly as time goes on, to view our constituents as an annoyance.

Today--just today--I have heard multiple Senators complaining: too many phone calls from my constituents. What a remarkable complaint. What a remarkable complaint.

Mr. President, you and I have both worked in the private sector. In the private sector, if your boss picked up the phone and called, I suspect neither you nor I sat at our computer playing Solitaire when our boss picked up the phone and called. Neither one of us said: Boss, I am too busy. Boss, I don't want to listen. You may have some priorities for the business but not me. I know better than you.

None of us did that. Because in the private sector, there is a quick and immediate response. If you tell your boss in the private sector: Hey, boss, my time is too important for you; I don't care about your priorities; I am not going to listen to you, I suspect that will be your last day at that place of employment.

Why is Washington broken? Because you have 100 people, a significant number of whom, on a daily basis, tell their boss, tell their constituents: I am too busy for you.

Don't even bother to call my office because it just ties up my staff. It is annoying. I know better than you do. I know the priorities better than you do.

What a broken system. What a broken system. We work for the people. Why are the people unhappy with Washington? Why are they disgusted with Washington? Because Washington is not listening to them. There is a game instead that is focused on maintaining the status quo. Staying in office--that is what is important because it is apparently very important to be invited to all the right cocktail parties in town. I will confess, I do not go to a whole lot of cocktail parties in town. I am pretty sure you do not either. But there are Members of this body for whom that is very important.

At the end of the day, we do not work for those holding cocktail parties in Washington, DC. We do not work for the intelligentsia in the big cities who write newspaper editorials. We work for the American people. We work for single moms. We work for young people. We work for seniors who are struggling. We work for Hispanics, for African Americans. We work for every American who believes in the American dream.

This body is not listening to the people. Indeed, the very fact that over 1.6 million Americans have signed a petition, have picked up the phone, have been calling offices in this great Chamber is viewed as an inappropriate imposition. What an indictment of this body that we think it is somehow illegitimate that the American people would ask us not to focus on irrelevant priorities. It is not like the American people are calling, saying focus on some parochial issue. By the way, phone calls are not coming from our districts saying: Senator, please take more of the American people's tax money and send it back to our district. We would like some more pork.

Those are not the calls. Those are not the calls we are getting. The calls are from people who are saying: Listen, jobs and the economy is my No. 1 priority. Why isn't it Congress's? Jobs and the economy matter. Why? Because if you are working, if you are working in a good job, you are providing for your family. It makes it easier for families to stay together. Moms and dads--it makes it easier for them to raise their kids, raise them with good values. It makes it easier for them to provide a good education for their kids.

When you have one job, it lets you begin to climb the economic ladder to a better job and a better job and a better job. That is the American spirit. Yet we have tens of millions of people in this country out of work. Every month we get the reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that say even more people have given up looking for work.

The odd way our unemployment statistics work, that makes the number the newspapers report go down. Because when a few hundred thousand people say: All right, I give up, it is so hopeless, I will never find a job, that, curiously, results in the unemployment number going down because the number that gets reported in the papers is a measure of a percentage of how many

of the people looking for work are unable to find it.

I am going to suggest that people giving up is even worse. What a sad testament, given the American spirit, the American spirit that we can do anything we set our minds to, that anyone--the great blessings of this Nation have been fundamentally that it does not matter who you are, it does not matter who your daddy was, it does not matter whether you were born into great wealth and privilege and advantage or whether you were born into humble means, anyone in this country can achieve anything based on hard work, perseverance, and based on the content of your character. What a tremendous, unique blessing that is in the United States of America. The reason this ObamaCare fight matters so much is that is imperiled right now. In order for anyone with nothing to achieve anything, they have to be able to get a job to start. They have to get on to the first rung of the economic ladder to have a chance of getting to the second or the third or the fourth or the fifth.

Just a week ago the Wall Street Journal had a long article about the ``lost generation,'' about young people coming out of school in the last few years who have not gotten their first job or who have gotten a part-time job. Because of ObamaCare, their employer does not want to hire them for 40 hours a week, so they get hired for 29 hours a week.

Think about young people. If they do not get that first job, they are not going to get the second, they are not going to get the third. The impact for young people right now that ObamaCare is having is absolutely devastating. What this Wall Street Journal article was saying is that the economic data shows that impact will be with them their entire lives; that when they start off their career not gaining skills, not working, not climbing the economic ladder, that delay will stick with them forever.

What a travesty. Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage? Where are the Senators standing here saying: What a travesty that young people are being denied a fair shot at the American dream because of what we have wrought because of ObamaCare. That should unite all of us. If we were listening to the American people, that would be where our attention would lie.

Fundamentally, what this week is about is that we need to make DC listen, make them listen to the single mom working at a diner, struggling to feed her kids, who has just been told she is being reduced to 29 hours a week. Who is speaking for that single mom right now? Who is talking about how ObamaCare is forcing more and more people into part-time employment? And, by the way, she does not get health insurance. Instead, forced into 29 hours a week, what does that single mom do? She gets a second job. So now she is working two jobs, with 29 hours a week for both of them. Now she is away from her kids even more. She does not have health insurance at either job now. But she has to travel from one to the other. She has to deal with two conflicting schedules because one job wants her to work Tuesday, and the other job wants her to work at that same time on Tuesday. She has to go to both of her bosses. Both of them say: You need to be there Tuesday afternoon. Who is speaking for that single mom right now?

On Friday or Saturday of this week we will vote on cloture. Anyone who votes yes for cloture, anyone who votes to cut off debate on this bill, is voting to allow Senate majority leader Harry Reid to fully fund ObamaCare. That is a vote that I think is a profound mistake. It is a vote that I hope all 46 Republicans will stand united against. It is a vote that, in time, I hope more than a few Democrats will stand against.

To fix the problems in this country, this does not have to be a partisan issue. Many of the President's most vocal supporters have started coming out against ObamaCare. Why? Because the facts show it is not working, because if you get beyond the team mentality in Washington, if you get beyond the partisan focus in Washington and you ask, is this thing good for the American people, it is very hard on the merits to make the case that it is.

It is very hard. It is quite interesting that in the course of this debate there have been more than a few newspaper articles, more than a few attacks from our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and also from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle.

I told my wife that I now pick up the newspaper each day to learn just what a scoundrel I am and just what attacks have come, some on the record and some--actually the ones that are often even better are the anonymous ones. I have to say there is no courage like the courage in Washington of the anonymous congressional staffers. I have chuckled at more than a few of them. You know, it says something when Members of this body, the congressional staffers, and members of the media want to make this about personalities. They want to make this about a battle of this Senator versus that Senator, this person versus that person, so it is all personal. It is like reading the Hollywood gossip pages. That is how this issue is covered. It is not by accident because one of the ways Washington has discovered for not listening to the people is distraction. Distract the voters with smoke and mirrors.

This fight is not about any Member of this body. This fight is not about personality. Look, most Americans could not give a flying flip about a bunch of politicians in Washington. Who cares? You know, almost all of us are in cheap suits and have bad haircuts. Who cares? What the American people care about is their own lives. What the American people care about is giving their kids a better future. What the American people care about is having a job with a future, not a job where they are working 29 hours a week, where they are punching a clock, where they feel as though they are just going through the motions, but a job where they say: Hey, I have a career. I can see the next step. I can see the future for my family. That is what the American people care about.

So regardless of the rocks that will be thrown--and they will continue to be thrown--I have no intention of engaging in that game, no intention of speaking ill of any Senator, Republican or Democratic, because it is not about us. Anyone who is trying to make this a battle of personalities is trying to change the topic from the topic that should matter: whether ObamaCare is helping the American people.

If we focus on the substance, the evidence is overwhelming. This law is a train wreck. Every day the headlines come in: more jobs lost, more people losing their health insurance, more premiums going up, more people pushed into part-time work. Yet every day the Senate goes about its business and says: We are too busy to listen to the American people.

There are different games, to be sure, that go on on both sides of the aisle. Many of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle right now endeavor to convince the American people: Pay no attention to your lying eyes; ObamaCare really is terrific. That is not going terribly well. But on the Republican side of the aisle, there is a lot of energy and attention focused on saying: Well, yes, ObamaCare is terrible, but under no circumstances could we ever do anything about it. That is beyond us. We are destined to lose. So what we are interested in on the Republican side of the aisle is let's cast a show vote--2, 3, 10--as many votes as possible to say: ObamaCare is really bad. We cannot fix it.

You know, that problem--it crosses that middle line. Whether you are telling your constituents it is really working out well despite the objective facts to the contrary or whether you are telling your constituents: I agree, it is a terrible thing, but I cannot do anything to fix it, in both cases you are not listening to the people. That is something we need to correct. All of us, all 100 of us--we need to listen to the people. Together, we need to make DC listen. If we do not, the frustration will grow. If we do not, the disillusion with Washington will grow. If we do not, the approval rating of Congress will keep going down, keep going down, keep going down. The only way to fix this problem is to demonstrate that we understand--we understand the fact that we are not driven by partisan ideology; that we are driven by doing our jobs and listening to the American people.

It is my fervent hope that over the course of this week, over the course of this debate, that all 46 Senators on the Republican side will unite and that

more and more Democrats will come together and say: Listen, we have an obligation to our constituents. That is an obligation we are going to honor.

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

I thank my friend from Utah for that very good question. The answer is absolutely yes. That is the foundation of our Nation. If you look at the history of government in the world, it hasn't been pretty. The history of government for most of the existence of mankind has been a story of oppression, a story of rulers imposing their will on their subjects. For millennia, we were told that rights come from government. They come from kings and queens, and they are to be given to the people by grace, to be taken away by the whim of the ruler. That has been the state of affairs for most of the history of humanity.

The founding of our Nation embodied many revolutions.

The first revolution was a revolution that was a bloody revolution fought with guns and bayonets. But even more important than that revolution was the revolution of ideas that occurred. The revolution of ideas that began this Nation was twofold.

First, America began from the presupposition that our rights come from God. It is for that reason the Declaration Of Independence begins: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'' that we are endowed--not by a king, not by a queen, not even by a President--but ``endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''

That is and was a revolutionary idea, and it led to the second revolutionary aspect of the founding of our Nation which was that we inverted the concept of sovereignty. For millennia sovereignty began at the top. It was the ruler who was called the sovereign. The word sovereignty derives from that notion. Of course, the sovereign is where sovereignty resides.

The American Framers turned that notion on its head. We said: There is no sovereign. Sovereignty resides with we the people. That is why our Constitution begins ``We the People,'' because this Nation wasn't founded by rulers, it wasn't founded by elected officials, it wasn't even founded by States. It was founded by we the people, the American people. That is the only place sovereignty has ever resided in the United States of America.

The Constitution, in turn, was created to lend power to government, not to give it, to lend it and to lend it, I would suggest, only in good behavior. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as chains that bind the mischief of government, that sovereignty is an idea we need to get back to.

I am going to suggest that for some time now the Senate has not behaved as if we the people are sovereign. For some time the Senate has not behaved as if each of us collectively has 3 million bosses. For a long time the Senate has behaved as if the rules that matter are the rules in Washington, DC. That is why the most important objective of this week is to make DC listen. The most important objective of this week is to reassert that sovereignty is with we the people, that calls from our constituents and townhalls are not a pesky annoyance. It is the core of our job. It is the core of our job to listen to the sovereign, which is we the people.

Right now we the people are hurting. If you get outside Washington, DC, you ask them about ObamaCare over and over, and the answer you get is: This thing isn't working.

A few weeks ago I hosted a small business roundtable in Kerrville, TX. Kerrville is a delightful town in central Texas. It is in the beautiful hill country. If anyone wants to come to Texas, I would encourage you. Kerrville is a great destination in Texas.

This was a small gathering in a restaurant, about 20 small business owners. I asked each of them and I said: Let's go around the room. If each of you could introduce yourself, share a little bit about yourself, and then share a concern that is weighing on your heart. Share something you are praying about, share something you are worried about, share something you are focused on right now.

It was a totally open-ended question. They could have talked about any issue under the Sun. They could have talked about Syria, guns, they could have talked about anything.

We went around the table one after the other after the other. Over half of the small business owners around that table said to me: Ted, the single biggest obstacle I face in my business is ObamaCare. Hands down, not even close, there is nothing that comes close.

It was striking. Of those 20, there were probably 4 or 5 of them who relayed some version of this same story. One was the fellow who owned the restaurant we were meeting in. He said: You know, we have a great opportunity to expand our business. I have an opportunity to make the restaurant even bigger, expand it, and from a business perspective, this opportunity looks good. But he said: You know, we have got between 20 and 30 employees. If we expand the business we will go over 50. And if we go over 50, we are subject to ObamaCare. If that happens, I will go out of business. So you know what. I am not pursuing the expansion. I am not going to do it. We are going to stay the size we are.

One person after another around the table said the same thing. They had 30 employees, 35, 40 employees. They had great opportunities to go open another location, expand into a new aspect. One after the other said: We will not do it, because if we get over 50 employees, ObamaCare will bankrupt us.

I want you to think about each of those 4 or 5 businesses and the 10 or 20 jobs that each of them didn't create, isn't creating right now because of ObamaCare. Then I want you to multiply that by thousands or tens of thousands of small businesses all across this country that could be creating jobs. I want you to think about all the people right now who are home wanting to work.

There are, by the way, I will note, some politicians who suggest that some people in this country are lazy and don't want to work. I don't believe that. I think Americans want to work. Americans want the self- respect that comes from going to the office, from working, from providing for your family, from working to achieve the American dream.

Do some people give up? Sure. Can you give in to hopelessness? Yes. When

you keep banging your head against a wall over and over again, trying to get a job, and you don't get anywhere, it is only natural for people to feel despair. I want you to think of the millions of jobs we could have but for small businesses that are not growing, not expanding, not creating those jobs.

Another small business owner around that table owned several fast food restaurants. She had a problem. She owned enough fast food restaurants that she had over 50 employees. I will mention the restaurant business and the fast food business side in particular is quite labor dependent. I doubt if there is a sector in this economy that has been hurt more than the labor in the fast food business. But her problem was she had enough stores so she was over 50 employees, so that strategy wouldn't work for her. She described how she has already forcibly reduced the hours of every one of her employees to 29 hours per week.

I will tell you this woman almost began to tear up. She was emotional. She was not happy about this, to put it mildly. She said: Listen, we have been in business a long time. Many of these employees we have known 10 or 20 years. These are single moms. These are people-- look, if you are working in a fast food restaurant you are not at the pinnacle of your career. You are struggling to pay the bills. These are single moms who are working hard and they can't feed their kids on 29 hours a week. But, you know, they can't feed their kids if I go out of business either. If we are subject to ObamaCare, we go out of business.

Why 29 hours a week? Well, just like the 50-employee threshold, ObamaCare kicks in and counts an employee if he or she works 30 hours a week. One of the things that is forcing small businesses all over the country to do is to force their employees out of good full-time jobs into 29 hours a week because they don't get hammered with the costs and burdens of ObamaCare.

I will mention another small business owner who I think will particularly hit home with the Presiding Officer because I know the issues that resonate with him. This is an individual who manufactures hunting blinds--actually very interesting. They are hunting blinds that are camouflaged to look like trees. They are really very clever creations. He described how he has been forced to move his manufacturing overseas, to move it to China. So right now he is manufacturing in China.

He said: Listen, I want to manufacture here in the United States. That matters to me. I care about that.

He said this would be 150 to 200 good manufacturing jobs here in the United States.

The Presiding Officer and I both come from States where there are a lot of people who are struggling and who would love to see 200 more manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing used to be a tremendous strength of our economy, but the manufacturing sector has been hammered in recent decades. Yet this small business owner said that because of ObamaCare, if he brought his manufacturing back to the United States, his workers would all be subject to ObamaCare and he couldn't be competitive in the business. It would drive him out of business.

I would ask my colleagues to consider each of those small business owners and multiply it by the millions of small business owners across this country--the millions of small business owners who aren't growing, the millions of small business owners who are forcibly reducing their employees' hours to 29 hours a week, the millions of small business owners who are considering moving operations overseas or have already because of ObamaCare. Why is the economy gasping for breath? Why are people not able to get jobs? Because ObamaCare is killing jobs, and the Senate should listen to the people. We need to make DC listen.

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

I thank the Senator for his question, and he is absolutely right. There are many scandalous aspects of ObamaCare: how it was passed--on a brutal partisan vote rammed through with late-night deals that have earned rather infamous nicknames, such as the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' which has sadly become part of modern political lore; and the ``Louisiana purchase,'' with all due respect to my friend from the great State of Louisiana, who was not involved in that. And one of the most sorry aspects of ObamaCare is the aspect Senator Vitter refers to, which is that President Obama has chosen, at the behest of majority leader Harry Reid, at the behest of Democratic Members of the Senate, to exempt Members of Congress and their staff from the plain language of the statute.

When ObamaCare was being passed, Senator Chuck Grassley--a towering giant in this body; a strong, principled conservative--introduced a commonsense provision to ObamaCare that said: If you are going to force ObamaCare on the American people, if you are going to create these health insurance exchanges and you are going to force millions of people into these exchanges, then Congress should not operate by better rules than the American people. So he introduced a simple amendment designed to treat Members of Congress just like the American people so that we didn't have this two-class system.

It has been reported--I was not serving in this body at the time-- that amendment was voted on and accepted because Democratic Senators believed the bill would go to conference and in the conference committee they could strip it out and it would magically disappear. But then, because of the procedural games it took to pass it, they didn't have the opportunity to do that, and suddenly, horror of all horrors, this bill saying Congress should be bound by the same rules as the American people became the law of the land.

So what happened? Majority leader Harry Reid and Democratic Senators had a closed-door meeting with the President here in the Capitol where they said, according to public news reports: Let us out of ObamaCare. We don't want to be in these exchanges.

One would assume they are reading the same news reports the rest of us are reading--that ObamaCare is a train wreck, that it is not working--and the last thing Members of Congress wanted to do was to have their health care jeopardized. And the President directed his administration to exempt Members of Congress and their staff, ignoring the language of the statute, disregarding the language of the statute and saying: You guys are friends of the administration. We are taking care of you.

I want to take a minute, in response to this question, to commend the Senator from Louisiana. Senator Vitter introduced an amendment to reverse this exemption, and it was a bold amendment. It was an amendment that said we as Members of Congress should be subject to the same rules as the American people. We shouldn't be treated by special or different rules for us. Indeed, the amendment of Senator Vitter said Members of Congress should be subject to ObamaCare, our staff should be subject to ObamaCare, and members of the administration--the political appointees of the Obama administration, who, by the way, are not in the exchanges--should be too. So if the President and Cabinet appointees and his political officials want to go into communities and tell everyone how wonderful ObamaCare is, then let them do so from personal experience. Let them do so not being exempted but subject to the same exchanges and subject to the same rules the American people are.

The reason I wish to commend the Senator from Louisiana is his introducing that amendment prompted a response that, I will suggest, brought disgrace and disrepute on this body. It prompted a political response that targeted the Senator from Louisiana personally.

Now, we have all heard the saying ``politics ain't beanbag,'' but the nastiness with which the Democratic majority responded to Senator Vitter for daring to say that the Washington ruling class should be subject to the same rules as the rest of America was extraordinary even for Washington, DC.

In fact, I would note that the majority leader and the junior Senator from California, as I understand from public news reports, proposed a response to the Vitter amendment that said any Senator who votes for the Vitter amendment--regardless of whether it passes but simply if you cast a vote in favor of it--he or she will lose their health insurance.

I have to admit that when I first heard of this proposed amendment, I shook my head in amazement. I had never heard of such a thing, and I suggested to a friend who is a law professor that that would make a marvelous law school final exam. Imagine this amendment being passed into law and asking your law students to catalog all of the myriad ways in which such a proposal would be unconstitutional. In fact, I made this point to the law professor I was talking to. I said: If you as a private citizen came to any Member of the Senate and said: Senator, if you vote the way I want you to, I am going to pay you thousands of dollars that you can deposit into your personal bank account, you, Mr. Law Professor, Mr. Private Citizen, would promptly and quite rightly be prosecuted for bribery. It is a criminal offense. It is a felony.

If, on the other hand, you or any other American citizen went to a U.S. Senator--went to Senator Vitter--and said: Senator Vitter, if you don't vote the way I want, I am going to take thousands of dollars out of your personal bank account, I am going to extract them forcibly from your personal bank account, well, as I told the law professor, then you would be guilty of extortion and would be charged and no doubt criminally convicted because under the black letter definition, that conduct--threatening to pay someone individually thousands of dollars or take thousands of dollars away from them as a direct quid pro quo for how a Member of Congress votes--constitutes either bribery or extortion.

Now, let me be clear: No Member of this body is guilty of bribery or extortion. Why? The simplest reason is because the Constitution's speech and debate clause protects all of us, such that given their action was proposing an amendment themselves, there is a constitutional immunity. So I am not suggesting that anyone is guilty of bribery or extortion. But I am saying that if any private citizen who didn't happen to be a Member of the Senate did the exact same thing as the suggested content of their amendment, he or she would have committed a felony under the plain text of those definitions.

So I want to commend Senator Vitter for shining a light on basic fairness, for enduring the vilification that was unfairly directed his way, and for making the point that outside of Washington is simple common sense.

I would suggest that if any of us were to get a gathering of our constituents together, if we were to get a gathering of constituents from the opposing party and ask this question at any townhall gathering in our States: Do you believe that Members of Congress should be exempted from ObamaCare, that we should have a special rule, that we should disregard the language of the statute and not be subject to ObamaCare the way the American people are, the answer would be overwhelmingly no. And it doesn't matter where in the country you are or what your party is.

I thank Senator Vitter for having the courage and the principle to highlight this particularly unfortunate aspect of ObamaCare.

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

I agree enthusiastically.

Senator Vitter highlights one of the many reasons why every Republican in this body should vote against cloture on the bill on Friday or Saturday and why I believe a great many Democrats should vote against cloture as well.

As we understand it, we are told the amendment process on this bill is going to be rigged. The amendment process on this bill is going to be that once debate is cut off, there will be a bill simply to fund ObamaCare in its entirety, to delete the House language, and that other amendments will not be allowed. The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana will not be allowed, the amendment repealing the medical device taxes will not be allowed, and the amendment getting the IRS out of the business of ObamaCare will not be allowed. Instead, it will be a rigged playing field.

The only way to prevent that rigged playing field is for Senators to stand together and vote no on cutting off debate on Friday or Saturday when we have that vote. If we stand together and vote no, that forces this body to deal with the problem; otherwise, we know how the Kabuki dance ends. If cloture is invoked, if debate is cut off on the bill, very shortly thereafter the majority leader has publicly announced he will introduce an amendment to fully fund ObamaCare. That will require just 51 votes. So every Republican will get to vote no and tell his or her constituents they voted no. Yet magically and wonderfully it will pass because it will be a straight party-line, partisan vote, and other Senators will be silenced.

I think Senator Vitter is absolutely correct, we should vote on the Vitter amendment. Indeed, I would like to see the Vitter amendment broadened. Another member of our conference indicated that if the Vitter amendment were brought up, he would offer an amendment to expand it to all Federal employees. I think that is a terrific rule.

Right now, Federal employees earn substantially more than the private sector does. I don't think there is any entitlement to take our tax dollars and to live in a privileged condition being a Federal employee. If Members of this body are going to go on television and tell the American people: ObamaCare is great, it is good, it is terrific, it is so great, then they should be eager to live under it.

You can't have it both ways. Either ObamaCare is a train wreck, in which case we ought to listen to the American people and fix it, or ObamaCare is wonderful and terrific and fantastic and all of the great adjectives the proponents of the bill have used, in which case Members of Congress, staff, and Federal employees should all eagerly embrace it.

I very much agree with Senator Vitter that it is critical we vote on the Vitter amendment, and it is critical we make clear to the American people there are not two sets of rules. There is not a ruling class in Washington that somehow gets treated differently.

Let me talk for a minute about congressional staffers. Behind closed doors this issue generates a lot of passion. There are a great many congressional staff members who are dedicated public servants, who have often taken substantial salary cuts to come to Washington to serve this country, who work brutal hours. Among congressional staff, just like among Members, the idea that they would be subject to ObamaCare deeply concerns them. It concerns them on the money side and it concerns them on the quality of care and health insurance that they will be able to get on the exchanges.

To make it real, I note there are multiple members of my staff who have had very serious, even life-threatening health issues for whom the limited health insurance, the subpar, the poor quality health insurance that many fear will be available on the exchanges is not a passing concern, not an academic concern, not a concern that let's put in talking points, it is very real for a great many congressional staff, including staff in my office. If the Vitter amendment passes and Congress is subject to the same rules as the American people, there may well be quite a few

congressional staff who tender their letters of resignation and leave.

I have had one staff member already indicate she would retire after many years of service, and the possibility of being put on ObamaCare was a real factor in that decision.

If we lose some good talent from Congress, that will be a shame and a hardship for every office. But what does that say? If ObamaCare is such a disaster that congressional staffers--and, mind you, a lot of these congressional staffers who may tender their letters of resignation are staffers working for Democratic Senators who drafted ObamaCare, who fight for ObamaCare every day. What does it say that staffers would be willing to quit because the quality of health care under ObamaCare would be so poor that they would rather go somewhere else than be subject to those laws? I think that speaks volumes.

Neither Senator Vitter nor I in the long term has any interest in seeing congressional staff and Federal employees on ObamaCare, but it does have the value of highlighting how bad it is.

If this body is content to leave the American people stuck in ObamaCare, then we ought to be subject to the same rules. If we are not willing to live under those rules, if we say, Wow, ObamaCare scares the heck out of us and we don't want to be subject to it, then the proper answer is not to vilify the Senator from Louisiana or any other Senator in this body. The proper answer is to step in and say to the American people--in fact, let me suggest something that would have a powerful clarifying impact on this body.

If only Senators would behave as if their constituents were at least as important as their congressional staff; if only Senators were to behave as if their constituents were at least as important as they are--to be honest, our constituents are more important. Our constituents are our bosses. They are the reason we are fighting. The fact that this body is so torn apart by the notion that each of us would be subject to ObamaCare and subject to the same rules the American people are highlights how broken Washington is. That shouldn't be controversial. That should be obvious.

Let me suggest to every Member of Congress, to every staffer who is dismayed--and, to be honest, saying they are dismayed is an understatement, to describe the degree of deep concern and even panic about this. Let me suggest to every Member of Congress and every staffer who is feeling that panic, direct that panic not to our own skins; direct that panic to the American people. Direct that panic to the single mom working at the diner, working two 29-hour-a-week jobs who is facing the consequences of ObamaCare.

Under ObamaCare, this President is getting ready to force millions of people onto exchanges where they are very likely to lose their health insurance.

In the privileged corridors of Washington, the risk of losing your health insurance, boy, that gets people worried. And it should. But it should worry us even more for all the people across this country.

The majority leader and Members of Congress can get a sitdown with the President of the United States. But 26 million Texans, most Texans can't get a sitdown with the President of the United States.

If you are powerful, you can get a special exemption. We have seen the President exempting every big corporation in America. Giant corporations, he said, for a year it doesn't apply to you. The language of the law explicitly applies. There is no year delay of the language of the law.

For over 200 years we have operated as a nation of laws, not men. We have operated as a nation that says if that is what the law says, then it kicks in January 1 and not a year from now.

What did the President say? No. Big companies have come to us. My friends in big business, I am going to give you a year-long exemption.

If ObamaCare were so terrific, why would the President be wanting to delay it until after the next election? The year-delay timing is not entirely coincidental. The employer mandate was supposed to kick in January 1 of next year, and the President unilaterally and contrary to law delayed it one whole year until after the November 2014 elections.

If the representations that so many Members of this body make to the American people were true that ObamaCare is terrific, is wonderful, then I would think the President would be eager to have it kick in before the election. If it were a good thing, you would want the good stuff to happen before the election and not after the election. The fact that it was moved for big businesses is an indication of how badly this law has failed.

But it is not just big businesses that have got an exemption. Members of Congress. Senators can get a closed-door meeting with the President of the United States. With much fanfare, the President came to the Capitol, met with the Democratic Caucus, and as was widely reported they asked for a special exemption and they got it. How about the American people? They can't go in.

One of the reasons people are so unhappy with Washington is they get a sense that there are special rules that apply. Wall Street gets special exemptions, the big banks get special exemptions. Dodd-Frank sets up rules that hammer small banks, hammer community banks, hammer the little guy. But what happens to the big guys? They keep getting bigger. Why? Because they get rules made in Washington that favor the big guy over the little guy. And you wonder why there is such dissatisfaction in this country. But if you have political friends in this administration, you too can get an exemption.

Labor unions have more and more been expressing their dismay about ObamaCare as they have realized in practice the thing isn't working. Recently the labor unions came to the Obama administration and said, We want an exemption too. Big businesses got an exemption, Members of Congress got an exemption. Shouldn't labor unions, shouldn't union bosses get an exemption? And with much fanfare the administration reportedly told them, No.

I am going to make a prediction right here and now. If the Congress does not act, if we don't show leadership in defunding ObamaCare, if we don't stand together in imposing cloture on Friday, if we don't act to avert this train wreck for the American people, before the end of this President's term we are going to see him grant an exemption for labor unions. That has been the pattern. Friends, political buddies--they get a slap on the back. They get special treatment.

It wouldn't have been great politics to grant the labor unions an exemption right now, right in the middle of this debate. Right when you have over 1.6 million people signing a national petition, right when Congress is debating it--gosh, it would have looked bad to grant an exemption then.

It is a little reminiscent of the President's remarks regarding Mr. Putin that were caught on tape before the last election--I forget the exact language, but, Tell Vladimir I will be able to work with him a lot more after the election.

I don't think it takes any stretch of the imagination at all to understand that, give it a little time, let the pesky people who are sort of worked up a little bit on ObamaCare dissipate. Then we will quietly do the exemption for labor unions.

Let me note the point ``quietly.'' One of the self-described fact checkers--and we may talk long enough that I talk a little bit about fact checkers, because that is a particularly pernicious bit of yellow journalism that has cropped up that lets journalists be editorial writers and pretend they are talking about objective facts, and basically conclude as a factual matter--not as a matter of opinion--and anyone who disagrees with them is objectively lying.

One point that one of the so-called fact checkers in the Washington Post took issue with was an observation I made that President Obama is quietly granting exceptions.

I note that the exception for big business was announced in a blog posting by a midlevel political appointee in the Treasury Department, if I remember right, on a Friday. I may be wrong on the day but I think it was on a Friday. In Washington language, by any measure, when you announce a major policy that impacts the whole country that exempts giant businesses from your rule that you are jamming on the American people and you don't do it from the White House, you don't do it from the President, you don't do it as

an announcement, you don't take questions on it, you simply put a blog posting from a midlevel staffer, that counts as ``quietly.''

It hasn't been quiet since then because everyone happened to notice. So my prediction right now is if we get past this, if the forces in this body who defend the status quo--and, wow, are there a lot of forces that defend the status quo. There are a lot of people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If they prevail, if ObamaCare goes into effect before the end of this President's administration, mark my words, you will see an exemption for labor unions just like the exemption for big business, just like the exemption for Members of Congress.

What are we left with then? We are left with a system where ObamaCare is a rule for, as Leona Helmsley so famously described them, the little people. For everybody who doesn't have power and juice and connections in Washington, for everyone--look for the men and women at home, maybe you have an army of lobbyists working for you. Maybe you have Senators' cell phones on your speed dial. Maybe you can walk the corridors of power. In that case you too get an exemption. But if you are just a hard-working American, if you are just trying to provide for your family, if you are just trying to do an honest day's work, make your community better, raise your kids, set a good example, then the message this President has sent--and sadly the message the Senate has sent--is you don't count. We are going to treat everybody else better than you.

That is exactly backward. It is the hard-working American we work for, not the lobbyists with tassels on their loafers who wander the halls but the single mom in a diner. They are the people who are losing.

I wish to talk about the harm to jobs and economic growth that is coming from ObamaCare. Americans continue to suffer from high unemployment and severe underemployment. Instead of helping job growth, ObamaCare's mandates and costs are causing businesses to stop hiring workers, to cut employees' hours, and they are increasing the costs to operate businesses. Small businesses in particular are being hammered by ObamaCare.

Here are some recent statistics on unemployment and underemployment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report for August of 2013, there are 11.3 million unemployed persons. The unemployment rate, the official unemployment rate is listed at 7.3 percent. Yet college graduates over 25 face just a 3.5-percent unemployment.

Former Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards used to talk about two Americas. I didn't agree with a lot of things John Edwards said as a political candidate, but I actually agreed with that notion, and it is a tragic notion, that there are two Americas. There are two Americas, A, between the ruling class in Washington and everyday Americans, but there are also two Americas right now between those of wealth and privilege and power and everybody else. If you are lucky enough to be a college graduate, your unemployment rate is 3.5 percent. That is pretty good. The people who are getting hammered, who are losing under ObamaCare, are the most vulnerable among us. They are young people, Hispanics, African Americans, single moms. For Black teens the unemployment rate is over 10 times higher than it is for college graduates--38.2 percent.

Let me ask, when small businesses are not hiring, when small businesses are laying off people, when small businesses are forcing employees to work 29 hours a week, whom do you think that is impacting? It doesn't impact titans of industry. The rich and powerful are not losing their jobs. They are not finding themselves forced into part- time work.

We talked about the fast food business. The fast food business, that industry is being hammered. You want to talk about what a tremendous avenue for employment the fast food industry has been, particularly for the first and second job someone has. When we look at the unemployment rate of African-American teens of 38.2 percent, the fast food industry has been such a great avenue for advancement for minority teenagers.

I note I do not view that from the perspective of abstract numbers on a piece of paper. I view that from a very personal perspective, because 55 years ago, when my father came from Cuba, he was 18, he was penniless, and he couldn't speak English. But he was lucky. He was lucky to get to America. He was lucky to be able to apply for a student visa, to be accepted to the University of Texas, to flee the Batista regime, where he had been imprisoned and tortured as a kid. By the time he was a teenager, my father had endured more than the vast majority of Members of Congress will ever experience.

I will note with that background it does make the back-and-forth of Washington pretty mild by comparison. If someone says something mean about you in the newspaper, it may not be altogether pleasant, but it is pretty darned mild compared to being beaten and almost killed in a Cuban jail as my dad was 55 years ago.

When he landed in Austin--if I could, Mr. President, I would ask you to put yourself in his shoes--not literally, because I think your feet are bigger than his, but figuratively. When my dad landed in Austin, he couldn't speak English. He didn't know anybody. Imagine being in a strange land where you cannot speak English, you have $100 sewn into your underwear that my grandmother put there. The first thing he needed was a job, so he went to look for a job.

The problem is if you are an 18-year-old kid from Cuba and you cannot speak English, there are not a lot of jobs you can get. If you can't speak English, it is pretty hard to get a job where you have to deal with customers who are going to expect you to speak English. At that point he didn't have a lot of skills. He was a teenager. So his first job was washing dishes. He made 50 cents an hour.

Why did he get that job? Because you didn't have to speak English. Even though he did not have a lot of skills as an 18-year-old kid, he was perfectly capable of taking a dish, putting it under very hot water, scrubbing it and setting it aside and he did it over and over.

When my father was here, he had no means of support other than washing dishes. So what he did, one of the reasons he wanted to work in a restaurant, is that restaurants would let you eat while you were working. It was one of the perks of working in a restaurant; the employees were able to eat. My father had no money for food. He barely had money to pay for a tiny little apartment. In fact, he started in the dorms, I believe, and tuition. That was it. He didn't have money to buy food, so what my dad did is he ate at work. Since he liked to eat 7 days a week, he worked 7 days a week. He would go in and he only ate during those 8 hours. During the 8 hours he was working washing dishes, he would eat like crazy, I mean he would just feed his face. Because when he left, the next 16 hours he wasn't eating anything, wasn't buying food until the next 16 hours he showed up at work. That was the next time he was going to eat.

Some people may look at a dishwashing job paying 50 cents an hour and turn up their nose at it and say: Who really cares about people in jobs like that? Sometimes this Senate behaves like that. Who cares about people in jobs like that?

But after some time my father learned English. I will tell you how he learned English. He did a couple of things. No. 1, my father signed up for Spanish 101. When he was a freshman at UT, he signed up for Spanish 101. You might say: Why would a native speaker take Spanish 101? That seems a little dumb.

What my father would do is sit in the classroom and basically try to reverse engineer everything. So the professor would say milk is leche, and he would write it down and say leche is milk. He would try to sit and listen, and as the teacher was teaching Spanish he would try to do everything backward and try to figure out what the English was.

The other thing my dad would do, on Saturdays, he would go to movies. In fact, when I was a kid, we would go to movies all the time together. It was one of the things we loved to do together, still do. My dad used to go to movies on Saturday and he would sit there and watch the same movie in English typically three times. He would just sit there and watch it. When he first came there to Austin, he would

watch a movie three times and have no idea of what was going on the first, second or third time. But then he would do it again and do it again.

The human brain is a miraculous thing. As he would watch the movie two or three times, by the second time you start picking up context, start picking up what was going on and start following the plot. By the third time he would start following it even more. So relatively quickly my father learned English.

I note he had a pretty exquisite incentive to learn English. His incentive to learn English was if he didn't, he was going to flunk out of school because he was taking his classes in English. He took mostly math classes and math was the sort of thing you did not need as much language as you do in other topics. But if he didn't learn English pretty fast, he was going to flunk out of the University of Texas.

Once he learned English, he managed, at the restaurant he was working at, to get a promotion. He got a promotion to be a cook. Being a cook, that was good. Look, being a cook was a lot better than being a dishwasher. It paid a little bit more. I don't know how much he got paid being a cook, but it paid better than 50 cents an hour. He had to speak enough English, so when someone came in and ordered, let me get a steak and potatoes, he had to know what that was and not give them scrambled eggs. So he learned enough to be a cook and respond to the orders.

The place he cooked was a place called the Toddle House. It was a place where the cooks were in front of the people. It doesn't exist anymore, but my father described it as a sort of Denny's. Imagine Denny's combined with Benihana. The menu was similar to Denny's, but the cook was in front of you so you could see him. So my dad learned to flip pancakes. Let me tell you, as a kid on Saturday or Sunday morning and your dad is making pancakes, it is very cool when he can flip them--you could make him flip them high in the air and catch them. But he could do that.

I will credit my father; he invented--this wasn't for the restaurant, but he did it anyway--he invented green eggs and ham. He did it two ways. No. 1, the easy way, is he put green food coloring in the eggs, chopped up ham in it. ``Green Eggs and Ham'' was my favorite book when I was a boy. The food coloring is a little bit cheating, but if you take some spinach and mix it into the eggs, the eggs turn green.

My dad worked as a cook to finish his way through the University of Texas. In 1961, my dad graduated, got a math degree. At his next job, he was hired as a teaching assistant. He began taking graduate classes in mathematics at the University of Texas and he got hired as a teaching assistant teaching undergrads math. A teaching assistant was a better job than washing dishes or being a cook. It paid more and it had more forward advancement. So he enjoyed being a teaching assistant.

He had all sorts of clever final exam questions that he would give. He taught college algebra. I remember one of his final exam questions was: You have a triangle with sides 11, 20, and 9. Compute the area.

You get students who would write pages and pages, trying to put all these various equations together, trying to figure out the area. Almost all of them were wrong. It is a basic rule of geometry, for a triangle the sum of any two sides has to be longer than the third side or else they don't actually meet. A triangle with sides of 20, 11, and 9--11 and 9 add up to 20. That is a straight line. The area is zero. So he enjoyed kind of coming up with clever final exam questions. That was one of them.

But from there, after being a teaching assistant, he applied for and got a job with IBM as a computer programmer. This was, I think, 1962, 1963. It was in the early 1960s. From there he got the skills as a computer programmer. He worked in the oil and gas industry. Subsequently, with my mother, he went on to start a small business, a seismic data processing company in the oil and gas business.

So when I was a kid, as I grew up, my parents were small business owners. When I talk about small businesses, similar to a great many Americans, the majority of Americans, it is not a hypothetical. I have grown up as the son of two small business owners, seeing the hard work, the challenges of trying to run a small business. In fact, I saw my parents' business go bankrupt when I was in high school. I saw the up sides and the down sides of being in a small business. It ain't easy.

If my father had not been able to get that first job washing dishes and making 50 cents an hour, he never would have gotten his second job as a cook. If he hadn't gotten his second job, he wouldn't have gotten his third job as a teaching assistant. If he hadn't have gotten that job, he wouldn't have been hired by IBM. If he hadn't been hired by IBM, he wouldn't have started his own business.

Earlier, the Senator from Utah talked about opportunity and the American dream. When we look at a statistic, such as the fact that African-American teenage unemployment is 38.2 percent, we are talking about a generation of young people who are not getting that first job. They are not getting the equivalent today of that job of washing dishes and making 50 cents an hour. They are not getting the job of flipping burgers in the fast food business because the impact of ObamaCare on the fast food business is so devastating that it is not hiring workers. The travesty is that they do not get to flip burgers. Flipping burgers is honorable work. It is not necessarily the fulfillment of someone's life's ambition, but it is so frequently a stepping stone to the next job and the next job and the next job.

As a young kid, one of the things you have to learn is basic work skills, such as how to show up on time. A lot of teenagers are not very good at showing up on time. They don't understand how to show up on time. Even some U.S. Senators have not figured that out. Yet, if a young American doesn't get a job or learn to work with his coworkers, customers, their boss, how to show up on time, to be courteous, respectful, diligent, and responsible, he or she can't learn the skills it takes to achieve in any job.

Some time ago I tweeted a speech Ashton Kutcher gave. It was actually a terrific speech. It was a speech at one of those award shows where he talked about the value of hard work. One of the things I remember he said was this: In my life, opportunity looks an awful lot like hard work. That was a great message. It was a great message to young people. Part of the reason I tweeted it out and to salute him--I have watched his TV shows and his movies, but I don't know him personally--was because he can speak to millions of young people who would never listen to me. I salute him for carrying a message about hard work, diligence, and working toward the American dream.

The greatest travesty of what is happening with ObamaCare is a generation of young people are being denied a fair chance at the American dream. If we look at economic growth, according to the Bureau of Economic Affairs, GDP growth over the last four quarters has been an abysmal 1.6 percent. The historic average since World War II is 3.3 percent. Our economy is stagnant, and ObamaCare is a big part of the reason.

So I ask the Presiding Officer, where is the urgency in this body? When the Presiding Officer goes home and talks to the men and women in West Virginia--or the men and women in Texas--he must hear that they are hurting. They understand that 1.6 percent economic growth is unacceptable and it is hurting the American people. Where is the urgency in this body? Where is the urgency to say: We have to stand and do something to turn it around.

Jobs are being lost because of ObamaCare. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of small businesses in 2013 found that 71 percent of small businesses say ObamaCare makes it harder to hire workers. The study also found that two-thirds of small businesses are not ready to comply with ObamaCare rules.

Why do we care about small businesses? Look, on one level, we care about the entrepreneurs--the Horatio Algers and the people working toward the American dream--but even more fundamentally, small businesses produce two-thirds of the new jobs in this country. If small businesses are suffering, jobs are suffering and America suffers.

ObamaCare is an absolute disaster for small businesses. Forty-one percent of small business owners have held off on plans to hire new employees, and 38

percent say they are holding off on plans to grow their businesses in direct response to the law.

By the way, the most egregious parts of ObamaCare still have not kicked in. Forty-eight percent of small business owners say ObamaCare is bad for business. Less than 10 percent say it is good for business.

Jamie Richardson of White Castle explained how ObamaCare is impacting her business: In the 5 years prior to the health care law, we were opening an average of eight new White Castle restaurants each year. In 2013 we plan to just open two new locations. While other factors have slowed our growth, it is the mounting uncertainty surrounding the health care law that brought us to a standstill.

I want the Presiding Officer to think about that for a second. They were opening eight White Castle restaurants a year--I like their little burgers--and that dropped to two. So six a year over the last 4 years amounts to 24 White Castle restaurants. No. 1, just as a consumer--and I am a big fan of eating White Castle burgers--that is 24 places we can't go to get a White Castle burger. But that is not the real hardship. The real hardship is all the jobs that are lost from those 24 restaurants that didn't open. Every one of those stores would have multiple shifts with managers, cashiers, or kids just mopping the floor. All those jobs would have been on the economic ladder toward the American dream.

Even within a fast food restaurant there has been tremendous opportunity for investment. Maybe you get hired mopping a floor because you don't have any other skills or, like my dad, washing dishes because you don't have any other skills. If you work a little while, maybe you can move over to the fries and then to the griddle. You can move to the cashier desk and learn how to count change. A lot of kids don't know how to count change. Sadly, because of the educational challenges we have, a lot of kids don't have the skill to count change yet. They can learn that. Then, if you demonstrate hard work, perseverance, and customer service, maybe you will get promoted to assistant manager, then manager, and then who knows.

Just a few weeks ago I had dinner with a number of franchisees who own fast food restaurants for one particular very well-known hamburger chain. I listened to their stories. I start most meetings, if they are small enough that this is feasible--like the Kerrville small business gathering--by asking them to go around and share an issue that is of a concern to them. I remember one gentleman, an African-American gentleman, who described exactly that path. He described how he got hired in an entry-level position at a fast food restaurant, developed skills, advanced, and then he was hired as an assistant manager and then as a manager. After that, he saved up and bought his own restaurant.

It was interesting. There were people--and some of the franchise owners had pretty extensive backgrounds. I think there was one fellow who had 27 fast food restaurants. So there were some people who were very successful businesspeople.

I remember this African-American gentleman who had relatively recently saved up to buy his first restaurant that he owned and the pride he justifiably felt--and the pride I felt. I mean, what an incredible country. What was interesting is that he described the exact same challenges as the fellow who owned 27 restaurants and was far wealthier and had a far bigger business.

What all of them said as we were going around the table was that ObamaCare is devastating. They didn't say it was sort of a little problem. They didn't say it was making life more difficult. They said: It is devastating. It is going to put us out of business. We don't know what to do. This is a disaster for our business.

A March 2013 Federal Reserve report on current Federal economic conditions explains that employers in several Federal Reserve districts cited the effects of the ObamaCare act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.

In May 2013 Moody's economist Mark Zandi noted a slowdown in small business hiring due to ObamaCare.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in the second quarter of 2013 small business survey, found that Washington policies continue to hamper hiring and growth, with over a quarter of small businesses saying they had lost employees in the last year. They cited health care as the very top concern.

Concern about ObamaCare has increased by 10 points since June of 2011 and by 4 points just last quarter. Seventy-one percent of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to hire. Only 30 percent say they are prepared for the requirements of the law-- including participation in the marketplaces.

Among small businesses that will be impacted by the employer mandate, one-half of small businesses say they will either cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate. Twenty-four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.

I want to repeat those numbers because those numbers are deeply troubling. Among small businesses that will be impacted by the employer mandate, one-half--50 percent--say they will either cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate. We are not talking about a few small businesses, we are talking about half of them. Twenty-four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees. That is a disaster for small business, it is a disaster for jobs, and it is a disaster for American families who are struggling.

The outlook for hiring remains grim. The majority--61 percent--of small businesses do not have plans to hire next year.

A Grand Rapids, MI, company reported that they had to lay off over 1,000 people due to the ObamaCare medical device tax. Let's think about that. In Grand Rapids, MI, there are 1,000 people out of a job directly because of ObamaCare. Now let's think of their spouses and their kids. One of the major breadwinners in their family lost his or her job because of ObamaCare.

On September 18, 2013, the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic announced that it would cut jobs and slash 5 to 6 percent of its $6 billion annual budget to prepare for ObamaCare. This is not just impacting fast food restaurants, this is impacting everyone. The Cleveland Clinic has a $6 billion annual budget, and yet they are forced to fire employees. The Cleveland Clinic is Cleveland's largest employer.

Every 4 years during the Presidential election, both parties purport to care passionately about what happens in the great State of Ohio. Both parties focus and descend on Ohio--and a handful of other swing States--as the center of the universe. Yet, as we sit here now in 2013--not a Presidential election--somehow the concern about what is happening to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio has diminished. The Cleveland Clinic is Cleveland's largest employer, and it is the second largest employer in the State of Ohio after Walmart.

I would suggest that if all of the folks from this body and the political parties who descend on Ohio every 4 years are genuinely concerned about what is occurring in Ohio in a non-Presidential year we should see the floor of this Senate filled with Senators concerned about the impact ObamaCare is having directly on Cleveland and the State of Ohio.

Cleveland Clinic is responsible for 80 percent of the economic output of northeast Ohio, according to a 2009 study. It is the largest provider in Ohio of Medicaid health coverage for the poor, the program that will expand to cover uninsured Americans under ObamaCare.

The Cleveland Clinic has close to 100 locations around the State. They employ 3,000 doctors. Its main campus is recognized worldwide for its cancer and cardiovascular treatments.

(Ms. WARREN assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, some Members of this body might say: Well, these are hard times. Everyone is struggling, so maybe the Cleveland Clinic is responding to economic challenges. Who is to say what the Cleveland Clinic is doing has anything to do with ObamaCare? Well, the answer to that is, who is to say? The Cleveland Clinic is to say. A spokeswoman for the Cleveland Clinic said:

To prepare for health care reform, Cleveland Clinic is

transforming the way care is delivered to patients.

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

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

Healthcare reform, in combination with Medicare cuts, more

patients seeking outpatient care and decreasing patient

volumes--as a result, we have made the difficult decision to

reduce our workforce. Decisions like this are never easy and

we are working with these employees to help them look for

other opportunities within the Barnabas Health system.

This is not us putting words in their mouth. This is people on the ground in the States dealing with the very real struggles and the disaster that is ObamaCare.

The problem we face in Washington is that our elected officials are not listening to us. We need to make DC listen. We need to make elected officials in both parties listen to the very real hardship that is coming from ObamaCare.

I would like to share a number of real constituent letters concerning ObamaCare. So this is not me speaking. As I said at the outset, the reason Congress is held in such disrepute, so little approval, is because for many years now elected officials in both parties have refused to listen to the people, and there is a sense of despair that no matter what the American people say, our elected officials will not listen because they are more interested in themselves, they are more interested in getting an exemption for Members of Congress from ObamaCare than they are on fixing the problem for the American people. And that level of disillusion is not irrational. It is based on a very real problem. Yet I am inspired that if and when the American people stand and make their voices heard, our politicians will have no choice but to listen.

I remember early on--Madam President, you and I are relatively new in this body. We have been here 9 months. I remember early on standing at this very desk along with my friend Senator Rand Paul in his historic 13-hour filibuster on drones. I remember when Senator Paul began that filibuster, many Members of this body viewed what he was doing as curious, if not quixotic, as a strange issue that most Members of this body, frankly, were not concerned about. We saw something incredible happen during that time, which is the American people got engaged, got involved, began speaking out, and it transformed the debate. As a result of the American people's involvement, it transformed the debate.

If you want Washington to listen, the only way that will happen is if it comes from the American people. So let me read some letters from American people who do not have the opportunity to come to the Senate floor. I hope in a very small way to provide a voice for them.

A small business from Alice, TX, wrote, on August 9, 2013:

We, the undersigned employees . . . are growing

increasingly concerned with the apparent disregard for small

businesses and the middle class that is on display by the

United States government. We are trying to figure out how we

are going to cope with the 14% increase in health insurance

premiums we are facing, despite the fact that we have a lower

average employee age and loss ratio than we have had at any

point in our 21-year history. The increase is because of

insurance companies preparing for new taxes and unreasonable

requirements within ObamaCare.

On top of struggling to find the means to cover our own

group of employees, our government now makes it clear that

part of the massive amount of taxes we pay a year will be

used to cover 75% of health insurance costs for Members of

Congress AND their staffers. As waivers are granted daily,

shielding . . . big business, unions, government agencies,

and various other Affordable Care Act supporters, it is clear

the burden will rest firmly on middle class small businesses

like us. . . .

We strongly encourage our elected officials to place a

higher importance on public service than self-service.

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

We are hurting badly because of this, as are many

disillusioned businesses with whom we communicate in our

industry. Headlines nationwide report hiring freezes and

layoffs due to increased costs on businesses large and small.

The weight is too heavy at the worst time, and in result the

economy will soon break. We urge Congress to defund or repeal

the Affordable Care Act with no further delay. . . .

That is not me speaking. That is from a small business in Alice, TX. I would note, that is not even the CEO speaking. That is a letter signed by the employees of that small business because they are hurting.

But let me note, it is not limited to the State of Texas. I guarantee you, there are people hurting in every one of the 50 States, every one of the States we represent. A commercial real estate broker from Chesapeake City, VA, wrote, on September 20, 2013:

I also wanted to share with you how ObamaCare is affecting

my business. I am a commercial real estate broker in Virginia

and am already feeling the effects of this disastrous bill. I

am currently in the process of analyzing an apartment

portfolio for sale for a client and recently the occupancy

has dropped dramatically in this class C low-income

community. The community is not subsidized as these tenants

are paying out of pocket for the rent. Most of the tenants

work in fast food, janitorial, and low paying service related

jobs. A great deal of them has had their hours cut to 29.5

hours per week and cannot pay the rent. Our occupancy has

dropped as well as the income. Our management company has

reached into the City of Richmond for rent assistance for

these tenants but to no avail. Not only are these people

going to be forced into government housing but my client will

realize a smaller equity harvest. This is a disaster, and it

affects everyone.

As you can see by this scenario, many are affected by this

bill. Also, a class A franchisee with a national restaurant

chain whom I represent is experiencing the pain from this

bill. They are being forced to sell off to a larger

franchisee because they cannot afford to comply with the

requirements. I wish the American people understood how

severely the economy will be impacted. Thank you for fighting

the good fight. We are behind you.

Let me read again two sentences from that letter from a commercial real estate broker in Chesapeake City, VA: ``Most of the tenants work in fast food, janitorial, and low paying service related jobs. A great deal of them had their hours cut to 29.5 hours per week and cannot pay the rent.''

So they are losing their housing. I want you to think for a second about the spiral that comes from this. If you have someone who is working as a janitor, if you have someone who is working flipping burgers, if you have someone washing dishes, as my dad did, and they have their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, as so many people across this country are having happen because of ObamaCare, they cannot provide for their family on that, so they cannot pay the rent, as these people cannot. But not being able to pay the rent means some of them may move to government housing. And what is the answer? Look, they are losing their hours because of ObamaCare. The answer is not: Well, let's give them a rent subsidy. Let's tax people even more. First let's pass rules and laws and regulations that prevent people from getting decent jobs. Then let's jack up the taxes even more so we can pay them to subsidize their rent and subsidize their housing because they cannot afford to pay their rent, they cannot afford to pay their housing because of a law we passed that forcibly reduced their hours. That is the path to destruction in this country.

Far better that we get back to our founding principles, far better that we get back to what has made America great, which is our free enterprise system--a robust, free enterprise system that encourages small businesses to grow and to prosper, that encourages people working a job as a janitor to work hard and get a promotion and climb that ladder, to pay their own rent, to pay for their own food for their kids, to work and to advance.

These cries are coming from all across the country. Yet Washington is not listening. We need to make DC listen.

A small business owner from Port Clinton, OH, wrote, on September 19, 2013:

I strongly urge you to stand up for the middle class and

small business and vote to DEFUND ObamaCare. As a small

business owner, we have always offered health insurance.

After meeting with our health insurance representative, we

learned that the lowest coverage level of ObamaCare offered

is estimated to be about $400 a person, twice what we pay now

for excellent coverage. . . .

With big business and government being exempted from this

policy, again the SMALL BUSINESS OWNER and individual are

left with all the costs for everyone else. This could well

end up closing our business and then there will be 15 more

individuals collecting from the government.

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

I need a little help here! Can you explain something to me?

My health insurance premiums for my wife, three children and

myself were $850 or so back in 2010. After ObamaCare was

passed my premiums are now $1400 or so. This January, when

ObamaCare is implemented it is estimated by Blue Cross

Blue Shield I could see a 25% increase in premiums. That

will be almost $1,800 a month for premiums plus on my HSA

plan my deductible is $10,000. If my calculator is

correct, that is $21,600 per year out of my pocket before

the insurance company pays a penny.

I also own a small business and have four others on our

group plan. If this cost increase is across the board with

the others as well, my business will stop the benefit of

insurance and each will be on their own to get coverage. I

understood this health care overhaul would be a benefit. From

where I am sitting it is only a burden. If you can, please

repeal this before it gets worse.

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

I would like to bring to your attention a troubling

development. I am a veterinarian, and in the past had to use

a group health care policy offered by the American Veterinary

Medical Association. I am currently under my husband's

insurance. However, a number of my colleagues use one of the

various plans AVMA offers. The AVMA insurance is being

canceled at the end of the year. This decision is due

directly to ObamaCare. Here is the text of that notification.

Group Health and Life Insurance Trust Programs and New York

Life attributes the program's demise to regulatory

requirements put in place as a result of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act signed by President Obama

in 2010.

Company officials told trustees that the challenges of

complying with provisions of the law that take effect in 2014

are the primary reason New York Life opted to quit the

association health insurance market entirely. New York Life

has underwritten the American Veterinarian Medical

Association Trust medical coverage for the past 20 years.

A number of veterinarians are contract labor, called relief

veterinarians. These vets contract out on a daily or weekly

basis to fill in for doctors at various clinics when someone

takes a vacation or during seasonal business increases. Many

of those vets do not have access to health care in any other

way. This is a travesty. Perfectly good plans are being

discontinued due to a perfectly awful law. This health care

law is directly contributing to people losing their health

care.

My husband and I made long-term plans to potentially retire

early and use an AVMA plan until eligible for Medicare. We

also had the safety net of the AVMA insurance if something

happened with this job. For me, AVMA's decision is currently

an inconvenience. However, it removes an option for me in the

future. My colleagues on the other hand will likely be forced

into inferior health care or pay penalties through no fault

of their own.

We all remember President Obama told the American people: If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. Even in these cynical days of politics, promises should mean something. For this woman and her husband, that promise is a hollow failure. She is losing her health insurance because of ObamaCare. That is not me saying that, not some politician saying that. That is from her own words.

The rules of the Senate will not allow her or any other small business owner to walk onto the Senate floor and speak out, to say: Why am I losing my health insurance? Why am I struggling? Why is my business going under? So I am doing my very best to in some small way help provide a voice for those people who are struggling, those people who are hurting.

But if this body were operating the way it should, there should be 100 voices; 100 of us, Democrats and Republicans, should be standing side by side reading letter after letter like this. You know what. These are our bosses. These are the people we work for. They are struggling.

These letters I am reading are not ideological letters. They are not coming from a partisan perspective. They are people who are seeing on the ground this law is not working.

Yet DC does not listen to them. The Democrats in this body tell America: ObamaCare is great. ObamaCare is terrific. I am sorry you lost your health care, but ObamaCare is terrific. The Republicans in this body, sadly more than a few of them, say: We will take lots and lots of symbolic votes against ObamaCare, but there is nothing we can do. If every Republican Senator stands together and votes no on cloture this Friday or Saturday, there is something we can do. We can stand and say: We are listening to the American people. This law is not working and people are suffering.

They are not interested in political games. They are not interested in show votes. They are not interested in the fact that if the majority leader succeeds in cutting off debate on this bill and there is a 51- vote threshold on an amendment to fund ObamaCare, at that point every Republican will happily vote no. That may be solicited from the personal political perspectives of the Republicans in this body, but it does not benefit the American people one iota. It does not benefit the American people. It does not stop ObamaCare. It does not fix the problem. That is what we should be doing.

A constituent from Euless, TX, wrote on July 3, 2013:

I have been disabled since 1997 and on a fixed income. My

wife lost her job of 16 years in 2008 and was not able to

find a good job so she was forced to take her Social Security

last year at age 62. She is 41-year type I diabetic and her

medical costs are expensive. Luckily, I was paying for

medical and long-term disability insurance when I was

working, which allowed me to continue the medical insurance

with a company even after I became disabled.

I got a letter in May of this year informing me that I was

going to lose that medical coverage come 2014. Since we are

both on a fixed income, it will be impossible for us to

maintain our mortgage and to start paying for all of our

health costs. Repeal ObamaCare.

These are voices from the people. This is a disabled man, a senior couple who is suffering, who is losing their health insurance because of ObamaCare. Every one of us has an obligation to listen to people.

Look, I understand in Washington, in a football game we all cheer for our respective team. I cheer when the Houston Texans win a game. I am not generally thrilled, having grown up in Houston in the 1970s, when the Pittsburgh Steelers win a game, because I remember as a kid year after year seeing the Steelers sadly trounce the Oilers and the great Earl Campbell when the Steelers had one of the greatest football teams ever to play the game. I understand that. It is a good thing to cheer for your team.

In politics sometimes we cheer for our team too. So I understand the great many Democrats who take the view: Well, a Democratic President signed the law, Democrats passed the law on a straight party vote so we have got to cheer for our team. You know, I will note that more than a few Democratic Members of this body privately, when they are behind closed doors, are worried about what is happening to ObamaCare. They are seeing the problems. But yet publicly they are still cheering for their team.

This is not a team sport. This is life and death. There is a fundamental divide between the people and Washington. We need to make DC listen, listen to the people.

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

I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his very fine question. Let me say at the outset before I respond directly to the question that I remember not too many months ago standing on this same Senate floor in the midst of the Senator's historic filibuster. I will say it was one of the proudest moments of my life. Indeed, during that filibuster on drones, that was the first time I had ever spoken on the Senate floor.

I have observed multiple times that I will go to my grave in debt to Rand Paul, to have the opportunity for the first time--and there will only be one first time that anyone gets to speak on this floor--to have that first time be in support of that tremendous filibuster that mobilized and unified the American people.

I will note that one of the things I remember the Senator shared with me afterward was the advice he just gave a minute ago. I remember asking: What do you think? The Senator was pretty weary at the end. His comment at the time was, well, I wish I had worn more comfortable shoes. I will confess I thought about that. That struck me as pretty good advice.

I am going to make an embarrassing admission right now. I will get to the question in a second, but I wanted to make an embarrassing admission first. For many years, when I was in private practice and when I was solicitor general, I wore a particular pair of boots, my argument boots. They were black ostrich boots. Litigators are kind of superstitious, so anytime I went into court to argue a case I wore my argument boots. I had them resoled four or five times.

When I had the great honor of serving in this body, of being sworn into the Senate, when I was sworn in standing on the steps just in front of us, I wore my argument boots. I have worn them every day since. I don't believe there has been a day on this Senate floor that I haven't worn my argument boots.

I had a choice with which I was confronted, which was do I follow through and wear my argument boots or do I listen to the very sage counsel from my friend from Kentucky and go with more comfortable shoes. I will embarrassingly admit that I took the coward's way out. I went and purchased some black tennis shoes. Actually, I think they are the same model the senior Senator from Utah Orrin Hatch wears on a regular basis. I am not in my argument boots, and I will confess I do feel pretty embarrassed by that. I am pretty sure, since we are on the Senate floor and C-SPAN is covering it, that this may not be covered by the priest-penitent privilege, but I do feel it is a question of sorts.

The question Senator Rand Paul asked was an excellent question. His question was whether I or anyone here wishes to shut down the government. The answer is absolutely not. We should not shut down the government. We should fund every bit of the government, every aspect of the government, 100 percent of the government except for ObamaCare. That is what the House of Representatives did. The House of Representatives--232 Members of the House, including 2 Democrats--voted to fund every bit of the Federal Government, 100 percent of it, except for ObamaCare.

I would note that last night on the floor of the Senate, I asked the majority leader to consent to passing the continuing resolution the House passed, passing it into law. Had the majority leader not stood there and said: I object, the continuing resolution would be passed into law and the government would not be shutting down. The majority leader had every opportunity to not shut down the government.

Let me be absolutely clear. We should not shut down the government. I sincerely hope Senator Reid and President Obama do not choose to force a government shutdown simply to force ObamaCare on the American people. That would be a mistake. Instead, what we should do is listen to the American people. Make DC listen.

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

I thank the Senator from Kentucky for that question. I think it is a very good question.

This afternoon the Senator and I and all the Republican Members of the conference spent some 2 hours in a closed-door strategy session. I am not going to reveal what anyone else said there, but I certainly feel comfortable revealing what I said there, which is that if we are going to make real progress in solving the problem that is ObamaCare, in listening to the American people and mitigating the job losses, with people losing their health insurance, all of the harms that are coming from ObamaCare, we have to stand and fight right now.

The battle before this body is the cloture vote that will occur on Friday or Saturday of this week. If all 46 Republicans vote together in unity to support the House Republicans and to deny Majority Leader Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote, that puts us in a position to address the problem.

The Senator's question was would I vote for something less than defunding ObamaCare. Personally, no. Why? Because I have committed publicly over and over to the American people that I will not vote for a continuing resolution that funds one penny of ObamaCare.

I am reminded of when I first arrived in the Senate. I spent 2 years campaigning for the Senator from Kentucky. Senator Paul campaigned with me in Texas over and over.

If you want to talk about a rock star, you should see, when Rand Paul shows up in Texas, the huge number of fans who come out for Senator Paul and for his dad.

I spent 2 years campaigning in Texas saying: The first bill I will introduce in Congress will be a bill to repeal ObamaCare.

When I showed up, there were lots of reporters. I introduced the bill to repeal ObamaCare.

They immediately said: Well, why did you do that?

My response: Well, I spent 2 years campaigning telling the American people that would be first bill I would introduce.

They were utterly befuddled why anyone would actually do what they said.

In answer to the Senator's question of whether I will vote for something that is a middle ground that funds ObamaCare partially, no. Why? Because, as I have repeatedly told the American people, as I have told Texas, I will not vote for a continuing resolution that funds ObamaCare. But that being said, are there Members of our conference who would like to see a compromise, who would like to see a middle ground that is perhaps not what I very much want and will fight for with every ounce of strength I have but that mitigates some of the damage of ObamaCare, that responds to the people who are suffering from ObamaCare, I think there are quite a few Senators who would like to see that happen.

If Republicans roll over on the cloture vote on Friday or Saturday, if we allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare with 51 votes, we will get no compromise. There will be no middle ground because there will be no reason to compromise. It is much like a poker game. I know the Senator from Kentucky--many of his libertarian supporters enjoy a good game of poker. As a Texan, I will admit to not being entirely adverse to it myself. In a game of poker, if somebody makes a bet and then says to you ``if you raise me, I am going to fold,'' you will lose 100 percent of your poker games. That is a path to losing.

For those Members of the Republican caucus who were perhaps not as adamant that we should insist on a complete and total defund now, I don't intend to waiver from that position, but there may be others who disagree.

If you want to get to any middle ground that is not a symbolic vote to tell our constituents but that actually changes the law to make things better for the men and women at home, to mitigate the harms of ObamaCare, the only way to do so is for Republicans to stand united and to deny the majority leader the ability to fund ObamaCare on a 51-vote partisan vote.

I yield for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank my friend from Kansas for that very fine question. He is exactly right. Socialized medicine is--and has been everywhere it has been implemented in the world--a disaster. ObamaCare--its intended purpose is to lead us unavoidably down that path.

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his good question on that front and for his leadership.

I would note that there are some Republicans, some commentators who have said: Don't fight this fight. Don't fight to defund. Why? Because ObamaCare is going to collapse on its own weight. If we just stay quiet, we don't take any risks. Give it time; it is getting worse and worse. Stay out of the way; it is going to collapse on its own weight. And there is both truth and falsity in that prediction. There is no doubt that ObamaCare is going to collapse. But the problem is that the way it will collapse, if it is implemented, is likely to permanently damage the private health insurance system, which will result in millions of people losing their health insurance and having no ability to go back. That is what enables Majority Leader Reid to go on television and say: Fear not, this will lead us to single-payer government health care. Because when ObamaCare collapses in shambles-- he doesn't say this, but this is the necessary reasoning that leads him to this--it will take down the private health insurance business with it, so there will be nothing left.

Listen, I commend the majority leader for his candor. I mean, there is a degree of courage in embracing socialized medicine. There are a number of Members of the Democratic caucus who embrace socialized medicine. I think every one of them shows courage and candor. I am very happy to debate in great detail whether socialized medicine would be good or bad for this Nation.

I don't think the American people are conflicted. If you look at the nations that have socialized medicine, everyplace it has been implemented you see low quality, you see scarcity, you see waiting periods, and you see government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor. If you go in for government treatment, you may be told that you are going to have to wait 6 months, you are going to have to wait a year or, you know what. A bureaucrat in the ministry of whatchamacallit has determined you don't get that treatment. That is what has happened in every socialized medicine country in the world. And so to those on the Republican side, those commentators who say this is a risky fight, I have never once suggested this is an easy fight. But in my 42 years on Earth, I have yet to see any fight that

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

If the majority leader is right, that leaving ObamaCare alone will necessarily lead us to socialized medicine because private health insurance will collapse--ObamaCare will collapse--and there will be nothing left, what a call to urgency. Indeed, I would say the majority leader, in making that argument, should be one of the most effective spokespersons for saying we ought to have 46 Republicans uniting and voting against cloture on this bill to say: No, we are not going to let a partisan Democrat vote fund ObamaCare because we are not going to be complicit in any way, shape or form with destroying private health insurance and forcing Americans into socialized medicine.

Let me note that in the meantime, even for those who somewhat serenely say: Fear not; this is going to collapse on its own. The process will inevitably be painful. Just a few minutes ago I read a letter from a constituent from Euless, TX, who is disabled and on a fixed income, whose wife has retired and who has lost his insurance because of ObamaCare. There are millions of Americans in Kansas, in Kentucky, in Alabama, in Texas, and in States all over this country who are worried right now because their health insurance is in jeopardy. In my view the decision of some Members of the Senate to say: Well, let ObamaCare collapse--either on the Republican side because when it collapses it will all just magically go away, or on the Democratic side because when it collapses it will lead us all to the perfect utopia of socialized medicine--is easy. It is easy for Members of this body to say such things from the cheap seats, particularly when the President has granted an exemption to Members of Congress from ObamaCare, where they feel that if the system collapses, if millions of Americans are suffering, it is not going to be us. It is not going to be our staff. The President has carved us out for special rules. It is just going to be the American people.

The most fundamental divide that is happening here is this body has stopped listening to the American people. We ought to have the urgency for this man and woman in Euless, TX, who is disabled and on a fixed income and retired and who wants to keep his health insurance, that we have for ourselves and our staffs. We ought to have that kind of urgency. And you know what. If it were our wife or our husband's health insurance, we wouldn't say: Let the system collapse because, in time, there will be a political victory. I guarantee if it were our spouse's, if it were our daughter's or son's health insurance, particularly if they had significant health issues, not one of us would be serene in saying: Let it collapse, because we want to immunize ourselves from the criticism or because we want to ultimately move to socialized medicine.

I think the stakes have never been higher. In my view, the cloture vote we will take on either Friday or Saturday of this week is the most important vote that I will have taken--I think that any Member of the Senate will have taken--in the 9 months I have served in this body because it goes fundamentally to: Will we respond to the suffering ObamaCare is causing? Will we respond to the millions of people who are jobless? Will we respond to the people getting forced into part-time work? Will we respond to the people who are losing their health care or will we continue to say: For me but not for thee. Different rules apply to Washington that apply to the ruling class. The President can grant exemptions to the big corporations and to Members of Congress, but hardworking American families, you guys are left in the cold. I would suggest that is a fundamental abdication of our responsibility. We are here--or we should be here--fighting for the people.

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

The payer is always the government, which ultimately means the taxpayer, hardworking American families.

I will continue to yield for a question without yielding the floor.

The Senator is absolutely correct. Once the government is paying for health care, it controls health care. That has proven to be the case in every country in the world.

I agree with the Senator from Alabama that it is commendable that there are some Members of this body who openly embrace socialized medicine. That is commendable for candor. I don't agree with it as a policy matter, but I actually think there is virtue to speaking honestly about what it is you support and not occupying the middle ground, as those--to take a quote from Teddy Roosevelt slightly out of context--cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

One of the problems in this debate over ObamaCare is the relatively few who are candid about what ObamaCare is designed to do. It is worth noting, as Senator Sessions has, that Majority Leader Reid is not a passive observer from the sidelines. He is the man responsible, in his role as majority leader, for passing ObamaCare through this body with only Democratic votes--without a single Republican vote. So when he says it is designed to lead to a single-payer system, when he says it is designed to lead to socialized medicine, we should trust that he knows what he is talking about.

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

I think Senator Sessions is exactly correct.

If we look at the way this vote is set up, Republicans are being asked to vote with majority leader Harry Reid to shut off debate on this bill. Any Republican who votes yes on Friday or Saturday to invoke cloture will be voting alongside majority leader Harry Reid to give Leader Reid the authority to fund ObamaCare using just 51 votes on a straight party-line vote, which is exactly how ObamaCare passed in the first place.

At the same time the majority leader has made clear he is not going to allow other amendments. He is not going to allow amendments that would improve ObamaCare or fix ObamaCare. He is not going to allow the amendment of Senator Vitter, as we talked about earlier, that would correct or get rid of the congressional exemption and treat Members of Congress the same as the American people, get rid of President Obama's lawless exemption, and stop treating Members of Congress like a privileged ruling class who are different from the American people. Leader Reid has said he is not going to allow a vote on that, not going to allow a vote on repealing the medical devices tax that has been crippling the medical devices industry, and that is killing innovation and killing jobs.

If Republicans are complicit in shutting off debate and allowing just a single vote on funding ObamaCare, then we have only ourselves to blame. If we give the majority leader the power to do that, we should not be surprised when he exercises it. It is within the power of the 46 Republicans in this body to say no, to say: No, we will not shut off debate that allows the majority leader to use 51 votes to fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line partisan Democratic vote. We will not be complicit in a process that treats Members of Congress like a privileged ruling class and that ignores the cries for help from the American people. All we have to do to accomplish that is for Republicans to stand together and stand united.

It is my hope, my fervent hope, that the voices of dissension within the Republican conference will stop firing at each other and start firing at the target. And let me be clear who the target is. The target is not Democrats. I don't want us to start firing at Democrats or at the President or at anyone else. It is not about us. The target is ObamaCare. It is fixing this train wreck that is hurting the American people.

If Members of the Republican conference in the Senate could devote one-tenth of the ferocity they have devoted to fighting within the caucus on this issue, to actually stopping ObamaCare--not a symbolic vote, not a press release, not a speech, but actually fixing the problem--I could think of nothing better this Senate could do.

And you know what. If, instead of 100 Senators, this Chamber had 100 citizens picked from our States at random, I guarantee not a one of them would say in discussing this: You know what we need is a bunch of symbolic votes. They wouldn't say that. Regular people who live on planet Earth would know a symbolic vote is not a good thing or bad thing. They would say, if we grabbed any hundred--and I wouldn't even have a partisan screen on it. I would grab 100 people at random, and I guarantee you they would say: We have to fix ObamaCare. This thing is hurting people.

The problem is too many Members of this body are not listening, and we need to make DC listen.

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

Senator Sessions is absolutely right. One of the most devastating consequences of ObamaCare is that it is forcing so many Americans into part-time work. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2013 second quarter small business survey found that among small businesses that will be impacted by the employer mandate, 50 percent of small businesses say they will either cut out to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time employees to avoid the mandate, and 24 percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.

As Senator Sessions knows, this is not one isolated anecdote here or there. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, this is 50 percent of small businesses reducing employees' hours forcibly or just hiring part-time employees instead. This is an enormous problem. Who gets hurt? When someone gets their hours reduced to 29 hours a week, it is never the CEO. It is usually not the lawyers. It is usually not the professionals. It is absolutely never Senators and Members of Congress.

The people whose hours get forcibly reduced are almost always, without exception, the vulnerable among us. They are the young, they are the Hispanics, the African Americans, the single mom working in a diner, struggling to feed her kids, to be a good example to her kids, who suddenly finds instead of having one job where she works her fingers to the bones to take care of her kids, she has to get two because 29 hours a week is not enough to provide for her kids. Suddenly she has two jobs, both at 29 hours a week. She has to commute from one to the other. She has to deal with two bosses. Boss No. 1 says: I want you at work Tuesday morning. Boss No. 2 says: I want you at work Tuesday morning. What is a single mom supposed to do?

Earlier this afternoon I read from a constituent's letter talking about low-income housing in Virginia, where a significant percentage of the residents were janitorial or service industry workers and were paying their rent out of their own pocket. Because of ObamaCare, because of having their hours reduced, they weren't able to pay the rent. I will read two sentences from a constituent letter from a commercial real estate broker in Chesapeake City, VA.

Most of the tenants work in fast food, janitorial, and low-

paying service-related jobs. A great deal of them had their

hours cut to 29.5 hours per week and cannot pay the rent.

So they are losing their apartments and being forced to live elsewhere. This is a tragedy playing out across this country, and it is incumbent on this body to listen to the people. We need to make DC listen.

I will yield for a question without yielding the floor.

The Senator from Alabama is absolutely correct. One of the disturbing trends we have seen in recent years is the boom business in our economy is government. There are lots of consequences to that; one is that the best and the brightest learn, hey, you want to have success, go into government. The private sector? That is apparently not what America is about.

Look right now at government employees who are paid substantially more than their counterparts in the private sector. It is one of the reasons Senator Vitter's amendment would say that Members of Congress shall be subject to the same rules as the American people and not have the special exemption President Obama has put in place is so important and why I support an even broader amendment that would include all Federal employees on the ObamaCare exchanges.

Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle routinely say ObamaCare is terrific, it is great. If that is the case, then Members of Congress should be excited about being on those exchanges, which are apparently so great for our constituents, and so should Federal workers. But they are not, indeed, as the Senator from Alabama knows well.

This issue has caused more consternation among Members and congressional staff than probably any

other issue because people are quite rightly afraid of losing their health insurance and losing their coverage.

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

The view from Americans all over this country--and this is true of conservatives and liberals--is that Washington doesn't listen. Politicians don't listen. We just had an August recess. A significant number of Members of this body held no townhalls, didn't go back and listen to their constituents. You can't fault Americans for saying politicians don't listen to us when, in fact, politicians don't listen to us. That is what this fight is about.

If it is just up to Washington, we are not going to have to do anything to stop ObamaCare. For one thing, Members of Congress and their staff are exempted so there is no urgency. But if we listen to the American people, there is urgency. That is why it is so critical that we make DC listen.

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

Senator Sessions is absolutely correct. I would note, first of all, the Senate Democrat who is the lead author of ObamaCare has referred to ObamaCare's implementation as ``a major train wreck.'' That is not I speaking. That is not Senator Sessions speaking. That is the lead author of ObamaCare, a Democratic Senator.

I commend his candor. It is indeed a major train wreck. I have no doubt that more than a few of his colleagues on that side of the aisle were unhappy with him for speaking the truth on that.

There should be a lot more truth-speaking in this body, not engaging in partisan team politics but speaking the truth for the American people. That was commendable for Senator Baucus to speak for the American people and say this is a major train wreck. We need to all acknowledge it is a major train wreck and then step forward to avert the train wreck.

Senator Sessions' second point is a very important one. I note Senator Sessions is an elder statesman in this body, has served admirably a great many years, fighting for the citizens of Alabama, and is well experienced when a day a time existed when the Senate operated like a deliberative body, where Senators would speak and offer amendments and amendments could be considered. That doesn't occur now.

The practice Senator Sessions referred to, and I suspect some folks may not be familiar with, is called filling the tree. Filling the tree has become commonplace. Filling the tree is a procedural and parliamentary tree that only the majority leader can do. The majority leader has a privileged role under the Senate rules in that he has priority of recognition, the ability to insist he is the first Senator on the floor to be recognized.

Filling the tree enables him to do what he has said he is going to do on this bill, which is file an amendment to fund ObamaCare in its entirety and then fill the tree so no other Senator can offer any amendments, so the other 99 Senators are muzzled, we can't offer amendments to improve ObamaCare, we can't offer amendments to fix ObamaCare, and we can't offer amendments to do anything. Indeed, the more liberal Members of the Democratic caucus can't offer amendments to adopt a single-payer socialized medicine system, which some of them openly embrace. That is a sign of a Senate that is not working.

There should be open debate and there should be open amendments. One of the great strengths of this body is that all 100 Senators for most of the history of the Republic could offer any amendment at virtually any time. That has all but disappeared. Why has it disappeared?

For folks who are at home watching this debate, it is easy to let the procedure make your eyes glaze over. When you hear someone talk about invoking cloture on the motion to proceed, it is utterly incomprehensible to virtually anyone in the country. Indeed, I suspect more than a few people on the floor of the Senate right now don't quite understand what it means.

But what is all the procedure about? Why should you care about filling the tree? You should care about it because it is a tool of power, of silencing the people, and using the positions of power to enforce Washington's ideological view on the rest of this country.

If we got out of Washington, DC, if we went to the American people and said what are your top priorities--we actually have. We don't have to hypothesize about that. The American people over and over again say jobs and the economy are their top priorities. The American people want ObamaCare stopped because it is not working, it is killing jobs, it is pushing people into part-time work. Yet this Senate has not been listening to the American people.

We need to make DC listen.

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

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his question and fundamentally for his support. His support is very needed. Senator Sessions is a man who is respected in this body. He commands the respect of his peers.

If you read the newspapers, the votes have already been decided. If you watch the TV commentators, I read one newspaper article--it was actually styled a news article--that talked about the ``effort to defund ObamaCare, which is doomed to fail.''

That was the lead, the opening line of what purported to be an objective news article. A lot of folks in official Washington and the Washington establishment have said there is no way this can happen.

Three weeks ago they said there is no way the House is going to vote to defund ObamaCare. Three weeks ago you read it was impossible, cannot happen, will not happen. Yet on Friday the House voted overwhelmingly to defund ObamaCare.

This week it is all the same pundits. A funny thing: Everyone who said it is impossible in the House--apparently there are no consequences for their being proved laughingly, totally, completely wrong. And they all come out with the same certainty, the same deep baritone voices, to say it is impossible that the votes will be there in the Senate. Republicans will not stand together.

Let me point to just a minute ago. Senator Jeff Sessions who, as he knows, was not on the letter Senator Mike Lee circulated, was not initially part of the group--according to all of the press, anyone who was not on the letter was necessarily going to oppose us, and Senator Sessions is here, courageously standing, and I appreciate his leadership, his principle, and his courage. I am going to suggest this debate is having exactly the function it is supposed to.

Back when this body was in fact the world's greatest deliberative body, as it was reputed to be, debates were about moving hearts and minds and making the case. How can we best serve the American people? Now, sadly, debates usually occur in an empty Chamber and the Washington establishment tells us this is the result of the vote before it happens.

Let me note for those of you keeping score at home, the momentum has consistently been in favor of defunding ObamaCare. Two months ago everyone said it was impossible, the American people were not behind it, the House was not behind it, the Senate was not behind it, it could not happen. We saw the American people unite. We saw over 1.6 million Americans sign a national petition, we saw the House unite, and now the Senate must unite, and I am grateful to Senator Sessions for his leadership and his support.

The junior Senator from Florida is absolutely correct. I agree entirely. Senator Rubio is inspiring. Senator Marco Rubio is a critical national leader. When Senator Mike Lee began this fight, Marco Rubio was there from day one. He was there from the beginning, despite the protests and despite official Washington saying that he should know better than to stand against the DC establishment and stand for the people.

I don't know if there is anyone more effective, more articulate, or a more persuasive voice for conservative principles than my friend Marco Rubio. His race in Florida 2 years ago was supposed to be impossible. I know that because I read it in the paper over and over.

Actually, many of the same people are saying this fight is impossible. They all said it with that same certitude and that same deep baritone voice: This young lad Rubio has no chance of winning this race. If it were up to official Washington, they would have been right. By every measure of official Washington, the winner of that race that would have been picked was the governor of the State. All of Washington was behind him. The only thing that was standing with Marco Rubio was the people.

When he started, he was at 3 percent in the polls. That is a condition I know well because 2 years later I found myself in a similar position. Yet he ran a campaign where he crisscrossed the State of Florida. He listened to the Florida people and got support from the grassroots. His victory in 2010 was a transformational moment in American politics, and it is also emblematic about what this fight is about right here.

If you trust the talking heads on television, if you trust the reporters who tell us what is up and what is down, what is white and what is black, then ObamaCare is here to stay and America has to continue to suffer with it because we can never, ever do anything to change it. As long as this body, the Senate, believes the opinions of these 100 people in this room is more important than the American people, that will remain a true and accurate description. But that is not our job. Our job is to listen to the people.

Marco Rubio's parents were Cuban immigrants. His dad was a bartender. It was a family experience that resonates powerfully with me because I came from a similar background. But more important than that, Marco Rubio's story is the American story. There is not a Member of this Senate, or a person in this country, who doesn't have a story just like that somewhere in their background.

The most unique aspect of the United States of America, I believe, is that we are all the children of those who risked everything for freedom. I think it is the most fundamental aspect of our DNA and what it means to be an American. What unifies all of us is that as Americans we value liberty and opportunity above all else.

One of the things I admire about Senator Rubio is how he views issues in this Senate. He doesn't look at it from how it impacts the titans of industry, such as the CEOs, but from how it impacts people such as his dad and my dad, the people who struggled and climbed the economic ladder, seeking the American dream.

If today you are a bartender at a Nevada hotel or if you are washing dishes at a restaurant, like his father and my father, respectively, ObamaCare is hurting you. It is hurting you in a way that all the Senators who have a special exemption from Barack Obama don't have to worry about. It is hurting you because your job is in jeopardy. You may well lose your job or you may not have a job to begin with.

Maybe you would like to be a bartender or wash dishes, but because of ObamaCare, there is no job to hire you. Maybe it is hurting you because what used to be a 40-hour a week job has become a 29-hour a week job and your boss has told you: I don't have any choice. ObamaCare kicks in at 30 hours a week, and it will bankrupt me.

Suddenly you are struggling by either working 29 hours a week and are unable to feed your kids or have to get a second job and work 29 hours a week and have to juggle your schedule, which results in making your life more difficult than it was before--not to mention your concerns about health insurance. Maybe you have a health insurance.

Maybe a person has a health insurance plan they have been struggling to pay, but it is important to them and they want to make sure their kids are covered, they want to make sure their spouse is covered. Yet every year they see their premiums going up and up and up.

We remember when President Obama was defending the ObamaCare bill. He promised the American people that as a result of ObamaCare, the average

family's health insurance premium would drop $2,500. He said: That is going to happen by the end of my first term. I would point out that the President's first term ended 9 months ago, and by the end of the President's first term, that promise was proven not just a little off the mark, not just kind of sort of a little bit not entirely accurate; it was proven 100 percent, categorically, objectively false.

Let me suggest to every American, if your health insurance premiums have dropped $2,500, as the President promised the average family--so there would be tens of millions for whom that is true--then I would encourage those Americans to enthusiastically stand and defend ObamaCare. But there is a reason it is so profoundly unpopular, and it is because it hasn't happened. Premiums have gone up, and the American people are hurting as a result. So DC should listen to the people. We should make DC listen.

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

I thank my friend from Utah for that very insightful question. Let me note there are many reasons why I love the Senator from Utah. But very near the top of the list is the fact that when he ``paraphrases'' the Federalist Papers, it is darn near a word-for-word, verbatim quote. Mike Lee is extraordinary and it is an honor to stand by his side and serve with him. The stories he has read are exactly consonant with the stories I have heard all across Texas and, frankly, all across the country. This thing is not working. It is not political. It is not partisan. It has nothing to do with what team you are on. The facts are clear. There is a reason why the unions are jumping ship. There is a reason why Teamsters President James Hoffa says ObamaCare is destroying the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class. There is a reason why the IRS employees union has asked to be exempted from ObamaCare. These are the guys who are in charge of enforcing it on the rest of us. They have asked to be exempt because it is not working. The facts are clear. It is a train wreck. As the lead author Democratic Senator put it: It is a train wreck.

In fact, let me share some of the tweets that have come in the preceding days. In the preceding days, the American people had a chance to speak out about ObamaCare and in particular there was a hashtag ``DefundObamacareBecause.'' In the last several days, Americans all over this country have tweeted their reason why ObamaCare should be defunded.

I will note to Senator Lee that some months ago, he and I stood on this same Senate floor, side by side with our dear friend Senator Rand Paul, supporting him in his historic filibuster on drones. At that time I had the opportunity to read tweets that were supporting Rand's filibuster. To the best of my knowledge, that was the first time tweets had been read on the Senate floor, which I have joked to my wife makes me happy because 20 years from now if there is some obscure political geek trivial pursuit game, I am pretty confident I am going to be an answer as to the first person to have the chance to read tweets on the Senate floor.

I am going to do my best now to be the second person. Now I am reading tweets that concern the hashtag ``DefundObamacareBecause,'' but I will note there has been another hashtag tonight: ``MakeDCListen.'' And that hashtag has been trending higher and higher-- ``MakeDCListen''--and as the evening goes forward, I fully expect for those of you who have something you want to say, but you are not currently able to come to the Senate floor--maybe in a few years you will be, maybe you will be elected to the Senate and stand at your desk and make your arguments, but right now you are not--let me encourage you to tweet with the hashtag ``MakeDCListen,'' and I expect later in the evening to read a sample of those tweets so we can help provide voice to those millions of Americans who are frustrated that DC is not listening.

But these are some of the tweets in the past few days with the hashtag ``DefundObamacareBecause.''

It is just another way to gain control over people.

Defund ObamaCare because I don't want the government

dictating my health care.

Because I don't trust the government to run my health care.

Because it was sold to us on lies. You can keep your

insurance? No. My coverage reduced to nearly nothing,

premiums the same.

Because it's too intrusive on our privacy.

Because it's killing jobs and stifling the economy.

Because it's forcing small businesses to lay off full-time

workers and replace them with part-time workers to avoid

bankrupting mandates.

Because Congress should be representing us, we the people.

A majority of Americans don't want ObamaCare.

Because it adds layers of government, inefficiency,

centralizes control to ivory-tower bureaucrats. Massive drag

on the economy.

Because it will lead to SINGLE-PAYER health ``care''.

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

Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

Because it's not even implemented yet and it has already

raised my insurance rates and reduced the quality of my

medical care.

Because cancellation notices from my carrier due to ACA

kind of ruined the narrative: Like it, keep it. Bombs away on

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

I thank my friend from Wyoming for that very good question. I thank him also for his early support of this fight to defund ObamaCare. When Senator Mike Lee and I began this endeavor, Senator Enzi was with us from the start. I am grateful for his support and for his leadership.

I note his question is exactly right. We would not be in this mess were it not for the failure of the Senate, the failure of the Senate to do its job, the failure of the Senate to have open debate, to have open amendments, the failure of the Senate to actually pass appropriations bills.

Continuing resolutions exist because Congress has fallen down on the job. Congress has not actually passed appropriations bills into law. One of the things the continuing resolution bill does--a continuing resolution basically says let's keep everything going because we have not actually passed the appropriations bills that would properly make the funding decisions on the various agencies of government. But a continuing resolution enables those who want to keep funding ObamaCare to try to hold everything hostage to it.

For example, you hear some in the Democratic majority suggesting-- they often run through a parade of horribles. If there is a government shutdown, if the continuing resolution doesn't pass, here are all of the horrible things that will happen.

Some of the parade of horribles that are suggested are contrary to law. For example, they will sometimes suggest people will not get their Social Security payment or they will not get their Medicare or they won't get their Medicaid or we won't pay interest on the debt. That is not the way the Government works. All of those are paid through mandatory spending. The continuing resolution does not impact those continuing to happen. I note in 1995 when there were two partial temporary shutdowns, Social Security checks continued to go out, the interest on the debt continued to be paid. All that continued.

Another thing those who are trying to force ObamaCare on the American people frequently want to hold hostage is the men and women in the military. My friend from Wyoming noted if we passed appropriations bills that would not be a problem. The House has passed an appropriations bill for the military. Yet the majority leader, Harry Reid, the Democratic majority, had not taken that bill up. If we had passed it into law you could quantify the chances of the men and women in the military having their pay suspended to mathematical certainty to 0.000 percent. If we passed the appropriations bill, the issue would be off the table. But the Senate did not do its job; we did not pass the appropriations bill for the military.

That leaves a tiny window for the President to threaten. If Congress listens to the American people and defunds ObamaCare, we may just stop paying the men and women of the military. Let me be absolutely clear. Under

no circumstances ever should the United States not pay the men and women of our military who risk their lives on the front lines. Current law gives the President ample authority to continue to pay the military regardless of whether there is a temporary partial shutdown.

What has happened in the past, if and when there has been a temporary partial shutdown, is nonessential government services are temporarily suspended. By any measure, the military of the United States is not nonessential. So if we had done our job, as the Senator from Wyoming puts that forward, if we had passed appropriations bills, we would have taken off the table one after the other after the other of these hostages that are being held as the price to force ObamaCare on the American people.

Part of the reason why the Democratic majority of the Senate does that is because the debate on the merits of ObamaCare is very hard to win. You notice we are, by and large, not engaging in a debate on the merits of ObamaCare, in terms of defunding ObamaCare. You don't see Democratic Senators talking about all the people who are losing their jobs, you don't see Democratic Senators talking about all those people having their hours reduced or all the people seeing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, or who are losing their health insurance. Instead, we see Democratic Senators going on television and saying: Well, if they stick to their guns on this, it is going to shut down the government.

The Senator from Wyoming points out there is no reason for that. We could have passed the appropriations bill or we could do what the House of Representatives did. The House of Representatives, in an overwhelming vote, 232 Members, including 2 Democrats, voted to fund every aspect of the Federal Government--including, I note, some parts of the Federal Government that I am certain House Republicans are not fans of--yet they voted to fund all of it except for ObamaCare.

I know my friend Congressman Louie Gohmert has come over to the Senate floor in a show of solidarity. I appreciate Congressman Gohmert joining us.

I note if the Senate wants to avoid a shutdown, it can do so. Indeed, last night I took the opportunity to ask the majority leader, Why don't we avert this whole train wreck right now? Why don't we agree by unanimous consent to pass the continuing resolution the House has passed, take the prospect of a shutdown off the table entirely, and defund ObamaCare because it is hurting the American people? Majority Leader Reid objected and said no. No, he wants to keep ObamaCare, he wants to force it on the American people. Critically, he wants to use the threat of a government shutdown to try to do so. That, I suggest, is inconsistent with the obligation that every Senator has.

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

I thank my colleague for that very good question. The simple answer is no, the President does not have the authority to rewrite the law or alter the law. We operate under a principle that no one is above the law. We are a nation of laws and not of men. There are many disturbing aspects of ObamaCare, but one of the persistent ones is this law has been such a train wreck that the approach of the President has been, over and over, simply to disregard the language of the law, to pretend as if the law of the United States does not exist because as passed it was such a bad law. The way that is manifested, as my friend from Wyoming pointed out so accurately, is to grant exemptions to politically favored classes.

It started out with big business. Giant corporations were all, with the wave of a pen, told don't worry about ObamaCare. It is supposed to kick in for you January 1 of next year, but the President has decided he is going to do a favor for big businesses that he will not do for small businesses, that he will not do for hard-working American families.

The next significant waiver we saw was for Members of Congress. It occurred after a closed-door meeting here in the Capitol where majority leader Harry Reid and all the Senate Democrats, according to the public reports, came to the President and said: We want out of the ObamaCare exchanges.

As my friend from Wyoming pointed out, if the ObamaCare exchanges were a good thing, if ObamaCare was working, why would there be panic among Senate Democrats saying please exempt Members of Congress? Why would there be panic among congressional staffers, as I can assure you there is, in a bipartisan way, about being subjected to these ObamaCare exchanges? Why would there be such opposition to subjecting the political appointees of the Obama administration to the ObamaCare exchanges or, as my friend from Wyoming pointed out so correctly, the President himself?

It is, after all, called popularly ObamaCare. Even the President has embraced that name. You would think, I suspect, if there were a health care plan called EnziCare, the Senator from Wyoming would be happy to be covered by it and he would probably be very careful to draft a plan that he would be willing and excited to be covered by.

What does it say that the people in charge of enforcing ObamaCare on the American people want out? They want a special rule. The IRS employee unions, the men and women who are given the statutory responsibility of going to Americans, going to hard-working Americans and forcing Americans to comply with ObamaCare, have said in writing: Please, let us out of ObamaCare. We don't want to be a part of this thing. This is our health care you are talking about.

The most profound issue we are dealing with here today is not jobs, it is not the economy, it is not health care, it is not ObamaCare. The most profound issue we are dealing with here today is the fundamental divide between Washington and American people. There is a ruling class in Washington, DC; that they are subjected to different rules than the American people; that it is perfectly appropriate for political friends and allies of the President to get exemptions while single moms and young people and Hispanics and African Americans, people struggling, union workers struggling to pay the bills, provide for their kids--they don't get an exemption. Just those who walk the corridors of power. Just those with access to political influence.

You know what that does? It strengthens politicians even more. Look, politicians are in the business of granting dispensations, granting exceptions. That means everybody in the country who wants some exception better come to politicians and support them.

If you want to talk about something corrosive to our system of democracy, why do you think the American people hold this body in low regard? Because we pass laws that treat us better than everybody else. Tonight we are listening to the American people. We need to make DC listen.

By the way, I have been told that during the course of this filibuster, the ``#MakeDCListen'' has at times been trending No. 1 in the country.

I say to my colleagues who have come to the floor in support of this effort that it is because the American people understand and are frustrated as to why Washington doesn't listen to them, and for at least a brief moment each of us together--the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Oklahoma--are trying to serve as a voice for the American people who don't often have a voice in Washington. We need to make DC listen. There is nothing more important we can do than that.

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

I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his excellent question. Let me say from the outset that I am grateful for Senator Inhofe's leadership and his courage. From the outset Senator Inhofe has been with me on this fight, fighting to defund ObamaCare.

I want to also note that Senator Inhofe, like some of the other Senators who have come to the floor of the Senate this afternoon-- including Senator Roberts, Senator Sessions, and Senator Enzi--are respected veterans of this institution. They are leaders who have earned the respect of their colleagues.

I am grateful for Senator Inhofe being willing to stand up and be a leader in this fight. That courage is contagious. I hope it will continue to be even more contagious in the Republican Congress. I hope by the time we come to the cloture vote on Saturday that we see all 46 Republicans united in voting against shutting off the debate and against allowing majority leader Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare with a straight 51 party vote.

I do indeed. I remember in particular at the time the press and all of the graybeards in Washington at the time saying that Hillary Care was unstoppable. It can't stop it. Republicans need to get together.

If the Senator from Oklahoma will recall, initially the response was described as like Hillary care lite. Back then in the midst of the Hillary care fight there were a few courageous leaders in the House who stood up against Hillary Care. What changed that battle was the American people rising. At the end of the day, it is the only thing that can win any fights.

I thank my friend from Oklahoma for that question. I have to say I am not surprised. There is an old adage among courtroom lawyers: If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you don't have either, pound the table.

To be honest, the approach by ObamaCare defenders is an awful lot of table pounding. It is an awful lot of ``let's discuss anything other than what, in fact, happened.'' Pick up any newspaper and it is talking about this issue. What will the reporters, the political reporters in Washington, DC, write about? I think some may be frustrated because they wanted to be Hollywood gossip reporters because they covered these issues as a battle of personalities. If you want to get a story on the front page of the paper, find some anonymous congressional staffer to say something scurrilous, ideally include profanity in it, and the political reporters eat it up, because, apparently, the only thing that matters is the personalities bickering back and forth. In many ways, that is not surprising, because if one is trying to defend a law that the lead author calls a train wreck, that the unions who supported it are desperately trying to get out from under, that you and your Democratic Senate colleagues are desperately asking for yourselves to be exempted from it, then you sure as heck don't want to talk about how the law is operating. You sure as heck don't want to talk about all of the people who are losing their jobs because of ObamaCare. You sure as heck don't want to talk about all the people who can't get jobs, all the small businesses that aren't growing because of ObamaCare. You certainly don't want to talk about all of the people forced into part- time work, 29-hours-a-week work. You don't want to talk about the insurance premiums that are going up, pricing people out of the insurance market, and you especially don't want to talk about all the people losing their health insurance.

My colleague read the stories from East Texas of citizens there losing their health insurance. That is happening all over the country.

So it doesn't surprise me that the Senator from Oklahoma is seeing robocalls in the State of Oklahoma because they don't want to debate on the merits of ObamaCare because it is indefensible. So the only strategy is smoke and mirrors. The only strategy is, if we can't talk about the law, let's convince them about something else. Let's distract them. Let's figure out anything to take people's minds off of the underlying issue.

I would note to my friend from Oklahoma, the only way that strategy works is if the American people don't believe Washington will listen to them.

Look, there are a lot of reasons for the American people to believe Washington is not going to listen to them because Washington hasn't been listening to us for a long time. Politicians on both sides of this aisle have lost touch with their constituents. They don't go home, don't go to townhall meetings, and view the desires of their constituents as simply uninformed and not relevant to doing our jobs.

I am yielding for a question but not yielding the floor.

I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his very kind remarks of support and encouragement and for his friendship from day one since I arrived in the Senate. I do hope other colleagues in this body don't listen to all of the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma and suddenly discover that hanging for treason is an option because that may not work out terribly well for me. I hope that becomes purely fictional.

I will know that at the end of the day--listen, the Senator from Oklahoma and I, and all 100 of us, are incredibly fortunate. We have lived lives in this country of relative privilege. We, everyone in the Senate, enjoys a good home, has a soft bed, I suspect, has air- conditioning, has food on the table. I feel blessed to have a wife who is my best friend in the world and whom I love with all my heart, to have two precious little girls who are the joy of my life. To be able to come to work every day, to walk on this Senate floor, there is not a day when that doesn't take my breath away. The idea that the son of a Cuban immigrant with nothing, who finds himself suddenly elected to the Senate, to have the opportunity to come in every day, it is truly awesome, in the real sense of the word. There was a time when the word ``awesome'' was a Valley girl phrase for everything, but awesome, in its real sense of inspiring awe--I will tell my colleague I find it awesome every day to walk into this Capitol and to have the amazing privilege to serve, as the Senator from Oklahoma and I do, as do all 100 of us. The slings and arrows one deals with serving in public office, to be perfectly candid, are all chickenfeed. The old phrase about sticks and stones--listen, someone saying something mean about another is nothing compared to the suffering that so many people across this country are experiencing.

I sat down with one single mom who is working her heart out to provide for her kids because she wants her kids to have a good home, she wants her kids to have an education, she wants her kids to have a future. Her hours have been reduced to 29 hours a week and she doesn't know what is coming next. That is hard work. That is suffering. This ain't nothing.

The Senator from Oklahoma speaks with disabled veterans, as I know he has done many times, and he is worried about the impact of ObamaCare on our economy, of jobs drying up. He is worried about his grandson who is just coming out of school right now but who can't get a job. That is a lot more important than the political bickering back and forth. That was my point about all of the press coverage dealing with--it is not about any personality here; it is about listening to the American people.

The American people do not give a flying flip about any Member of the Senate--none of the 100 of us. What the American people are interested in is what we have always been interested in, which is freedom, our families, providing for our kids, being a good example to our kids, working for a better world and working so our kids and their kids have an even better future and opportunity than we have had. If we go back centuries, we see that every generation of Americans has been able to give to the next generation a brighter future, greater prosperity, greater opportunity. We are on the verge of being the first generation of Americans not to do so. If we want to put our fingers on the discontent so many Americans feel, that goes right to the heart of it: What we are doing in Washington isn't working.

The economic malaise. I refer to the last 5 years as the ``great stagnation'' because for 4 consecutive years our economy has grown on average 0.9 percent a year. It is not working. Intelligent, rational people looking at a set of policies that aren't working would do the intelligent, rational thing. We would correct course. We would say, OK, this isn't working. What has worked? But that is not happening. It is not happening because even though it is not working, the failures aren't visited on Congress. The failures are visited on the American people. Congress exempts itself from ObamaCare. It doesn't even do it in the law. The law says we are covered by it, but, instead, Democratic Senators go to the President and say: We want a special exemption for us that doesn't apply to the American people. So the fundamental problem is that elected officials are not listening to the people.

Earlier, I was reading the article about the lost generation of young people from the Wall Street Journal that ran on September 19. I made it about halfway through. Let me finish that article because I think it raises some very important issues. The last thing I read was about the young man, 23 years old, working a job where he says his job at the grocery store--he doesn't have a college degree, but he is seeing more and more college degrees getting in, and he is saying: Gosh, I thought this was a job that helped me pay my way through school. If this is the end job after you get a degree, what does it say about opportunity?

The last quote I read was:

I think a lot about whether I am ahead or behind. I really

hope I'm not ahead.

The article continues:

Americans aren't the only ones asking such questions. The

financial crisis that began in the U.S. quickly rippled

across the Atlantic, bursting similar credit and property

bubbles in countries such as the U.K., Ireland and Spain, and

crippling a European banking sector that had dense links with

the U.S. financial system.

Much of Europe's economy was plunged into its worst postwar

slump and has struggled even more in the U.S. to regain its

precrisis levels of growth and jobs. In Europe, the banking

crisis also triggered a second-wave crisis--massive capital

flights from Southern European countries that relied on

foreign borrowing--that came close to unraveling the euro.

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

But there are signs that the weak economy is leading to

deep societal changes. An entire generation is putting off

the rituals of early adulthood: Moving away, getting married,

buying a home and having children. The marriage rate among

young people, long in decline, fell even faster during the

recession, and the birth rate for women in their early 20s

fell to an all-time low in 2012.

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

According to a recent Pew Research Study, 56 percent of 18-

to 24-year-olds lived with their parents in 2012, up from 51

percent in 2007--

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

an increase that looks particularly dramatic because the

share had changed little in the previous four decades.

Moreover, many young people are losing hopes of matching the prosperity of their parents' generation.

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

Just 11 percent of employed young people in a recent Pew

survey said they had a career as opposed to ``just a job'';

fewer than half said they were even on track for one.

John Connelly thought he was on the right track in life.

The son of a New Jersey auto mechanic, he was the first in

his family to go to college when he enrolled in Rutgers in

2009.

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

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

Four years later, the 22-year-old found himself $21,000 in

debt, without a permanent job and sleeping on friends'

couches in New Jersey and Brooklyn. ``I hear a lot of stuff

that people in my generation aren't buying cars or houses,

and I'm a step beyond that--I can't even pay rent on time,''

Mr. Connelly says. ``I have a hard time planning 10 years in

the future when I can hardly plan three months in the

future.''

At Rutgers, Mr. Connelly was an honors student and

president of the student assembly. But wary of taking on more

debt, he ended up withdrawing from school with three credits

to go until graduation. After a summer spent living with

friends while working a temporary job at a Brooklyn

nonprofit, he found a grant that allowed him to reenroll in

school this fall, but he still doesn't know what he will do

when he graduates at the end of the semester. ``I kind of did

everything I was quote-unquote ``supposed'' to be doing,'' he

says.

I am still reading from the Wall Street Journal:

The costs of a ``lost generation'' go beyond the impact on

young people themselves. A 2012 analysis commissioned by the

Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal

agency, estimated that the 6.7 million American youth who are

disconnected from both school and work could ultimately cost

taxpayers $1.6 trillion in lost tax receipts, increased

reliance on government benefits and other expenses. Look

at broader economic and social effects such as lost

earnings and increased criminal activity and the impact

tops $4.7 trillion, the researchers estimated.

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

I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question. That most assuredly is not my position, so I thank the Senator for the opportunity to clarify it.

Let me be very clear. I do not believe we should shut down the Federal Government. The only reason we might shut down the Federal Government is if President Obama and Majority Leader Reid decide they want to force a government shutdown.

What I believe we should do is the same thing the House of Representatives did, the same thing the House courageously did, which was last Friday the House of Representatives voted to fund every aspect of the Federal Government--every bit of it, including parts they disagree with--except for ObamaCare. I would note to my friend from Illinois, they did so in response to the American people because the American people are hurting under ObamaCare.

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

I thank the Senator for that question, and I thank the Senator for the comment he has made in public, noting that having attended the schools I have that perhaps I had not learned to count to 60. I will note that I am quite familiar with what is necessary to defund ObamaCare. What I have said for months is this is a long process. I am not remotely Pollyannaish. I am not remotely under the illusion that this is going to be a short, quick process, that suddenly ObamaCare will be defunded.

I am getting to the answer to the Senator's question, but it is a detailed answer, so if he will forgive me, I will take a few moments to lay it out.

In my view, the first step to this process was unifying and motivating the American people. This process was never going to work unless the American people became engaged in historic numbers. So I spent much of the month of August and September during our recess traveling the State of Texas, traveling the country, doing everything I could to go directly to the American people, to go around the lobbyists, to go around the entrenched interests in Washington, and go straight to the American people.

I will tell the Senator, the response was incredible. Everywhere I would go, I would see 1,000, 2,000 people show up. We have seen over 1.6 million Americans sign a national petition to defund ObamaCare.

That was the first step. That was not going to be enough, but it was a critical first step.

The second step was what happened last week. It was the House of Representatives voting to defund ObamaCare.

I would note, as the Senator from Illinois is well aware, that as recently as a couple weeks ago, every learned observer, every pundit, everyone in Washington said: It is impossible that the House is going to pass a continuing resolution that defunds ObamaCare. It is not going to happen. Yet on Friday it did. Why did it pass it? Because the House of Representatives listened to the American people, because the Speaker of the House and House conservatives stood and did the right thing and made a courageous vote. I will note, two Democrats joined the House Republicans in that vote.

I would like to finish answering the Senator's last question, and I am happy to yield for another. But let me finish answering the Senator's question.

The third step is where we are now as the Senate. In the Senate, we are going to have to do two things. The first thing we are going to have to do in order to successfully defund ObamaCare is to unify Republicans, to bring together all 46 Republicans, opposing cloture, opposing Harry Reid being able to fund ObamaCare on a straight 51-vote partisan vote. I believe every Republican should be unified in that. Right now we are not. Right now there are divisions in the Republican caucus. I am hopeful Republicans will listen to our constituents. I cannot convince my colleagues. The only people who can convince my colleagues on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle are the people all of us work for, the American people.

If we are able to unify Republicans, the next step--the Senator asked me: How do we ultimately get to 60? I assume the predicate of that question is that the first thing we would have to do is to get to 51-- so if we got 46 Republicans and we initially got five Democrats. How would we get five Democrats? As the Senator from Illinois is well aware, there are quite a few Democrats who are up for election in red States, States where their citizens understand ObamaCare is a train wreck. It is not working. I believe if those Democratic Senators, particularly in red States, begin hearing from their constituents in overwhelming numbers, that will change their calculus.

Let me readily admit, as long as Republicans are divided, as long as we are shooting at each other, there is not a lot of incentive for Democrats to come join us. But if we can unify Republicans, then I believe we will start with red State Democrats who will potentially lose their jobs if they continue not listening to their people.

Sure.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question. I will say, I respect his sincerity and passion in believing that government solutions from Washington can fix this problem. I do not know if the Senator from Illinois shares the views that Majority Leader Reid expressed on television. I do not know if his objective is as Majority Leader Reid said his was: to move to single-payer, government-provided, socialized health care. But it may be. I do not want to put words in the Senator's mouth. Certainly, I do not know one way or the other what his view would be.

But I will say this. The Senator tells the story of Judy. The best way for Judy or anyone to have health insurance is to have an economy that is booming where people can get jobs and have opportunities. Indeed, let me respond with two things.

No. 1, before the Senator from Illinois came to the floor of the Senate, I read a number of letters that have come from people all over the country. Let me just read the next one in my stack because it happens to actually be a counterpart to his story about Judy. This is a constituent from Brackettville, TX, who wrote earlier this year:

Since the passage of what is known as Obama Care, my

insurance premiums have gone up three times. That doesn't

count the increases in my Medicare Part A and B that have

also risen. I was also informed prior to passage that certain

retirees from one group would see their company support

terminated after 2013 and my support will terminate after

2018. In the meantime, I've lost two family doctors who have

left the practice . . . and must settle for nurse

practitioners and physician assistants. I am fortunate to

have good coverage, for which I pay dearly, that is accepted

everywhere; but I fear the day I can no longer afford it. I

am paying for Obama's train wreck ever since the bill was

passed. Surely, there must be some way to defund or repeal

the bill. . . . Please help.

I would note for the Senator from Illinois, these pleas for help are coming from all across the country.

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

I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question.

Let me answer it in two different ways. Let me talk generally about what the Senator talked about, about his health insurance and my health insurance as a Member of the Senate and let me talk about preexisting conditions separately.

The first point I will make is that the Senator from Illinois is passionate and has been quite eloquent describing what he perceives to be the benefits from ObamaCare. Yet I think it speaks volumes that the Senator from Illinois and I and every other Member of Congress have been exempted by President Obama from the plain text of the statute.

The statute provided--and it was inserted quite deliberately--if we are going to impose rules on the American people, we should be subject to the same rules, we should be put in the exchanges similar to millions of other Americans. The Senator just talked about the wonderful exchange. The text of ObamaCare provides that he and I should be in those exchanges. It also provides that, just like the other people in the exchange, our employers cannot subsidize it once we get in that exchange.

Once it passed into law, the Democratic caucus met with President Obama. Obviously, I was not in that meeting. But I read the public reports of what occurred there. I read the press accounts. The press accounts all indicated that the majority leader and the Democratic Members of the Senate asked President Obama: Please get us out from under this. We do not want to be in the exchanges.

I see my friend from Illinois is shaking his head. I was not in the room. The press reports all say that is what occurred. But regardless, that is what happened.

So that message was heard by the President because shortly thereafter the administration issued a ruling that exempted Members of Congress and exempted our staff.

I am curious, if the Senator from Illinois is such a fan of the exchanges, is such a fan of the health care that has been provided to Judy, would the Senator from Illinois then support Senator Vitter's amendment to provide that every Member of Congress, every one of our staffs, every political appointee in the Obama administration--and, frankly, I would like to see every Federal employee all put under the exchanges--so if we are going to make the rules for the American people, that we be subject to those same rules, those same plans, so that when we go on television and say the exchanges are very good, we are not talking about something someone else is experiencing, we are talking about our own health care.

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

I thank the Senator from Illinois for his certainly genuine political advice and counsel. I would note that the experience Democratic Senators found under ObamaCare of suddenly facing the prospect of losing their health insurance, of being forced into the exchanges, health insurance that had been employer provided--being forced into the exchanges with no employer subsidy, is a disconcerting experience. It is an experience nobody liked. It is an experience that is lousy. There is a reason why Democratic Senators were so upset. There is a reason why congressional staff were so upset.

What my friend from Illinois is not focusing on is that right now there are Americans all over this country who are experiencing that same exact sentiment because of ObamaCare. Just a few weeks ago UPS sent a letter to some 15,000 employees saying: We are dropping spousal health insurance because of ObamaCare. That is 15,000 UPS employees who had insurance for their husbands and wives, and suddenly those husbands and wives are left without health insurance and being told: Go on an exchange with no employer subsidy. Senator Durbin just made a passionate case for why that is a terrible thing to tell people. I agree.

Listen, my preferred outcome is not to subject Members of Congress, congressional staff, political appointees of the administration, and Federal employees to the exchanges and ObamaCare. My preference is to subject nobody to that. But the reason Senator Grassley inserted that amendment is because we have a problem of a ruling class in Washington--in both parties; this is a bipartisan affliction--that believes the rules that govern working Americans do not govern us.

So if we are going to set up a system, if ObamaCare is going to force Americans all over this country to lose their employer-provided health insurance, to be forced into the exchanges with no subsidies, then the men and women who serve in this body should feel that pain exactly the same. So when we go on television and say ``this is great,'' we should know of which we speak because we got skin in the game and we are not being treated better. I think under no circumstance should Members of Congress be treated better than hard-working Americans. That is what President Obama did. He did so, by all reports, at the request of Democratic Senators in this body.

I am going to yield to the Senator from Alabama. I am happy to return to the Senator from Illinois if he would like to remain, but I want to be fair because the Senator from Alabama has been waiting for some time. So I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor.

I think the Senator from Alabama is exactly right. We are seeing Americans all over this country hurt by ObamaCare.

I want to suggest that the problem we are debating today is bigger than this continuing resolution, it is bigger than ObamaCare, and it is bigger even than the Federal budget. The problem is that the men and women of DC are not listening. They are not listening to the millions of Americans who are asking for more accountability, more responsibility, and more truth from their elected officials. It is time to make DC listen.

I would observe that during the course of this afternoon, the hashtag ``MakeDCListen'' has been trending No. 1 because the American people are frustrated. They are frustrated that the Democratic Senate is not listening to them. They are frustrated that the Republican Senators are not listening to them. The whole debate we are having right now is not about strategy, it is not about process, it is not about procedures, and it is not about all of the pundits and pollsters and consultants. The problem is that DC is not listening.

Everyone in America knows that ObamaCare is destroying jobs. What the Senator from Alabama so eloquently talked about, the econometric predictions--you have to get outside the beltway to any of the 50 States and actually talk to people who are trying to find jobs and talk to small business owners who are struggling under the 20,000 pages of regulations. Everyone in America knows ObamaCare is destroying jobs and driving up health care costs.

Let me encourage right now everyone in America--President Obama 3\1/ 2\ years ago promised the average American that by the end of his first term, by the end of last year, the average American family's premiums would drop $2,500. Let me encourage everyone in America whose premiums dropped $2,500 to go online and tweet ``ObamaCare cut my premium.'' You know what. I am willing to venture that in every one of these States, if all of the Democratic Senators who support ObamaCare are willing to say ``I will take only the votes of those of you whose premiums have gone down,'' I can tell you right now on the Republican side that I will happily take the votes of everybody else because I am going to predict that is not going to be a 50/50 election, it is not even going to be a 60/40 election. Everyone knows this thing is not working, and Washington is pretending it does not know. This process is rigged. That is why we have to make DC listen.

In traveling across Texas, just like the Senator traveling across Alabama, I hear the stories everywhere I go. It does not matter what town I am in, it does not matter whom I am talking about, I hear the stories. I see people with disabilities saying: Please stop ObamaCare before I lose my health insurance. I see young people who would like to be working toward a career saying: Please, I would like a job.

I met with a whole bunch of service men and women who had just come back from Afghanistan at a military base in Texas. I asked them, as I try do in any gathering that is a small enough group that I can do this: Go around, share an issue that is weighing on your heart, that you pray about, that you are concerned about.

I remember one young soldier said: I am most worried about jobs. When I come out of the military, am I going to have a job? All of my buddies, when they come out, they cannot find jobs.

Everyone nodded and said: That is exactly right.

The American people want to stop this madness. So do I.

Here in Washington we pass million-dollar bills and billion-dollar bills no one has ever read, without even voting on them. We call it unanimous consent.

It is only unanimous because we do not let the American people know. It would be very interesting to bring 100 of our constituents in on any unanimous consent that is spending $1 billion here, $1 billion there, and see what our constituents think about that. The system is designed deliberately to hide what we are doing.

In this debate right now there are many Members of this body who are happy that the debate is covered with obscurity over pressure, obscurity over a motion for cloture on a motion to proceed. Nobody knows what that is. You know what. That benefits Members of this body because it lets all 100 go back to their citizens and say: What were you for? Yeah, yeah, I was for that because I was for the motion to whatchamacallit.

No one understands what that is.

You know, one of the things we see is our leaders demand approval for bills before they are amended. So we are being asked this Friday or Saturday to vote to shut off debate on this bill before we know what the bill will be. We do not know what amendment Harry Reid is going to file, but we are asked to cut off debate nonetheless. It is like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she said: Pass it to find out what is in it. You wonder why the American people are disgusted with what happens in Washington. That is business as usual in this town.

Listen, the way this is planning to unfold is very simple. Majority Leader Reid has said that if he succeeds in cloture, if he succeeds in shutting off debate on Friday or Saturday, that he is going to introduce one amendment--and by all appearances only one amendment--to fund ObamaCare in its entirety. That will be subject to a straight 51- vote threshold.

There are a couple of dynamics going on. No. 1, Republicans are actively debating among ourselves: Should Republicans vote with Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to allow Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to fund ObamaCare with a straight 51-vote partisan majority? I do not find that a difficult question. I think that should unify all 46 Republicans to say no. We should not enable ObamaCare to be funded, and a vote for cloture on Friday or Saturday is a vote to fund ObamaCare. They are one in the same. They are identical.

If you vote to give that power to Harry Reid to fund ObamaCare, then you are responsible for it being funded--and, by the way, for it being funded in the same broken process where there are no amendments, there is no opportunity to change it, there is no opportunity to offer anything. The Presiding Officer will not have an opportunity to offer an amendment, and I will not have an opportunity to offer an amendment. Instead, it is brute political force.

But I will tell of an upside--an upside, frankly, from some Members of the Republican caucus. If debate is cut off, they can tell their constituents: I voted for the House bill. That is not true, but they can tell them that. But even better, a 51-vote threshold--here is the dirty little secret people do not want to admit: There are more than a few Republicans on this side who affirmatively want a 51-vote threshold on funding ObamaCare. Why? Because they want two outcomes. No. 1, if we have a 51-vote threshold on funding ObamaCare, I promise you all 46 Republicans will vote against it. It will be a straight party-line vote, which means every Republican can go back to their district and say: Mr. and Mrs. America, when I had the opportunity to vote against ObamaCare, I did it. I did what you wanted.

I did what you want. The rest of it is kind of hidden in the procedural mumbo jumbo. But the beautiful outcome--and the reason why some Republicans want a 51-vote threshold--is if it is 51 votes we will lose. The President is well aware there are more than 51 Democrats in this body. It will be a partisan party-line Democratic vote, exactly how ObamaCare got passed into law.

I am going to suggest that Republicans going along and saying we want a symbolic vote is not listening to the people. Look, the dysfunction is on both sides. The Democratic Members of this Chamber--I understand, look, ObamaCare is a Democratic law passed and signed into law by a Democratic President, passed into law with only Democratic votes.

It is hard, if you are a political party, to admit, gosh, this thing that we put a lot of political capital in, it ain't working. That is a difficult, risky thing for anyone to say.

I am going to encourage--and my hope is that by the end of this process we will see some Democrats, Senate Democrats, listen to their voters and say: Listen, I thought this thing would work, I hoped it would work, but it hasn't. That is what the unions have said. The labor unions that publicly, vocally supported ObamaCare--and many of them were active proponents of getting it passed--have looked at it and said: Do you know what, we thought it would work and it hasn't.

There is no shame in admitting you tried something and it didn't work. I very much hope over the course of this debate we will see some Democratic Senators doing so. I would note that the fact that Senate Democrats are not participating, are not here, makes it less likely. But on the Republican side, the game is the same.

Washington, DC, is a strange place in many regards, one of which is symbolic votes are treated as tremendously important. I am told of a conversation that Senator Lee had with a Member of the House when early on the House had not yet voted to defund ObamaCare, but there was discussion about casting a symbolic vote to do so. The American people were quite unhappy with that and expressed that view.

Both Senator Lee and I expressed the view that we shouldn't be engaging in procedural games; we should actually be defunding ObamaCare. One particular House Member who will remain unnamed called Senator Lee and made a comment that I thought was particularly revealing. He said: You guys should be grateful. We gave you your vote.

I remember thinking what a curious turn of phrase, ``grateful.'' What an odd, Washington view of things. Why should we feel gratitude for getting a vote that is 100 percent destined to lose because it is offered in such a way that Harry Reid, on a party-line vote, can fund ObamaCare, and yet we can all have a symbolic vote. The reason, frankly, is that this is a town where for a long time neither side has listened to the team. This is the town where for a long time there have been elected politicians who want symbolic votes.

Let me be very clear. I don't want any symbolic votes on anything. I think everyone--our constituents should know what we believe. Whether or not we get a vote on it to demonstrate it shouldn't matter, because if we are standing and fighting, and if we are walking the walk, our beliefs should be self-evident.

DC responds, the DC establishment responds, if anybody tries to tell the truth--look, I promise you, my observations right now that there are some Republicans that would like a symbolic vote and then would like to lose so that they don't have any risk of it actually being defunded, I promise you those comments are not getting me invited to any cocktail parties in Washington anytime soon. That is perfectly fine. I don't particularly enjoy cocktail parties anyway.

This town needs a lot more truth telling. It is absolutely true. Everyone here knows it, but we are not supposed to say it out loud. There is a custom where we kind of wink at each other and say, listen, you are telling your constituents one thing, I am telling my constituents one thing. Let's not bother to give them the opportunity to know the truth.

If we got 100 of your constituents or mine, if we got 100 citizens from any of the 50 States and we put them in this room instead of 100 Senators, I promise you, No. 1, our constituents would not care about a symbolic vote. If you got 100 people, why would you want a symbolic vote? What is the point of that?

It is only the politicians who make a living staying in office that want symbolic votes. Symbolic votes are useful for getting reelected. They don't actually change the country. They don't make the lives of people better. But they do help politicians who want to get reelected and want to run a campaign ad saying, here is what I voted to do.

If you have 100 citizens in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the great State of Texas, the great State of Alabama, what they would say on ObamaCare is,

we have to fix this. We have to get people back to work. We have to deal with all the young people that are stuck in dead-end jobs because they can't get a job coming out of school. We have to deal with all the people, all single moms working in diners who are finding themselves working 29 hours a week because of ObamaCare. We have to deal with all of the people who are struggling because their health insurance premiums are skyrocketing under ObamaCare. We have to deal with all of the people who are losing their health insurance under ObamaCare.

This is why I am speaking out today and why so many others have come here speaking out because we have to make DC listen. That is what this fight is about, to make DC listen to the American people. I very much hope that the debate over the course of this week has a real effect changing the culture. That is why this body has held 10, 12, 14 percent approval ratings.

I remember a few months ago when all of us were in the Old Senate Chamber, all 100 Senators. It was a bipartisan meeting, and it was actually a very interesting, productive conversation. I remember a number of Senators commenting about the low approval ratings that Congress has and saying something to the effect that it is because we are not more efficient, that we don't pass more laws.

I have to say I think that gets it exactly backwards. I have never once found any constituent in the State of Texas--and I suspect there are not many in your State, in my State, or in anyone else's State--who says the problem is you guys aren't passing enough laws. That is not what I hear from people.

It is what you hear from politicians in Washington who would like to pass as many laws as possible so they can take credit for them. But it is not what you hear from people. The people at home say: You guys have done enough damage already. I will tell you why I think we are held in such low esteem. It is because we don't listen to the American people.

In every poll that has been done for years of the American people, in any State, whether your State, my State, any State, even bright blue States, Democratic States, if you ask the American people what is their top priority, jobs and the economy is the overwhelming answer. This is true if you ask Republicans, even if you ask only Democrats. If you ask only Democrats in bright blue States, jobs and the economy are still the top priority--or independents, Libertarians, anyone in the United States.

Yet the Presiding Officer and I have both served in this body 9 months. I would note the 9 months we have been here the Senate has spent virtually zero time talking about jobs and the economy. It is not on the agenda. We don't talk about it. We spent 6 weeks talking about guns, talking about taking away people's Second Amendment right, and no time talking about fundamental tax reform, fundamental regulatory reform. Today we are talking about defunding ObamaCare, the biggest job killer in the country. If you want to get jobs and the economy going, there is nothing we could do that is more important than defunding ObamaCare.

What is the case? There are right now three Members of the Senate on the floor of the Senate and two Members of the House of Representatives. Ask the American people, how many Senators should be here in the debate over defunding ObamaCare, the biggest job killer in this country? Because the American people's top priority is jobs and the economy, the people would say to all 100 Senators, what possibly do you have that is more important to do?

I expect some of my colleagues are at a fundraising dinner. Some of our colleagues are at home with their families.

Do you want to know why Congress is held in such low esteem? It is not that we don't pass enough laws; it is that the priorities of the men and women in this body are not the priorities of the men and women in America. We are not listening to America.

The most important objective, what I hope will come of this week, more important than the continuing resolution and the budget, more important than ObamaCare, is that we make some real progress to changing the culture of this place so that both Democrats and Republicans start listening to the people. That is the way our democratic republic is supposed to work. Right now, unfortunately, it is not how it is working.

I yield for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank Senator Sessions for that very important question. The payer would be the U.S. Government, which means the payer would be the U.S. taxpayer, which means the payer would be hard-working Americans, once the Federal Government starts paying for all health care in all of America, which has been the stated position of the far left for a long, long time.

The Senator from Alabama made reference to Senator Bernie Sanders. I agree. I respect Senator Sanders's commitment to his principles. As you know, he previously ran as a socialist. That is correct. I respect that degree of candor. Quite frankly, I would be very happy if this body had 10 more Bernie Sanders and 10 more Mike Lees, because I think there would be far more truth in advertising and then we could have real debate about what the role of government should be in our lives.

Should we have socialized medicine? That is a very good debate to have, especially because--and I know the Senator from Alabama agrees with me on this--the facts are on our side. In every country on Earth where socialized medicine has been implemented it hasn't worked. We know what the results are. If you implement socialized medicine, you inevitably see poor quality. You see rationing, you see scarcity. You see the government getting between you and your doctor, the government deciding you want a health treatment, your mother wants a health treatment, your child needs a health

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

That is what happens. It is the government that decides who gets health care and who doesn't. And you know what. Americans overwhelmingly don't want that. This is another point that is critical. It is not just that Majority Leader Reid said he likes single-payer socialized health care; it is that he says, and a number of others have, that ObamaCare is designed to lead to that. I think it is very important to ask the question: Why? How does it lead to that? Because that goes to both sides of the aisle.

There are many Republicans who have said: We shouldn't fight this fight. It is risky. We will get political blame. All of the DC pundits say we shouldn't do this. Let's sit quietly and let ObamaCare collapse. It is collapsing of its own weight, it is not working. If we sit quietly, it will collapse and the Democrats will take the blame. I am suggesting there is far too much worry about blame and credit. Who cares? I don't care if Democrats take the blame. I would prefer to avoid the collapse and spare the Democrats the blame. Who cares?

But if it collapses, why is it that Majority Leader Reid says ObamaCare will lead to single payer? Because in the process of the collapse, it will take our private health insurance system with it. Yes, it will collapse, but it will leave a wreckage. It will leave millions of people losing their health insurance, being pushed more and more into the exchanges, with one insurer after the other pushed out of the market. So when it collapses, there is no private health insurance market to go back to. That is why Majority Leader Reid can tell the American people: Hey, I want the single-payer socialized medicine. And relax, ObamaCare will take us to that.

But that is also a real message to all the Republicans who right now have not yet announced they are going to oppose cloture on this bill. Because if we wait for ObamaCare to collapse--yes, it will collapse-- with it will go the private health insurance system, and we may find ourselves in single payer. I think instead of worrying about blame, instead of trying to play the politics and think through it--and, listen, I am not nearly smart enough to play through all the political angles and everything else--it is a lot simpler to stand and do the right thing. One of the easiest ways to do the right thing is to listen to the American people.

You want to know what the American people are worried about. Go home and listen to your constituents. Their concerns are: I am trying to get a job and I can't get a job. I am trying to grow my small business and ObamaCare is driving us out of business. I am afraid of losing my health insurance and ObamaCare is taking away health insurance.

Look, we have read, and I have stack after stack that I am going to keep reading, from individual constituents--constituents in Texas and Virginia and Utah and Alabama and all over the country--who are losing their health insurance because of ObamaCare, who are losing their jobs and being forced into part-time work. We need to listen to the people.

I told the men and women who are watching tonight if they were to tweet the hashtag ``MakeDCListen,'' which has been, over the course of this, trending No. 1, that I would share some of the tweets they sent. So with your indulgence, I would like to do so to help give them a voice.

Many of these folks right now presumably cannot walk on to the Senate Floor and give a speech. Maybe in a few years some of them might. Maybe in a few years, if enough politicians in this body don't listen to the American people we may get quite a few of these tweeters who show up as new Senators committed to listening to the American people. But in the meantime--

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

I think Senator Sessions is absolutely right. The Senate isn't trying to fix this bill. The Senate isn't trying to respond to the needs of the American people. It isn't trying to respond to the jobs that have been lost, to the people who have been forced into part- time work, to the people who have lost their health insurance. Instead, it is responding to political power.

I will note that any Republican--on Friday or Saturday when we have the cloture vote--who votes to cut off debate is voting to give majority leader Harry Reid the ability to force funding for ObamaCare with no changes--no amendments, shutting off amendments. The Senator from Alabama can't offer amendments, I can't offer amendments, and we can't do anything. It is a pure exercise of political power on a straight party-line vote. That will make many Republicans happy because they will get to symbolically vote against it, and then we will be certain to lose if it is a 51-vote threshold.

Part of the reason, I would suggest--and one can understand why the majority leader wants to do that. Listen, if you are defending a law such as ObamaCare, that is a train wreck, in the words of the Democrat who wrote the bill, you don't want to debate the substance of it. When the esteemed Senator from Illinois was down on the floor--and I appreciate his coming--he sure didn't want to debate why there is a congressional exemption, why Members of Congress are treated better than average Americans, why President Obama has said Members of Congress are going to be exempted from ObamaCare but hard-working American families are not.

Look, I understand. If I were the Democratic majority leader and I were defending that position, I wouldn't want to defend it either. Because I have to tell you there is not a State in the Union where our constituents wouldn't just about tar and feather us if we stood in front of them and defended that, yes, there should be a special exemption for Members of Congress but not for you. And for big business. President Obama granted a special exemption for big business, but not for you, not for hard-working Americans.

Look, what a perfect example of the broken system, of the disconnect between DC and the American people. It is indefensible on the merits, and so this whole process is designed not to debate on the merits. It is designed never to have that debate because, as I observed earlier, the old adage in the courtroom--and my friend Senator Lee will recognize this from his days as a litigator, as will the Chair--if you have the facts, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; and if you don't have either, pound the table.

So if you are defending ObamaCare, if you are defending exemptions for giant corporations and Members of Congress that don't go to the average American family, you don't want to talk about the facts and you don't want to talk about the law, so you want to pound the table. You want to talk about shutting down the government. You want to scare people. You want to threaten cutting off the funding of the men and women in the military, which is grossly irresponsible. I think Congress should never ever imperil the salaries

of the men and women who risk their lives to protect us.

This body should immediately take up the Defense authorization bill the House passed so that we can make sure the men and women in the military are always paid. And, by the way, even without that--if there were a partial shutdown--the President has all the authority he needs in existing law to pay the men and women in the military.

But if you don't want to debate the merits, you have to distract people. So it is a game. If you talk to a professional magician, magicians are good at banter and they are good at smoke and mirrors and distraction. Sometimes when they raise their hand and they have a shiny object over here and they want everyone to look over here, it is because they are pulling a card out of the deck with this hand. There are a lot of professional magicians in this Senate. There is a purpose to all of the discussion about shutdown and, for that matter, all of the personal politics--all of the attacks, more than a few of which have occurred within the Republican conference, more than a few of which have been directed at Senator Lee, more than a few of which have been directed at myself, and more than a few have been directed at the courageous House conservatives who led the fight in the House to get the House of Representatives to do the right thing and defund ObamaCare. It is not even the purpose that appears on the face of it. One would think the purpose is as it appears on the face. One would think the purpose for leaking nasty quotes, trying to beat up people, sending congressional staffers to get anonymous quotes--a little bit of profanity, a sort of mean, wicked sense of humor is because they are trying to pound somebody. It is not that, although that is an added side benefit. It is all about distraction. Make it about the personalities, make it about the people, make it about anything, anything, anything other than ObamaCare.

If we were actually talking about ObamaCare, if we were listening to the people--listen, if we were listening to the people, the people don't give a flip about any of the hundred of us. They don't care about politicians. And for good reason. There are very few people in America who say, when asked what do you want to do on the Fourth of July, they want to pal around with a bunch of elected politicians. Most people want to be in their backyard grilling burgers with their kids. God bless them. That is why America is the greatest country on Earth, because we have families and it is not about government. You know, in a totalitarian regime, everyone thinks about government almost all the time. Because when you have a jackboot on the back of your neck, it is hard to think about anything else.

The game in Washington is smoke and mirrors. The game in Washington is distract from anything, anything, anything, except the thing the American people care about--fixing the jobs and the American economy. That is not what is happening.

All right, let me read some tweets.

I am happy to yield for a question. I would note my friend from Alabama seems bound and determined to stop the tweets. God bless him.

I thank the Senator from Alabama, and I thank him for his perseverance, his leadership, and his courage. I will say there have been more than a few legislative fights, and even a few while I have served in this body, on which Jeff Sessions and I have been fighting side by side, and I appreciate his friendship and wisdom, and it matters in this body.

Let's hear from the American people some of the tweets that were sent this afternoon during this discussion:

Already got a second job again because taxes are squeezing

me dry. Make D.C. listen.

Congress passes laws that they don't follow, lives large

off our money, and has contempt for those they represent.

Make D.C. listen.

2700 pages when it was passed, over 20,000 pages now to

implement. Make D.C. listen.

Vote no on cloture. A vote for cloture is a vote to fund

ObamaCare. Defund ObamaCare. Make D.C. listen.

We will not go quietly into this disaster called ObamaCare.

Make it cover everyone or no one. Make D.C. listen.

What a great point. If ObamaCare is such a terrific thing, as its defenders say, then all of us should be subject to it--big businesses, Members of Congress, our staffs, President Obama, every political appointee in the government, every Federal employee.

If that is a burden--and I believe it would be a huge burden--I would not be eager about that personally, but if that is a burden, then it shouldn't cover anyone. If there is some reason why that would be unacceptable--I actually think, of all of those, our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would probably get the most pushback from having it apply to all Federal employees because Federal employees would push back mightily for good reason. But the right thing to take from that is not, well, all these guys should be exempt. It is, why would they push back?

If Members of Congress and their staff, Federal employees, the President, and the executive branch employees all found themselves subject to the same exchanges, the same rules that hard-working Americans find themselves subject to and they would be really, really dismayed, that should motivate every one of us to say: Hey, I am a lot more worried about the single mom working in a diner than I am about the IRS tax agent making $125,000 a year who is dismayed about being subject to the same rules as that single mom. And if we wouldn't be willing to make it apply to everyone, then it shouldn't apply to anyone.

Make D.C. listen. Do the right thing and defund this

abomination of an unfair tax.

Listen up, America. This is your wake-up call. Make D.C.

listen.

Defund ObamaCare now. We do not need this injurious

legislation to be enacted. Make D.C. listen.

Stay strong. Vote no on cloture. ObamaCare must be stopped.

The will of the majority of Americans is to defund ObamaCare.

Make D.C. listen.

Sick of our employees deluding themselves into believing

they are our bosses. Make D.C. listen.

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

We don't want ObamaCare. We never did. Defund it. Make D.C.

listen.

Just finished college. Can't get a full-time job. Thanks,

ObamaCare. Make D.C. listen.

There should be no law that exempts a few and burdens the

citizens. We, the people, do NOT want ObamaCare. Make D.C.

listen.

D.C. a leader out of touch. IRS has no business being

involved with health care. Make D.C. listen.

Make D.C. listen, because ObamaCare and its tax will damage

the opportunity of Americans to choose the course of their

own lives.

My insurance premiums went from $450 in 2010 to $880 in

2013 with $1500 deductible. Make D.C. listen. ObamaCare is a

job killer, will ruin health care.

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

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

Here is a nice one:

Thank you for reading tweets so the American people can be

heard. Make D.C. listen.

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

IRS bureaucrats don't want ObamaCare, either, but they are

happy to force everyone else to conform to it. Make D.C.

listen.

ObamaCare has turned America into a part-time nation.

People are losing their homes. They can't feed their children

properly. Make D.C. listen.

I wish to think about that last tweet for a second. ObamaCare has turned America into a part-time nation, and people are losing their homes. They can't feed their children properly. If any Member of this body was forced to work part-time, was losing his or her home, couldn't feed his or her children properly, it would be a crisis. Talk about getting our attention--it would be a crisis. If it was a family member, if it was our parents, if our kids were facing that, we would move Heaven and Earth to address it. Yet here it is our boss, the American people who are experiencing that, and most Members of this Senate are doing something else other than being here.

I will note that we have Congressman Louie Gohmert, Congressman Paul Broun, and Congressman Richard Hudson was here earlier. But where is the Senate?

We don't feel the pain of the American people like it is ours, like it is us. It is not surprising because President Obama has exempted Congress from ObamaCare, so we are not feeling the pain. That is the problem.

ObamaCare has turned America into a part-time nation and

people are losing their homes. They can't feed their children

properly. Make D.C. listen.

Three years and they still can't get it going. Make D.C.

listen.

Make D.C. listen, because D.C. is not listening to the

American people. HELP US.

Defund ACA. It is job killing and not affordable and we

won't get care, and our politicians act like it is good for

us.

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

Help revive the economy. Make D.C. listen and defund

ObamaCare. Fight for real reform.

ObamaCare is a disaster. Make D.C. listen.

Letters saying your plan is cancelled due to the ACA ruins

the ``like it, keep it'' narrative. Make D.C. listen.

By the way, that is from an individual who is @demcalal. Makes me wonder if that is a Democrat in California named Al. I don't know if it is, but it would be interesting if it were.

What is interesting about this is that if you get outside of Washington, it is not just Republicans who understand ObamaCare isn't working; it is Democrats, Independents, libertarians.

I feel quite confident that James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, is not a Republican. I really have no doubts on that. Yet Mr. Hoffa in a public letter has said that ObamaCare is destroying the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Those are just the facts. That is what is happening. If we were listening to the American people, every one of us would be here doing everything we could to turn it around now. We wouldn't be happy to wait until the end of the week. We would say: Now, let's stop this job killer.

Defund ObamaCare, because I know what is best for my health

care, not some bureaucrat. Make D.C. listen.

Defund ObamaCare. The majority of America is against this

intrusion into our private relationship with our doctor. Make

D.C. listen.

Make D.C. listen because ObamaCare is killing full-time

jobs.

Make D.C. listen. Defund ObamaCare because it takes our

freedom away.

If you love your country, value freedom and choice, oppose

tyranny-style government laws, then make D.C. listen to you.

Tired of Senators who won't listen. Make D.C. listen.

Make D.C. listen. Please stop ObamaCare. It is killing this

country.

We need the government to listen to the people and do what

is best for the country. I support defunding ObamaCare 100

percent. Make D.C. listen.

Make D.C. listen. We don't want government intrusion into

our health care.

D.C. isn't listening. Everyone in America understands that

ObamaCare isn't working. Make D.C. listen.

The health care reform that the President sold America

isn't the health care reform that America is getting. Make

D.C. listen.

ObamaCare. AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!!! Make D.C.

listen.

Way to go. Make D.C. listen to our voices calling for

individual liberty.

Make D.C. listen. We don't get an exception, so you

shouldn't either.

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

I don't want more government. Make D.C. listen.

I wish the Senate would listen to us. Please listen to the

people. We don't want this bill. We want freedom. Make D.C.

listen.

Make D.C. listen. ObamaCare is turning us into a part-time

economy.

Government is designed to go by the will of the people, not

the other way around. Make D.C. listen.

We don't want it, don't need it, can't afford it. Please

tell them to listen to its citizens. Make D.C. listen.

Ronald Reagan warned us about government-run health care.

Bad. Bad. Bad. Make D.C. listen.

Make D.C. listen. Analysts, experts, and business people

agree that the ACA will hurt our economy.

Americans are fed up with our elected officials not

listening. WE don't want ObamaCare. Make D.C. listen.

Let the free market make health care more affordable by

allowing sales across state lines. Make D.C. listen.

Let me say, by the way, that is a terrific proposal. Once we defund ObamaCare, there will be a lot we will need to do on health insurance. There is a lot we need to do on health care reform to make it more affordable, to make policies personal and portable so they go with you regardless of what job you are in.

One of the best things we can do is allow interstate competition. Right now it is illegal to purchase health insurance across State lines. Why does that matter? Well, the biggest barrier to access for people who don't have health insurance is the cost. You get government regulators who drive the cost up and up because they mandate this bell and this whistle, and you have to cover everything they want. It is a great thing for politicians because if you mandate that every health insurance policy has to cover this procedure, it lets politicians come to the people and say: I am giving you free what-have-yous. But one of the simplest principles of government is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Every time you mandate that a health insurance plan must include whatever benefit it is that politicians want to give away to the people, it drives the cost up. Every time the cost goes up, there are more and more people who can't afford it. So you can have a lot of politicians giving away free stuff, and when you do that, it will mean there will be a whole bunch of people who get no coverage at all because they can't afford it.

If we were to allow purchases across State lines, we would see a true 50-State national marketplace, true competition. There would be real choice.

By the way, the people who may be the biggest losers of all under ObamaCare are the young. It is difficult to design a bill to do more damage to young people. The ``lost generation'' is what economists are now dubbing young people, in significant part because of the consequences of ObamaCare. If you are a young healthy person, it may well make sense to purchase catastrophic health insurance--health insurance that if, God forbid, you get hit by a truck tomorrow or you get diagnosed with some horrible life-threatening disease.

The odds are relatively small that is going to happen to any of us, but if it does, it is very bad, and that is when we want health insurance. If you could purchase insurance across State lines, there would be a 50-State market and you could get low-cost, inexpensive catastrophic health insurance.

If you think about health insurance right now, it doesn't work like insurance. I wish to compare it to an insurance market that works. Most of us are familiar with car insurance. Most of us who have cars have car insurance. With car insurance, if you need to change the oil in your car, you do not call Allstate and say: Change the oil in my car. If you get a flat tire, you typically do not call Allstate and say: Hey, I

have a flat tire, change the tire on my car. God forbid, if you get hit by an 18-wheeler and your car gets totaled, then you call your insurance company and say this catastrophic event happened; that is why I have insurance. A lot of people when it comes to health insurance though, right now the system is treated as just a third-party payer instead of dealing with catastrophic, unlikely events. That is a reform that would make a real difference.

If you want access to low-cost health insurance, allowing people to purchase it across State lines after we defund ObamaCare would make a real difference, and if we added to that reforms that expanded health savings accounts so you could save in a tax-advantaged way to meet routine prevention and maintenance, to take care of the equivalent, in the auto context, of changing the tire, that would go even further; and if we changed the tax law right now--most people do not know that employer-provided health care is an historical anomaly. It actually arose during World War II. Shortly thereafter, when wage and price controls were in effect, employers had a challenge. They wanted to recruit employees, but they could not raise wages. It was against the law. So they began offering health insurance as a way to attract people, to say come work for my company, we will give you health insurance.

Right now the Federal tax laws heavily favor employer health insurance. The problem is, we don't live in 1950s America now. There was a time when people would get a job in a big company and work 30, 40, 50 years, retire, get a gold watch, and that would be it. We don't live in that kind of world anymore.

Most people will work for one company, then another company, then another company--relatively unlikely that American workers are going to stay with one company their entire life. They are going to switch jobs, possibly a lot, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes not voluntarily.

When you and I were in the private sector, Mr. President, if we lost our jobs and got fired, you didn't lose your life insurance. You didn't lose your car insurance. You didn't lose your house insurance. The only insurance you would lose if you lost your job was your health insurance. That doesn't make any sense. Of all of them it is the worst one to lose.

The Senator from Illinois asked about preexisting conditions. If we could change the law so health insurance plans were personal and portable, just like your car insurance, regardless of where you happen to work it goes with you, it travels with you, that goes a long way to solving the problem of preexisting conditions, because where preexisting conditions have such a big impact is when somebody loses one job and is trying to get coverage for the next job. If you could take your personal portable plan with you, that goes a long way to mitigating it. Let me point out all of those reforms have a fundamentally different philosophy than ObamaCare. ObamaCare has a philosophy empower government over your life, put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. The reforms I laid out are all about empowering you, the American people, empowering you, the patient, to make a choice, empowering you to make decisions about your health care with your doctor, with no government bureaucrat anywhere near you. I am going to suggest the difference is those plans come from listening to the people. ObamaCare is the opposite of listening to the people.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Utah for a question, and I will return with yet more tweets at a later point.

I thank Senator Lee for his very good question. I think the answer is absolutely yes. If the objective of any Senate Republican is to support the House Republicans, the bill they passed to defund ObamaCare, then one obviously would not vote to allow Majority Leader Harry Reid to strip out all of the operative language and to fund ObamaCare with a 51-vote pure-partisan Democratic majority. That is not complicated. To be honest, it is something every Senator in this body understands. All the Democrats understand it. It is why Harry Reid is voting yes on cloture. It is why, presumably, every Democrat will vote yes on cloture. Why? It is the reason some of our colleagues have used as well: A ``yes'' vote on cloture says that they support the House of Representatives' bill and support defunding ObamaCare.

I suppose that means, then, that Harry Reid suddenly supports defunding ObamaCare and that every Democrat supports defunding ObamaCare. I say to my friend Senator Lee that I would be very happy if that were the case. If that interpretation were right and suddenly Harry Reid and every Democrat supported defunding ObamaCare, that would be terrific. We know for a fact it is not the case. We know for a fact it is not the case because they publicly said it. We know for a fact it is not the case because just yesterday I asked for unanimous consent to simply pass the House bill. If every Democrat and Harry Reid supported defunding ObamaCare, he wouldn't have objected.

Everyone understands that the cloture vote on Friday or Saturday will be a vote to allow Harry Reid to fully fund ObamaCare using only a 51- vote majority that allows it to be done on a straight partisan line. There is no confusion on that. Every Democrat understands that, and every Republican understands that.

However, there is some confusion, but not in this body, and it is so Senators believe with the American people because Senators think, well, the politics and procedural mumbo-jumbo is confusing enough that I can vote yes, give Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare, and at the same time I can run paid advertisements--as more than a few of our colleagues may well be doing right now--that say: I want to defund ObamaCare. They can't do both. They can't hand Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare and claim they want to defund it. Pick a side. Pick a position and stand by your beliefs.

I will give an analogy. The House of Representatives passed a bill that cut taxes, and then it came over to the Senate. Majority leader Harry Reid announced that he wanted to file for cloture on that bill, and then after that happened, he would file an amendment to erase all the tax cuts and to jack up taxes by $1 trillion. Let's suppose he announced this publicly and told everyone: This is what I plan to do-- and by the way, it is going to be the only amendment. I will totally gut the House bill and turn a tax cut into a tax increase. I am absolutely certain if that were the case all 46 Republicans would vote against cloture. We get the game.

Voting to cut off debate is voting to allow the majority leader to gut the

House bill. So any Senator who votes for cloture is saying: I want the majority leader to be able to gut the House bill. But it is even better than that. What was it that P.T. Barnum said? You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. There are a lot of Members of this body who think: Some of the people all of the time will be just good enough for me. If I can vote to give Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare, and then, beauty of all beauty, when we get to a 51- vote threshold on ObamaCare, I can vote against funding ObamaCare, I can go home and say: Hey, I voted twice the right way. Of course, I did it in a way that guaranteed 100 percent that we are going to lose. It guaranteed that ObamaCare would be funded.

Now, for that strategy to work, it depends upon voters being really gullible and confused.

I was reading tweets earlier. Earlier we talked about how we are not living in the 1950s. In many respects we are not living in the 1950s. One of those respects is we no longer have three big networks that control all the news and limited avenues for the American people to find out what is going on. We have seen a democratization of information. We now have cable TV and more channels, it seems, than one could possibly imagine. We have avenues such as FOX News that get out content that the mainstream media won't cover in an effort to provide fair and balanced news. We have talk radio. God bless talk radio. It is an avenue to reach out to millions of Americans, and it is able to go right around the media gatekeepers. We have the Internet. We have social media. We have Facebook and Twitter. We can disseminate information directly.

In the 1950s one could do some procedural smoke-and-mirrors. One could hide an obfuscation, and people wouldn't know. One of the fascinating things--and I suspect the Presiding Officer has done this as well as an avid student of history--is listening to the old L.B.J. tapes. L.B.J. would be talking to one group on tape and say: I am totally with you. And then he would be on tape talking to the other side saying: I am totally with you. He would tell different groups things that were 180 degrees opposite of each other. He would say one thing to one group and another thing to another group. They were so different, they would never get a chance to reconcile.

I would suggest that in 2013 that is a lot harder to do. In 2013, if they tell one group they are totally with them, you better believe the other group will find out about them.

In 2013, if a Member votes--I hope they don't, but some Republicans might--to give Harry Reid the power to fund ObamaCare on a straight partisan 51-vote threshold, then that Member is voting to fund ObamaCare and their constituents are going to know about it. It is not anything any of us are going to do because our constituents are now engaged and following this debate directly. So the ad that says ``I am for defunding ObamaCare'' while at the same time fighting to keep funding ObamaCare doesn't work in the Internet age. It doesn't work.

What is the old line? I try not to lie. I try to tell the truth because it is so hard to keep track of the lies. Instead of telling people multiple positions, just stand and fight for what you believe in.

Earlier we were talking about Bernie Sanders. I respect the heck out of Bernie Sanders. Actually--and this is a comment that often surprises our friends in the media and even some Democrats--I respect President Obama. I respect the man a great deal because I think he is deeply committed to his principles. I think he has taken political risks for his principles, I think he has fought for them, and I think he is a true believer. Everything I have seen about his entire course of life-- I think he believes genuinely, earnestly, and with all of his heart in government solutions, government control of the economy and our lives, and in redistribution of wealth. I have no reason to doubt that the President sleeps like a babe at night believing that he is fighting to better America. At the same time, I believe the ideas the President believes in and the policies he has advanced are profoundly harmful-- not a little bit wrong but profoundly harmful to this country.

You know what. That is a debate we can have. That is a policy debate I welcome. Has it been good or bad for Americans to implement ObamaCare? Has it been good or bad for Americans to see jobs drying up? Has it been good or bad for Americans to see small businesses not grow anymore? Has it been good or bad for Americans to see health insurance premiums skyrocketing? Has it been good or bad for Americans to see more and more people losing their health insurance? That is a debate I am happy to have on the substance. That is an honest debate. The President embraces that policy.

I will confess that what produces more of the cynicism and skepticism toward Washington are the politicians who don't have the honest debates and don't say: You know what. I am not all that fond of ObamaCare, but it doesn't matter enough to me to risk anything on it. I care more about staying in office than I do, actually, about fighting a fight. So I want to take some symbolic votes, and I don't want to risk any chance of anyone blaming me for the downside.

I get why voters are frustrated with that. I get why voters are frustrated with politicians saying one thing and doing another. It shouldn't be complicated. Do what you say. It shouldn't be complicated. Stand for your principles. If you don't believe ObamaCare should be funded and that Obamacare is hurting Americans, then stand and say: Let's defund ObamaCare.

I have made it very clear that we could end this debate right now if the majority leader would come down and say--look, the best way to end this debate would be if he would agree to pass the House continuing resolution to fund all of government except for ObamaCare. I recognize that is not likely to happen anytime soon, but it would be the best way, and it would be the way that is most responsive to the American people. But the second way to end this debate--and, by the way, to expedite this whole process--is to simply have the majority leader agree to have open amendments and have those amendments subject to a 60-vote threshold.

The Presiding Officer and I have both been here the same number of months--9 months. During the time we have been here, we have seen vote after vote after vote with a 60-vote threshold. That is very common.

The Presiding Officer will remember the guns debate we had. Guns are an emotional and passionate issue. It is an issue people on both sides care a lot about. I get that. The Presiding Officer will remember that when we voted on the floor of this Senate, every single amendment was subject to a 60-vote threshold.

In the course of that debate, I introduced, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, the Grassley-Cruz bill. It was a law enforcement alternative. Instead of restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, it was targeting violent criminals. It was going after felons and fugitives who tried to illegally buy guns. It was going after those who commit violent crimes with guns. It was going after States that don't report mental health records to the background check system.

We just saw a horrific shooting in Washington, DC. All of us are mourning for the victims and the families there. The individual, it appears, had significant mental health issues. The Grassley-Cruz bill would have mandated significant incentives and penalties for States to get them to report mental health records, because our background mental health system doesn't work if we don't have the mental health records in them. As of a date relatively recently--I don't recall the date off the top of my head but relatively recently this year--I believe there were 18 States that reported 100 or fewer records.

The Presiding Officer will recall what happened with that bill, and every amendment. We got a majority. A majority of Senators voted for the Grassley-Cruz bill. Indeed, nine Democrats voted for the Grassley- Cruz bill. It was the most bipartisan of any of the comprehensive gun legislation that was considered by this body. There was no other comprehensive bill that had anywhere close to that level of bipartisan support across the aisle. Yet the Grassley-Cruz bill did not pass into law. It

didn't even get sent over to the House. Why? Because there was a 60- vote threshold because, effectively, Majority Leader Reid filibustered it.

As important as guns are, I think restoring jobs and the economy, restoring economic growth, dealing with the train wreck that is ObamaCare, is at least as important to the American people. The idea that somehow a 60-vote threshold was OK there but here there has to be a partisan exercise in brute power in my view is completely inconsistent with the traditions of this great body. But I will note it serves the purposes of politicians on both sides of the aisle. It serves the purposes of Democrats because most Democrats right now still want to preserve ObamaCare.

Most Democrats, in my view, are privately getting more and more nervous about the train wreck that this is. They are seeing--we can't go home and talk to our constituents without seeing the job loss and the health insurance premiums going up and people losing their health insurance. I think most Democratic Senators are nervous about it but not yet ready to abandon ship. On the Republican side, there is not a Republican here who doesn't enjoy giving speeches about ObamaCare. We can give speeches, humdingers sometimes. But there are more than a few Republicans who are nervous about actually doing anything that has a real chance of happening, because anytime we take a stand that has risk, there is downside to risk. If we hold our ground, if the House holds their ground, it is entirely possible that majority leader Harry Reid and President Obama will force a government shutdown. I don't think they should. I think it will be a mistake. But they have said they are willing to shut the government down in order to force ObamaCare on the American people. That has a lot of people on the Republican side in the conference nervous because they think, Well, if President Obama and Harry Reid shut the government down, they will blame it on Republicans and the media will all repeat that attack. The mainstream media, every one of them, will repeat word for word the talking points. It will get to the point that the stories we read in the major newspapers will read as if they were written by the White House Press Office.

But that has been the way of the world for a long time. So there are Republicans nervous about, Well, even if the President and Harry Reid force a shutdown, Republicans will get blamed and we don't want the political blame so we don't want to fight this fight. In fact, a lot of Republicans have gone out to the press and said, We can't win, we can't win, we can't win. When we have a lot of Republicans saying we can't win, that is one way to make it less likely we are going to win.

It is true if Republicans don't stand together on this, we can't win. Some have asked, Why haven't Democrats come over to join us? Listen, the Presiding Officer and I both know no Democrat is going to come join us as long as half the Republican conference is split and throwing rocks at us. There is no incentive for anyone to do that now. The only hope of bringing Democrats over to join us is if we first unify Republicans. If we get all 46 Republicans to stand together opposing cloture and to say, No, we are not going to let Harry Reid shut down all amendments; we are not going to let Harry Reid fund ObamaCare on a straight partisan party-line vote; and then, if those Democrats elected in red States begin hearing from their constituents in incredible numbers--listen, I will tell my colleagues, the people of Arkansas, the people of Louisiana, the people of North Carolina, they understand ObamaCare is a train wreck. They would like their Senators to listen to them. The Presiding Officer and I both know, when we start to hear from 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000 of our constituents, it changes our calculus. If there is one thing the men and women of this body like, it is to get reelected. The only way this fight is going to be won is if the American people speak so loudly that the politicians in this body have no choice but to listen to the people.

Let me give an example, an example the Presiding Officer and I spoke about at the time. About a month ago, we all remember that President Obama publicly announced his intention to launch a unilateral military attack on the nation of Syria. When that happened, bipartisan leaders in both the House and the Senate fairly quickly came out in support of that plan. Just about every commentator--just about every talking head in Washington--said there was no chance of stopping it. It was going to happen. It was a done deal. It was going to happen. In fact, they were the same voices who are saying now, with regard to defunding ObamaCare, it can't be done, accept it, accept it, it can't be done, it can't be done. All of those exact voices said about Syria: He is going to attack, there is nothing we can do, it will be done.

The Presiding Officer and I both spoke out loudly, saying the President should bring the issue to Congress, and I commend the President for listening to bipartisan calls. That was not easy. I have no doubt there was significant dissension among his advisers who didn't want him to do so, and I commend the President for listening to those bipartisan calls. It was the right thing to do. Once he submitted it to Congress, what happened next the Presiding Officer and I both know because we both went home to our respective States. People in our States were not evenly divided on the question of Syria. It wasn't a close call. I can tell my colleagues in my office the calls literally went 100 to 1 against the United States launching a unilateral military attack against Syria and getting involved in that sectarian civil war in a way that didn't further our national security. We had over 5,000 calls from Texans opposing getting us in the middle of that Syrian civil war. We had roughly 50 in support of it. I think the percentage in our office at one point was 99.13 percent of the calls were against military intervention.

We saw something even more incredible. Everyone said it was a done deal and the Senate was going to vote to approve it. The more the American people spoke up, the more people in this body began listening, the more some of those who early on were fans of the military intervention suddenly began listening to their constituents and saying, I am not so sure this makes sense.

And then astonishingly, remarkably--and I give him credit for this-- the President of the United States listened, and the President went before this Nation and asked this body, do not vote on this. I am glad he did, because if we had voted, I think at that point it was very clear he would have lost the vote, that Congress would not have voted to authorize military force. The House clearly would have voted against it and I think there is a good chance the Senate would have also, although the Senate is a little harder to predict. I am glad the President asked us to call off that vote, because I don't think it is good for this country, for Congress to vote against the Commander in Chief on issues of national security and defending this Nation, so I am glad we didn't have that vote. But I am glad he listened to the American people.

I want to point out, for everyone who says defunding ObamaCare is impossible, they are the same voices who said stopping the attack on Syria was impossible--the exact same voices, graybeards--all of the media.

The only thing that is going to change the dynamic in this body, the only thing that is going to unite 41 Republicans against cloture, against ObamaCare, and to defund ObamaCare, is if the voice of the people becomes so loud it can't be ignored. The only thing that is going to start moving red State Democrats is if the voice of the people in their States becomes so loud they cannot be ignored. Ultimately, that is how we win this fight. It comes down to the people.

I would also like to have a bit of a discussion on an issue that I would note the Presiding Officer and Senator Lee both care about and are quite expert in, which is constitutional law and the separation of powers. We have often seen pundits go on television and they use a phrase that I think is particularly asinine. They say, Republicans cannot expect to--fill in the blank here--defund ObamaCare, cut taxes, push tax reform, have regulatory reform--do anything--Republicans cannot expect to X because we control just one-half of one-third of the government. The only thing the Republicans have in Washington is a majority in the House, and they can't do anything from one-half of one- third of the government. There is a technical legal

term for that argument: It is poppycock. It is complete and utter nonsense. That is not the way our constitutional system works.

It is true that Democrats currently have a majority in the Senate and that a Democrat sits in the White House. That is true. But the Constitution gives different branches different responsibilities and in their respective spheres each branch has exceptional power. So when it comes to ordering our military troops into battle, to selecting targets, to making direct decisions of military conflict, the President of the United States is Commander in Chief, and it does not matter if the President is a Democrat or whether 535 Members of Congress are Republicans. When it comes to being Commander in Chief, when it comes to ordering our troops into battle, to making decisions in the midst of conducting war, the Constitution gives the President preeminent authority on that under article II.

When it comes to adjudicating the constitutionality of law--one could make arguments about whether this is right--but as a practical matter, the Constitution and modern acceptance gives the Supreme Court preeminence in adjudicating whether a law comports with the Constitution. I would note that is true even if five Justices of the Court are appointed by a different political party, the party that controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. We could have five Justices appointed by a Democratic President and 535 Republican Members of Congress and a Republican President. Yet on the questions of adjudicating the constitutionality of the law, the Supreme Court would still have preeminence and very significant authority.

When it comes to appropriations, when it comes to the power of the purse, when it comes to spending, article I of the Constitution gives Congress preeminence and, in particular, the House of Representatives. So I will be perfectly honest. If I were to pick one thing for Republicans to have control over, particularly when it comes to funding or defunding something, it would be the House of Representatives. Every pundit who goes on television and says, Well, we just control one-half of one-third of the government--what complete and utter nonsense. Not a single law can pass into law without the House of Representatives. It is a necessary but-for. And on questions of spending, the House of Representatives has preeminence. So this notion that it can't be done-- and a related point. There are some on the Democratic side of the aisle who make the argument this is the settled law of the land. Accept it already. You guys are bitter enders. We passed it into law. We won a Presidential election again. Game over. You lose.

I understand the political virtue of making that argument. It is always good to convince those who disagree with you to give up their beliefs. Sometimes those on this side of the aisle oblige by doing so. But it is not an argument that has any basis in the Constitution. Is ObamaCare currently the law of the land? Of course. It was passed into law, it is in the statute. It is on the books.

No one on this side of the aisle has argued it is not. We are arguing it should not be. That is a very different thing than saying it is not.

Congress has the power of the purse. Congress has the power--let me finish this point, and then I am happy to yield for a question. Congress has the power to appropriate. There is no obligation for Congress to appropriate, to fund a law that is not working, that evidence and experience--that what the American people are experiencing has demonstrated it is not working.

So the House of Representatives in voting to defund ObamaCare, while funding the rest of government, is fulfilling its constitutional function. If this body took up that same gauntlet, kept government funded, never shut down government, funded every aspect of government except ObamaCare because it is not working, it is hurting the American people, we would be fulfilling our constitutional function as well.

(Mr. MURPHY assumed the Chair.)

I would note the Senator from Virginia rose for a question. I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor.

Yes, that is correct.

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

I thank the Senator for that question.

What I was suggesting is we should do tax reform that encourages policies to be personal and affordable. Right now, Federal tax laws, Federal laws heavily favor employer-provided health insurance, and that creates some real failures in the market where when someone loses their job, they lose their health insurance. We would be better serving, I believe, our constituents if health insurance became like car insurance, something that went with you regardless of what job you were in.

I thank the Senator for that question.

Let me point out that preexisting conditions and the individual mandate of ObamaCare are integrally connected because the way the insurance market works--let me take an example that does not deal with health care. Let's talk about fire insurance, fire insurance on your home.

I suspect both our homes have fire insurance. Imagine if Congress were to pass a law that says fire insurance companies cannot take into account preexisting conditions, such as whether the home has already burned down in a fire.

If that were the law, what any rational person would do--we would both cancel our fire insurance policies because our house had not burned down, and if it did burn down, we could then buy a fire insurance policy and say: Please pay for my house.

Under that rule, the whole insurance regime collapses because the entire basis of insurance is you get people whose homes have not burned down to pay relatively small premiums to create a pool of capital that will be used to compensate--we do not know who, but somebody's home is going to burn down. If enough people whose homes have not burned down put in money in premiums, there will be a pool to pay for whichever unlucky soul faces their home burning down.

The health insurance market works quite similarly. If the rule is simply that for anyone, regardless of their medical condition, any insurance company has to cover them, no matter what, then the incentive is the same as with fire insurance; that if the Senator and I are healthy, it is, frankly, irrational to get health insurance, if the rule is, if I get sick, then I can get health insurance and they have to cover me. What you end up with is insurance that consists only of people

who have sicknesses, who have grave diseases, and that bankrupts every insurance plan. If you have a mandate that you cannot take into account whether someone is already sick before giving them insurance, it means the insurance companies go out of business, and what it leads to is what Majority Leader Reid has argued for--it leads ultimately to single-payer government health insurance.

It restricts the terms at which the rates are given.

Let me finish my explanation on that. I will answer the Senator's question, but I wish to finish the explanation. That is the reason ObamaCare includes the individual mandate. Because, to use the fire example again, it would be the equivalent of, if you are saying you have to issue a fire policy to anyone regardless of whether their house has already burned down, it would be the equivalent of saying we are requiring everyone who has a house to buy a policy. Because that is the only way you prevent the insurance market from being bankrupt.

So the individual mandate, the reason ObamaCare says we are forcing everyone to buy insurance--whether you want to or not--is because of the preexisting condition.

Now listen, my view on preexisting conditions is we ought to reform the market to deal with that problem. I do not think ObamaCare is the right solution. I think ObamaCare is the wrong solution. I think we ought to defund it all now. I think we ultimately ought to repeal it in its entirety.

But on preexisting conditions, I will point out, No. 1, if you have an issue--and there have been issues with insurance companies acting in bad faith, with insurance companies dropping someone when they get sick, and I think there the legal system should work to prevent that. If you have purchased insurance, if you have paid your premiums, your company should not be dropping you when you become sick. I think there is a vital role for State insurance regulators to be involved there and for our contract and tort system--the legal system--to be involved.

I think if we move toward changing the Federal tax laws to make health insurance policies portable, personal, it will go a long way to solving the problem of preexisting conditions. I am not maintaining it will solve it in every instance 100 percent of the time. It is very difficult to come up with a Federal rule that will address 100 percent of the inequitable circumstances one could come up with, and if we tried to the unintended consequences could be staggering.

ObamaCare was justified in terms of wanting to provide insurance for those without insurance. Listen, I would like to see those without insurance get health insurance. I would like to see a competitive market where low-cost catastrophic policies were attractive to people and they chose to purchase it. But one of the best ways for someone to get health insurance is for them to get a good job, for them to actually start making real money, have some disposable income, start climbing the economic ladder.

The unintended consequence of ObamaCare is it has ended up hammering economic growth, hammering small businesses. So a lot of the people the law was trying to help have been made worse off.

I thank the Senator for that question.

I could. I will confess, our policy team is working on a number of affirmative health insurance reform policies.

I will confess--and for some reason we are kind of going with the home fire analogy, so let's stick with it right now. There are some who, in the course of health care matters, argue that the heavy focus of those of us who are opposed to ObamaCare should be what is the alternative, that should be the heavy focus. Listen, I absolutely think the health care system needs reforms to change real problems in it. I am a strong believer in that.

But an analogy I have used before is, if your home is on fire, you put out the fire first before building an addition to the house. Likewise, with ObamaCare, I think ObamaCare is such a train wreck, is such a disaster that the first imperative is to stop the damage from ObamaCare. Then I think we should work, and I would like it to be in a bipartisan way. The Senator and I have talked many times about how we could work together. We have yet to find a great opportunity to do so. But I am hopeful that will change because I would like to see us listen to our constituents and work constructively to fix the problems that hard-working Americans are struggling with.

When it comes to introducing affirmative health care legislation, I fully anticipate our team will do so, and we are working on proposals now. As the Senator knows well, our having been here just 9 months, it has not been a quiet 9 months.

I thank the Senator from Virginia.

I would certainly agree that this body should spend considerable time working, and working together, on positive, proactive health care reforms, to expand competition, to empower patients.

I also agree with something else the Senator from Virginia said, which is that we should not be threatening a government shutdown. I do not want a government shutdown. I want the government to continue.

I salute the House of Representatives for passing a continuing resolution that keeps the government funded. But it also defunds ObamaCare. In my view, that is responsive to the suffering that so many millions of Americans are experiencing--to the loss of jobs, to being forced into part-time work, to facing higher health insurance premiums, to losing their health insurance.

I certainly agree with the Senator from Virginia that we should stop holding hostages. So an ideal way--and I had an earlier exchange with Senator Enzi from Wyoming, who pointed out that the entire reason we are having this continuing resolution battle is because Congress failed in its job to pass appropriations bills.

For example, the House of Representatives has passed a Defense appropriations bill. It is sitting here in the Senate. Majority Leader Reid has not taken it up. I think we should take it up and pass it immediately so that any discussion of government shutdowns does not in any way, shape or form

even remotely threaten the salary of the men and women of our military. I am confident the Senator and I agree, under no circumstances should anyone who is risking his or her life to defend the rest of us find their compensation, their salary threatened.

In my view, existing law allows and even requires the President to fund the military regardless of what happens on the continuing resolution, regardless of if we had a partial temporary shutdown.

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.

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

It is a very good question the Senator from Utah poses, and I would note there is only one way; that is, if you are trying to confuse and deceive your constituents. There is no intellectually honest way to do it.

If you ask any rational person: If the Republicans vote along with Harry Reid and 53 Senate Democrats to allow Harry Reid and 53 Senate Democrats to fund ObamaCare, have they stood for defunding ObamaCare? Of course not. It is not a difficult question. It is not complicated.

Those who want to confuse their constituents want complication. Those who have, at least initially, stated they intend to vote to allow Harry Reid and the Democrats to fund ObamaCare are at the same time--often within hours of those statements--telling their constituents: I am leading the fight to defund ObamaCare, you can't have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways. You are either willing to stand for your principles and not just on an empty show.

There was an exchange earlier with the Senator from Illinois where he was saying he wasn't surprised by the House vote. He was certain of those votes because they had voted 40-some-odd times to defund ObamaCare. But there was a big difference in this Friday vote, a big difference in why the commentators in DC, the pundits, and all of the learned gray beards said this one wouldn't happen. The other 40-some- odd times were symbolic votes. They never had a chance to pass it into law.

It is not difficult to get Republicans to vote in symbolic votes against ObamaCare. Indeed, in this body I have introduced two amendments this year that at the time, when there were 45 Republicans in this body, all 45 Republicans voted against it. We are going to have another vote. If Majority Leader Reid is successful in shutting off debate on funding ObamaCare, then all 46 Republicans will have to vote against it, and they will tell people: Hey, I voted against him, when it didn't matter. They will leave out the ``when it didn't matter'' part. They will leave out that I voted to allow Harry Reid to do that, but then once the matter was decided, I cast a vote against it to confuse my constituents.

We wonder why Americans are cynical about politics. They are cynical

about politics because too many leaders in this body, too many Democrats and too many Republicans are not listening to the American people.

Let me read statements from a number of think tank leaders across the country.

Matthew J. Brouillette from the Commonwealth Foundation in Pennsylvania.

Giving more citizens health insurance is not the same as

giving them health care. The tragic outcome is that ObamaCare

will harm the very Pennsylvanians it purports to help.

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

ObamaCare is about neither health nor care. It is about

forcing Americans to buy a service they may neither need nor

want. In the end, it will reduce the availability of health

services for citizens while making those available more

costly.

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

Connor Boyack from the Libertas Institute in Utah:

The Affordable Care Act is unfair, invasive and an

illegitimate burden on taxpayers. In attempting to remedy

certain health care problems, it follows the historical

pattern of government intervention and creates even more of

them.

Ellen Weaver from the Palmetto Policy Forum in South Carolina.

South Carolinians are already starting to feel the front

end of the shockwave as several local employers cut work

schedules to part time. And we are left to imagine the

ultimate decimation on the budgets of Palmetto State families

as personal rates skyrocket and people are forced off their

current insurance that we were promised we would be able to

keep. In fact, just last week, Palmetto Policy Forum's

president received a letter telling her she would be losing

her private policy. And this is just the beginning of the

promised ``trainwreck.''

Sally Pipes from the Pacific Research Institute in California.

Unless ObamaCare is repealed and replaced, America will be

on the ``road to serfdom'' and there will be no off-ramp. We

will be headed for a single-payer, Medicare for all system

such as exists in Canada. Americans will face long waiting

lists for care, rationed care, and a lack of access to the

latest treatments and procedures. Where will the best doctors

and we as patients go to get first-rate care?

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

Justin Owen, the Beacon Center of Tennessee.

ObamaCare presents the most dangerous threat to

Tennesseans' jobs and health security than anything coming

out of Washington. And that says a lot these days.

Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico.

ObamaCare locks in the worst aspects of American health

care. Rather than restoring the patient-doctor relationship,

it puts the IRS and the Federal Government alongside

insurance companies between patients and their doctors.

Matt Mayer, Opportunity, OH.

ObamaCare is distorting insurance markets, forcing Ohioans

to make changes they do not want to make and expanding one of

the least effective and most costly government programs in

U.S. history.

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

In Rhode Island, not only will up to 75 percent of those

currently uninsured remain uninsured after ObamaCare is

implemented, but our State has still not determined how to

pay for its wasteful exchange after the Federal subsidies

end.

Scott Moody from the Maine Heritage Policy Center observed:

The Maine Heritage Policy Center has profiled several Maine

businesses employing hundreds of Mainers that simply can't

afford to absorb the increased costs under ObamaCare. In

fact, in one case the higher ObamaCare costs will consume

anywhere from 54 percent to 134 percent of the company's

profits.

This burden could ultimately put this company out of

business, which would not only mean no health insurance for

their employees, but it would also mean no jobs either.

Doesn't that describe the nightmare James Hoffa of the Teamsters was talking about--employees losing their jobs, employees being forced into part-time work and losing their health insurance all at the same time? No wonder the unions are speaking out or remaining silent no longer.

How long will it be until we see Democratic Senators who have the courage of James Hoffa to remain silent no longer and to speak out for the men and women of America who are losing their jobs, who are being forced into part-time work and are losing their health insurance? How long will it be before all 46 Republicans do more than give speeches against ObamaCare and actually stand and fight this fight, stop saying we can't win it and actually stand up and start to win it?

Paul Mero from the Sutherland Institute in Utah:

The ACA is a hallucinogen for its recipients and defenders

in the search for prudent ways to address the medical needs

of our uninsured. A true Utah solution will rely on our

people, not the federal government.

Mike Thompson from the Thomas Jefferson Institute in Virginia:

It looks as if those on the low end of the income scale

will be harmed as part time employees will see their hours

cut and full time employees moved to part time. Small

businesses, the engine of job creation, are seeing their

health care costs rising forcing them to employ fewer people

than they would otherwise.

Wayne Hoffman of the Idaho Freedom Foundation:

Obamacare is destroying the quality of health care in

Idaho. The onslaught of new regulations and the fear of what

might come next from Washington is not only raising costs, it

has prompted countless Idaho doctors to give up medicine or

join large hospital or group medical practices. As a result,

the close knit doctor-patient relationships that have endured

in many of our communities have vanished entirely.

Do you like your doctor? Do you like continuing to see your doctor? With ObamaCare, that relationship is in jeopardy. Why do you think so many Americans are unhappy with this law?

Janie White of the Wyoming Policy Institute:

ObamaCare is closing businesses in the small populated

state of Wyoming. Full-time is going to part-time and in a

state where small business is prevalent, it's hurting an

entire state; not just one industry.

Dave Trabert of the Kansas Policy Institute:

Scholars at Kansas Policy Institute estimate that Medicaid

is expected to consume 31% of Kansas' General Fund Budget by

2023 under Obamacare and its proposed Medicaid expansion. The

``woodwork effect'' of Obamacare alone is expected to cause

over $4 billion in tax increases or spending reductions for

other government services in just the first ten years of

Obamacare.

Gary Palmer of the Alabama Policy Institute:

Because of the Budget Control Act, which the Republicans

passed in 2011, spending reductions for the next fiscal year

are already set in place by law and will require

approximately $1.3 trillion in discretionary cuts over the

next eight years. These cuts can either be done through

another round of sequestration in which the Obama

Administration will determine what is cut, or it will be done

proactively by defunding ObamaCare which, according to the

latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, will cost

$1.85 trillion over the next 11 years. Keep in mind that in

2010 the CBO estimated that Obamacare would only cost $898

billion for the first 10 years. With the U.S. already facing

a $16 trillion debt and continuing to run a trillion dollar

annual deficit, and with all the uncertainty surrounding what

Obamacare will actually cost, defunding Obamacare would be an

act of fiscal responsibility as intended by the passage of

the Budget Control Act.

Carl Graham from the Montana Policy Institute:

Obamacare has already resulted in the consolidation and

centralization of the health care industry in Montana,

removing choices and competition, especially in the state's

rural areas.

Andy Matthews of the Nevada Policy Research Institute:

At a time when Nevada is already suffering under the

highest unemployment rate in the nation, the so-called

Affordable Care Act now threatens to do even more damage to

the Silver State's jobs picture. Every day I hear from

frustrated business owners who would like nothing more than

to hire new employees but can't because of the many barriers

to hiring that this law has created.

Trent England of the Freedom Foundation in Washington State:

Washington State's Freedom Foundation reports some small

businesses are already being told their health insurance

rates will double, punishing some of the state's hardest

working people, hurting job creation, and stifling economic

growth.

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

So far, Obamacare has been a game of drawing straws: a good

deal for the IRS and others who have the ability to secure

exemptions for themselves: Congress, a motley group of

companies with connections, some unions, and friends of the

Obama administration; and the short straws being won by

average Americans, medical professionals, small businesses,

the overwhelming majority of seniors who are happy with their

current plans, and our children and grandchildren. The

results of this rigged game are an invasion of privacy,

increase in healthcare and insurance costs, loss of freedom,

distortion of the free market, and a host of changes

Americans never hoped for.

Jim Stergios of the Pioneer Institute in Massachusetts:

The ACA will slow the future of innovation in

Massachusetts, especially in the medical device field, which

faces hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes. In

addition, the so-called ``cadillac-tax'' that will burden

many Massachusetts Chevy drivers: Over half of the citizens

of the state by 2018, including union members, and hundreds

of thousands of the middle-class.

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

Minnesota has one of the finest health care systems in the

world. It is unfortunate that Gov. Mark Dayton has whole-

heartedly embraced the incursion of federal authority in our

state. The ACA is anything but affordable and threatens the

delivery of quality care to all but the most financially

secure Minnesotans. The gross misallocation of local, state

and federal resources could instead have been used to improve

health care. Instead we are bureaucratizing it. We continue

to advocate for portable, patient-owned defined contribution

plan as an alternative to one-size-fits-all health care.

Jim Vokal of the Platt Institute of Nebraska:

At the expense of middle class, every day Nebraskans,

Obamacare's implementation will cause undue hardship on the

families and the younger generation all across the state.

Governmental intervention rather than personal choice is not

the Nebraska way.

Ashley Landess from the South Carolina Policy Council:

SC business owners are forced to close their doors and sell

off family businesses, not only b/c they can't afford the

mandate but because they can't even predict the cost--and

neither can anyone else.

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

Before Obamacare, Wisconsin had one of the better health

insurance markets in the country that covered the vast

majority of our citizens. Now, under Obamacare, Wisconsinites

will see insurance premiums increase on average 51% and in

many parts of the Badger State, we will have only one company

to choose from and no consumer choice. In Wisconsin, the

Affordable Care Act is proving to be not affordable at all

and the uncertainty surrounding its implementation is

weighing on our employers and holding back our economic

recovery. Wisconsinites deserve better.

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

In Florida, where tourism and seasonal hiring are a way of

life, small businesses and large ones are confused and

frustrated as to how to move forward. Arbitrary delays and

enforcement by the federal government of this invasive and

unwieldy law have created a climate of paralysis in Florida

when it comes to job creation and planning. In a state of

roughly 19 million people, where the economic climate is

poised in every way to take off, no organization be it in

business, education, healthcare or government knows how to

proceed. The Affordable Care Act has only created stagnation

and insecurity in Florida--with a hefty price tag to come,

paid for on the backs of every taxpayer in the state.

State representative Geanie Morrison from the Texas Conservative Coalition:

The so-called Affordable Care Act is not even fully

implemented, and is already costing jobs, leading to costly

increases in insurance premiums, and promising billions of

dollars in new taxes. Texans should not have to shoulder the

cost of Obamacare, which is why we implore our Texas

delegation to defund this unpopular, unworkable, and

unaffordable law.

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

Obamacare will devastate Kentucky's already-struggling

economy. We already have entire areas where expectant mothers

in rural areas must drive two hours to see an ob/gyn. But

there will be nowhere that any Kentucky family or small-

business owner can go to hide from the increased costs and

destruction of our personal liberties resulting from this

policy of redistribution.

That list of quotes spans the country. It wasn't just one region. It wasn't just Republican States. It wasn't just Democratic States. Those are quotes from think tanks in North Carolina, Utah, South Carolina, California, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maine, Utah, Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Alabama, Montana, Washington State, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, and in the State of Kentucky.

Let me ask everyone watching: Have the Senators from each of those States come out and said they will defund ObamaCare? Have the Democratic Senators from each of those States said: I have listened to my constituents, I have listened to the people who are losing their jobs, who are being pushed into part-time work, who are seeing health insurance premiums skyrocket or losing their health insurance. Have the Democratic Senators representing those States said that?

And have the Republicans representing those States said, we will stand together, and Republicans will be united against cloture on this bill because we are not going to vote to allow Harry Reid and the Democrats to fund ObamaCare, to gut the House Republican bill? And if they haven't, it is a reasonable question to ask why. Why aren't elected officials listening to the people? We need to together make D.C. listen.

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

Well, I thank my friend from Utah for his remarkable discourse on constitutional law.

As for the latest question he asked, one might think the Hundred Years War lasted 100 years, but think again.

It was 116 years.

Things are not always as they seem.

(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)

I yield for this question. Most would say China. But think again. Chinese gooseberries actually come from New Zealand.

The way things are labeled are not always, in fact, what they are.

I will yield for a question without yielding the floor.

I say to Senator Lee, I do. A lot of people would say it must be black. If we were dealing with ordinary English language, it would be black. But perhaps airplane manufacturers think like Congress because the black box on an airplane is orange.

I will yield for that question and note it could possibly be Panama. You might think if you call it a Panama hat it would make sense that it would be Panama. But, no, think again. Ecuador. Ecuador makes Panama hats. I do not know that anyone makes Ecuador hats.

I yield for that question. Curiously enough, I do. You might think a camel's hair brush must be made of camel's hair. There are lots of

camels. They have hair. Surely you can make a brush. Well, maybe you can. I do not know if you can. But a camel's hair brush is made of squirrel fur. It makes you wonder. The squirrels apparently have a very bad marketing department if they give their fur that gets credited to the camels.

Again, I will yield for the purpose of that question to note a purple finch--listen, similar to most husbands, I have a color palate of about six colors. I remember once my wife asked me, with regard to a tile--we were redoing our bathroom. It was a white tile. She was long distance. She said: What shade of white? I will note that was a question I was utterly incapable of responding to. I was not aware there were shades of white, and my vocabulary does not cover such things. I finally dropped it in a FedEx envelope and simply sent it to her. I was like: It is a white tile. I know nothing beyond that.

But yet your question: What color is a purple finch? I would tend to think it would be purple, but I would think wrong if that were the case because a purple finch is crimson red.

I will yield for the purpose of that question as well. Indeed, I can tell you that. Now, you would think, if you call a chain of islands the Canary Islands, it must be a bird, maybe a bird in a coal mine but some sort of bird. Think again. The Canary Islands are named after a dog. I would note, the Canary Islands are a chain of islands I have some real connection to because my grandfather, my father's father, was born in the Canary Islands. Indeed, he moved to Cuba when he was 1, was raised in Cuba. My father was born in Cuba, was raised in Cuba.

The lesson from all of these is striking. Labels do not always mean what they say. Some might wonder, what does this chain of insightful questions from my friend, the junior Senator from Utah--how does it relate to the issue of ObamaCare?

If we look at Senator Lee's tremendous discourse of the Constitution--and I would note, by the way, there is not another Senator in the Senate who could give that constitutional lecture that my friend Senator Lee did, sharing with this body. I wish all 100 of us had been here to hear that because a lot of Senators--all Senators would be well served by learning or relearning those basic constitutional principles.

I yield for the purpose of that question as well--and they might well.

One of the striking things--and although under the rules of the Senate I am not allowed to ask Senator Lee a question, I can pose a rhetorical question to the body, and should Senator Lee have thoughts on that rhetorical question, he can choose to ask me a question that might contain his thoughts on that rhetorical question posed to the body.

So given that sort of convoluted reasoning, which may explain why we are in the Senate with the odd and precarious procedures that govern this body, I am going to ask this rhetorical question to the body, which is, Senator Lee explained that the Supreme Court of the United States upheld ObamaCare, after concluding it exceeded the commerce clause authority of Congress, by concluding that it was a tax. By calling it a tax, it was able to force it into a different line of jurisprudence and uphold it under the taxing clause, the taxing power of Congress.

I would ask rhetorically of this body, was it an accident that the ObamaCare statute did not call the individual mandate a tax? Maybe it was a scribe's error. Maybe it was they meant to call it a tax, they thought it was a tax, and a clerk writing just wrote the wrong word. So instead of ``tax,'' the word ``penalty.'' Surely that is not consequential. It must purely have been an accident. As a related component of that, was it an accident that the President of the United States went on national television and told the people of America, while this was under consideration, this is not a tax.

He affirmatively said this is not a tax.

Mind you, the argument that the U.S. Department of Justice made, the Obama administration made to the Supreme Court was this is a tax, although the statute did not say it. The argument the Supreme Court ultimately found persuasive was: This is a tax, although the statute said it was a penalty and not a tax.

The question I would rhetorically pose is: Was it an accident or is there perhaps another reason why elected politicians would not call something a tax?

I will be happy to yield for the purpose of a question.

I think the good Senator from Utah is exactly correct. Indeed, as he quite rightly explained, it was not an accident that Congress deliberately did not call the individual mandate in ObamaCare a tax, nor was it an accident that the President of the United States explicitly said it is not a tax, because the effort was to represent to the American people that it was something quite different.

Indeed, again, asking a question rhetorically to the body--I know Senator Lee is aware; I know many other Senators are aware--of a lot of cases in the Supreme Court, the commandeering line of cases that provides that one of the things this body cannot do, Congress cannot do, is commandeer a State legislature, commandeer a State lawmaking apparatus or a State executive agency to implement, to carry out Federal law and Federal policy.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has explained the reasoning behind the commandeering line of cases; that fundamental to our democratic system, fundamental to our constitutional system is the notion of accountability, the notion that the voters should be able to determine who is it that put this policy in place.

If Congress could commandeer and force State legislatures to carry out Federal policies, it might be that voters would get mad at the State legislators, and they would be mad at the wrong people because if the decisions were coming from Congress and yet it was the State legislators being commandeered into acting, that would frustrate the principles of accountability that underlie our constitutional structure.

So the Supreme Court has explained that to make the democratic system work, the voters need to be able to understand who has made a decision, what that decision is, and if they do not like it, they need to be able to, as they say colloquially, throw the bums out.

The Affordable Care Act in Congress, declining to call it a tax. I might ask, did the Supreme Court's rewriting the statute to call it a tax for Congress, to call it a tax for the President--despite the fact that both had said it was not--did that contravene the accountability principles that underlie the Supreme Court's commandeering doctrine that underlie the constitutional principles of, frankly, a republican form of government, where we may know who our elected officials are and what their actions are, and that they may be held accountable for those actions so that a democratic republic can function?

I will yield for the purpose of a question without yielding the floor.

It is an excellent question from Senator Lee. The answer is quite simple. If Congress acted to make clear that nothing in the Affordable Care Act created a tax, that would remove the entire basis for the Supreme Court's upholding ObamaCare. Indeed, it would be a relatively simple matter in subsequent litigation for the Court to conclude under the matter it has already concluded that the other bases for upholding the act are not present.

When have you elected officials who go to the people, and go to the people as Senator Lee still quite rightly noted and still say it is not a tax, you would think they would happily vote for it, except there is a vested interest. I would note there is a difference between calling this a tax when Congress said and says it is not, and the examples we went through of the Hundred Years War and the purple finch, and that those are relatively innocuous misnomers, where there is something designed to be actively deceptive.

Indeed, another one you could add to that litany we went through is you might think if an act were titled ``An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to modify the first-time homebuyer's credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces,'' you might think that is the title of an act that would concern something about the first-time homebuyer's credit, perhaps even members of the Armed Forces. Depending on the content of it, it might even be an act that Senator Lee and I together would support.

Yet think again. That act is ObamaCare. This is the 2,000-plus pages of ObamaCare, a little bit worse for wear. Right on the cover of it on page 1: December 24, 2009, ordered to be printed and passed. Resolved, that the bill from the House of Representatives, titled H.R. 3590, entitled, an Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to modify the first-time homebuyer's credit in the case of members of the Armed Services and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes, do pass the following.

Then what was this amendment that was done? Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert. Everything for the first-time homebuyer's credit, everything about the Armed Forces, that all got erased. The title stayed there but it all got erased. Suddenly, ObamaCare was born.

That was a creature, that was a fact that came out of the procedural games that had to be played to force ObamaCare into law on a straight party-line vote. But I would note that this body has not forgotten how to play those games. Indeed, I would ask again rhetorically to the body, is the game the Democratic majority of Congress played in passing ObamaCare, saying it was not a tax, when in fact it was a

tax, when it was not a tax, any different than what right now some members of the Republican conference are doing when they say they will vote for cloture in order to give Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats the ability to fully fund ObamaCare, and that they will do so because they want to defund ObamaCare? Is that fundamentally any different, presenting one story to tell the voters and a different story in terms of what will happen in this body? When it comes to accountability, I wonder if we are seeing much the same games played out again, games that undermine the integrity of this institution, games that undermine the confidence the American people have that our elected representatives listen to us.

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

I thank my friend from Utah for that question.

On the motion to proceed, on the decision of whether to take up the bill, I think there is widespread agreement that we should take up this bill as there is no more important bill we could be debating now than this. Indeed, in my view, there should not only be 3 Senators in this Chamber, there should be 100. The urgency facing this country from ObamaCare is such that we have nothing better to do. When James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, says that ObamaCare is a nightmare, frankly, Senators shouldn't be asleep while the Nation is undergoing a nightmare.

The vote that matters is the vote on cloture on the bill. It will occur on either Friday or Saturday of this week. On that vote, 60 Senators, vote yes for cloture. That is a vote to shut off debate, a vote to say we will not debate anymore. What it does is it opens the door, it sets the stage. It allows the majority leader Harry Reid to fully fund ObamaCare with just 51 Democratic votes. That means for the Republican side of the aisle that any Republican who votes along with Harry Reid--and you quite rightly know that Leader Reid and presumably all of the Democrats will vote for cloture on a bill with which most, if not all of them disagree. They get the joke. There is no mystery to this when the majority leader has announced: I am going to shut off all other amendments and I am going to add one amendment to totally gut the bill and to transform it, to do to this bill what they did to this bill.

Can you imagine if we were debating cloture? This is actually a very good analogy. Imagine if this bill were coming over, the bill that was turning into ObamaCare, and we had the same procedural arrangement-- cloture vote first at 60 votes and then all amendments to be approved at 51 votes. Imagine if Republicans said: I support an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify the first-time home buyer credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces. That is a good idea, so I am voting yes for cloture.

That is the bill I supported. It is the bill that came over, and it is the bill that I have right now.

Imagine if that were the scenario, and imagine that majority leader Harry Reid had announced: Once we get cloture, I am going to offer an amendment to strip every word of that bill you say you support, strip it all out and to replace it with 2,000 pages of ObamaCare.

I would suggest that any Republican who stood up and said: I am voting for cloture to give Harry Reid the ability to strip out the bill that I support--which he said he is going to do--and to replace it with a bill that I say I oppose and not just oppose slightly, that I say I oppose passionately, I would suggest that would be beyond irrational. Indeed, it would be so irrational to do that, and I would suggest no Member of the Senate is capable of such irrationality. This means, if they are saying that, it is for a deliberate purpose. It is because they affirmatively desire that outcome and yet they wish to be able to tell their constituents something different. It is fundamentally the same dynamic that leads to the cynicism about Washington that ``our elected leaders don't listen to us.''

I wish to note on a different front that serving in an elected office is a tremendous privilege. It is a humbling experience. You get to meet people from all over the State, sometimes from all over the country. You get to meet incredible people. You get to meet people who have done remarkable things.

One of the people I have been privileged to meet is my colleague and friend Senator Mike Lee. We have learned tonight a number of extraordinary things about him, a number of things that border on the superhuman.

No. 1, we have learned that Senator Mike Lee would be willing to purchase a ton of rocks and a Barry Manilow record simply to bring his wife milk and eggs. That is extraordinary matrimonial fidelity.

No. 2, we have learned that Senator Mike Lee as a boy could be run over with a Buick filled with seven people and not have his foot injured. That, too, is extraordinary and superhuman.

No. 3, we have been privileged with a tour de force constitutional lecture with no notes, with no materials in front of him that, frankly, was reminiscent to me of a former boss of mine.

Senator Lee is the son of a legend in law. His late father, Rex Lee, was the Solicitor General of the United States. I did not have the opportunity to meet his late father but have known him by reputation for much of my life because he was revered as one of the finest Supreme Court advocates who ever lived. I think Mike was all but weaned on the Constitution as a young lad.

The discourse Senator Lee just presented to this Nation reminded me of my boss, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who, like Senator Lee, had a deep love for the Constitution and, like Senator Lee, had an encyclopedic knowledge of the Constitution and could weave the battles we have had to rein in government power to protect individual liberty into a tapestry of narrative that explained what it is we are fighting for.

I will say that as we stand here now at 3:35 in the morning, I feel privileged. I feel fortunate to be standing side by side with my friend.

I will say this: If ever I am threatened by a Buick with seven people in it, I want to put Mike Lee between me and the Buick.

I yield to the gentleman without yielding the floor.

I thank my friend from Utah for his very kind comments regarding my father, and I will say that he and I--I will paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, who said: If I have seen a little bit further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. I will say one thing. Senator Lee and I are both fortunate. We are blessed to be the sons of fathers whom we admire immensely and who, I think for both of us, played a big part in trying to raise us to be principled, to fight for liberty, and to fight for the Constitution.

When you think about the journeys to freedom that constitute who we are as American people, all of us have a story. It doesn't matter--in any group you go to, you could get 1,000 people in an audience, and each person could come up to the microphone and tell their family story of someone who risked everything to be here.

My dad as a kid was born in Cuba. We mentioned earlier that his father had come from the Canary Islands when he was 1. As a young man-- my dad was 14 when he began to get involved in the Cuban Revolution. At the time, Batista was the dictator. Batista was cruel, corrupt, closely aligned with the Mafia, and he was oppressive.

The revolution occurred--dad was a 14-year-old boy, and I am looking at the pages who are sitting here now who are older than 14, and I would suggest, if you could imagine at the age of 14 finding yourself in a war, finding yourself fighting a war, hoping to liberate the country, being asked to fight against the army, and being asked to fight for freedom. The revolution was being fought on behalf of Fidel Castro, and indeed my father was one of many freedom fighters who fought on behalf of Castro. My father didn't know Castro. He was a kid. He was not a high ranking person in the revolution. I can tell you, my dad and the kids who were fighting, none of them knew at the time Fidel Castro was a communist. As my father describes it today, he says: Look, we were all 14- and 15-year-old boys. We were too dumb to know about that. We were just fighting for freedom. We just wanted to get out from under the boot of Batista.

For 4 years my father fought with the revolution. When he turned 17, my dad went out and partied. He was enjoying himself. He was a 17-year- old young revolutionary. He was in a white suit. You know, Senator Lee, Latinos love white suits. He was in a white suit and he was partying it up in Havana and he disappeared.

For several days my grandfather went looking for him. My grandfather--my grandparents knew their son was involved in the revolution. He hadn't hid that from his parents. And they also knew if your son is involved in the revolution and he disappears, it is a bad, bad thing. Well, after searching for him for several days--searching the jails, searching around--they found my dad. He was in a jail. He had been imprisoned, and he had been tortured.

I will confess to this day I don't know a lot about what happened. Different people have different experiences. My father doesn't talk much about it. To the best of my knowledge, other than our colleague Senator John McCain, whom all of us respect immensely for his tremendous service and sacrifice to this Nation, I am not aware of any of our colleagues in this body who have experienced anything like imprisonment and torture--and what my father experienced was a tiny fraction of what John McCain went through in the years he was in that Vietnam prison. But my dad, when I was growing up, never would really tell me what happened there.

But I remember one night when I was a kid--I think I was in high school, maybe junior high or high school, I don't remember--my dad and I had gone to see the movie Rambo. My dad and I both liked movies. He had taken me to see Rambo, and it was a fun movie to see as a kid. It happened that night--my parents owned a small business, and my dad had one of his clients over for dinner--that during the course of dinner, my father was talking to his client, and he was feeling a little gregarious, and he started talking. He said: You know, my son Ted and I went to see Rambo this evening. And you might remember there is a pretty nasty scene where Rambo is strapped to a bed frame and being subjected to electric shock. Not a very pleasant scene in the movie. My dad was saying: You know, the Cubans weren't nearly so fancy when it came to torture. We watched the movie Rambo. They didn't have any fancy bed frames and electric shock or anything. The Cubans were much more simple in their torture. Basically, they would just come in every hour and beat the living daylights out of you. They would just beat you, and beat you, and beat you. Then they would leave, come back in an hour and do it again.

I can tell you my grandmother said when my dad came out of that jail cell in Cuba the white suit he was wearing, you couldn't see a spot of white on it, that every inch of that suit was covered with mud and blood from where he had been beaten. And my father's teeth, she said, were dangling from his mouth in shards. Today, my father is a pastor in Dallas, and his front teeth are not his own because when he was a kid they were kicked out of his mouth in a Cuban jail.

He got out of that jail and at that point my grandfather told him, he said: Look, Rafael, they know who you are now. In fact, the Batista police were following my dad hoping he would lead them to others in the revolution. The only reason he got out is they thought: Well, maybe if we let him go he will be dumb enough to go to some other people in the revolution and we can track them down too. So my grandfather said: Listen, they know who you are. At this point they are just going to hunt you down and kill you. You can't stay here.

So my father applied to three U.S. universities. He applied to the University of Miami, he applied to LSU, and he applied to the University of Texas. It was pure happenstance that the first one to let him in was the University of Texas. Had it been otherwise, had it been the University of Miami, I might today be a constituent of our friend Marco Rubio. But it so happened it was the University of Texas, and that led to my father getting on a plane in 1957 when he was 18.

I want again to talk to the pages who are here. Some of you may be 18 or near it. I want you to imagine at the age of 18 getting on a plane and flying away from your family, thousands of miles away to another country--to a country where you don't know anybody, you don't have any family, and you don't speak the language. Imagine walking off the plane.

My father had the suit on his back. He couldn't take anything with him. He couldn't take a suitcase or anything. He was wearing a suit. The one possession he had was a slide rule that was in his pocket. I see looks of somewhat confusion on the faces of the pages. I note anytime I talk to young people they have utterly no idea what a slide rule is. That was the one possession he had that he had taken from Cuba. And my grandmother, before he left, sewed $100 into the inside of his underwear. She wanted him to have at least a little money when he landed.

So in 1957 he shows up in Austin, and his first priority was to get a place to live. So he went and found a place to live. And then he had to get a job. And the job he got was washing dishes. Why washing dishes? Because you didn't have to speak English. He couldn't speak English. He made 50 cents an hour. He didn't have to talk to anyone. He could take a dish, stick it under hot water, scrub it, and move on to the next one. That he could do.

My dad worked 7 days a week washing dishes and then as a cook to pay his way through the University of Texas. And times were tight. I can't imagine. I didn't have to go through that. I don't believe Senator Lee had to go through the experience of going to school full time and working full time. My dad worked 7 days a week while he was going to school full time as a student. It wasn't that he wanted to. He didn't have any other alternatives. There wasn't anyone else providing for him.

I remember a couple of stories my father told me of his time in college. With the indulgence of the Chair, I will share those stories because they are stories, I think, of the American experience; they are shared experience.

The great thing about working in a restaurant is they let you eat while you work. So during the 8 hours, he would eat those 8 hours. The other 16 hours he wouldn't eat. It was even better when he got promoted to being a cook, because as a cook you really got a chance to eat. For example, one of the things the restaurant served was fried shrimp. My dad had a policy that anyone who ordered a dozen shrimp, he would cook 13 and eat one. During the course of the day a lot of people would order fried shrimp, and he would just eat one steadily throughout the day. My dad used to try to drink 6 or 7 glasses of milk during the day. He figured there was no percentage in water, and he needed the nutrients. Because when he left, he was going another 16 hours without eating until he came back to work the next day. He didn't have money for food.

There was one little exception. There was a coffee shop he found in town. He went in one day, and he splurged. It was one of the few times he actually spent money, and he spent money for a cup of coffee. Another gentleman in the coffee shop came in and ordered some toast. My dad saw the waitress take out of a bag a fresh loaf of bread, take both of the heels and throw them away, and then take two other slices of bread, put them in the toaster and toast them. My father said: What are you doing? You are throwing away perfectly good food. And she said: well, we can't serve the heels.

When you are desperate and you are hungry, you have incentive to do all sorts of things, and so my father said: Listen, do me a favor. Save them for me. Just save them for me. You can't serve them, I will eat them. He used to go into that coffee shop, and that waitress very kindly would save the heels when she opened a new loaf. When he would come in she would have five, six, or seven heels. She would toast them and give him butter, and he would order one cup of coffee and have five or six heels of toast and drink his coffee.

Another similar story. There were a lot of immigrants at the University of Texas who didn't have two nickels between them, and he went over to some friends who I think were brothers and they invited him over for dinner. He was sitting down for dinner with a big pot of black beans. Cubans love black beans. When he was reaching in to get black beans, they said: Watch out for the nail. Watch out for the nail? What on Earth are you talking about? These two brothers explained: Look, we don't have money for food. So what little money we have, we have enough to have beans each night, and we have enough to purchase a little tiny paper-thin steak. The brothers said: Initially, we started to cut the steak in half so we would each eat it. To be honest, we both left hungry and we weren't happy with that. So we decided instead of doing that, we would take a nail, drop it in the beans, and we would fish for the nail. Whoever got the nail with their beans got the whole steak and the other brother didn't get any steak at all.

They said: Rafael, since you are our guest--and he was kind of waiting for them to say we are going to give you the steak, but they were not quite that generous. But they said: Since you are

our guest, we will give you half of the steak and we are going to fish for the nail for the other half.

One other story. In his freshman or sophomore year, I'm not sure which, my dad and a couple of other Cubans who were students there decided they wanted to have a Christmas dinner. The Cuban tradition of Christmas is to roast a whole pig.

Indeed, if I may digress, when I was dating my wife Heidi--Heidi is the love of my life, she is my best friend. She was raised in California. She and her whole family are vegetarians. I remember Heidi brought me back to meet her parents for Christmas, and we were sitting there having Christmas dinner. I would note that a vegetarian Christmas dinner is just like any other Christmas dinner except the entree never comes. Everything else is wonderful, but you keep waiting for them to bring out the entree and it is not there.

My now in-laws, who are wonderful tremendous people, who were missionaries and just wonderful people, they were trying to get to know this strange young man their daughter had brought home. And they said: Ted, tell us, how does your family celebrate Christmas? I said: Well, we are Cuban, and the Cuban tradition is that on Christmas Eve we roast a whole pig.

I must tell you the look of abject horror. If you can imagine a table full of California vegetarians, when I said we roast a whole pig. I don't think if I had said we consumed live kittens it would have more horrified them than that so viscerally carnivorous tale.

But my dad and a couple of his Cuban buddies decided they wanted to have a Christmas dinner, and to actually celebrate. So they drove to a farm just outside of Austin. They found some farmers in central Texas and said: Listen, is there any chance we could somehow buy a little piglet from you? Can we do something so we could get it and roast it? We would like to have it at Christmas Eve dinner. These farmers decided they wanted to have fun with my dad and these kids, so they said: Tell you what. We will take this little piglet and let him loose in a corral filled with mud. If you can catch it, you can have him for free. My dad and his friends chased that piglet for close to an hour, running around in the mud. They finally caught the piglet, the farmers gave it to them, they took it home, and they roasted it for Christmas Eve.

The epilogue to the story about my in-laws is that when Heidi and I became engaged, her mother called her and said: Sweetheart, are you prepared to catch the pig? Thankfully Heidi reassured her she was quite confident in our marriage that there would be no pig catching that she would indeed be carrying out, and that has indeed proven true.

All of us have stories about our families. My father has been my inspiration ever since I was a kid because I think it is a great blessing, a tremendous blessing to be the child of someone who has fled oppression, to be the child of someone who came here seeking freedom. It makes you realize that what we have in the United States of America is precious, it is wonderful, it is unique, and we cannot possibly risk giving it up.

At the same time, I am amazed at how commonplace my father's story is. Every American has a story just like that. Sometimes it is us, sometimes it is our parents, sometimes it is our great-great- grandparents. But I have yet to encounter someone who doesn't have a story like that in their background, often closer than one might think. I think the most shared characteristic among all of us as Americans is we are the children of those who risked everything for freedom.

Sometimes people ask, what differentiates Americans from, say, Europeans, Americans from other countries? I think more than anything it is in our DNA to value liberty and opportunity above all else.

When ObamaCare was being passed 3\1/2\ years ago, I think the proponents believed--in fact, they stated--that once it is in place Americans would come to love it and would give up their liberty, would give up their freedom in exchange for bread and circuses. Yet 3\1/2\ years later we see ObamaCare is less popular now than it was then. That is true all over the country. That is true in every region. That is true among Republicans, among Democrats, among Independents, and among Libertarians.

There are several reasons for that. One is simple facts. Forget party ideology affiliations. The simple fact is this isn't working. If you look at it on its face, it is a train wreck, as the Democratic Senator who was the lead author of ObamaCare has described. On its face it is a nightmare, as James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, has described it.

ObamaCare in practice is killing jobs all over this country. It is causing small businesses to stay small, not to grow, not to create jobs. It is causing Americans all over this country to forcibly reduce to 29 hours a week. Do you know who is being reduced the most? It ain't the rich. It ain't, as the President likes to put it, the millionaires and billionaires. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great. They are richer today than when President Obama was elected.

I think the biggest lie in politics is the lie that Republicans are the party of the rich. I think it is a complete and total falsehood. The rich do great with big government. Business does great with big government. Why? Because big business gets into bed with big government.

What have we seen with ObamaCare? The rich and powerful get special exemptions. Big businesses? The President exempts them. Members of Congress? The President exempts us. It is the little guy who doesn't have an army of lobbyists, doesn't have special interests, the little guy is the one left out.

So who are the people losing their jobs? Who are the people forcibly having reduced hours? Who are the people facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums? Who are the people having their insurance dropped? It is people such as the disabled retirees whose letters I was reading earlier today. It is people like my father.

If ObamaCare was the law in 1957, when my father was washing dishes, I think it is a virtual certainty that he would have found his hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week--if he had been lucky enough to get a job in the first place. He might not have been hired at all. That is happening to people all over the country. The people who are losing under ObamaCare are people like my dad, teenaged kids who don't speak English, who are recent immigrants, who are Hispanic, who are African Americans, single moms.

I have a good friend who is now a justice on the Texas Supreme Court whose mom was a single mom and waited tables. He computed the distance she walked as a waitress to bring him up. I don't remember the exact measurements, but it was some remarkable number of times walking from the Earth to the Moon and back that she walked so her kids could have a better life. That single mom who was waiting tables, her son is now a justice in the Texas Supreme Court. That is the story of America. But if ObamaCare had been in place, that single mom waiting tables is working 29 hours a week. Try feeding a family on 29 hours a week. You can't do it. It cannot be done.

So what happens instead? People get their hours forcibly reduced. They either can't earn enough to feed their family so they leave the workforce altogether and they go on welfare. Not that they want to. They want to be working. But if Congress has passed a law so that the only job they can get is 29 hours a week, that is not enough to feed their family. Right now one in seven Americans is on food stamps. What a travesty. It is not a travesty from the perspective of the budget; it is not a travesty from the perspective of the taxpayers. It is a travesty from the perspective of those people on food stamps who would rather be working, who would rather have the dignity of work to provide for their family and to climb the economic ladder.

My dad started washing dishes, but he didn't stay there. After washing dishes he got a job as a cook. After a cook he got a job as a teaching assistant. After a teaching assistant he got hired at IBM as a computer programmer. Then he started his own business. If he doesn't get hired washing dishes, he doesn't get the next job as a cook, he doesn't get the next job as a teaching assistant, he doesn't get the next job at IBM, he doesn't get the next job starting his own business.

If you look at those single moms who are waiting tables and suddenly get their hours reduced to 29 hours a week, if she ends up giving up, going on food stamps, going on welfare, saying I can't earn enough in the market to provide for my family, not only does that have devastating effects on her and on her kids, but it also means she won't have a chance to move up the ladder. She won't have a chance to get that next job. Maybe if she was waiting tables, she would get promoted to being assistant manager and then manager. Maybe she would have another opportunity moving up the ladder. But if she doesn't get on that first rung, we know to an absolute certainty you won't go to the second or third rung. What a travesty.

This is a country of unlimited opportunity, and ObamaCare is cutting off that opportunity. It is shutting down that opportunity. Those are who are hurt the most under ObamaCare.

There are many reasons why ObamaCare is problematic. It is problematic because it is the biggest job killer in America. It is a train wreck because it is forcing more and more people to be driven into part-time work 29 hours a week.

The second thing the single mom can do--suppose she doesn't give up. Suppose she says, Darn it, I want to work to provide for my kids. I am not going to give up. I am not going to go on welfare and stop working in the workplace. The other option is to go find another job. So then she has two jobs at 29 hours a week. Her kids now see less of their mom. And, by the way, neither one gives her health care. So the Affordable Care Act and all the great benefits of that haven't helped her at all. Instead of being at one job where she could work and focus on that one job and potentially climb the ladder to different opportunities, she is working two part-time jobs. Part-time jobs are much harder to advance in your career with. She is also dealing with commuting. She has got to get from one job to the other. For a single mom whose time is at a premium, who would like to be at her kids' soccer game if ever she could work the schedule to do that, if she has to drive from one place to the other back and forth, there are a lot of soccer games that single mom is never getting to, not to mention the headaches of having two different jobs and two different bosses. If you have boss No. 1 who says, I want you to work Tuesday morning, and boss No. 2 says, I want you to work Tuesday morning at my place, how do you balance those? Both of them say, I don't care about your other job. I need you here. What a nightmare.

ObamaCare is a train wreck. It is a nightmare because it is killing jobs, because it is driving up health insurance, because it is causing more and more people to lose their health insurance. But it is also fundamentally wrong for a broader reason: because it infringes on our liberty.

The Federal Government is telling every American: You must purchase health insurance. The individual mandate, we are going to make you purchase health insurance. If not, the IRS is going to come and find you.

The Federal Government is telling Catholic charities and Catholic hospitals, Christian companies like Hobby Lobby: You must pay for health insurance procedures that violate your religious dictates. They may not violate everyone's religious dictates. There may be a lot of people in this country who have no religious qualms about that whatsoever, and that is fine. Each of us is entitled--indeed, encouraged--to seek out God Almighty with all of our heart, mind, and soul as best we can, and we will follow different paths. But I guarantee you, if the Federal Government can tell Catholic charities and Catholic hospitals: You must violate your religious beliefs or we are going to fine you out of business; if the Federal Government can tell that to Hobby Lobby, a Christian company, they can tell that to you too. Whatever your religious beliefs happen to be, if the Federal Government can say: Violate your religious faith or we are coming after you, that is a dangerous Rubicon we have crossed.

We are a nation that was founded on liberty. Always defend liberty. You can't go wrong with that as a mantra.

In the interest of that, I would like to share a few excerpts of one of my favorite books, ``Atlas Shrugged'' by Ayn Rand. Let me encourage any of you who have not read ``Atlas Shrugged'' to go tomorrow and buy ``Atlas Shrugged'' and read it. What is interesting is in the last 3 years sales of ``Atlas Shrugged'' have exploded, because we are living in the days of Ayn Rand.

I will share a few excerpts that are all fundamentally about liberty and the liberty that ObamaCare infringes.

Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your

recognition of the fact that you choose to live--that

productive work is the process by which man's consciousness

controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring

knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose of

translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth

and the image of one's values--that all work is creative work

if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done

by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has

learned from others--that your work is yours to choose, and

the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is

possible to you and nothing less is human--that to cheat your

way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become

a fear-corroded ape--

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

--on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down

into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity

is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of

motion: decay--

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

--that your work is the process of achieving your values, and

to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to

live--that your body is a machine, but your mind is its

driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you,

with achievement as the goal of your road--that the man who

has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the

mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch,

that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine

slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader

prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap

heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a

hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up--that your work

is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any

killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value

you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or

love, can be only travelers you choose to share your

journey and must be travelers going on their own power in

the same direction.''

A few other excerpts.

What is morality, she asked. Judgment to distinguish right

and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon

it; dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by

the good at any price.

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

With that prism in mind, let me reread Ayn Rand's excerpt:

What is morality, she asked. Judgment to distinguish right

and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon

it; dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by

the good at any price.

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

single moms who are just wanting to provide for their kids, give them a good home, give them a good example, help them get a good future, the retribution any political party can impose on us for daring to buck the leadership is so mild and inconsequential, it is not even worth mentioning.

Let me encourage every Democratic Senator to try to meet that definition of morality:

Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the

truth, and courage to act upon it; dedication to that which

is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.

Let me encourage my Republican colleagues, there may be some Republicans who are inclined to vote for cloture on this bill, to give majority leader Harry Reid and the Democrats the ability to fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote, as some of my colleagues have publicly said they are so inclined. It is my sincere hope that between now and the vote on Friday or Saturday, their better angels prevail.

Listen, any Democrat who crosses the aisle to vote with us will face swift retribution, but at the end of the day we have a higher obligation. We have an obligation to the constituents who sent us here.

Any Republican--I know there are some Republicans who are saying: I am going to support cloture. I am going to support giving Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare. Why? Because my leadership is telling me to, and I am a good soldier. I will salute and march into battle in whatever direction leadership instructs.

I will confess that Republicans are sometimes even more susceptible to such commands to being orderly. Let me commend to every Republican, ask yourself that same test that Ayn Rand laid out.

What is morality, she asked. Judgment to distinguish right

and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon

it; dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by

the good at any price.

I can tell you this: If any one of the 46 Republicans in this body asks not what does our party leadership want us to do but asks the more important question of, what do our constituents want us to do, I tell you this: If I get any gathering of Texans, Texans are not conflicted. If I ask a gathering of Texans--and by the way, it doesn't matter what part of Texas--east Texas, west Texas, the panhandle, down in the valley.

I was in a gathering down in the valley a few weeks ago. The Rio Grande Valley in Texas is the poorest part of the State.

My friend Senator Lee knows the valley well because he was a missionary down in the valley. In fact, he has darned good Spanish as a result of living in the valley in Texas. In fact, I think that gives Texas a reason to claim him unofficially as a third Senator. He may not acquiesce to that, but we will claim him anyway.

I was at a gathering in the valley a few weeks ago, 200, 300 people. I would guess a significant percentage if not a majority of the people in that room were probably Democrats. A majority of them were Mexican Americans.

You know, I try to make a policy of giving the same remarks standing for the same principles regardless of whether I am talking with a group I think will necessarily agree with me or will not.

The bulk of the remarks I gave to that group before taking Q and A from the group for some time were focused on defunding ObamaCare, and it was really striking that in that group, which was largely if not predominantly Hispanic Democrats in the valley in Texas, when it came to defunding ObamaCare, to stopping the train wreck that is ObamaCare, the result was rousing sustained applause and cheers. Why? Because if you get out of the partisan prison that is Washington, it is not complicated.

There is a reason why labor unions want out. There is a reason the Teamsters, who describe that they have been knocking on doors as loyal foot soldiers for the Democratic Party, are saying: This is a nightmare. Repeal ObamaCare. Repeal it because it is a nightmare.

There is a reason why Members of Congress, why Majority Leader Reid and Democratic Senators who support ObamaCare so much for the American people said: Good golly, get us out from under it. We certainly do not want to be subject to the same rules the American people are.

There is a reason why the IRS employees' union is saying: Even though we are enforcing ObamaCare, please get us out from under it.

Under the objective facts, this is not working.

I urge every Republican who is here, before you make a decision how to vote on cloture on this bill on Friday or Saturday--and I think certainly in the time I have been in the Senate this is the most consequential vote I will cast and I believe any Member of this body will cast during the time I have been here--I ask every Republican to ask not simply what this party leadership wants you to do but what is the right thing to do for your constituents. If you gather 100 of your constituents together in a room and you ask them: How should I vote on this motion--let me frame it a little more explicitly because, you know, politicians are sometimes crafty characters. Some politicians say: I could get 100 of my citizens, and I could frame in some abstract procedural way how I would vote on the cloture to take up the bill to do the whatchamacallit and it would really be supporting the House bill. What do you think? We can talk fast enough that we can confuse some people in the room for a few minutes.

But let me suggest to any Republican Senator, gather at random 100 of your constituents--I am going to suggest even broader: not 100 Republicans, 100 constituents--and pose the following question to them: Should I as your Republican Senator vote to allow Harry Reid and the Democrats to fully fund ObamaCare with no changes, no improvements to address the train wreck that is ObamaCare on a purely party-line partisan vote of only Democrats? I will wager all the money in my bank account that every one of the--by the way, you could pick the bluest State for which a Republican Senator represents that State--I will wager that in that State, if you grab 100 of your constituents, it would not be a 50-50 proposition. I don't even think it would be a 60- 40 proposition. Your constituents overwhelmingly would say: No, don't vote to give Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare without fixing this train wreck, without stopping this nightmare.

All that it takes for us to do the right thing is to listen to the people. It is not complicated. It is not rocket science. Listen to the people.

Ayn Rand in ``Atlas Shrugged'' also held:

The nation which once held the creed that greatness is

achieved by production is now told that it is achieved by

squalor.

She also observed:

Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of

your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for

his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty

and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the

Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any

achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy

that has ever existed on this earth.

God has created men and women to be free creatures. It is

not benefiting anyone to strip them of their liberty, to make

them dependent on government.

I cannot tell you how many times I have said: Thank the good Lord that when my dad was a teenage immigrant in Texas 55 years ago, how grateful I am that some well-meaning liberal did not come and put his arm around him and say: Let me take care of you. Let me give you a government check. Let me make you dependent on the government. Don't bother washing those dishes. Don't bother working. I am going to take care of your every need. And by the way, don't bother learning English. I respect your culture so much that I am going to lock you out of the business and professional classes in this country. I am going to make sure that if you do work, you are almost surely going to be consigned to menial labor because you cannot communicate with the significant majority of Americans.

What a destructive thing to do to someone. If someone had done that to my father and he had listened, I am hard-pressed to think of anything that would have been more destructive.

At the end of the day these points are not partisan or ideological; they are common sense. They are who we are as Americans. Ask any abuelo or abuela: What do you want for your grandkids? Do you want your grandkids dependent on government? Do you want your grandkids receiving government support or do you want them working? Do

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

After standing here for 14 hours, I can say that when you are standing on your own feet, sometimes there is pain and sometimes some fatigue that is involved. But you know what. There is far more pain involved in rolling over, far more pain in hiding in the shadows, far more pain in not standing for principle, not standing for the good, not standing for integrity. That is what it means to be an American. We do the hard things.

To all the Republicans who say fighting this fight is going to be very hard, I sure hope they didn't run for the Senate because they wanted something easy to do. I sure hope they didn't run for the Senate because they wanted to avoid hard challenges. To the Democrats who say, I couldn't buck the party leadership, gosh, it would make the White House mad, make the party leadership mad, and make our leadership in the Senate mad, we have to be united, Team, team, team. We are not a team. We represent the people. You know the team that each of us is on? It is the American team. It is a team where we have an obligation to the men and women who sent us here. Let me be clear: We have an obligation to all the men and women who sent us here. I have an obligation not just to Republicans in the State of Texas and not just to those who voted for me in the State of Texas, although there were quite a few voters in the State of Texas who voted for President Obama and voted for me.

If you listen to Washington conventional wisdom, they would suggest that is impossible. I was pleased to get a number of Texans who did that. Even those who voted against me and disagree with everything I am doing, I still have an obligation to represent them and to try to use my best judgment and try to listen to them and fight for them.

I am convinced that every one of the 26 million Texans in my State will be better. They will have a better future, a better life, and an environment where economic growth comes back and small businesses are thriving and creating jobs and not shrinking. They will have opportunities so they are not forced into part-time work but will have full-time opportunities so more people who are like my dad--teenaged kids who can't speak English--can get that first job washing dishes. That first job helps them to get the second job, the third job, and the fourth job.

I believe in the American dream with all of my heart and might. The American dream is being jeopardized by ObamaCare, and that is a travesty that should outrage and horrify everyone in the Senate. For everyone on the Republican side who said this is hard, we might be blamed; there might be some political blame; let's let it all collapse--I have heard Republicans say, especially the pundits, Gosh, to get on TV--I will tell you that one of the best ways to get on TV is to just advise and then run away from any battle that matters. They put you on TV a lot if that is your advice.

What they say is, if Republicans stand and fight this fight, the President and Harry Reid might force a shutdown and Republicans might get blamed and, gosh, that could hurt us politically. Beyond that you might hear--and this is the very clever Republicans--ObamaCare is such a train wreck and a nightmare that we just need to sit quietly. James Hoffa said he couldn't sit silent anymore, but Republicans say to sit silently and let ObamaCare collapse on its own weight.

Never mind that Harry Reid said when it collapses on its own weight, it will lead us to single-payer socialized health care. Why? Because it will destroy the private health insurance. Never mind that. We have been told that if we do nothing, it will collapse on its own weight and everyone will blame the Democrats.

Let me make it very clear: Who cares? Listen, if everyone will blame the Democrats, then consider me the person trying to actively save the Democrats from that blame. I would gladly celebrate any Democrat brave enough to stand and say: Listen, I used to think ObamaCare was a good idea. I supported it, and I am persuaded by the facts and by my constituents. This thing isn't working. People are hurting.

When President Obama reversed course and listened to bipartisan calls to submit his decision to launch a unilateral military attack on Syria to the will of Congress, I happily and loudly praised President Obama for submitting to the constitutional authority of this party. When he went even further and listened to the calls from the American people not to put us in the middle of that sectarian war, I again happily and enthusiastically praised President Obama for being willing to change his mind and turn back because he listened to the voice of the American people. That was the right thing to do.

For everyone who thinks this is hard, I would like to turn to some of my favorite remarks from a Republican President who I suspect many on the Democratic side of the aisle admire as well because he was one of the most progressive Republicans, although he was not shy in any way, shape or form.

Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt was once giving a speech, and he was shot during the speech. He finished the speech before seeking medical attention. There was an old episode on ``Saturday Night Live''--the pages have probably never seen this--that was ``Quien es mas Macho,'' which means who is more macho. You know what. Teddy Roosevelt quien es mas macho. If you get shot while giving a speech and stand there and finish the speech, you win. Even Sean Connery is looking at him and going, wow, that guy is tough.

I will read the words Teddy Roosevelt delivered at the Sorbonne in Paris on April 23, 1910. These are words for everyone who thinks this fight is too hard or that we shouldn't take a risk or we shouldn't risk political blame. These are words that every one of us should listen to:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out

how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could

have done them better. The credit belongs to the man--

Or the woman--

who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust

and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who

comes short again and again, because there is no effort

without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive

to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great

devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the

best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and

who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring

greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and

timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Yes, you can avoid risk. You can avoid doing the hard thing. You can avoid doing the things where you might get politically blamed. You can stay silent and hope that the other party gets blamed because there will be political benefits for that. But I am going to suggest to you that is not doing our job. That is not what we were elected to do.

We were elected to stand and fight to do the hard things for the men and women of this country because it is an extraordinary and breathtaking privilege to serve in this body. I cannot tell you how it brings me virtually to tears to think about the opportunity I have to stand here at a time when our Nation is threatened as I have never seen before. You know what. The tears that I talked about, and am now experiencing a little bit, are a very small reflection of the very real tears I have seen from men and women all across Texas.

Men and women have looked me in the eyes and said: I am scared for my country, my kids, and my grandkids. We are losing America. We are losing the wonderful free enterprise system. We are losing the prosperity. We are losing growth.

Will my kids and grandkids have a better life than I did? I don't think so. I cannot tell you how many Texans have said that. You know what. When you say that, that is not something you say like reporting the weather: It is sunny today and 78 degrees. That is heartbreaking. As Americans, it is fundamental in who we are. We believe in a better tomorrow. We believe morning

can come to America, and we believe our kids and grandkids will live with a better challenge.

If we continue down this road, we will be mired in what I call the great stagnation. Over the last 4 years, our economy has grown on average at 0.9 percent a year. If we continue down this road, we will allow young people to be what economists are starting to dub ``the lost generation.'' I am sorry to tell young people that is what economists are calling them right now. This generation is coming of age at a time when there is no economic growth and no real prospect for that to change.

What it means as a practical matter is that young people are not getting that first job or they are getting jobs--and as Ayn Rand observed--that are far less than their mind, their capacity, and their talent is capable of. What that means is they don't get their next job or their next job, so they don't develop to their full potential, and that stays with young people for decades to come.

This body needs to listen to the American people. We need to make DC listen.

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

I thank my friend from Utah for that very fine question. The answer as to what we can do is to do what we must, as Americans, what we always have, which is to take the responsibility on ourselves, on our shoulders, to step forward, to engage.

Edmund Burke famously said: The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

One of the tremendous aspects of the American character is Americans have never been willing to sit back and do nothing.

People all over this country are disillusioned. They are disillusioned because Washington does not listen to us. They are disillusioned because Democratic Senators do not listen to the people and Republican Senators do not listen to the people. I understand that disillusionment. I feel the same way. Everywhere I go in Texas that sentiment is expressed. I do not think there is a State in the Union where they do not feel that sense.

But there are moments--moments in time when we can change that. You think back to earlier this year, to another filibuster that occurred on this Senate floor with our friend Senator Rand Paul, when he was standing up to the administration's drone policy.

Senator Paul began that filibuster, if I remember correctly, at 11:45 a.m. When he started, virtually every Senator in this Chamber viewed what he was doing as an odd crusade. They did not support it. They did not even understand it. What matters if the Federal Government can use a drone to target a U.S. citizen, to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil? What matters that, thought most Senators.

Senator Paul began a brave crusade. I would note, during that filibuster, I was honored to stand side by side with my good friend Senator Lee as we were the first two Senators to stand in support of that and to battle the length of those 13 hours in defense of the Constitution.

During the course of that filibuster, we saw what happens when the American people get engaged. Because the American people got engaged at an incredible level, and it forced a change. For 3 consecutive weeks, President Obama had refused to do what he did that very next day, which was admit in writing that the Constitution limits his authority to target U.S. citizens.

Indeed, earlier that day before the filibuster began, it so happened that Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Lee and I were both there as part of that testimony. I remember an exchange with the Attorney General where three times I asked the Attorney General if, in his view, the Constitution allowed the U.S. Government to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual did not pose an imminent threat, and three times he responded: I do not think it would be appropriate to do so.

The first time he gave that response, I responded to the Attorney General. I said: Mr. Attorney General, you seem to have misunderstood my question. I was not asking about propriety. After all, he was not there testifying as an etiquette columnist for the local newspaper. I said: You are the Attorney General of the United States. You are the chief law enforcement officer for the United States of America. Does the

Department of Justice have a position on whether the Constitution allows the U.S. Government to use a drone to target and kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat? Again, the response was: I do not think it would be appropriate.

After the third time, I almost felt as if the response was: I do not understand this Constitution to which you are referring. Finally, he conceded in that back and forth: Well, when I say ``appropriate,'' I mean ``constitutional,'' which I find a curious notion that somehow ``appropriate'' and ``constitutional'' are coterminous.

You want to talk about what the American people can do? We saw during that, had not that filibuster and the American people mobilized, President Obama would have never admitted in writing what he admitted that next day, which was the Constitution limits his authority. And that matters.

We saw another example with the gun debate. Following the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT--which every one of us was horrified at--the President, sadly, did not come out and say: Let us go after violent criminals.

And listen, I think we should come down on violent criminals like a ton of bricks. Instead, the President, unfortunately, took it as an opportunity to go after the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, instead of targeting violent criminals, those who would prey on the innocent.

The conventional wisdom in Washington was the momentum behind those efforts was unstoppable. Indeed, all the talking heads, the same talking heads who during Rand's filibuster said this is foolish, this is a fool's errand, this cannot work--the American people rose up and spoke and that was proven wrong.

During the gun debate, those same talking heads--it is interesting, in the world of punditry there are no consequences for being proven wrong. You just keep going back to making those same gosh darn predictions. And you know what. If you keep making the same prediction often enough, eventually it is going to prove right.

In the gun debate all those same talking heads said: You cannot stop it. This is unstoppable. What happened again? The American people got involved by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, calling their Senators, e-mailing their Senators, speaking out at townhalls, saying: Defend the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We want the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to be protected.

I remember on the floor of this Senate, when it came for a vote, every single proposal of the President that would have undermined the Second Amendment was voted down. That astonished observers. They said it was impossible. It was impossible until the American people engaged.

As we discussed not too long ago with Syria, the President advocated, said he was going to engage in a unilateral military strike within days. It was imminent. It was happening. There was bipartisan support from the leadership of both Houses of Congress. All those same pundits--Mr. President, if you are noticing a pattern here, there is a pattern here. These same pundits over and over again said: Whatever President Obama says, that is inevitable. It cannot be stopped. There is nothing we can do about it. There is nothing to see here. Move on.

At first the President, quite rightly, listened to bipartisan calls to submit that decision to the constitutional authority of Congress. I was quick to praise him for doing so. And, second, even more difficult, the President showed the wisdom, the prudence to listen to the voice of the American people when the American people spoke out overwhelmingly and said: We do not want to be involved in a sectarian civil war in Syria when we do not have a dog in the fight, when the rebels are in some significant way allied with Al Qaeda, Al-Nusra, radical terrorists, when there is no national security interest in getting us in the middle of this. It was overwhelming, and the entire ship of state turned on a dime. What was inevitable stopped. And it stopped because of the American people.

So the question my friend Senator Lee asked--what can the American people do? Do the same thing. But let me tell you now, you have to do it 10 times louder. You have to do it in even greater volume. Because I am sorry to say, Members of this body are dug in at a level they were not dug in on drones, at a level they were not dug in on guns, at a level they were not dug in on Syria.

The Democrats in this body, I am sorry to say, have not yet shown the willingness to speak out like James Hoffa of the Teamsters has, have not yet shown the willingness to speak out for their constituents and say: ObamaCare is failing and it is not working.

The Republicans in this body--there are quite a few of them who are angry we are having this fight. They believe it is not worthy of the time of this institution. They find themselves offended that the American people would expect us not just to have a symbolic show vote on a ObamaCare but actually to do something. Goodness gracious, this is Congress. We do not do something. Let's have another symbolic vote, and then we can put out a press release.

About an hour ago, a member of my staff showed me that this discussion--even though virtually every Senator has gone home and gone to sleep--that this discussion, this debate is not just trending No. 1 in the United States, but in one way, shape, or form is trending No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4. I have never seen anything like that.

No. 2, I will confess, is Duck Dynasty, but I am going to claim Duck Dynasty as part of it since not too long ago I took the opportunity to read some words of wisdom from Duck Dynasty and I suspect that is not entirely disconnected.

I have to admit, I have seen things trend No. 1. I have never seen them trend Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 all at the same time.

Given the Senate Chamber has been largely empty for most of the night, it is self-evident that kind of involvement from the American people is not a factor of personalities. It is not a factor of myself or Mike or anyone else. And by the way, everyone who wants to distract from the subject of this debate will try to make it about personalities. If they can get the Washington press corps to write stories about personal flights, about back and forth, about civil war-- my goodness, how many times have we seen the words ``civil war'' in the last week in the press? I am wondering if reporters have it now on a macro: ``Alt'' ``C'' and it types ``civil war.'' Who cares? You know what. If you get out of Washington, DC, I do not know anyone who cares. What Americans care about is they want jobs back. They want economic growth back. They want to get back to work. They want their health care not to be taken away because of ObamaCare. Every effort to talk about anything else is all a deliberate effort to distract from the issue that matters.

The reason this is trending Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 is because, for a moment, at least, some in this body are listening to the American people. I hope and believe and think that a great many Americans want to believe that more of us will do so, that more of us on the Republican side of the aisle and more of us on the Democratic side of the aisle will forget party, forget the battle, and actually listen to the people and fight to fix these problems.

The question Senator Lee asked is: What can the American people do? I will say, nothing gets the attention of elected representatives more than hearing from their constituents in jaw-dropper numbers, in phone calls and e-mails and tweets and Facebook posts.

Some Members of this body express annoyance that why would their constituents have the temerity to dictate to us--the solons of Washington--what to do. The answer is simple. Because our constituents are our boss. We work for them. They have every right to dictate to us.

I will note, on a lighter note, my friend Congressman Louie Gohmert, who has been here all night, handed me something that was quite nice. It is from the Daily News. It ran on Friday, November 4, 1949. It is entitled ``Ode to the Welfare State.'' It reads:

Mr. Truman's St. Paul, Minn., pie-for-everybody speech last

night reminded us that, at the tail-end of the recent session

of Congress, Representative Clarence J. Brown (R-Ohio) jammed

into the Congressional Record the following poem, describing

its author only as ``a prominent Democrat of the State of

Georgia'':

It is titled ``Democratic Dialogue.''

Father must I go to work?

No, my lucky son.

We're living now on Easy Street

On dough from Washington.

We've left it up to Uncle Sam,

So don't get exercised.

Nobody has to give a damn--

We've all been subsidized.

But if Sam treats us all so well

And feeds us milk and honey,

Please daddy, tell me what the heck

He's going to use for money.

Don't worry bub, there's not a hitch

In this here noble plan--

He simply soaks the filthy rich

And helps the common man.

But father, won't there come a time

When they run out of cash

And we have left them not a dime

When things will go to smash?

My faith in you is shrinking son,

You nosy little brat.

You do too damn much thinking son,

To be a Democrat.

That is from the Daily News, Friday, November 4, 1949, apparently inserted into the Congressional Record by a Member of Congress.

Let's take it a different direction. We talked about liberty, liberty that is at stake here. I want to talk about that same principle. On one level, on the real, on the personal, on the hard-working American families, they are facing a loss of jobs. They are facing small businesses that are not growing. They are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums. They are facing losing their health insurance.

But on another level, we are facing an assault on liberty. Before, we went through some of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Now, I want to go further back to 1850, to read some excerpts from a classic that I would recommend to everyone to read, Frederic Bastiat's, ``The Law.'' The Law is a primer in free enterprise.

Though expansion of government programs may be tempting,

the designers often have selfish aims, and the program almost

always thwarts the liberty and prosperity of the people.

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

Life is a gift from God, which includes all others. This

gift is life--physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life

has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving,

developing and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish

this, he has provided us with a collection of marvelous

faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of

natural resources. By the application of our faculties to

these natural resources, we convert them into products, and

use them. This process is necessary in order that life may

run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality,

liberty, property--this is man. And in spite of the cunning

and artful political leaders, these three gifts from God

precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life,

liberty, and property do not exist because men have made

laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty,

and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws

in the first place.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his

person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three

basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one

of them is completely dependent on the preservation of the

other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of

our individuality? And what is property but an extension of

our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even

by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it

follows that a group of men have the right to organize and

support a common force to protect these rights constantly.

Thus the principle of collective rights--its reason for

existing, its lawfulness--is based on individual right. And

the common force that protects this collective right cannot

logically have any other purpose or any other mission than

that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an

individual cannot lawfully use force against the person,

liberty, or property of another individual, then the common

force--for the same reason--cannot lawfully be used to

destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or

groups.

Property and plunder. Man can live and satisfy his wants

only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his

faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of

property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his

wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of

others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now, since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain--and

since labor is pain in itself--it follows that men will

resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.

History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions,

neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes

more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to

use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal

tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of

the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of

men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and

support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted

to those who make the laws.

That would be us.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in

the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least effort

possible, explains the almost universal perversion of the

law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of

checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of

injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by

the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the

rest of the people, their personal independence by

slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property

by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who

makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he

holds.

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

This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the

law, and in proportion to the power he holds.

It seems almost as though Bastiat were writing about Congress right now, about the Obama administration granting exemptions from ObamaCare to the friends, to those with political influence, the giant corporations, and to Members of Congress. Why do Members of Congress get an exemption from ObamaCare that hard-working American families do not?

Bastiat tells us this 160 years ago. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law and in proportion to the power he holds. Bastiat goes on to talk about the victims of lawful plunder.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are

victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the

profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes

try somehow to enter--by peaceful or revolutionary means--

into the making of laws. According to their degree of

enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two

entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain

political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder,

or they may wish to share in it.

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

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among

the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize

the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice

lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the

right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few

persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes

universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting

interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the

injustices found in society, they make these injustices

general.

As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they

establish a system of reprisals against the other classes.

They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would

demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they

emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this

legal plunder, even though it is against their own interest.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice

appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution--some for

their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

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

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

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice

appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution--some for

their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

Bastiat continued.

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty.

Mr. De Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: Your doctrine is

only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I

go on to fraternity.

I answered him: The second half of your program will

destroy the first. In fact, it is impossible for me to

separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I

cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally

enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus

justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said

before, is in human greed; the other is in false

philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I

mean by the word plunder. Plunder violates ownership. I do

not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain,

approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its

scientific acceptance--as expressing the idea opposite to

that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever.] When a

portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns

it--without his consent and without compensation, and whether

by force or by fraud--to anyone who does not own it, then I

say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is

committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to

suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits

this act that it is so supposed to suppress, I say that

plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of

view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights

is even worse. In the case of legal plunder, however, the

person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the

act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder

rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself.

Therein lies the political danger.

The Law and Charity. You say: There are persons who have no

money, and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast

that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the

law supplied with milk from a source outside the society.

Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one

citizen or one class unless another citizen or other classes

have been forced to send it in.

If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he

has put in it, it is true that the law plunders nobody. But

this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no

money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be

an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some

persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this,

it is an instrument of plunder.

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

Going back to Bastiat:

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs,

subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and

welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free

credit, and public works. You will find that they are always

based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind.

Now let us examine Raynal on this subject of mankind being

molded by the legislator. The legislator must first consider

the climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at his

disposal determine his duties. He must first consider his

locality. A population living on maritime shores must have

laws designed for navigation. . . . If it is an inland

settlement, the legislator must make his plans according to

the nature and the fertility of the soil.

Frederic Bastiat--1915--explained principles of liberty that continue across the ages, principles of liberty that we owe it to every man and woman in America to protect his or her life, liberty, and property. ObamaCare does violence to the natural rights of every American; it does violence to their opportunity.

Do you know the cruelest joke of all? ObamaCare has been justified: Let's help the least among us. That is a noble goal. We should all care about helping the least among us. The cruelest irony is that the people who are being hurt the most by ObamaCare are the least among us.

The rich, as the President frequently inveighs, millionaires and billionaires, are not hurt by ObamaCare. They are doing just fine. In fact, they are doing better. The richest segment of this country is doing better today than they were when President Obama was elected.

Who is getting hurt? Who is losing their jobs? Who is not finding jobs? Who is getting their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week? Who is losing their health insurance?

I have read one letter after another from people across Texas and across this country, and not one of these letters said: I am independently wealthy, cruising on my yacht in the Caribbean, and yet ObamaCare has crimped my style. That is not what is happening. These are letters I read from the retired couple in Bayou Vista who had saved their whole life to buy their home, and now they are at risk of losing their home because of ObamaCare.

Let me read from another constituent in Houston, TX, my hometown, who on July 11, 2013, wrote:

My wife and I are currently both working jobs where there

is no provided health care coverage. My wife is a self-

employed physician and I am in sales. We have never gone

without health coverage our entire lives.

My father was in the military, so I had health care until I

graduated college. My wife had coverage through her parents

until she graduated. We never wanted to go without coverage,

so anytime our coverage had a break we went ahead and bought

catastrophic short-term coverage, even knowing we would have

coverage soon.

While my wife was in medical school, I had employer

coverage, and I bought an individual policy for her because

it was much less costly than group coverage. When my

employment status changed and neither of us had employer

coverage, I bought individual policies for both of us. We

would not risk going without health insurance.

Because we were both young and healthy at the time, the

policies were very affordable, about $130 a month. Purchasing

coverage was a no brainer.

While in her residency, we got family coverage through her

work. When she finished her residency in 2012, neither of us

had employer coverage, so it came time for another policy. We

looked around at all the options for a family of four, two

30-year-old adults, a 2-year-old boy and a newborn girl. We

found a HTIP plan for $400 a month with a $10,000 deductible.

We also had scrimped and saved so that in the event we had

a catastrophe we would have a deductible coverage. After that

our plan paid for 100 percent. This is the best coverage I

had ever purchased. I had become an educated consumer in

health care, shopping around for the best deals on

medications, and informing doctors of our situation so they

coded it properly. When we needed care we opted for urgent

care and physicians' offices instead of emergency rooms.

Many of my young healthy friends now have these plans,

either individually purchased or through their employers. As

of January 1, most of these plans will go away for us, as

most of my friends are around 30 years old. These plans are

actually decreasing the cost of health care as they inspire

us to be educated consumers. Unlike what the President said,

I don't get to ``keep my plan.''

I never thought that not purchasing insurance would be an

option for my family. I have done a fair amount of research

using the IRS info, current and estimated prices, even my own

insurance company's estimates. It looks like for the

cheapest, bronze plan, the estimated cost will be about

$1,600 per month, which is $20,000 per year. We don't qualify

for subsidies.

If I choose not to comply, I would pay a fine which, for

us, amounts to about $2,000 and save the $18,000 balance in a

bank account. Our fine will max out at about $5,000, so I

will still have $15,000 per year. I will now begin paying

cash for my health care and negotiate with doctors and

hospitals myself.

As I get older I will consider big insurance when it looks

like the cost-benefit ratio is better. No one in my family

has ever gone without coverage because health care is the No.

1 priority on our list. It still is, but this individual

mandate has caused us to consider going without insurance for

the first time. I would gladly keep my fine if I could keep

my current insurance, but that is not an option either.

Here is one of my friends' stories. He is a high school

teacher and his wife is a stay-at-home mom with two kids. His

district pays for all of his coverage and none of his

spouse's. This year they opted to purchase an individual

plan for her because it was more affordable, $150 a month

versus $500. Beginning January 1, she will be forced into

the exchange, where her estimated cost will be about $400.

They currently cannot afford this, and they don't qualify

for a subsidy because her employer offers coverage for her,

even though her income would qualify her for a 50 percent

subsidy. They will choose not to have insurance coverage on

them.

Many of the young, healthy people I have talked to told me they plan to go without insurance--people who currently purchase individual plans--because the coverage would be too expensive and the fine for most of them is much less than the coverage.

As was told to the American people, if you like your health coverage, you can keep it. We now know that promise was simply, objectively, 100 percent false. For Americans all over this country, the facts are otherwise.

It is incumbent on us, representing our constituents, to look to the reality of these facts.

Look to the young people. I don't think you could design a plan designed to harm young people more than ObamaCare. It is more than a crying irony that some 70 percent of young people voted for the President. I recognize that young people didn't necessarily understand the consequences of ObamaCare and how it is impacting their future. It is one of the things on which I hope this debate will focus.

If you are a young person coming out of school, have some student loans, and let's say you are hoping for a job and for a future, if you can't get that first job or if you are forced into part-time work, you are not going to gain the skills you need to get that second job, the third job, the fourth job, or to build a career, to get married, and to provide for your family.

We read earlier from the Wall Street Journal describing how economists now talk about young people as the ``lost generation.'' One of the striking consequences of this is that young people are putting off marriage and putting off kids. We know that has societal consequences. That has societal consequences that are altogether detrimental. And they are doing it not for matters of individual choice, they are doing it because the economy is so terrible for young people that they have no options. They have no options to provide for a spouse, to provide for kids, so they rationally choose not to begin those families until they have a job sufficient to provide for their families.

This thing isn't working. Every one of us owes it to our constituents to listen, to listen to the young people who are suffering, to listen to the single moms, to listen to the seniors, to listen to those with disabilities, to listen to the African Americans, to listen to the Hispanics who aren't getting jobs, are getting forcibly put in part- time work, facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and who are losing their health insurance.

We can vote party loyalty. That is easy to do. It is the way Washington often works. We can vote and say: Congress is exempted. We have special rules that apply to us, so it is not our problem.

Yes, it hurts hard-working Americans. If there is one thing Washington knows how to do, it is ignore the plight of hard-working Americans. Or we can show a level of coverage that has been rare in this town and step up and say we will risk retribution from our own parties. We will stand up and speak the truth. We will stand up and champion our constituents. Elected officials need to listen to the people. Together, we must make D.C. listen.

I yield for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank my friend from Utah for that very fine question, and I wish to thank the American people for doing exactly what Senator Lee just asked--for over 1.6 million Americans signing a national petition to defund ObamaCare.

You want to know why the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Friday to defund ObamaCare? The answer is simple: Because the American people rose and demanded it. At the end of the day, the House of Representatives is the people's House. I salute the House conservatives who fought and fought hard to get this done. I salute the House leadership. I salute Speaker Boehner for listening to the people.

It is not surprising the House of Representatives would do that first. For one thing, the House is designed to be the people's House. In our constitutional structure, the House has a different role than the Senate. The House of Representatives is up for election every 2 years like clockwork. In the House, you run, you get elected, you may get a little bit of a breather, enjoy Thanksgiving and Christmas with your family, and then you promptly turn around and start getting ready for the next election 2 years hence. Given that, the House is, by its nature, more responsive to the people because the risks are higher in the House to not being so. The House has shown over and over, when the elected representatives stop listening to the American people, the American people are very good, to use an old phrase, at throwing the bums out.

The Senate, on the other hand, is similar to a battleship. It turns slowly. Part of that is by constitutional design. Part of that was the wisdom of the Framers. In any given 2-year cycle only one-third of this body is up for election. It is one of the things that is interesting. If you look at those Republicans who have publicly said they intend to vote for cloture, they intend to vote to give Harry Reid the power to fund ObamaCare with 51 Democratic votes, they intend to give Harry Reid the power to gut the Republican continuing resolution, most of those Republicans who have said that are not up for election in 2014.

It is amazing how it can focus the mind if you have to actually stand before the citizens. I suppose some of the Republicans who are up in 2016 and 2018 might think: There will be time. There will be time. The voters will forget. The only way to move the battleship of the Senate is for the American people to make it politically more risky to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing.

When we were reading Bastiat's ``The Law,'' he talked about how do you prevent plunder. You make it more risky to engage in plunder than in hard work. The same is true of politics. You make it more risky not to listen to the voices of the people. How do you do that? The only way that has ever worked is a tidal wave of outpouring. It is what we saw with drones, it is what we saw with guns, and it is what we saw with Syria. But here it has to be bigger. It has to be bigger than any of those three. Why? Because the resistance is more settled in. The Democratic side of the aisle, the party loyalty is deeply entrenched.

I hope by the end of this week we see some brave Democrats who show the courage James Hoffa of the Teamsters showed. We haven't yet. I hope that changes. I hope by the end of this week we see a lot more Republicans, even Republicans who are not up in 2014 but who may have some chance by the next election cycle the voters will have forgotten. I am not convinced of that, but it is easy for politicians to convince themselves of that. I hope we see Republicans saying: Listen, this is a conscience vote. This is a vote to do the right thing.

I have to say that in my time in the Senate this is the first time I have seen Republican leadership actively whipping the Republican conference to support Harry Reid and give him the power to enact his agenda. I have never seen that before. I am quite confident it is not what Texans expect of me. I am quite confident, when each Republican goes back to his or her home State, it is not what their constituents expect of them.

I am also quite confident, if and when we return home and stand in front of our constituents and are asked: Senator, why did you vote yes on cloture to give Harry Reid the power to fund ObamaCare, to gut the House continuing resolution, I am quite confident if the answer was: Our party leadership asked me to do that; I am expected to be a good soldier, to salute and to march into battle--you know what, none of us were elected by party leadership. That is true on the Democratic and Republican side.

Listen, if we see Democratic Senators showing courage on this issue to break, I have no doubt the Democratic leadership will be very unhappy with them. I don't want to sugarcoat what the reaction would be. On the Republican side, none of us were elected by our party leadership. We have a different boss. Our boss is the American people. Our boss consists of the constituents who elected us. I am going to submit, if you strip away all the procedural mumbo jumbo, all the smoke and mirrors, our constituents would be horrified to know the games we play, to know this is all set up to be a giant kabuki dance--theater-- where a lot of Republicans vote to give Harry Reid the authority to gut the House continuing resolution to fund ObamaCare and they go home and tell their constituents: Hey, I was voting in support of the House. Boy, with support like that, it is akin to saying you are supporting someone by handing a gun to someone who will shoot you.

We don't have to speculate. It is not hypothetical that maybe, kind of, sort of, possibly if you vote for cloture ObamaCare will be funded and the House of Representatives' continuing resolution will be gutted. We know that because Harry Reid has announced it. So any Republican who casts a vote for cloture is saying: Yes, I want Harry Reid to have the power to do that, and then I will vote against it once it no longer matters, once it is a free symbolic vote. I don't think those kind of games are consistent with the obligation we owe to our constituents.

I made reference to the IRS employees union asking to be exempted from ObamaCare, and the union sent a letter where they asked their members please send. I want to read that letter. This is

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

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

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

When you and the President sought our support, you pledged

that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep

them. Sadly, that promise is under threat.

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

Right now, unless you under the Obama administration enact

an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-

earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-

hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle

class.

I think this letter I am reading may not be the IRS employees union; it may be, in fact, the Teamsters letter. I am going to set that aside and see if we can get the actual IRS union. It is a great letter. I may read it again in the course of this discussion. But I don't think that is the IRS letter since it is signed by James Hoffa. I am pretty confident that was not the IRS employees union.

Instead, let me read another note from a constituent. But don't trust me; don't trust any politician on what is happening on ObamaCare; trust the people.

A constituent from Spring, TX, wrote on April 12, 2013:

My late husband worked for the same company for over 40

years. Because of ObamaCare, this year that company decided

it would no longer offer supplemental insurance to Medicare.

The program I was forced into has increased my monthly

premium by almost $100. Not only that, but the prescription

plan has increased the drug plan--a generic one at that--by

30 percent.

Ridiculous. This body--Democrats and Republicans--needs to listen to the people. Together, we must make DC listen.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank my friend from Florida for that question. I had a delightful night. I had a chance to read Bastiat, Rand, and read some tweets. There are few things more enjoyable than reading tweets. And I hope that the Senator and I and Senator Lee and many other Senators who participated in this--I hope we have had some positive impact on moving this debate forward and making clear to the American people both the train wreck, the nightmare that is ObamaCare, in the words of James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, but also that right now too many members of this body are not listening to the American people, and the only remedy for that is this week the American people demanding that we make DC listen.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his inspired comments and for his question. He is absolutely right. This fight is about whether hard-working Americans get the same exemptions and the same benefit President Obama has given big corporations and Members of Congress.

I wish to respond to the inspirational remarks of Senator Rubio by making five comments, the last two of which I think may well be likened to Senator Rubio who will be inspired to ask a question in response to it.

The first point is a very brief one, which is to simply thank the Senator from Florida for telling that story about the flag. I will confess as we stand here a few minutes before 7 a.m., I am a little bit tired. Senator Lee is probably a little bit tired. I will tell my colleagues, the image of the dust clearing, the smoke clearing, seeing the Star-Spangled Banner waving under the rockets' red glare, that vision is inspiring and I appreciate it. It was very kind of the Senator to tell that story and it is very meaningful, so I thank him.

Secondly, Senator Rubio talked about how the political reporters have been focusing predominantly on the game, on the political process. He is right, I haven't seen any of the news coverage; we have been here on the Senate floor so I don't know what the coverage is. But what he reports doesn't surprise me because that is the nature of political reporting in Washington. So I am going to make a request directly to those reporters who are covering this proceeding--those reporters who are reporting this proceeding--to endeavor to have at least half of what they say be focused on the actual substance of this debate, on the fact that ObamaCare is a train wreck that is killing jobs, that is forcing more and more Americans to part-time work, that is driving up their health insurance premiums, that is causing more and more Americans who are struggling to lose their health insurance. My real request would make all of the coverage to be on that, but I know that is too much to ask. But I am going to suggest if all of the coverage or most of the coverage is on the political process, on this personality or that personality, or who is up or who is down, or how this impacts the 2042 Presidential election, I am going to suggest two things. No. 1, that is not doing the job you have stepped forward to serve and do. All of us have a job. Those of us in this body elected to serve have a job to listen to the people and to fight for the men and women of America, but those of you who serve in the media have a job to report to the men and women of America what is happening, and not just on the political game.

Secondly, I want to say, if you just report on the personalities and political gains, you are taking sides on this issue. Why is that? Because those who want to keep ObamaCare funded, those who want, on Friday or Saturday when cloture comes up for a vote, for Members of this body to vote for cloture, to give Harry Reid the ability to defund ObamaCare with 51 partisan Democrat votes, they want all the coverage to be about the personality, about the politics--about anything, anything, anything other than the substance. So if you choose to cover just the personalities and the politics, you are doing exactly what some partisans in this body would like, and that is, I am going to suggest, not responsible reporting. I know each one wants to be a responsible steward of informing the public, and it would strike me that the debate we have had here impacts people's lives in a way that nobody gives a flip about the politicians involved.

A third observation about Senator Rubio's question, when he compared ObamaCare to a horror film, I enjoyed that comparison. In fact, in my mind, I heard the music from ``The Shining''--not ``The Shining,'' from ``Psycho'' in the shower scene. And it occurred to me that perhaps one of the great philosophical conundrums with which we must all wrestle is whether ObamaCare is more like Jason or Freddy. That, indeed, is a difficult question. You can put forth a powerful argument for Jason because ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this country and when Jason put on his hockey mask and swung that machete, there was carnage like nothing else. On the other hand, we could make a powerful argument for Freddy, because as James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters said, ObamaCare is a nightmare. It is a nightmare for the men and women of America.

While the Senate slept, the men and women of America didn't get a respite from the nightmare that is causing them to lose their jobs, never getting hired, causing them to be forced to be reduced to 29 hours a week, driving up their health insurance premiums, and jeopardizing their health care.

The only way they get a respite from that nightmare, the only way we stop--there was a movie ``Freddy Vs. Jason.'' I forget. They fought each other. I forget even what happened in that movie. But the only way we stop Jason and/or Freddy is if the American people rise up in such overwhelming numbers that the Members of this Senate listen to the people and we step forward and avert this train wreck, we step forward and avert this nightmare.

Those are three observations I wanted to make at the outset. Then I want to make two more. I would note, Mr. President, as you know well, the rules of the Senate are curious at times. While I am speaking, I am not allowed to pose a question to another. I am allowed to answer questions, but not to pose a question to another Senator. But there is no prohibition in my asking a rhetorical question to the body, which may, in turn, prompt Senator Rubio to ask a question of his own and to comment perhaps on the rhetorical question I might raise.

The rhetorical question I would raise to the body--and I have two I want to ask--but I want to start the body thinking about Senator Rubio's family story. And listen, I am inspired by Senator Rubio's story every time I hear it. I am inspired. Part of it is because his family, like mine--we share many things in common. His parents, like my father, fled Cuba. His father was a bartender. My dad washed dishes. His mother, I believe, cleaned hotel rooms, if I remember correctly. My mother was a sales clerk at Foley's Department Store.

The question I would ask the Chamber is: What would have happened if when Senator Rubio's parents came from Cuba, when they arrived here, if ObamaCare had been the law of the land? What would have happened to his father and mother as they sought that job as a bartender, cleaning hotel rooms, if we had an economy with stagnant growth, where jobs were not available, and they were not able to get

hired? What would have happened if they had been lucky enough to get that job and their hours had been reduced forcibly to 29 hours a week against their wishes? What would have happened if they had faced the economic calamity for working men and women--for those struggling--that is ObamaCare? I wonder--I have thought many times about what would have happened to my parents. I know it would have been catastrophic in our family. But I wonder how it would have impacted the Rubio family if ObamaCare had been the law when Senator Rubio's parents came to this country seeking the American dream. Would it have benefited them or would it have harmed them?

(Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)

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

I thank the Senator from Florida for his answer on how the law would have impacted his family. I will say this: I have no doubt that at every gathering in every hotel where Senator Rubio speaks, there is not a bartender, there is not a waiter, there is not a dishwasher in the room who does not look over and think: I wonder if some day my daughter, my son, could be in the Senate.

What an extraordinary statement. Do you know what. If we were in almost any other country on earth you could not say that. In most countries on earth, if you are not born into a family of power and prestige and influence, you have no chance whatsoever of serving in a position of significant political leadership. Only in America. That is the opportunity this country is. I have no doubt of the inspiration it serves every day when Senator Rubio shares his story.

I have no doubt also that Senator Rubio is right that if ObamaCare had been the law when his parents came from Cuba, when they were immigrants, when they were looking for jobs, when they wanted to support their family and eventually their young family when they had kids, that if they had not been able to get those jobs or if they had had their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week so they could not earn enough to provide for their children, to give them the food, to give them the education, to give them the housing that they needed, it could have had a dramatic impact.

If ObamaCare had been the law, it may very well have been the case that Senator Marco Rubio would not be in the Senate right now, because it may have been that his parents would have struggled so much to make ends meet that they would not have been able to provide for him as a young boy the way they did, to give him the opportunities they gave him. He might not be here and our country would be far the poorer.

I know for me and my family, if my dad had not had that opportunity to get a job washing dishes for 50 cents an hour, if my mom had not gotten the opportunity to get her first jobs, there is a very good possibility I would not have had the chance to represent Texas.

When you cut off opportunity for those who are struggling to climb the economic ladder, it impacts for decades. It does not just impact them, but their children and their children's children. That leads to a second rhetorical question that I want to ask the Chamber, but it would not surprise me if it prompts, in turn, a question from Senator Rubio.

That is, Senator Rubio and I both have the privilege of representing States in which there is a tremendous Hispanic community. We both come from the Hispanic community, were raised in the Hispanic community. We both have the great honor of representing a great many Hispanics, he in Florida, me in Texas.

Some of the discussion of the Hispanic community focuses on his parents, like my father, who were young immigrants struggling, who may not speak English and who are on the first or second rung of the economic ladder. That describes a great many in the Hispanic community but there are others who are not necessarily in that circumstance.

In the United States there are right now approximately 2.3 million Hispanic small business owners. The Hispanic community is tremendously entrepreneurial. There are roughly 50 million Hispanics in the United States. That means roughly 1 in 8 Hispanic households is a small business owner. So the question I would pose, rhetorically, to the Chamber, is, what is the impact of ObamaCare on the Hispanic community? What is the impact of the crippling impact on jobs, of the punitive taxes, of the 20,000 pages of regulations? What is the impact on those 2.3 million Hispanic small business owners? What is the impact on economic growth and achieving the American dream? What is the impact on the Hispanic community, because I am convinced there is no ideal that resonates more in the Hispanic community than the American dream, than the idea that any one of us, regardless of who our mother or father is, regardless of where we come from, any one of us through hard work and perseverance, through the content of our character can achieve the American dream.

The question I would pose: Has ObamaCare made it easier or harder to achieve the American dream? How has ObamaCare impacted the Hispanic community?

I would yield for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank the Senator from Florida for his passion, for his heartfelt commitment to opportunity and understanding.

This is not about the rich and powerful. We are rich and powerful. The rich and powerful are just fine with ObamaCare. Indeed, the rich and powerful are better than just fine with ObamaCare. The rich and powerful get special exemptions. The rich and powerful get treated better because they are buddies with the current administration. Big business and giant corporations get exemptions from ObamaCare. Members of Congress get exemptions from ObamaCare.

Mark my words, if Congress doesn't act to defund ObamaCare to stop this train wreck before the end of the President's administration, unions are going to end up getting an exemption from ObamaCare. It is going to be everyone who is a political friend of the administration, has juice and has power, will get extensions.

The people who are left, you have nothing to worry about unless you don't happen to have several high-paid Washington, DC, lobbyists on your staff, unless you happen just to be a Hispanic entrepreneur, a single mom or a hard-working American trying to provide for his or her family, then maybe you will have something to worry about. But you are not going to get the exemption because what the Senate has been saying to you is exemptions for everybody else but not for hard-working American families.

I believe if it doesn't apply to everyone, it should apply to no one. The Senate shouldn't be picking and choosing winners and losers and who are the favored political class.

The Senator from Florida talked about Cuba. Some, particularly in Hollywood, like to lionize Cuba as this workers' paradise, but I would note Cuba has socialized medicine. Majority leader Harry Reid has stated his intention that he believes ObamaCare will lead, inevitably, to socialized medicine, to single-payer, government-provided health care. Some in Hollywood have lionized Cuba as this workers' paradise. Yet I am reminded of a comment President Reagan said in the midst of the Cold War.

The funny thing he said is if you go to the Berlin Wall and look at the Berlin Wall, the machine guns all point in one direction.

The same thing is true about Cuba. People talk about, the workers' paradise. The funny thing about Cuba, the rafts all go in one direction.

In the decade since Fidel Castro seized control and began brutally oppressing the people of Cuba, destroying that once great Nation I am not aware of a single instance since the day of that revolution of one person getting on a raft in Florida and heading over to Cuba--ever. I am not aware of it ever happening. So if socialized medicine is this oasis, if we are to believe the Michael Moores of the world in Hollywood, one would expect Floridians to be jumping on rafts. You know, that 90 miles, it crosses both ways. In fact, Floridians can probably get a better boat than they can in Cuba, but nobody goes that way. They flee to freedom. They flee to America.

What gives freedom such vibrancy--you want to talk about what matters to the Hispanic community, you want to talk about what matters to the African-American community, you want to talk about what matters to single moms? It is the opportunity to work. It is the opportunity to get a job. When we talk about what matters to young people, it is the opportunity to start a career and to move toward advancing to providing for your family, to having the dignity and respect of working toward your dreams, toward your passions, toward your desires. ObamaCare is stifling that, and that is a tragedy. It is a tragedy. And the only way it will stop is if this body begins to listen to the American people. Together, we must make D.C. listen.

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

I thank the Senator from Kansas. And I will tell the Senator, I am doing fabulous. I am inspired and I am motivated by the American people.

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his very fine question, and I will make a couple of general points about the Senator from Kansas first, and then I will answer his important question.

I want to say that Senator Roberts is an old lion in the Senate. He was here last night, he was here this morning supporting us, and that is a big

deal. The Senator from Kansas is a respected leader of this body, a graybeard, and, I would note, a very well-liked Senator.

One point I will make about Senator Roberts is that, in my humble opinion, I think he is one of the two funniest Senators in the Republican conference. I would say Senator Roberts and Lindsey Graham both have a fantastic sense of humor.

I will be happy to yield for a question but not yield the floor.

I will note on that question that I can provide no response other than to say, as they say in mathematics, QED. That point is granted.

But I will note that for the Senator from Kansas, as a respected senior Senator, to come and support this effort and even more importantly for the Senator from Kansas to have the courage to disagree with party leadership and express a willingness to vote against cloture--because doing so would allow the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, to fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote with no input from Republicans--takes courage.

I guarantee you, it is noticed that Senator Roberts is standing with us. It is noticed that Senator Sessions is standing with us. It is noticed that Senator Enzi is standing with us. It is one thing for the young Turks, it is one thing for those who have been dubbed the ``wacko birds'' to be willing to stand and fight, but when we see senior elder statesmen of the Senate standing side by side, I would suggest we are starting to see what I hope will happen this week, which is seeing Republicans unify.

I would like to see all 46 Republicans vote together on cloture on Friday or Saturday, whenever that vote occurs. I would like to see all of us stand together and vote against cloture because we say we can't, in good conscience, with the commitments we have made to our constituents, vote to allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare on a straight 51 partisan party-line vote. I would like to see that happen, and I would note that Senator Roberts' presence here at night and in the morning is beneficial to making that happen. I hope it causes other respected leaders in our party to give a second thought that perhaps the division in the Republican conference is not benefiting the Nation or benefiting the Republican Party. Perhaps it is not serving the interests of our constituents.

Before I answer the question directly, that point is an important point to make--that the Senator's support is significant.

I also wish to acknowledge Senator Roberts' very kind compliment about the way I have endeavored to conduct myself.

Senator Mike Lee has always conducted himself with respect for the views of others, not speaking ill of any Member of this Senate-- Republican or Democrat. That is certainly what I have endeavored to do, and it is meaningful.

Senator Roberts comments that it is his judgment we have had some modicum of success achieved. I would note that characterization is at least mildly at odds with what one might think if one simply read the New York Times. If one read the New York Times, one would expect that perhaps I am leaning over, biting my colleagues with bare fangs. So I appreciate the observation of the Senator from Kansas that, in his judgment, we have not conducted ourselves that way. The reason is simple: The New York Times wants to spill gallons of ink on personalities, on people, on politics, and on anything except the substance.

I would have been perfectly happy if not a single story coming out of this ever mentioned my name. If every story just focused on: ObamaCare, is it working or not? Is it helping the American people or is it hurting? If every story simply said the Senate stayed in session all night because ObamaCare is a train wreck; because ObamaCare is a nightmare--in the words of James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters; because the American people are losing their jobs or being forced into part-time work or are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums or are losing their health insurance, that is why the Senate was here. So I would be thrilled if all of the coverage focused on the substance instead of the distraction that is the silliness that is the back and forth.

Senator Roberts posed a very important question, and it went to process. It went to how this proceeding is moving forward.

There used to be a time when this body was described as the world's greatest deliberative body. I don't think anyone familiar with the modern Senate would describe it as that, because this body doesn't work anymore. This body is no longer a deliberative body. This body is now an instrument of political power used to enforce the wishes of the Democratic majority, both on the minority but more importantly on the American people, disregarding the American people's views and the American people's concerns.

So what are we told? In the Senate of days of old there were two cardinal principles that were the essence of what it meant to be in the Senate: one, the right to speak; and, two, the right to amend. For a couple of centuries any Senator could offer any amendment on just about anything. That is what made this process work, open amendments.

Did that make a few people take votes they didn't necessarily want to? Yes. But if we are being honest with our constituents, that shouldn't trouble you. If you are telling your constituents what you believe and if you are voting your principles, there shouldn't be a vote you are afraid of. Votes are only problematic if you are trying to tell your constituents one thing and trying to do something else in Washington.

What is the process that is supposed to play out here on this continuing resolution and this continuing resolution to defund ObamaCare--to fund all the Federal Government and defund ObamaCare?

We are told that, first, there is going to be a vote on cloture on the bill to shut off debate. If 60 Senators vote to do so, if Republicans cross the aisle and join Harry Reid and Senate Democrats in shutting off debate, we are told we will get one amendment--apparently drafted by the majority leader Harry Reid--and that amendment will fund ObamaCare in its entirety and will gut the House bill, will deliberately do it. That is the stated intent. We are also told that other amendments will not be allowed.

In the course of this discussion we have discussed a number of other amendments, all of which I think would be terrific. One amendment the Senator from Kansas mentioned would be an amendment to repeal the medical device tax. I would note that is an amendment which we had a vote on in the budget process, and an overwhelming majority of Senators in this body voted for it. My recollection is nearly 80 Senators voted for it. Yet it didn't pass into law because of the peculiarities of the budget process. So that is an amendment presumably that, if it were allowed, would be adopted. I would suggest that is perhaps the reason why it won't be allowed: because it would be adopted.

Repealing the medical device tax would take one aspect of ObamaCare-- the punitive, crippling tax that is hammering the medical device industry, that is driving medical device companies out of business or near out of business, that is hammering jobs and that is restraining innovation--that is restraining medical device innovation. We know with certainty that if there is not innovation, if there is not research and development, if there is not investment in medical devices, there will be new medical devices that aren't discovered. There will be people whose pain is not alleviated, whose suffering is not alleviated, perhaps whose lives are not saved. So that would be one of them.

Another amendment I think we ought to have a vote on would be Senator Vitter's amendment to revoke the exemption that President Obama, contrary to law, unilaterally put in place for Members of Congress and their staff. Senator Vitter's amendment would subject every Member of Congress, every staff member, and the political appointees of the Obama administration to the exchanges just as millions of Americans are going to be.

Indeed, I supported an amendment that some Republican Senators have talked about that would expand Senator Vitter's amendment to all Federal employees because our friends the Democrats frequently tell the American people what a wonderful thing ObamaCare is: Look at this tremendous benefit we are bringing the American people. If it is so wonderful, then the majority leader and the Democratic Senators and the congressional staff should be eager to get it if it is such a tremendous improvement. If it is so wonderful, President Obama--after all, his name is on the bill, ObamaCare in the popular vernacular-- should be eager to get--his political appointees who are forcing it on us should be eager to get it and the Federal employees should be eager to get it. We all know they are not.

We all know this exemption came after a closed-door meeting in the Capitol with the majority leader Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators where, according to press reports, they asked: Please let us out from under this, because it will be so devastating, we don't want to lose our health care.

I understand that. Look, I would not be eager myself to be on the exchanges. I am certainly not eager for my staff to be on the exchanges. Many of them are very concerned about it. I may lose very good staff over it. But I think there is a broader principle, which is that different rules should not apply to Washington that apply to the American people.

If we are willing to subject millions of Americans to the exchanges, if we are willing to let people lose their health insurance, as is happening all over this country--take the UPS. UPS recently sent letters to 15,000 employees saying you are losing your spousal coverage. Your husbands and wives who were covered are losing their coverage.

President Obama promised: If you like your plan, you can keep it. That has proven categorically wrong.

A great many of those husbands and wives who had health insurance may be forced onto these new exchanges with no employer subsidy. That is a lousy place to be. It is exactly the lousy place to be that Members, Senators, and congressional staff are complaining, Don't put us in that briar patch. But if Congress is going to put the American people in that briar patch, then you had better believe we should be there with them. And if we don't like it, the answer isn't exempt us, the answer is exempt the American people. If it is intolerable for us to endure, it should be intolerable for the American people.

Another amendment I think we ought to vote on is an amendment stripping the IRS of enforcement authority on ObamaCare. We have seen the political abuses the IRS is capable of. I don't know anyone who is eager to have the IRS have the world's largest database of our health care information.

(Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)

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

I thank the Senator from Kansas for that excellent question. I would like to make two points in response, and I want to give an opportunity to the Senators from Kentucky and Oklahoma who are both waiting, I believe, to ask questions, so I want to move expeditiously, allowing them to do so. Before that, it is important to address the very good point the Senator from Kansas raised.

I would say as the first observation, there are at least three more amendments that ought to be voted on in connection with the continuing resolution. One the Senator from Kansas suggested is an amendment defunding these navigators, defunding this slush fund that is being used to basically fund liberal special interest groups in the States, much like the stimulus, yet another plan that is used to write checks to groups that are little more than political action groups. That would be a vote we should have.

Another vote we should have is a vote to protect the privacy of our information. The IRS has created the largest database in history of our personal health care information, and there has been report after report that the protections and the privacy of cyber security are pitifully, woefully inadequate; that there are identity thieves, that there are unscrupulous characters getting ready to mine those databases.

The Senator from Kentucky, who shortly will ask a question, has been a leader on privacy. The idea of the Federal Government collecting personal information about all of our health care and then putting it in one place so, A, the Federal Government can have it; and, B, if it is poorly secured, anyone can break in and steal it. We ought to have an amendment to require real protections for our privacy before any of this goes online.

Yet another amendment we ought to have is--the President has unilaterally delayed the employer mandate. We ought to have a delay of the individual mandate. I note the House passed that and a substantial number of Democrats voted for it.

That went through 6 amendments and I am pretty sure we could come up with more. I note that earlier in the evening I had an exchange with Senator Kaine from the State of Virginia who asked a question. I forget the exact terms of it, but to paraphrase, he said: Can't we work together on improving ObamaCare, stopping it from being--he didn't say this, but this is me saying it--to stop it from being this

train wreck, the nightmare, the disaster that it is? My answer was: Absolutely. We should fix it, we should have amendments, and I listed some of these we discussed now. The problem is, I suggested to the Senator from Virginia, you should address your concern to majority leader Harry Reid, because he is the one who is shutting down the process, saying the Senate is not going to operate with open amendment, we are not going to have an opportunity to improve it.

Let me make a final point. In terms of the political theater that is Washington, why does this matter right now? There are lost Republicans who would like votes on everything I said, and there is some virtue to getting a vote. But to be honest, many Republicans are fighting to get that vote in some context where it is purely symbolic. They are real happy because every Republican can vote together and every Democrat can vote against it, and then it can become fodder for a campaign ad.

Let me suggest a far better approach is to have these amendments voted on in a context where they can be passed into law. The continuing resolution is that context. Everyone understands that at one stage or another. This is must-pass legislation. Everyone understands that we will fund the Federal Government. We have to fund the Federal Government. Nobody wants a government shutdown.

We may get one if Harry Reid and President Obama force one, but nobody wants it. So voting on it now in the context of this continuing resolution is different from a symbolic vote, a political vote, because it actually could fix these problems. It is not simply Washington symbolism. That is why I find it all the more striking that so many Senate Republicans are suggesting they may be willing to vote with majority leader Harry Reid and with the Senate Democrats to cut off debate, to allow one amendment drafted by the majority that would totally fund ObamaCare that would gut the House bill and shut off every other amendment.

If this were any other context, my colleagues on the Republican side would be up in arms. We would see the so-called old bulls of the Senate united in saying the process is being abused, and we would get 46 Republicans voting against cloture.

By the way, nobody, if there were any other context, would make the silly arguments that voting for cloture is really supporting the bill. The majority leader has indicated that once cloture is granted he is going to introduce an amendment to gut the bill and go the exact opposite way, allowing him to do so in a 51-vote partisan vote. That is not supporting the bill; it is undermining the bill.

The stakes of this fight right now are whether this body is willing to listen to the American people--whether Democrats are willing, whether Republicans are willing. I would say what has to happen to change how this body operates is that we must make DC listen.

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

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I can tell him as I said at 2:30 in the afternoon yesterday that I intend to stand against ObamaCare as long as I am able to stand. At this point I feel confident that at 9 a.m., I will still be able to stand. There will come a point when that is no longer the case, but we have not yet reached that point.

I am happy to yield for a question of the Senator from Kentucky without yielding the floor.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his very fine question. The answer is absolutely yes, I believe there is an opening to do that. I believe we can address the train wreck and the nightmare the American people are facing that is ObamaCare. We can address the very real harms that are being visited upon Americans as a result.

I want to note that the Senator from Kentucky has been a clarion voice for liberty. That is one of the many things I appreciate about my friend Senator Rand Paul. I think my favorite phrase from his question is a phrase that occurred about midway through his question where he said something to the effect of: We need a rebellion against oppression. I like that phrase. That is a particularly excellent turn of a phrase. I will confess that it reminded me of a movie series that was in the theaters when the Senator from Kentucky and I were both kids--young adults--and that was the ``Star Wars'' franchise and the discussion of a rebellion against oppression. I think it captures a lot of what is going on here. We started this debate some 18 hours ago talking about the divide between the Washington establishment that is not listening to the American people, that is forcing its will on the American people, and the people of this country.

I will confess that phrase of rebellion against oppression conjured up to me the Rebel Alliance fighting against the Empire--the Empire being the Washington, DC, establishment. Indeed, immediately upon hearing that phrase, I wondered if at some point we would see a tall gentleman in a mechanical breathing apparatus come forward and say in a deep voice, ``Mike Lee, I am your father.''

This is a fight to restore freedom for the people. This is a fight to get the Washington establishment--the Empire--to listen to the people. And just like in the ``Star Wars'' movies, the Empire will strike back. But at the end of the day, I think the Rebel Alliance--the people--will prevail.

The Senator from Kentucky asked: Can we actually make real progress in this? Yes, if the people do it. To be perfectly honest, the Senator from Kentucky can't get it done; I can't get it done; Senator Mike Lee can't get it done. I don't think there is an elected official in this body who can get it done. Only the American people can speak with a loud enough volume that it forces, No. 1, all 46 Republicans to unite, as we should be uniting, against cloture and say: No, not a single Republican will vote to give Harry Reid and the Democrats the ability to force through a single amendment that guts the House continuing resolution, that funds ObamaCare, and has 51 partisan Democratic votes and shuts out all other amendments; and No. 2, if the people rise up in sufficient numbers.

I believe the Democrats have good faith. We will ultimately have no choice but to do the same thing--listen

to the people. During this debate we have read and we have discussed the letters from the roofers union, the letter from the Teamsters. Each of them used the same phrase: They ``could remain silent no more.'' Both of those letters began by saying they were Democrats who supported the President, who supported Democrats for the Senate, supported Democrats for the House, who had campaigned and worked for them, yet they ``could remain silent no longer'' because ObamaCare is hurting millions of Americans. In the words of James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, it is a nightmare.

If they can remain silent no longer, then I say to the Senator from Kentucky, I do have faith that there will be Democratic Senators who will feel the same pang of conscience to remain silent no longer but to actually speak up for the American people. But it will only happen when Republicans are united. If Republicans are divided and throwing rocks at each other, we cannot expect Democrats to cross their leadership. The Republicans have to unite first in order to get Democrats to come together and listen to the people. You want to know what this whole fight is about? Together we must make DC listen.

I am happy to yield for a question, but I will not yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and my answer is, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Indeed, if the Washington press corps would focus on the substance of this debate, on the issues that matter to the American people, the reporters would ask the question at every news conference the President conducts and at every opportunity they have: Mr. President, are you willing to be subject to ObamaCare, to be put on the exchange that millions of Americans are being forced to do? They would ask the majority leader of the Senate, and indeed every Democratic Senator who met with the President and who, according to press reports, at whose behest Members of Congress were exempted.

If the press were doing the job of a watchdog press holding leaders accountable, actually speaking truth to power, they would ask every Democratic Senator not once, not twice but over and over and over: Are you willing to be put on the exchanges without an employer subsidy, just like millions of Americans who are losing their health insurance because of ObamaCare? If not, why?

As I have noted multiple times during the course of this debate, I very much support what Senator Paul suggested about making every Federal employee subject to ObamaCare. Let me be clear. Doing that is a lousy thing to do to Federal employees. It is a lousy thing to do to Members of Congress. It is a lousy thing to do to congressional staff. None of them like it. As the Presiding Officer and I know well, it is hard to find an issue that causes more dismay, if not panic, among congressional staff than the idea that they might be thrown into the exchanges with no employer subsidies, as will millions of Americans; ironically enough, including, presumably, many of the staff who worked on drafting ObamaCare, and it is why the American people are so fed up with this. It is a manifestation good enough for thee but not for me.

Washington plays by separate rules. The rich and powerful, those who stroll through the corridors of power, they get exemptions, just not hard-working Americans. If you are at home and it happens to be the case that you have two or three high-paid Washington lobbyists on your payroll, you may be in good shape. You might get an exemption. But if you don't have the ability to walk into the West Wing, if you don't have the ability to pull the levers of power, then what President Obama, the majority leader, and the U.S. Senate are saying to you is you are out of luck. We answer to the friends of this administration but not to the American people. Listen, I think under no circumstances should Members of Congress be treated better than what we are doing under the law, forcing upon millions and millions of Americans.

I would note that during the course of this debate, I have been privileged to receive support from a great many Senators but two in particular I wish to mention right now: Senator Rubio and Senator Paul. I wish to mention them because on any measure of hipness or coolness, I will readily concede I can't hold a candle to them. Indeed, I remember in the debate over drones, Senator Rubio began quoting from rap lyrics, and I will confess to being clueless enough that I didn't even know what he was referencing. I was sure it was something far too hip for me to know. Although I will note I did read Toby Keith lyrics, but that is probably not quite the same genre, and I will note that Senator Paul has a following of, as he describes it, folks in Birkenstocks and beards and earrings, a different sort of cool that again I could not remotely hope to compete with. I am a lawyer from Texas.

But what I can try to do to keep up--because, after all, we all have a little bit of competitiveness in wanting to keep up--I would like to provide a little more detail about something I referenced earlier, which is the speech that Ashton Kutcher gave at the Teen Choice Awards. To be honest, referring to the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Kentucky as cool, as terrific human beings, as both of them are, it is almost oxymoronic, because I think I will take it as a given that there is no politician on the planet who would actually qualify as cool. Ashton Kutcher I don't know and I don't expect to ever meet. Yet at the Teen Choice Awards he gave a speech that I thought was remarkable. He was there to accept an award for playing Steve Jobs in the movie ``Jobs,'' and he did much more than accept a trophy. He talked about the importance of hard work.

His speech was so remarkable that I took the opportunity and tweeted out because, frankly, Ashton Kutcher can reach young people in a way that I

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

I believe that opportunity looks a lot like hard work. I

have never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was

always just lucky to have a job. Every job I had was a

stepping stone to my next job, and I never quit my job until

I had my next job. So opportunities look a lot like work.

He went on:

The sexiest thing in the entire world is being really smart

and being thoughtful, and being generous. Everything else

is--

And he used a mild expletive for manure.

It's just ``manure'' that people try to sell to you to make

you feel like less. So don't buy it. Be smart, be thoughtful,

and be generous.

Then he ended his speech by saying:

Everything around us that we call life was made up by

people that are no smarter than you. You can build your own

things. You can build your own life that other people can

live in. So build a life. Don't live one, build one. Find

your opportunities, and always be sexy.

I salute that message. I think it is a message that I hope every young person in America hears. But it is also a message that embodies what is imperiled by ObamaCare.

What Mr. Kutcher talked about ``I was always just lucky to have a job. I never had a job in my life that I was better than,'' it makes me think about my father. When he came from Cuba, his first job was washing dishes making 50 cents an hour. He was lucky to have that job. He certainly was not better than that job. If he hadn't had that job-- the next sentence Mr. Kutcher said: ``And every job I had was a stepping stone to my next job.'' As we have discussed during this debate, if he hadn't had that first job, he wouldn't have gotten his next job as a cook. If he hadn't had that job, he wouldn't have gotten his next job as a teaching assistant. If he hadn't had that job, he wouldn't have gotten his next job as a computer programmer at IBM. If he hadn't had that job, he wouldn't have been able to start a small business and work toward the American dream.

We want to talk about the tragedy of ObamaCare. It is the millions of young people, the millions of single moms, the millions of Hispanics, of African Americans who are struggling, who want to achieve the American dream and who, because of ObamaCare, can't find a job. Because of ObamaCare small businesses are not hiring, they are not expanding. Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs.

That first job washing dishes, if ObamaCare were the law in 1957, I think there is a very good chance my father never would have gotten that job washing dishes. If he had gotten the job, if ObamaCare were the law, I think it is virtually certain his hours would have been forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, and he couldn't have paid his way through college on 29 hours a week. So one of two things would have happened. He either would have had to drop out of college or he would have had to get a second job at 29 hours a week and juggle the balance between each of them.

That is what is so critical about this issue, is maintaining the opportunity for those struggling to achieve the American dream.

Secondly, I wish to share with my colleagues some more material. During the wee hours of the morning, we had the opportunity to consider some excerpts from Ayn Rand. I want to point to some more excerpts from Ayn Rand that I think are relevant to the battle before this body.

First, from ``Atlas Shrugged:''

We are on strike, we, the men of the mind. . . . We are on

strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the

creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on

strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness

is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is

guilt.

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

Integrity is the ability to stand by an ideal.

Also from ``The Fountainhead'':

. . . no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker.

It's so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an

idea.

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

. . . no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker.

It's so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an

idea.

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

Another quote:

Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of

your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: For

his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty

and absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the Morality

of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any

value, and grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever

existed on this earth.

Another from ``The Fountainhead'':

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first

steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.

Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that

the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and

the response they received--hatred. The great creators--the

thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors--stood

alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought

was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The

first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was

considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious.

Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed

vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid.

But they won.

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

Indeed, also from ``Atlas Shrugged'' in terms of the divide we see in this body, as Rand observed:

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and

the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man

who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by

accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the

middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to

pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit

out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood

of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who

dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the

robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker

and the fool to meet each other halfway.

(The Acting President pro tempore assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I would suggest that comment speaks volumes to this dispute. As we observed during the middle of the debate, there are some Members of the Democratic Conference--indeed, one we discussed: Senator Sanders from Vermont--who openly embraces his ideas. Indeed, there was a time when he ran for public office not as a Democrat but as a Socialist.

Mr. Sanders and I agree on very little when it comes to public policy. But I will say this, I respect his fidelity to his principles. I respect the honesty with which he embraces them. And as I observed earlier in this proceeding, I would far rather a Senate with 10 Bernie Sanders and 10 Mike Lees to a Senate where the views, the actual commitments, are blurred by obfuscation.

When it comes to the Republican side of the aisle, there are some Senators who have been quite open in saying they do not think we can defund ObamaCare. I will respect any Republican Senator who says: I am convinced we cannot do this and, therefore, I am voting for cloture because we cannot do it, and so I am voting against it. I do not agree with that. I think that is a defeatist philosophy. But it is an honest philosophy.

I would suggest it is far different for a Republican to say: I am going to vote for cloture, I am going to vote for Harry Reid and 51 Democrats the ability to fund ObamaCare in its entirety with no amendments, no changes whatsoever, but at the same time I am going to go to my constituents and say: I fully, I enthusiastically support defunding ObamaCare. Indeed, I am leading the fight. That is not being honest with the American people.

If we are to listen to the people, part of listening to the people is being honest with the people. Part of listening to the people is embracing, quite candidly, the position we hold. If those Members of this conference want to disagree with this strategy and say we agree with Harry Reid, that ObamaCare should not be defunded on the continuing resolution, then let them say so openly, not cloaked in robes of procedural deception and obscurity. Let them say so openly to the American people. And let them make their case. That has the virtue of truth.

On ObamaCare, in ``Atlas Shrugged'' Ms. Rand wrote:

There's no way to rule an innocent man. The only power any

government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,

when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One

declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes

impossible for me to live without breaking laws. . . . But

just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or

enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation

of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's

the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you

understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

That is a profound insight on the train wreck, on the nightmare that is ObamaCare.

One statement the Senator from Kentucky made that I would disagree with slightly--the Senator from Kentucky said President Obama is committed 100 percent to ObamaCare, to making no changes, no alterations, to defending it as is, not to improving it. Actually, I do not think that is accurate. I think what the President has done is far worse than that, actually, which is the President has opposed legislative changes to fix the tremendous failures in ObamaCare that are hurting the American people, but the President has over and over unilaterally--abusing executive power--disregarded the law.

When the President decided unilaterally that the employer mandate that was set to kick in on January 1 of next year would be delayed for a year for big businesses, there is no basis in law for him to do so. The statute says otherwise. But his decision was simply: L'etat c'est moi. I am the state; therefore, this is delayed.

Likewise, when the President made the decision that the eligibility verification for subsidies, written into the statute, would not be enforced, that is contrary to law. The President does not have the authority to disregard the statute. If he does not like it, he can come to Congress and ask for an amendment. But the statutes written in the law books are binding law, and he simply announced: No, they are not. I am not going to enforce it.

Of all the different unilateral changes, that may be the most consequential. It is one of the least discussed, but it is consequential because its effect is essentially to encourage liar loans. Whether you are eligible for subsidies or not, just say you are, and we are not going to check to find out.

Perhaps most egregious was the President's action exempting Members of Congress. The statute provides that Members of Congress shall be subject to ObamaCare, shall be put on the exchanges without employee subsidies, just like millions of Americans.

Mr. President, as you and I both know well, that had Members of Congress, that had congressional staff in a panic. So majority lead Harry Reid and Democratic Senators met with the President and, according to the public press accounts, asked for an exemption, said: Please exempt us--although the statute is clear. It was written that way, I would note, because of my friend, Senator Chuck Grassley, who added that amendment on the principle that if we are going to put a burden on the American people, we should feel it, we should have skin in the game.

According to the press reports, the President said he would take care of the problem. Shortly thereafter, his administration did so and said: We are going to disregard the law of the land. We are going to disregard the statute.

Let me say, when the President of the United States begins picking and choosing which laws to follow and which laws not to follow, when the President of the United States looks at this mess that is ObamaCare and begins pulling out the eraser and saying: I am going to erase this part of the statute, I am going to erase this part of the statute, and I am going to pick that it applies to these people, but I am going to pick that it does not apply to these people, that is the height of arbitrary enforcement. It is also contrary to his constitutional obligation. Article II of the Constitution obliges the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. To deliberately, willfully, and openly refuse to enforce the law is the antithesis of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. Indeed, it is taking care to refuse to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

That is the pattern we have seen. For any President to do so, Democrat or Republican--and I can tell you this: If there were a Republican President in office, and he were saying: I am going to disregard the laws of the United States, I can promise you I would be right here on the floor of the Senate decrying that Republican President, just as loudly as decrying President Obama for disregarding the law.

Look, I think ObamaCare is a disaster. I think it is a train wreck. I agree with James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters: It is a nightmare. But I do not think the President can just say: I am going to refuse to apply it to everyone. You have not heard me call on President Obama granting a lawless exemption to everyone. He did not have authority to grant an exemption to big business. He did not have authority to grant an exemption to Members of Congress. He does not have authority to grant an exemption to the American people. Only Congress does.

That is why Congress needs to act. That is why this body, why Democrats in this body, why Republicans in this body, need to listen to the American people. Together we must make DC listen.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for a question but not yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his learned insight for that very good question. The answer, in short, is yes. Yes, yes, absolutely, I think to use the same phrasing majority leader Harry Reid used when asked

if he supported single-payer government socialized health care.

I wish to make three comments in response to Senator Inhofe's question and his thoughts that he has shared with this body. First is simply a word of thanks to the Senator from Oklahoma. Senator Inhofe is an elder statesman of this body. He has served many years. He has earned the respect of his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle and on the Democratic side of the aisle.

From day one, when Senator Mike Lee began this fight, Senator Inhofe has been with us on saying ObamaCare is such a train wreck, such a nightmare, such a disaster that we should defund it.

I observed earlier, it is one thing for the young Turks, the so- called wacko birds, to stand in this spot. It is another thing altogether to see elder statesmen, Senator Inhofe, Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Jeff Sessions, and Senator Mike Enzi, standing with us.

That is significant, particularly when the leadership of our party is publicly urging Republicans to go the other way. I am grateful for the friendship. I am grateful for your steadfastness. I am grateful for the principled and courageous willingness of the Senator from Oklahoma to fight for the American people.

I will say it makes a real difference. If you trust what is written in the media, this battle is doomed. Indeed, I recall reading a day or two ago an article that purported to be an objective news story--not an editorial--by a reporter allegedly reporting on the news that began with something like: The fight to defund ObamaCare, which is doomed to fail.

That was reported as a fact. There was no editorializing, apparently. That is just an objective fact that it is doomed to fail.

I would say the momentum has been steadily with us. They said this fight was doomed to fail 2 months ago. We saw the American people unite, over 1.6 million Americans, signed a national petition saying defund ObamaCare now because it is a train wreck, it is a disaster, and it is hurting Americans.

They said it was doomed to fail, the House of Representatives would never pass a continuing resolution conditioned on defunding ObamaCare. It wouldn't happen.

Then last Friday the House of Representatives did exactly that because courageous House conservatives stuck their neck out and because House leadership, in an action for which I commend them, listened to the American people.

This week the press says it is doomed to fail that Republicans be united. Yet I would note seeing elder statesman after elder statesman come down and support us, it indicates the momentum that is with this movement. Listen, this is not a movement by any 1, 2, 3 or 100 Senators. This is a movement from the American people.

Why are we seeing momentum move in favor of defunding ObamaCare? Why are we seeing momentum for Republicans in favor of voting against cloture so as to deny Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare on a 51- partisan vote? Because the American people are rising up and their voices are being heard. That is the first point I wished to make in response to the Senator from Oklahoma.

I yield to the Senator for a question but not the floor.

I think the Senator from Oklahoma raises a very good question. The clear facts are everywhere in the world socialized medicine has been implemented, it hasn't worked. It produces results consistently. We can predict where socialized medicine leads. It leads to scarcity. It leads to waiting periods. It leads to poor quality health care. It leads to government rationing. It leads to government bureaucrats deciding what health care you can get and what health care I can get.

If you go in for a health treatment, a government bureaucrat may say, Mr. Inhofe, you can get that treatment in 6 months or maybe a year. On the other hand, perhaps your mom goes in for a treatment and the government bureaucrat may say: Ma'am, I am afraid you don't get that treatment. We have determined on our schedule we are not allowing it.

That is what happens with socialized medicine. If you want not to be able to pick your doctor, if you want a government bureaucrat making health care decisions for you instead of you and your doctor, then you should welcome what Majority Leader Reid says is the inevitable result of ObamaCare. That is single-payer government socialized medicine. That is where this law is headed.

I yield to the Senator for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for that excellent question, and I will make several points in response; first, is hearing that story of your wife and her courage. It reminds me, I will confess, I knew there were many reasons why the Senator and I had become friends, why I like and admire the Senator. I discovered yet another. It sounds as if the Senator and I married very similar women.

If it is anything like our marriage, at least in my marriage, I married way, way, way above myself.

I will tell you a story that your story reminded me of, which is my wife Heidi was taking a car to the airport. The car was hit. It was hit by another car, T-boned. The driver was very upset. Heidi called 911, and an ambulance came and took the driver to the hospital. Heidi proceeded to call a cab and take the cab to the airport, got on a plane and flew to a business meeting she had in New Mexico.

At the end of the meeting she noticed: Gosh, I am kind of hurting. My head hurts and my shoulder hurts. She went to the hospital that afternoon in New Mexico and discovered she had both a concussion and a broken collarbone.

Much like Senator Inhofe relayed, Heidi did not share this news with her husband until that evening. She didn't call me when the accident occurred. She didn't call me even when she got the diagnosis. She called me and was describing her injuries to me. She said: Sweetheart, I wanted to let you know I had a car accident. I am all right, but I do have a broken collarbone. I have a concussion.

Oh, my goodness. It is very disconcerting when your wife tells you that. She was describing where it happened. As she described the street in Houston, I am thinking: Wait, if it happened in Houston, what are you doing in New Mexico if you were in a car wreck in Houston?

She said: I got on a plane and flew, without going to the doctor, with a broken collarbone and concussion and went to the business meeting, completed the business meeting, before bothering to get treated.

Let me say to anyone watching this, I do not commend my wonderful, love of my life, wife's conduct to anyone who has had an accident. I would suggest getting medical treatment immediately. I would strongly suggest not following the path of the wife of the Senator from Oklahoma and my wife and not telling your husband.

I would strongly encourage, call your spouse and let them know. I certainly urge, should that happen again to my wife: Sweetheart, please let me know when it happens and not 12, 14 hours later.

But it is the virtue of marrying strong women who know what they want and are able to tackle the world. I, for one, am blessed and I have no doubt that you feel deeply blessed with 20 kids and grandkids. You know, the psalmist talks about my cup runneth over, bountiful blessings, and 20 kids and grandkids certainly qualifies as that.

Indeed, an additional point I wanted to make is I wanted to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his very kind comments about my father. As the Senator knows, my father has been my hero my whole life. I have admired him for as long as I can remember.

I also want to note something particularly meaningful the Senator from Oklahoma did. Every week in the Senate there is a prayer breakfast. It is a bipartisan prayer breakfast, which is nice. There are not a lot of bipartisan things we do here in the Senate. There are a number of Senators who attend regularly, Republicans and Democrats, and they invite a different Senator each week to share his or her testimony, share some thoughts. Some weeks ago I was invited to do so, and I felt honored to have the opportunity. I had attended the prayer breakfast a number of times.

The way it typically works is another Senator is asked to introduce whoever is speaking that day. So at this particular prayer breakfast Senator Inhofe was asked to introduce me. It is really quite interesting to me. Almost anyone, when asked to introduce someone, would do so fairly easily. Maybe they would print out a bio to pick a little biographical fact or two. Most treat introductions as fairly routine efforts, but Senator Inhofe didn't treat it that way. He picked up the phone and he called my dad. He picked up the phone and he called my college roommate. He picked up the phone and called one of my dearest friends here in Washington, for whom Heidi and I are the Godparents of their kids.

The Senator made these calls totally out of the blue and said: Hi, this is Jim Inhofe. I have been asked to introduce Ted and I was wondering if you could share any particular stories, and they shared a few mildly embarrassing stories. Actually, I give them all credit for finding exactly the right balance of stories that were just embarrassing enough but not quite so scandalous that the blood drains from your face when they are told. I would say that showed a personal level of consideration that is unusual in this town and I appreciated that.

I thanked the Senator then, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Senator publicly for putting that degree of personal consideration in trying to tell not just that I went to so-and-so college and did this and this--not just the empty biographical facts-- but in trying to put a little color on who this individual is.

The final point I will make is a point that goes to the substance of some of the remarks the Senator from Oklahoma made in the process of asking his first question, which is he talked about the battle of HillaryCare. I think it is quite fitting to the battle we are having right now over defunding ObamaCare. When the battle over HillaryCare was occurring--I remember it well--I was in law school. I wasn't serving in the Senate. If you remember the context at that time, when HillaryCare was playing out, all of the media said this is unstoppable. All of the media said this is going to happen and there is nothing the hapless Republicans can do to stop it. Indeed, there were a number of Republicans who came forth and said: We can't stop this, so we propose, what I derisively referred to at the time as--perhaps due to being a law student--HillaryCare light.

I remember watching that. During the course of that debate, I almost put my boot through the television set. I remember yelling at the TV set a sentiment that perhaps maybe more than a few people watching us feel, where you feel you don't have a voice in the process. Certainly, as a law student I didn't have a voice in the process. But I remember yelling at the TV set: What on Earth do we believe? What are we doing? If we are going to accede to marching down the road to socialized health care, what the heck are we doing? I remember saying: All right. To heck with all of this. I am going to move to an island and fish all my life. Heck, I'm Cuban. I like to fish. That would be a great life.

And Senator Inhofe will remember, because he was part of this effort. At the time I was particularly focused on the Senator from my State of Texas, Senator Phil Gramm. Senator Gramm had been a hero of mine for a long time. Indeed, I am particularly honored that the desk at which I sit used to be Senator Phil Gramm's desk. His name is written on the side drawer.

This is one of the curious traditions of the Senate; that Senators, when they leave the Senate, scrawl their signatures on the drawer of the desk. You are actually encouraged to deface government property, and with some frequency. I hope the next individual fortunate to have this desk appreciates it. I find it an inspiration to sit at the desk that was Senator Phil Gramm's.

But I remember at the time, when it seemed the whole stampede in the Republican conference back then was listening to the media, which was saying:

You can't win. You must accede to this. HillaryCare is unstoppable. I remember Phil Gramm walking out to a microphone and saying, in his inimitable drawl: This will pass over my cold, dead political body.

I have to tell you, when Phil Gramm said that, it was fairly lonely. He didn't have a whole lot of allies when he marched out and did that. Senator Inhofe knows, because he was part of that fight and he bears the scars from that fight. But because of that leadership and standing and fighting--it was very interesting that it ended up where we saw Republicans looking all around, and Gramm was standing there and he didn't get killed. They all essentially ran behind him saying: Yeah, yeah, what he said. But I am convinced if we hadn't had a handful of leaders back then who had the courage to not read the papers and believe all those who were saying: Oh, we have to concede, the papers say they have already won, we are going to HillaryCare, if we hadn't had a handful of leaders willing to buck the conventional wisdom and saying we can win, when they are being told no you can't, ObamaCare would have passed 19 years earlier and it would have been called HillaryCare instead. That is the power of leadership.

So everyone in this body who said 2 months ago and who are saying this morning that we can't win this fight, I point out that history is replete with example after example after example of those who stood up and listened to the American people and fought for the principles, for the values the American people share, fought for the interests of the American people, and who, with the support of the American people, won those fights.

That is what we are fighting for. Listen, it is my hope that by the end of this process we will see all 46 Republicans unite in opposing cloture and saying: No, we are not going to allow Harry Reid and a bare majority of Democrats on a partisan political vote to fund ObamaCare. It is my hope over time, once that happens, we start to get one Democrat after another, after another to come with us.

Now, will that happen now? Probably not. As long as Republicans are publicly divided, no Democrat is going to join us. But if we unite as Republicans, and if particularly those Democrats running for reelection in red States where their citizens passionately oppose ObamaCare and the damage it is doing to the economy, and the damage it is doing to jobs, and the damage it is doing to all of the people who are being hurt--if they hear from more and more and more of their citizens, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000--that starts to change the count.

People have asked over and over: What is the end game? How can you possibly win? I can't win. There is no way I can win, nor can any elected official win. The only way we can win is with the American people. That is it. When people ask: What is your end game, it is very simple. I have faith in the American people. And ultimately I have faith, or at least hope, in the 100 Members of the Senate.

I share the frustrations of Americans across this country that politicians on both sides of the aisle don't listen to people, that instead the political establishment in Washington protects itself, maintains its power, entrenches its power and does things like exempt itself from ObamaCare while letting the American people suffer under this train wreck of a disaster--this nightmare. But I also know at the end of the day, if enough people speak up, that every Member of this body at some point is compelled to listen to the constituents he or she represents. It is why I am so encouraged by the outpouring we have seen over the last 19\1/2\ hours, with all of the people engaged, all of the people tweeting the hashtag ``MakeDCListen.''

The citizen activists are transforming this debate. Listen, all of Washington wants to tell you, the citizen, it can't be done. You cannot win. Your view will not be listened to. The disaster, the train wreck, the nightmare--and I have used the word nightmare over and over. Let me be clear, for those who are just tuning in, where nightmare comes from. Nightmare is not my term. Nightmare is the language that James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, used to describe ObamaCare because it is hurting millions of Americans. So at some point I believe, I hope, Republicans will unite and that Democratic Senators will start listening to their people.

It is striking if we listen to the letter from Mr. Hoffa. With permission I want to share that letter again, because I think it is powerful, it is potent. It is something, frankly, I think every Democrat in this body who is supporting ObamaCare, who is opposing defunding ObamaCare, who is going to vote with the majority leader, should be asked about by reporters. I think the President should be asked about this letter.

Let me just read it. These are not my words, these are the words of the president of the Teamsters.

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi: When you and the

President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (the

ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have

now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat.

Right now, unless you and the Obama administration enact an

equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned

health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour

work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

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

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-

line workers in the American economy. We have been strong

supporters of the notion that all Americans should have

access to quality affordable health care. We have also been

strong supporters of you.

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

In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground,

gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and

raised money to secure this vision.

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

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

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

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep

concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory

interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the

destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know

first- hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded

and met with a stone wall by the White House and the

pertinent agencies.

Now, let me stop at this point and make a comment. For all of you at home who are not leaders of powerful unions and who have been major supporters of the President of the United States, major supporters of the Democratic majority in the Senate, my guess is you may not have the same access to the west wing, to the Oval Office, to the office of the majority leader of the Senate as James Hoffa, head of the teamsters does. Yet James Hoffa, head of the teamsters says in writing that he was met with a stone wall by the White House and pertinent agencies.

Listen, if a major union--that in its own words had boots on the ground, went door-to-door to get out the vote, ran phone banks and raised money to secure a democratic vision--was met with a stone wall, what do you think we the citizens will be met with? Do you think this administration listens to a single mom working at a diner who is saying ObamaCare is slamming her and making her life harder? Do you think this administration listens to you even if the politically powerful are lamenting what is happening with them?

Mr. Hoffa continues:

This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have

repeatedly received successful interpretations for their

respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last

week's huge accommodation for the employer community--

extending the statutorily mandated ``December 31, 2013''

deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

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

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

Mr. Hoffa continues:

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for

you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended

consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are

already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep

employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous

employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this

obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact

is two-fold: Fewer hours means less pay while also losing our

current health benefits.

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

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit

health insurance plans like the one in which most of our

Members participate. Those non-profit plans are governed

jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act.

Our health plans have been built over decades by working men

and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the

administration, our employees will be treated differently and

not eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such,

many employees will be relegated to second-class status and

shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance

plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won't

receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they'll be

taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these

restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours

unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of

viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

This next paragraph is critical:

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we

represent--

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

--and the families they support--

So millions more

--we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of

the Affordable Care Act that will destroy--

not weaken, not undermine, not slightly impair but destroy

--the very health and wellbeing of our members along with

millions of other hard-working Americans.

We believe that there are commonsense corrections that can

be made within the existing statute that will allow our

members to keep their current health plans and benefits just

as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made,

however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but

the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans

including members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa, General President, International

Brotherhood of Teamsters.

When you have the Teamsters coming out and saying this is hurting millions of working men and women and their families, it begs the question: If Mr. Hoffa can no longer remain silent, if the Teamsters can no longer remain silent, how long can the Democratic Members of the Senate remain silent?

I have no doubt Mr. Hoffa and the Teamsters received harsh criticism for this letter, because politically this letter was inconvenient for the party they have supported with time, blood, and treasure. Yet Mr. Hoffa said: We can no longer remain silent because of the devastation being inflicted on the working men and women of America.

If that is true, I am hopeful that among the 54 Democrats in this body we will see first one and then maybe two and then maybe three and then maybe a dozen Democrats with the same courage that James Hoffa shows, the courage to say, Listen, I am willing to make a statement that is contrary to the political leadership of the party I belong to and have fought for.

To any Democrats who are contemplating doing so, let me note that bucking your party's leadership inevitably provokes a reaction, inevitably provokes expressions--and often strong expressions--of displeasure. But let me also encourage any Democrats, there are worse things in life than a few harsh words being tossed your way. To be honest, that pales compared to the suffering of the working men and women of this country who are losing their jobs, who are losing their health care, who are being forced into part-time work. Any politician who whines ``Someone has said something mean about me'' has totally lost perspective compared to the hurt the American people are feeling. So I am hopeful.

I want to appeal to the better angels of our Democratic Senators that they show the same courage Mr. Hoffa showed to be willing to buck party leadership and speak out for the men and women who are your constituents.

I make that same plea to the Republicans, that you show the courage to buck party leadership and stand up to the men and women who are your constituents who are suffering under ObamaCare. Any Republican who votes for cloture, who votes to give Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare on a 51-vote partisan vote is directly participating in and responsible for funding ObamaCare.

If a Republican wants to say openly, I don't think we can defund ObamaCare; I don't agree with this fight, so I am siding with Harry Reid because on principle I think it is right, I don't agree with that, but I respect that view. You are entitled to that view. You are entitled to articulate that view. But I will tell you this, I don't think you are entitled to vote with Harry Reid and the Democrats, give Harry Reid and the Democrats the ability to fund ObamaCare, and then go to your constituents and say, I agree with defunding ObamaCare. You don't get it both ways.

If we are going to listen to the people, we need to be honest with the people and tell them what we are doing. That is what this fight is about, whether Democratic Senators and Republican Senators will listen to the people. We need to make DC listen.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Louisiana for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for that very good question. I thank him also for his support of this effort, his vocal support, his support from day one. I thank him for appearing with us last night, appearing with us today, standing together to defund ObamaCare, standing together to oppose cloture because it would empower Harry Reid and the Democrats to fund ObamaCare with a partisan 51-vote, party-line vote. It would shut out amendments to address and ameliorate the harms that are coming from ObamaCare that are hurting hard-working Americans.

As to the question the Senator from Louisiana asked, I certainly do not want to put words in Mr. Hoffa's mouth. He is quite capable of speaking for himself. But I cannot imagine, given the language of his letter, that the exemption for Congress would be in any way different from the exemption for big business. They are both exemptions for political friends of the administration. According to the language of his letter, he expressed dismay that they and other political friends of the administration did not get an exemption.

I will note part of that letter is asking: Give us a special exemption too. But that did not happen. But I will make a prediction. If the Senate doesn't act now, doesn't defund ObamaCare, if it doesn't stand and stop this, before President Obama leaves the White House he will grant an exemption to those union bosses. It is the trifecta of the privileged classes being excepted. I understand politically it was an inopportune time to grant that now. It would be lawless, it would be contrary to law to grant an exemption to the union bosses but it is also contrary to law to grant an exemption to big business and Members of Congress and that hasn't slowed the President down. If he is willing to disregard the law for them, there is no reason to think he would not be willing to disregard the law for his union boss friends except for the fact right in the middle of the defund debate it is not rocket science that that would not be ideal politics.

The courage of the Senator from Louisiana in introducing his amendment--he has endured vilification that has been beyond the pale and I appreciate his courage standing for the basic principle that Congress should be bound by the same rules as everyone

else. The American people, millions of Americans, should not be put onto exchanges subject to pain that Members of Congress are not. We should not operate under the principle one rule for thee, a different one for me.

For all of you who say this fight is not winnable, I would like to share a letter talking about fighting and winning unwinnable fights, because none of us can win this fight but the American people can.

Fans of Rush Limbaugh know that every year he reads something that his father wrote about the true story of the price paid by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I think it is fitting to read this morning. It is called ``The Americans Who Risked Everything.''

``Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor''

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind

was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony,

redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new

thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen

shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who

was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The

temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't

nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large,

with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable.

Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they

would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept

locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut,

so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by

passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight

stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson

records that ``the horseflies were dexterous in finding

necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them.'' All

discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a

panoply--consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized

from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and

Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they

were taking it ``in the name of the Great Jehovah and the

Continental Congress!''

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency

measure about which there was discussion but no dissension.

``Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of

Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops

at New York.''

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the

whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once

more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best

writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress

hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-

side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows.

They cut the phrase ``by a self-assumed power.'' ``Climb''

was replaced by ``must read,'' then ``must'' was eliminated,

then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was

cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called

``their depredations.'' ``Inherent and inalienable rights''

came out ``certain unalienable rights,'' and to this day no

one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were

eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of

wrangling, the document was put to a vote. Here in this hall

Patrick Henry had once thundered: ``I am no longer a

Virginian, sir, but an American.'' But today the loud,

sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the

vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the

custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence

was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and

cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought

of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its

hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems

before adjourning for the day.

Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the

Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing,

committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of

you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are

almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however,

know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What

happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the

names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton,

Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were

under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half--

24--were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were

landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors,

ministers, and politicians. With only a few exceptions, such

as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of

substantial property. All but two had families. The vast

majority were men of education and standing in their

communities. They had economic security as few men had in the

18th Century. Each had more to lose from revolution than he

had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in

America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He

signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read

his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben

Franklin wryly noted: ``Indeed we must all hang together,

otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately.'' Fat

Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of

Massachusetts: ``With me it will all be over in a minute, but

you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone.''

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason

was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was

already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed

intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from

hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply

asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was

equality with the mother country they desired. It was

taxation with representation they sought. They were all

conservatives, yet they rebelled. It was principle, not

property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of

them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them

became state governors. One died in office as vice president

of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S.

Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded

the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from

Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and

philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not

Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced

the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in

June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks:

``Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate?

Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let

her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish

the reign of peace and law. ``The eyes of Europe are fixed

upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that

may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the

ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores.

She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may

find solace, and the persecuted repost.

``If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of

the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity

at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever

will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens.''

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was

not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their

delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the

signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to

the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to

see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of

personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, ``but in no

face was he able to discern real fear.'' Stephan Hopkins,

Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As

he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: ``My hand

trembles, but my heart does not.''

``Most Glorious Service''

Even before the list was published, the British marked down

every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to

treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts.

Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes.

All who had property or families near British strongholds

suffered.

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

William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to

escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to

Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for

seven years. When they came home they found a devastated

ruin.

Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York

confiscated and his family driven out of their home.

Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the

cause.

Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his

timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was

barred from his home and family.

John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return

home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him,

and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her

deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his

homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was

hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated

by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had

already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never

saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever

finding his family.

Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College

of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied

the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college.

They trampled and burned the finest college library in the

country.

Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer,

had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his

wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but

a Tory sympathizer betrayed

them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and

brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a

common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally

arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined.

The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer

harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate

looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution.

His family was forced to live off charity.

Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate

and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year

after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made

it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton.

In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own

fortune and credit almost dry.

George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family

from their home, but their property was completely destroyed

by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to

flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had

several narrow escapes.

John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate,

lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he

came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even

some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and

troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When

he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were:

``Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they

shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most

glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country.''

William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and

home burned to the ground.

Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health

broken from privation and exposures while serving as a

company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to

seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his

young bride were drowned at sea.

Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr.,

the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the

British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as

prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were

singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end

of the war, the British in the meantime having completely

devastated their large landholdings and estates.

Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in

command of the Virginia military forces. With British General

Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American

guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord

Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into

Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were

making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson

remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American

gunners and asked, ``Why do you spare my home?'' They

replied, ``Sir, out of respect to you.'' Nelson cried, ``Give

me the cannon!'' and fired on his magnificent home himself,

smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite

over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by

pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer

peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's

property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died,

impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence,

nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were

captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment.

Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13

children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one

time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their

homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned.

Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or

went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation

they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham

Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary

Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British

prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship

Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The

younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because

of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food.

With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one

could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British

request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would

recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter

despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul,

must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with

his answer: ``No.''

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by

their every deed that they made no idle boast when they

composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. ``And

for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on

the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to

each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.''

My friends, I know you have a copy of the Declaration of

Independence somewhere around the house--in an old history

book (newer ones may well omit it), an encyclopedia, or one

of those artificially aged ``parchments'' we all got in

school years ago. I suggest that each of you take the time

this month to read through the text of the Declaration, one

of the most noble and beautiful political documents in human

history.

There is no more profound sentence than this: ``We hold

these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and

the pursuit of Happiness . . . ''

These are far more than mere poetic words. The underlying

ideas that infuse every sentence of this treatise have

sustained this nation for more than two centuries. They were

forged in the crucible of great sacrifice. They are living

words that spring from and satisfy the deepest cries for

liberty in the human spirit. ``Sacred honor'' isn't a phrase

we use much these days, but every American life is touched by

the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom,

tested by blood, and watered with tears.

That is the story of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. It is the story of our shared legacy.

I will make this note to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle, as Benjamin Franklin wryly noted: Indeed, we must all hang together, otherwise we should most assuredly hang separately.

That is the message all of us should think about. Are we going to hang separately because we disregarded the will and the view of our constituents and have given in to the Washington establishment or are we going to stand together and say: Let's break the broken pattern of Washington, of empty showboats, of fixed procedures, and ignoring the will of the people? Instead, let's come together--much like James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, has--and say: We will remain silent no longer. We cannot ignore the suffering of the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, cannot find jobs, have had their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and are losing or are at risk of losing their health insurance.

Our constituents, the American people, are hurting and suffering, and it is the role of Congress to answer their call. All of us must listen to the people. Together we must make DC listen.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank the junior Senator from Florida, and I would note that is precisely what this is about. This is a fight for the millions of men and women who are facing a stagnant economy, who are facing jobs that are drying up or disappearing altogether, who are finding themselves being forcibly put in part-time work, being forced to work 29 hours a week or less, who are finding their health insurance premiums skyrocketing, and who are being threatened or facing already their health insurance being taken away. All of these are the very real consequences of ObamaCare right now for millions of Americans.

Listen, there are people in this body who in good faith 3\1/2\ years ago could have believed this was a good idea, it might work. I did not think it at the time, but I understand that people in this body did.

At this point, with all the evidence, I would suggest that case can no longer be made, that the evidence is abundantly clear. It is why the unions are jumping ship. It is why Members of Congress have asked for an exemption. It is why it is now abundantly clear that this train wreck, this nightmare, is hurting Americans all over this country.

I will note a couple of things. First of all, I note that my assistant majority leader is on the floor, and I would make a request that either--I do not know if the assistant majority leader is in a position to speak for the majority leader or, if he is not, I would make a request, if the majority leader is monitoring this proceeding, that he come to the floor because I would like to promulgate a series of unanimous consent requests. I do not want to surprise the majority leader or the assistant majority leader, so I would like the opportunity to explain those requests before promulgating them, to give Democratic Party leadership an opportunity to think about it, to spend a little bit of time contemplating it, to make a decision whether they would consent.

So I would make a request, unless the assistant majority leader is prepared to speak for the majority leader, that I would ask that the majority leader, if he can--I know his schedule is certainly very busy--but I would ask if he can come to the floor so I may lay out the unanimous consent requests that I would like to promulgate.

I would also note that for some time Senator Grassley from Iowa has been waiting, and he has requested time to raise a question. So if Senator Grassley at this point would like to ask a question----

On the condition that it does not jeopardize in any way my full control of the floor, I am amenable to that request.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question, and I would respond threefold.

No. 1, for Judy, as the Senator describes her circumstances, I would certainly support health care reform that increases competition and increases free market alternatives that lower the rate of health insurance that is available to people by allowing interstate competition, creating a national marketplace. But, in my view, any health care reform should empower individuals and patients to make health care decisions in consultation with their physicians--not having a government bureaucrat get in between them and their doctor.

If I may finish the remainder of my points, concomitantly, the Senator has told the story of Judy, and I do think we should have reforms to address her circumstance, but over the course of the last many hours we have read scores, if not hundreds, of stories that are a small representation of the thousands or millions of people who are losing or are in jeopardy of losing their health insurance right now. They have to be balanced in this equation as well.

ObamaCare is causing people all over this country to lose their health insurance or be at risk of losing their health insurance, and I am sure if I were to promulgate the question to the Senator from Illinois: Do you want all of these people who are losing their health insurance to lose their health insurance--all of the names I read--I am sure the Senator would say no. But to date, no one on the Democratic side of the aisle has proposed any way to fix that.

Let me make a second point, and then I am going to have a third point. Then, if the Senator would care for another question, I am happy to do my best to respond.

The second point: The Senator from Illinois made a reference to Judy not needing to be in first class but being content to be in coach. I think that analogy is a powerful one, but what it highlights is the special exemption that has been put in place for Members of Congress. Because President Obama has put an exemption in place for Members of Congress that says: Members of Congress will fly first class, to use the Senator's airline analogy, but average Americans who are being forced onto exchanges, where their employers cannot subsidize their premiums, are not even flying coach. They are being put in the baggage department.

I will say I agree with the intent and the spirit of Senator Grassley's amendment to ObamaCare that was adopted, that is part of the law that the President is disregarding, which is that if we are going to force millions of people to lose their health insurance, be forced into these exchanges, then we should have skin in the game. Congress should not be treated any better than the millions of Americans we are forcing onto the exchanges.

Let me make my third point, and then I am happy to yield at that point for a question.

The third point is twice I have read in the course of this debate the letter from Mr. Hoffa, the head of the Teamsters.

I assume the Senator from Illinois has read that letter. In fact, I expect the Senator from Illinois has had direct conversations with the author of that letter. I do not know that.

I would ask the Senator from Illinois, No. 1, has he read that letter; No. 2, does he think Mr. Hoffa is telling the truth; and No. 3, in particular, does he agree with the following paragraph?

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we

represent and the families they support, we can no longer

stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care

Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our

members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

So my question is, does the Senator believe Mr. Hoffa is telling the truth when he says that? If so, does the Democratic majority in this body have any plans, any proposals, any amendments to fix that problem for what Mr. Hoffa describes as ``millions of working men and women'' whose health care will be--the word he uses--destroyed.

I am happy to hear the Senator from Illinois.

I appreciate the Senator's question, but I will answer the Senator's question when the Senator first answers the three questions I asked him, none of which the Senator has chosen to answer, namely: Have you read Mr. Hoffa's letter? Do you agree with that paragraph? Do you think he is telling the truth? What, if anything, does the Democratic majority purport to do about millions of working men and women whose health care, according to Mr. Hoffa, is being destroyed?

I would note that the Senator from Illinois made an allegation impugning my motive, saying that I wanted 50 million people to be denied health care. Let me be very clear. That statement is categorically false. I want a competitive marketplace where health care is accessible, it is affordable, where it is purchased across States lines, where it is personal, where it is portable, and where people have jobs so they can get health insurance. ObamaCare is what is denying health insurance to millions of Americans. If you do not take my word for it, I assume you do not contend that Mr. Hoffa is being less than truthful?

I will answer that question. Since I have not yielded the floor, I would like to make a broader point after that and have a colloquy. I will point out why, which is that we are operating under some time constraints. So I want to do what the Senator asked of detailing the unanimous consent requests that I want to promulgate so he and the majority leader may consider them. I also want to be respectful of Senator Grassley and Senator Sessions, who have been waiting to speak. The Senator and I have engaged in multiple exchanges, both now and earlier, and so I want to be respectful of the other Senators on the floor.

But let me answer the question. I believe we should repeal every word of ObamaCare. I think it has failed. I agree with James Hoffa that on behalf of millions of working men and women and the families they support, that ``the Affordable Care Act will destroy the very health and well being of our members, along with millions of other hard- working Americans.'' So I think we should repeal it. I think we should defund it in the interim. This is not a fight over repealing, it is a fight over defunding it. Then I think we should adopt free market plans to lower prices, make health care more affordable, make it portable, and allow it to go with individuals.

I am happy to tell the Senator. I am eligible for it. I am not currently covered under it.

Let me note that the Senator from Illinois embraced the analogy and said: Yes, we in Congress have first-class health care. Under his analogy, he wants to stick Judy in coach class. What Senator Grassley's amendment was all about is, you know what, if you stick Judy in coach class, guess what. Members of Congress are going back in coach class. The Senator and I may disagree. I do not think Judy is in coach class, I think she is down in the baggage claim.

Regardless, in his hypothetical the Senator is conceding that the congressional health care plan right now is better than Judy's under ObamaCare, and he is saying that he supports a special exemption for Members of Congress that Judy does not get.

I agree with Senator Grassley's amendment that we should not be forcing millions of Americans into coverage we are not willing to experience. I recognize the passion of the Senator, but I would note that I have not yielded the floor.

I would like to describe the unanimous consent requests that I would like to promulgate. I would ask the assistant majority leader and the majority leader to confer with my staff and simply let me know if these requests would be amenable. I am not promulgating them at this time because I do not want to surprise leadership staff without giving you time to consider them.

The first unanimous consent request that I would propose to promulgate is a request that we vitiate the cloture on the motion to proceed that is scheduled this afternoon and agree by unanimous consent to proceed to this bill. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any Senator in this body who opposes proceeding to this bill. I think all of us agree that we should proceed to this bill, we should keep the government open. Some of us think we should keep the government open and defund ObamaCare, others think we should fund it, but to the best of my knowledge, no one disagrees. So if the majority is amenable, I would propose vitiating the cloture motion and simply agreeing to the motion to proceed. That would be the first unanimous consent request I would promulgate if it is agreeable to the majority.

The second unanimous consent request that I would promulgate is, if it is agreeable to the majority, as I understand in the timing, all of the delays are put in place. Cloture on the bill would be scheduled to occur on Saturday. In my view, in order to defeat cloture on the bill-- you know I want to defeat cloture on the bill. That is no secret. I think the best chance to defeat cloture on the bill is for this bill to be visible to the American people--highly visible. So accordingly, I would be amenable to shortening the time for postcloture debate such that that vote on cloture on the bill occurs on Friday afternoon rather than Saturday. Why is that? Because I think that on a Friday afternoon, a lot more American people are going to pay attention to what we are doing than a vote on Saturday during football games and when people are paying attention to other things. That may or may not be amenable to the majority, but if it is, we can shorten this time by a period because I think we have a better chance in prevailing in this fight if that vote--I note the majority leader is here. I do not know if he heard the initial unanimous consent, which, if it is amenable to the majority leader, we would negotiate the language with him and promulgate.

So the first one I offered, Mr. Leader--and I have not yielded the floor, but I am describing during my time on the floor the unanimous consent requests I would promulgate if the majority would be amenable. The first would be to vitiate the cloture request and simply agree on the motion to proceed because to my knowledge everyone in this body agrees we should proceed to this bill, although we have sharp disagreements on what we should do.

The second unanimous consent request, if it is amenable to the majority, that I would suggest--and I think the majority leader heard this as he was walking in--is to agree to shorten the time of postcloture debate such that cloture on the bill would occur Friday afternoon rather than Saturday. The reason is--I am being very transparent about my reasoning. I think it is better for this country if this vote is at a time that is visible for the whole country so that the American people have a voice in it. I think sticking it in Saturday in the middle of football games disserves that objective.

Then the third request--if the majority leader would be amenable--I would put forward is, as I understand it, under the rules of the Senate, in some 35 minutes, my time will be automatically cut off as the new legislative day begins and it begins with a prayer. When I started this filibuster yesterday afternoon, I told the American people that I intended to stand until I could stand no more. I will observe to the majority leader that although I am weary, there is still at least strength in my legs to stand a little longer. So the third thing I would simply ask is if the majority would consent to allow me to speak until the conclusion of my remarks and then begin the next legislative day and have the prayer at the conclusion of those remarks. If the majority says no, then my time will end at noon under the rules of the Senate. So it is entirely up to the majority whether to let me continue to speak. But given that I began by saying I will speak until I can stand no more, I believe I should at least ask if those consents are amenable.

I would note that under the rules of the Senate, if the majority leader cares to ask a question, I can yield for a question in which he might share his views or, if the majority leader wants to think about it, to discuss it with his staff, then I would note that the majority leader could simply convey to my staff if any or none of those unanimous

consent requests are amenable. If none of them are, that is fine and we will conclude at noon.

I want to clarify. I have the floor. I have not yielded the floor to anyone. Neither the majority leader nor any other Member has the right of recognition right now. If the majority leader wishes, he may ask me to yield for a question. I might yield for that limited purpose. But other than that, no one has the floor, if I understand the rules of this body correctly.

So I make that note. If the majority would care to ask a question, I would be amenable to yielding for a question. If the majority leader would not, that is certainly his prerogative, and I am happy to continue talking about the issues this debate has focused the country on because they are issues of vital importance.

Mr. President, I would simply note to the majority leader that if those unanimous consent requests are amenable, I would ask that his staff convey that to my staff. If they are not, I would ask that his staff convey that to my staff simply so we know which way to proceed. Regardless, I want to make sure before we wrap up because I assume now in 31 minutes we will be concluded. I want to yield to Senator Grassley in just a moment because I do not want to miss--I apologize to Senator Grassley, but I do not want to miss the opportunity within the limited time to do something that is imperative that I do, which is to thank the men and women who have endured this Bataan Death March. I want to take a little bit of time to thank them by name.

I would like to start by thanking the Republican floor staff and cloakroom. I thank Laura Dove for her fairness, for her dealing with crises and passion on all sides, and for her effectiveness in the job. This is an interesting occurrence to occur so early in her job. I thank her for her service.

I wish to thank Robert Duncan, Patrick Kilcur, Chris Tuck, Megan Mercer, Mary-Elizabeth Taylor, and Amanda Faulkner.

I wish to thank Democratic floor staff and cloakroom: Gary Myrick, Tim Mitchell, Trish Engle, Meredith Mellody, Dan Tinsley, Tequia Delgado, Brad Watt, and Stephanie Paone. I wish to thank the clerks and Parliamentarians. I wish to thank the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Secretary of Senate employees.

The Parliamentarians are Elizabeth MacDonough, Leigh Hildebrand, Mike Beaver; the Legislative Clerk, Kathie Alvarez; the Journal Clerk, Scott Sanborn; the Bill Clerk, Mary Anne Clarkson; the Daily Digest, Elizabeth Tratos; the Enrolling Clerk, Cassie Byrd; the chief reporter, Jerry Linnell; Congressional Record, Sylvia Oliver, Val Mihalache, Pam Garland, Desi Jura, Joel Breitner, Doreen Chendorain, Julie Bryan, Patrick Renzi, Mark Stewart, Wendy Caswell, Ann Riley, Patrice Boyd, Mary Carpenter, Octavio Colominas; captioning, JoEllen Dicken, Jim Hall, Sandy Schumm; Sergeant at Arms and Secretary of the Senate employees; the Senate pages, many of whom I caused to miss school. I appreciate you all for enduring this, and all those who work in the Capitol complex.

I wish to thank my entire staff, many of whom have been here all night.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a note of sincere gratitude to my staff, who worked tirelessly to help me prepare and sustain extended floor remarks. I especially appreciate their appearance in the Chamber throughout the night, which was a great source of encouragement. I extend my appreciation to each of the following individuals:

Chip Roy, Chief of Staff; Sean Rushton, Communications

Director; Amanda Carpenter, Speechwriter & Senior

Communications Advisor; Catherine Frazier, Press Secretary;

Josh Perry, Digital Director; Brooke Bacak, Legislative

Director; Jeff Murray, Deputy Legislative Director; Scott

Keller, Chief Counsel; John Ellis, Senior Counsel; Bernie

McNamee, Senior Domestic Policy Advisor and Counsel; Kenny

Stein, Legislative Counsel; Alec Aramanda, Legislative

Assistant; Max Pappas, Director of Outreach & Senior

Economist; Victoria Coates, Senior Advisor of National

Security.

Jeremy Hayes, Military Legislative Assistant; David

Milstein, Research Assistant; Dougie Simmons, Director of

Scheduling; Christine Shafer, Deputy Director of Scheduling;

Kimberly Henderson, Administrative Director; Dan Soto, IT

Director; Amy Herod, Scheduling Assistant & Assistant to the

Chief of Staff; Hunter Rome, Legislative Correspondent;

Samantha Leahy, Legislative Correspondent; Martin Martinez,

Legal Assistant; Melanie Schwartz, Legislative Correspondent;

Caitlin Thompson, Legislative Correspondent; Ben Murrey,

Legislative Correspondent; Brittany Baldwin, Press Assistant;

Nico Rios, Staff Assistant; John Landes, Staff Assistant.

I wish to thank Democratic Senators who have presided: Senator Baldwin, Senator Manchin, Senator Warren, Senator Donnelly, Senator Kaine, Senator Murphy, Senator Schatz, Senator Baldwin again, Senator Donnelly, Senator Durbin, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Markey.

I wish to thank the Republican Senators who have spoken in support of our efforts: Senator Sessions, Senator Rubio, Senator Paul, Senator Inhofe, Senator Enzi, Senator Roberts, Senator Vitter, and very soon, Senator Grassley.

I wish to thank the House Members who have come over. Representative Amash, Representative Broun, Representative Hudson. I wish to make a special note of Representative Gohmert who was here the entire night enduring this.

I wish to make a point, particularly to the floor staff and to everyone: You all didn't choose this. I appreciate the hard work and diligence going through the night. That is not part of your typical job responsibility. I would not have imposed on your time and energy if I did not believe this was an issue of vital importance to the American people. I wish to thank you for your hard work, diligence, and cheerfulness through what has been a very long night.

I wish to thank, second to last, Senator Mike Lee. Senator Mike Lee began this fight. Senator Mike Lee has been here throughout the course of this battle. Senator Mike Lee has been always cheerful, always focused, always ready to march into battle and always ready to focus on the ultimate objective, which is serving the American people by standing and fighting to stop the train wreck, the nightmare, the disaster that is ObamaCare.

We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Senator Lee's principle, for his courage, for his bravery under fire. I feel particularly honored to serve as his colleague and consider him a friend.

Last, I wish to thank the American people. I want to thank people all across the country who watched on C-SPAN, tweeted, engaged, and have been involved in this process. This is ultimately about the American people. What this whole fight is about is whether this body, the Democratic Senators and the Republican Senators, will change the broken ways of Washington and start listening to the people. That is what this fight is all about.

With those thank yous, I apologize, but I felt obliged to conclude before 12 o'clock when my time will be cut off by force. I will note at this point Senator Grassley had wished to ask a question.

I am prepared to yield for a question if Senator Grassley wishes to ask me a question.

With the reservation that I do not lose the right to the floor, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with the majority leader.

I have decided to not yield my right to the floor. I was amenable to a colloquy. The majority leader is giving a speech.

Given that, as I understand, the majority leader is not going to consent to extend the time, I have 24 minutes, I am going to reassert my time on the floor since I have not yielded my time on the floor.

There is objection. I am sorry. I cannot be asked to consent to an unnamed consent agreement.

Given that the majority leader, as I understand, is not going to consent to extend my time, then let me say quite simply to the majority leader that I will yield time to him for a question when the majority leader is prepared to yield to the American people. But I am not prepared to yield prior to that because Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, and Senator Inhofe are waiting to speak. I believe they are endeavoring to listen to the American people. If the majority is going to cut off and muzzle us in another 24 minutes, then at this point I don't feel it is appropriate to allow the majority leader to consume that time.

I will note to any Senators who were here--if anyone would care, I know a number of Senators are waiting to ask questions, I am prepared to yield to a question from any of them.

I yield for a question without yielding the floor.

That question is asked, but it will not prove necessary, absent the consent that I promulgated. I am assuming it would not be acceptable to the majority because my time will end at noon. There is nothing left to yield because, as I understand it under the Senate rules, when the new legislative day begins and the prayer begins, my time yields.

It is my understanding my time expires at noon. Absent a consent to extend it, I will honor the Senate rules and allow my time to expire at noon, so there is nothing to yield.

I will note Senator Sessions is standing.

I yield for a question without yielding the floor.

Given the majority leader has cut off our time in 20 minutes, no, I am sorry, I do not. The majority leader was welcome to come down any time in the last 20 hours and ask parliamentary inquiries or questions. I would note Senator Durbin did so, Senator Kaine did so, others Senators did so.

At this point, our time is expiring and I wish to allow other Republican Senators who appeared and asked to ask questions to have the opportunity to do so.

I yield for one more question without yielding the floor.

It is my intention, if the consent request that I asked is not agreed to, to accept the end of this at noon under the Senate rules.

I yield for a question without yielding the floor.

Let me briefly clarify, I asked nothing in exchange for that. None of those were contingent on each other. Those were three independent unanimous consent requests--which the majority leader wanted consent to any of those. It wasn't an offer of horse trade, it was simply--I think all three of those make sense. I think any one of the three of them makes sense. If he chooses to reject them all, that is his prerogative and that is fine. I was only suggesting we not waste this body's time by doing so.

I thank my friend from Alabama.

I would note that unfortunately I am not surprised that none of the consents were taken. I note the first two consents, one would think, would be quite amenable. Yet, look, throughout this debate, the problem has been the majority does not wish to listen to the American people and doesn't want a debate in front of the American people, particularly about the merits of ObamaCare. They don't want to talk about how ObamaCare is failing millions of Americans. They don't want to talk about how millions of Americans are losing their jobs and how they are not being hired. They don't want to talk about how millions of Americans are facing being pushed into part-time work. They don't want to talk about how millions of Americans are either losing their health insurance or are at risk of losing their health insurance.

This process is all about, sadly, the Democratic majority not listening to the American people. The whole purpose of this filibuster was to do everything we could to draw this issue to the attention of the American people so the American people could be heard.

If the American people speak with sufficient volume, I continue to have confidence that this body, that the Senators on both sides of the aisle, will have no choice but to listen.

Given that we have 16 minutes remaining, I inadvertently omitted in my thank yous the doorkeepers by accident.

The doorkeepers were: Tucker Eagleson, Dawn Gazunis, Elizabeth Garcia, Rocketa Gillis, Marc O'Connor, Laverne Allen, Daniel Benedix, Cindy Kesler, Scott Muschette, Tony Goldsmith, Jim Jordan, Megan Sheffield, David West, Denis Houlihan, and Bob Shelton.

Let me say for any of the floor staff or others, if I inadvertently omitted someone, please accept my apology. It was my intention to endeavor to thank anyone. If I have made an inadvertent omission, that is my fault and I take responsibility for it.

I wish to note also that an additional Member of Congress, Congressman Steve King, has joined us. I wish to thank Congressman King for joining us.

I would note, as we are in the last 15 minutes, that if my friend and colleague Senator Mike Lee wished to ask a question, I would be prepared to yield as we are wrapping up.

I yield for a question without yielding the floor.

I thank my friend Senator Lee from Utah, and I think that is exactly right. At the end of the day it is the United States of America--``we the people''--who are sovereign. Ultimately every Member of this body works for ``we the people.'' The reason there is such profound frustration across this country, the reason this body is held in such abysmally low esteem is that for too long Washington has not listened to the American people. Every survey of the American people, no matter what State, no matter whether you are talking Republicans, Democrats, Independents or Libertarians, the answer is always the same: The top priority for the American people is jobs and the economy.

The Presiding Officer and I both began serving 9 months ago as freshmen in this body. I will tell you my greatest frustration in this body during those 9 months is that we have spent virtually zero time talking about jobs and the economy. We spent 6 weeks talking about guns and taking away people's Second Amendment rights. But when it comes to jobs and the economy in this Senate, it doesn't even make the agenda.

We spend no time talking about fundamental tax reform. We spend no time or virtually no time talking about regulatory reform. When it comes to defunding ObamaCare, the single biggest thing we could do to restore jobs in the economy, the Democratic majority is not interested in that conversation. Indeed, for the bulk of this conversation, with a couple of exceptions, the Democratic majority chose not to engage in the debate. Why? I would submit it is because on the merits, on the substance, the defense of ObamaCare is now indefensible.

There may have been some, even many, who 3\1/2\ years ago, when ObamaCare was adopted, believed in good faith it was going to work. But at this point the facts are evident that it is not. At this point we have seen small businesses all over this country who are losing the ability to compete, who are not expanding, who are staying under 50 employees, who are not hiring, and who are forcing employees to move to part-time work.

According to the Chamber of Commerce survey of small businesses, half of small businesses eligible for the employee mandate are either moving to part-time workers or forcing full-time workers to go part time. This is not a small problem. This is not a marginal problem. This is a problem all over the country. We are talking to millions of small businesses. Another 24 percent, I believe is the number, are simply not growing, are staying under 50 employees, which means they are not hiring people.

So anyone in America right now who is struggling to find a job--and small businesses provide two-thirds of all new jobs--small businesses are crying out that ObamaCare is killing them. Unfortunately, the Senate is not hearing their cries. For the millions of Americans who are facing the threat of being forced into part-time work, unfortunately, the Senate is not hearing their cries. For the millions of Americans who are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums and facing the reality or the risk of losing their health insurance, the Senate is not hearing their cries.

The people who are facing this are not the wealthy, they are not the powerful, they are not, as the President likes to say, the millionaires and billionaires. They are the most vulnerable among us. They are young people who are being absolutely decimated by ObamaCare. They are single moms who are working in diners, struggling and suddenly finding their hours reduced to 29 hours a week. The problem is 29 hours a week is not enough to feed your kids. Single moms are crying out to the Senate to fix this train wreck, to fix this disaster. And for the struggling single moms, for young people, unfortunately, the Senate is closed for business.

I am happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor, although I would note we have all of 6\1/2\ minutes until the time will expire.

I thank the Senator from Idaho for his question and for his steadfast leadership and willingness to

stand and fight for the American people to stop this train wreck that is ObamaCare. And the answer to my friend's question is: Of course not. Small businesses all over this country are getting hammered by ObamaCare, and the real loses are not even to the small business owners. The real losers are the people, the teenaged kids who would get hired, the single moms who would get hired, the African Americans, the Hispanics who are suddenly finding themselves without a job or are being forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week and denied the opportunity to get to that first rung of the economic ladder, which would then get them to the second, the third, and the fourth.

Millions of Americans are hurting under ObamaCare. It is my plea to this body, to the Democrats, that they listen to the unions that are asking on behalf of millions of Americans who are struggling to repeal ObamaCare, that we not have a system where the rich and powerful or big corporations and Members of Congress are treated to a different set of rules than hardworking Americans. President Obama has granted illegal exemptions to big businesses and Members of Congress. I don't think the American people should be subject to harsher rules.

So my plea to this body is that we listen to the American people, because if we listen to our constituents, the answer is: Defund this bill that isn't working, that is hurting the American people, that is killing jobs and forcing people into part-time work, that is driving up health insurance premiums and that is causing millions to lose or to fear they will lose their health insurance.

As the time is wrapping up, I will close by noting that at noon we will have a prayer. I think it is fitting this debate conclude with prayer, because I would ask that everyone in this body ask for the Lord's guidance on how we best listen to our constituents, listen to the pleas for help that are coming from our constituents.

The final thing I will do is to make two unanimous consent requests I mentioned, and the majority leader may or may not agree to them. The first is:

I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote at 1 p.m. be vitiated and that at the conclusion of my remarks the motion to proceed to the resolution be agreed to.

Mr. President, my second request is:

I ask unanimous consent that if a cloture motion is filed on the underlying measure, that cloture vote occur during Friday's session of the Senate, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII.

Well then, it appears I have the floor for another 90 seconds or so, and so I simply will note for the American people who have been so engaged that this debate is in their hands. Ultimately, all 100 Senators--all 46 Republicans, all 54 Democrats--work for you. The pleas from the American people--certainly those in Texas--are deafening. The frustration that the United States Senate doesn't listen to the people is deafening. So I call on all 46 Republicans to unite, to stand together and to vote against cloture on the bill on Friday or Saturday; otherwise, if we vote with the majority leader and with the Senate Democrats, we will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare on a straight party-line vote of 51 partisan votes.

The American people will understand that. Voting to give that power to the majority leader, I would suggest, is not consistent with, I believe, the heartfelt commitment of all 46 members of this conference who oppose ObamaCare. The only path, if we are to oppose ObamaCare, is to stand together and oppose cloture. I ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to listen to this plea.

Mr. President, does the Senator yield?

Well, I object. The majority leader asked for consent, and I object.

Reserving the right to object, I am happy to discuss it with the majority leader, but at this point, yes, I object.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 20 minutes to speak.

Mr. President, I would be happy to ask the unanimous consent requests at the outset if that would be preferable to the majority leader.

And I am hopeful my remarks will be persuasive when the Senator watches them.

The first unanimous consent request that I would put forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that no debate, amendments, or motions to the resolution be in order; that any and all points of order be waived; that the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, the second unanimous consent request that I would put forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that any and all points of order be waived; that during consideration of H.J. Res. 59, adoption of any amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and that upon disposition of all amendments, the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, at this time I now ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 20 minutes to speak.

Mr. President, these two unanimous consent requests have the virtue of clarifying this debate the Senate will face this week. I am going to suggest to the Presiding Officer that the Senate has not faced a more important debate in the short time he and I have both served in this institution. No American wants a government shutdown. I do not want a government shutdown. No one on this side of the aisle wants a government shutdown. The House of Representatives does not want a government shutdown.

Five minutes ago the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown. The requests I promulgated to the majority leader were to pass the continuing resolution the House of Representatives passed. If that had happened, there would be no government shutdown. A government shutdown would be taken off the table. The specter the Presiding Officer and I see on the television screen every day--the countdown clock that has started to appear--would disappear. But unfortunately the majority leader chose to object--to object and to say, no, he would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it. Why? Again, the majority leader was quite candid: because he supports the law called ObamaCare.

I would note that a component of that also--one of the pieces the House of Representatives passed--is a law that has been called the Default Prevention Act. The President of the United States has been doing a fair amount of public speaking, raising the prospect of a default on our debt. The House of Representatives acted boldly to include in their continuing resolution language that would say the United States will never, ever, ever default on its debt, that in the event the debt ceiling is not raised, we will always pay our debt first.

I suspect every Member of this body has spoken publicly about the calamity that would come from a default on the debt. I think it is quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and objected to by name taking a default off the table. I think that is unfortunate.

There is a tendency in this town toward brinkmanship, toward pointing to

events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try to get your way. I wish the majority leader had been willing to step forward and say: I agree, No. 1, that the government should be funded; we should not have a government shutdown; and, No. 2, that we should never ever even discuss a default on the debt.

Had the majority leader simply said, ``I consent,'' a default on the debt would have been taken permanently off the table. Why didn't he? We all know why he didn't. Because the majority leader embraces ObamaCare. I am going to suggest that this body a little over 3 years ago passed ObamaCare. It passed on a straight party-line vote. In the time since it has passed, America has learned it is not working. Americans all over this country are suffering because of ObamaCare. It is the single biggest job killer in America. Every day we are seeing more and more evidence that ObamaCare is killing jobs; that it is hurting American workers who are struggling; that it is causing people to be forcibly put into part-time work, 29 hours a week; that it is jacking up their health insurance premiums. It is causing more and more people, who are struggling, to lose their health insurance altogether.

Today the New York Times reported that because of ObamaCare, ``Insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.'' That is today in the newspaper.

USA Today reported on a new ``family glitch'' that could cause up to a half million children to go without insurance coverage.

A headline in the Washington Post today read, ``One week away, ObamaCare's small business insurance exchanges not all ready for launch.''

Even the labor unions that once championed ObamaCare are now publicly decrying it as a threat to the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class. That is in the words of organized labor.

This law is hurting the American people. It is why there is bipartisan consensus outside of Washington, DC, that we need to step up and stop it. That would be the responsible thing for Senators on both sides of the aisle to do, to say: The same rules should apply to hard- working American families that apply to big corporations and that apply to Members of Congress.

We have seen the President unilaterally put in place exceptions for giant corporations and Members of Congress. I would submit, hard- working American families deserve that same exception. So I think it is unfortunate the majority leader chose to object to continuing government, to preventing a shutdown, to taking a default off the table. But I do think it is clarifying to make clear, as the majority leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown. He is willing to force even a government shutdown in order to insist that ObamaCare is funded.

That leads to the second unanimous consent request I put forward, a simple request that every amendment on this continuing resolution be subject to 60 votes. Everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual request in the Senate. Amendments in this body are routinely subjected to 60-vote thresholds. Indeed, a few months ago when this body was debating the issue of guns--a contentious issue, an emotional issue, an issue of great moment for this country--the majority leader agreed with the minority that every single amendment on the floor would be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Those were the terms under which every aspect of the gun debate was debated.

I would note that one amendment that was submitted during that gun debate was the Grassley-Cruz amendment. It was the law enforcement amendment that put real teeth in going after felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns. It put real teeth into forcing States to report mental health records so we can prevent those with serious mental illnesses from illegally purchasing firearms.

I would note that the Grassley-Cruz amendment received a majority vote in this institution. A majority of Senators voted for it, including nine Democrats. It was the most bipartisan of the comprehensive gun amendments voted on in this body. Yet it did not pass into law because the majority leader set a 60-vote threshold for every amendment.

I would suggest that ObamaCare is no less important. ObamaCare is no less controversial. ObamaCare, likewise, should be subject to the same threshold. If the majority leader believes ObamaCare is good for America, if the Democrats in this body believe ObamaCare is good for America, then I would encourage this body, let's debate--not in the artificial sense in which we debate, one or two Senators talking to an empty hall, but in the real sense of making the case to each other and the American people about whether this law is working or whether it is not. Because everywhere I travel in the State of Texas and across the country, Americans come to me and raise the single biggest challenge they are facing: ObamaCare. It is killing their jobs. It is taking their health care. It is not working.

We all know that 3\1/2\ years ago ObamaCare was forced into law on a strict party-line vote, by straight, brute force. But it should not be funded that way. That is not the way a government should proceed. That is not the way this institution should proceed. A 60-vote threshold does not require that the majority leader get a great many Republican votes, but it does require that he get a few, that he cannot simply do it with the votes of only the Democrats in this body.

This country will be better off if we work together to restore economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from ObamaCare. In fact, regarding a 60-vote threshold, here is what the learned majority leader has had to say:

For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have

protected the American people and rightfully so. The need to

muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally

frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am

sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of

majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this

requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of

the Senate and the American people and our country.

I agree with Majority Leader Reid. I agree that 60-vote thresholds ensure that we behave not just in a partisan manner but in a way that brings us together. Given the challenges coming from ObamaCare, I believe nothing is hurting the American people more, nothing is hurting the economy more, nothing is damaging jobs more, than ObamaCare.

Given the majority leader's objection raised today, the path the majority intends to go down is now clear. It is clear to Democrats, it is clear to Republicans, it is clear for the world to see: The majority leader has stated it is his intention to force a vote to fund ObamaCare, and do so using just 51 votes, to do so on what could be a straight party-line vote, in all likelihood would be a straight party- line vote.

I would suggest that is not a responsible course of action. It is not a course of action that I think Republicans should acquiesce to. If it is the majority leader's intent to fund ObamaCare using just 51 votes, then I would submit to every Republican in this body it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding ObamaCare with 51 votes. Any Member of this body who votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare on 51 votes. I think that vote is a mistake. I think that vote disserves our constituents. I think that vote hurts the people of America.

So 232 Members of the House of Representatives came together and said explicitly: Do not fund ObamaCare. I would note that included two Democrats who came together with Republicans in a bipartisan manner to say: This law is not working. Maybe we thought it would work, but the facts, the evidence, have proven it is not working.

The Senate should do likewise. The House acted last week because the House listened to the American people. I would suggest that every Member of this body should do exactly the same: Listen to the American people. Because if we listen to the American people, we will, No. 1, keep the government running. I wish the majority leader had agreed to my request to take a government shutdown off the table by passing the House continuing resolution.

If we listen to the American people, we will, No. 2, take any default on the debt off the table. I wish the majority

leader had not objected to doing so right now. I wish the majority leader had not said he intends to continue to use the threat of a default to engage in brinkmanship to try to force ObamaCare on the American people.

If we listen to the American people, we will recognize that this law is not working. That is why big corporations asked for and received an exception. That is why Members of Congress asked for and received an exception. That is why unions have recently come forward and asked for an exception. They have not yet been granted it, but I will venture a prediction now that if Congress votes to continue funding ObamaCare, that union exception will not be far away. Then we will be left in a world where the burdens of ObamaCare, the job-killing consequences of ObamaCare, fall on hard-working American families, not on big corporations, not on Members of Congress and, in the near future, I predict not on union bosses, only on hard-working American families, on single moms, on young people, on people struggling to climb the economic ladder.

I would suggest that is getting it exactly backward. This body should be not be granting special rules, special favors for the ruling class, for those with power and privilege. We should be fighting for those who are struggling. Those are the people who are getting hurt the most by ObamaCare.

I believe this week will be a critical week for the Senate, where every one of us--and I hope to see Republicans and Democrats stand together and to say, setting aside partisan differences, we have an obligation to the people of our States. ObamaCare is not working, so we are going to step forward and recognize the simple reality that it is the biggest job killer in this country and we should not affirmatively fund it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my friend from Oregon and my friend from Alaska for their leadership.

As do they, I support extending the Helium Program. This is a good and important program that is critical to industry, it is critical to jobs, and it is critical to our high-tech community. I salute both the Senate and the House for a positive bill that generates revenue for the Federal Treasury and that gets the Government, in time, out of the helium business. I think that is a good and positive step.

I would note the House of Representatives passed a bill that continued this program but that devoted the revenue that came from this to deficit reduction. At a time when our national debt is approaching $17 trillion, I think devoting that revenue to deficit reduction is a good and appropriate place to direct that revenue.

When the bill came to the Senate--this bill is projected to generate approximately $500 million in new revenue for the Federal Government over 10 years. When it came to the Senate, roughly $400 million in new spending was added to the bill that came out of that $500 million that was generated.

In my view, given the fiscal and economic challenges in this country, that revenue would be better spent paying down our deficit, reducing our national debt, than it would be on new spending. Indeed, over the course of this week, I have had numerous conversations with my colleagues where I have urged them that if new spending were to be added, for them to endeavor to find other areas of Federal spending that could be reduced, that could be cut to make up for that, so we could devote the full $500 million to reducing the deficit. I think that would be the most fiscally responsible approach to be taken.

For that reason, I have had concerns about proceeding on this bill with unanimous consent, proceeding on this bill authorizing an additional $500 million in new spending without debate, without a vote. Earlier this week, I had lodged internally an objection to do so.

I am pleased to note that in conversations with Senator Murkowski and Senator Wyden, we have reached an agreement where this matter will not proceed by unanimous consent but, rather, will proceed with a rollcall vote to be scheduled this afternoon, where each Senator will cast his or her vote.

With that agreement, I am happy to withdraw any objection and allow us to go forward.

I would note it is important for economic growth and for the high- tech industry to maintain this program, but at the same time I hope going forward, when new spending is authorized, all of us will work to cut spending to compensate so we can devote the maximum resources possible to paying down our deficit and paying down our debt.

That is correct. In terms of a technical offset, the spending is offset by the revenue. I am not arguing that it fails to offset in the typical language of the Senate; rather, my concern is that is $500 million in new revenue that could be directed to deficit reduction. Given the magnitude of our national debt, if we have $500 million in new revenue from selling helium, sending it to the private sector, I would far rather see that $500 million used to pay down our deficit.

What I have urged my colleagues to do is, if there are new spending programs that are of particular concern to the citizens of their States, to find other aspects of the Federal budget that could be cut to offset it so that entire $500 million could go to deficit reduction rather than to funding the new spending.

I am pleased to tell my friend it would be acceptable. I have no objection to that. I appreciate the willingness of the Chairman, along with Senator Murkowski, to allow this to come to a rollcall vote so each Senator may be on the record with their views.

I thank the Senator from Alabama, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to be brief and not take my entire time. I think the underlying extension and reform of the Helium Program in this bill is a good provision. It maintains the program. Helium is critical for our businesses, for our industry, for our high- tech community. So I salute the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Alaska for working together.

As written, the Senate bill raises $500 million over 10 years in new revenue. The House bill took the revenue raised by this program and put it to deficit reduction and reducing our debt. The Senate bill--I think unfortunately--instead of using the revenue for deficit reduction, uses $400 of the $500 million for new spending.

I raised internally an objection and asked my colleagues if they would consider reducing spending in other parts of the budget to balance it given that we have nearly a $17 trillion national debt. I think the more fiscally responsible thing to do, if we have $500 million in new revenue, is to use it to pay down the deficit and the debt.

We have worked together in a bipartisan way to allow this to come to a vote. I thank the Senator from Oregon for agreeing to do that. I intend to vote no, but I am hopeful that in conference committee perhaps the House and Senate can work together to take care of the important concerns with the Helium Program but at the same time demonstrate some additional fiscal responsibility, which I think would be a win-win for everyone.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas for his leadership and for his reasonable call that we ascertain the truth on this very important matter.

As we do every year, last week as a nation we marked the somber anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For the first time this year we also remembered the victims of Benghazi: Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was our first Ambassador murdered while serving since Adolph Dubs in 1979.

The anniversary of the Benghazi attacks, however, should not simply be an act of remembrance; it should serve as a wake-up call. An entire year has gone by since these American heroes lost their lives in the service of our Nation, and we still have far too many unanswered questions:

Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security in Benghazi?

Why were no military assets mobilized while the attacks were going on even if they might not arrive before the attacks were over?

If then-Secretary Panetta had ``no question'' in his mind that this was a coordinated terrorist attack while it was going on, why did Ambassador Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a spontaneous demonstration about an Internet video in the days after September 11, 2012?

Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to delete the references to ``Islamic extremists'' and ``Al Qaeda''?

Why did the FBI not release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack and released them only 8 months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing last April?

What role, if any, did the State Department's own counterterrorism office play during the attack and in its immediate aftermath?

Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?

Why do the Benghazi whistleblowers still fear retaliation and retribution?

To get the answers to these questions, we need to hear from the survivors of the attack to gain firsthand understanding of what happened that night. We need to ensure that the whistleblowers on Benghazi can tell their stories without fear of reprisal. We need the President to make good on his promise of September 12, 2012, ``to bring justice to the killers who attacked our people.'' That still has yet to happen.

Over the past year it has become evident that we need a joint select committee to get these answers because we have an administration that is actively trying to avoid learning more about Benghazi. We have a former Secretary of State who responds to congressional inquiries about why we were attacked in Benghazi with ``what difference at this point does it make?'' We have a current Secretary of State who responds to congressional inquiries about why the administration deliberately misidentified the nature of the attack by saying that he does not want to spend a whole year ``coming up here talking about Benghazi'' to Congress. We have a White House Press Secretary who responds to press inquiries about difficulties in interviewing the survivors by simply dismissing Benghazi as something that ``happened a long time ago.'' And we have a President who complains that ``phony scandals'' are distracting him from his domestic agenda, by which, his Press Secretary clarified the next day, he meant the IRS targeting and Benghazi.

In addition, we have seen in recent weeks an escalating pattern of obstruction by the administration into any investigation into Benghazi and a reluctance to take any action to retaliate against the attack or to prevent a future episode.

On August 14 there were press reports that the team of special operators who were in Libya to track down those responsible for the Benghazi attack were being pulled out despite repeated recommendations for action, some as recent as August 7.

On August 20 we learned that the only disciplinary action taken after Benghazi would be reversed as the four State Department employees who had been placed on administrative leave after the attacks were reinstated.

On August 23 the State Department said it was ``not prepared'' to allow the Benghazi survivors to testify to Congress--a denial that was reportedly reiterated by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 10.

On September 11 we learned from the State Department's own internal review that the Department is ``lagging behind'' in implementing the new security measures recommended after the Benghazi attack, with, for example, only 100 of the recommended 1,000 marines being deployed for potential hotspots.

On September 15 we learned of serious allegations in a draft House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report that the Accountability Review Board report requested by Secretary Clinton whitewashed the responsibility of senior State Department officials for the decisions that resulted in the lack of proper security at the Benghazi facilities.

Just today at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted that the FBI investigation in Benghazi has ground to an indefinite halt because of the security situation in Libya. Mr. Kennedy also asserted in this hearing that the reassignment of four State Department employees represented ``serious accountability'' for the four Americans who died in Benghazi.

This state of affairs is, in a word, unacceptable. Truth is not partisan, and every Member of this body should want to ascertain what happened. Given the yearlong collective failure of our government either to gain clarity on what happened in Benghazi on September 11 or to extract any retribution for the terrorist attacks, Congress should now form a joint select committee to launch a proper investigation.

The attacks on our diplomatic facilities in Benghazi are part of a larger threat we have faced for the last 12 years from radical Islamic terrorists. We cannot let this anniversary pass with just ``a thought, a hope, a prayer or a wish'' as Secretary Kerry recommended in an all- staff e-mail to the State Department regarding the Benghazi attack. We need a chief counsel who can systematically ascertain the truth and can follow the actual facts of what happened that night to their full and logical conclusion, wherever that may lie, so that we can honor these American heroes and we can ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent this sort of attack from ever happening again. If we refuse to seek the answers to these questions, then we are inviting future tragedies.

We have four dead Americans. It has been a full year. My cosponsors on this resolution and I have had enough without answers and without the truth.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 225

I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 225, that the Senate proceed to its consideration, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.