Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, one of my concerns is that this conference report could be used to pass a reconciliation bill that would increase the debt ceiling without sufficient input from the minority party and without addressing the fundamental structural spending problems we have in the Federal Government that are leading to our unsustainable debt. I believe this concern is well founded in history in that reconciliation bills have been used to increase the debt ceiling at least three times--in 1986, 1990, and in 1993. So for that reason, reserving the right to object, I ask consent that the leader modify his request so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes tax increases or reconciliation instructions to increase taxes or to raise the debt limit.

Mr. President, I was not aware we were at a schoolyard.

Reserving the right to object.

Yes. I object.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Grassley-Cruz substitute amendment. This amendment has come through the extended process of consideration of legislation and, indeed, I think this amendment has come to pass precisely the way the process should operate as a result of multiple hearings in the Judiciary Committee; taking witness testimony, examining what the evidence demonstrates is the problem, and then endeavoring to craft a solution that multiple Senators have contributed to. It has been a long collaborative process. At this point this amendment has over 20 cosponsors, and I am hopeful and believe that when it

comes to a vote, it will receive some significant bipartisan support.

In my view the approach of the Federal Government to violent crime should be very simple. It should be focused on stopping violent criminals, and we should devote every resource to stopping violent criminals from committing horrific acts of violence. Every one of us was horrified by the crime in Newtown, CT--at the senseless killing.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman is well aware, this amendment was not put before the committee, but it is as a result of the process in the committee; the testimony that was given in multiple hearings that I was honored to attend with the chairman and with the Presiding Officer, and it is in response to that testimony and that evidence that over 20 Senators have come together to craft legislation that actually addresses the problem.

Indeed, I would note, my biggest concern with the legislation--the Democratic legislation on the floor--is it doesn't address the problem. It doesn't target violent criminals. Instead, what it does is it targets law-abiding citizens. If we are to be effective in stopping violent crime--and I am confident every Member of this body wants to do everything we can to stop violent criminals from harming innocents among us--the approach that is effective, in my judgment, is targeting violent criminals while at the same time safeguarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. That is exactly what this substitute does. I wish to talk about several aspects of it, all of which are directed at targeting bad actors, at targeting violent criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.

One of the disturbing things we discovered in the course of these extended hearings in the Judiciary Committee is that the Obama Justice Department has not made it a priority to prosecute felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally purchase firearms. Indeed, we learned that in 2010, over 48,000 felons and fugitives attempted to illegally purchase firearms. Of those 48,000, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44. That is 44 out of over 48,000. At the hearing, we heard from a police chief who yelled at a Senator and said he didn't have time to worry about paperwork violations. I would submit that if a convicted felon is trying to illegally buy a gun, that is not a paperwork violation, and that is a prime area for focusing law enforcement resources, to figure out why that felon wants a gun and to go and prosecute them.

If a fugitive fleeing from justice tries to illegally purchase a gun, we need to have the resources to prosecute it. So one of the things this bill does is to create a task force within the Department of Justice devoted to prosecuting felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally purchase guns. It provides $50 million--$10 million a year over 5 years--to provide the additional resources to make sure that when felons and fugitives try to illegally purchase guns, we go after them, we prosecute them, we put them away, and we prevent them from acquiring those guns and using them in horrific acts of violence.

A second aspect of this substitute focuses on gun crimes--instances where felons use a gun in the commission of a crime. In 1997, in Richmond, the U.S. attorney there pioneered a program called Project Exile, which was tremendously successful. I note that was the U.S. attorney under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Project Exile put serious Federal resources to prosecuting under Federal law anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime. As a result of that innovative plan, we saw tremendous success.

In 1997, before Project Exile had been implemented, Richmond had the third highest murder rate in the Nation. Yet, in 1998, after Project Exile was implemented, homicides dropped 33 percent. The next year, in 1999, homicides dropped an additional 21 percent. It was a program that worked.

When President George W. Bush was elected, he expanded the program with Project Safe Neighborhoods, focused the same, putting law enforcement resources and priorities and prosecuting the use of guns in a violent crime. Unfortunately, under the current administration, this has not been a priority. Indeed, in firearms cases, prosecutions have dropped 30 percent in the Obama Justice Department.

All of us are united in wanting to stop violent crime and, in particular, stopping violent crime with firearms. I would suggest the most effective way to do so is to ensure we are prosecuting violent criminals who use firearms. For that reason this amendment creates a national Project Exile that would, in particular, focus on the 15 jurisdictions with the highest violent crime rates and three tribal jurisdictions with the highest crime rates. It would devote $45 million--$15 million a year for 3 years--for more assistant U.S. attorneys and agents to prosecute violent gun crimes, to target exactly who we want to target--violent criminals. I would note as well that this legislation also includes new language criminalizing straw purchasing, criminalizing trafficking but doing so in a way that targets bad actors and doesn't sweep innocent, law-abiding citizens inadvertently into its reach.

A third area of focus is school safety. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, in the past several years, has reduced the funding for school safety by over $300 million. Indeed, next to me are detailed examples: The Secure Our Schools grants were cut $110 million in 2012; readiness and emergency management for schools was cut $20 million to 30 million annually in 2012; school safety initiative was cut $53 million in 2011; and the safe and drug-free school grants were cut $184 million in 2010. This substitute restores funding for school safety.

If the effort is to protect our kids--and I know all 100 Senators want to do everything we can to protect our kids--one of the most direct ways is to make sure there are resources on the ground protecting our kids. So this bill would provide $300 million in funding--$30 million a year for 10 years--to do exactly that, to provide funding for the secure our schools grants.

A fourth area is improving the existing background checks as it concerns mental illness. If we look for a common theme among these mass murders we have seen in recent years, one of the most disturbing themes is we have seen person after person with serious mental illness accessing firearms and using them to commit horrific acts of violence. One of the real problems with our existing background check system is some 18 States have essentially refused to comply with reporting mental health records. Some 18 States have reported fewer than 100 records to the background check system. If adjudications of someone as a danger to others--having a serious mental illness that makes them a danger to others--if those adjudications are not reported to the background check system, then the existing system cannot operate. I would note my home State of Texas has devoted considerable efforts to reporting those records and, indeed, over 200,000 mental health records have been reported from the State of Texas to ensure that those with serious mental illness who are a danger to others are prevented from accessing firearms.

If the objective is to stop violent crime, then it seems to me we should focus on criminals. I would note that quite intuitive statement is not one which I am alone in viewing in that way.

Recently, a survey was done of over 15,000 law enforcement professionals about what measures would be effective stopping violent crime. Mr. President, 79.7 percent of law enforcement professionals, in this survey done by police, said, one, expanded background checks would not be effective in stopping violent crime; 71 percent of law enforcement professionals said the assault weapons ban being considered by this body would not be effective in stopping violence crime; interestingly enough, 20.5 percent of law enforcement professionals said if the assault weapons ban were passed, it would actually make violent crime worse; and 95.7 percent of law enforcement professionals--virtually unanimous--said the

magazine restrictions that are being considered by this body would not be effective in stopping violent crime.

I would suggest we should listen to the men and women on the ground, to the police officers, who risk their lives defending us, defending our children, and we should trust their assessment.

I wish to make two final observations.

One, there has been considerable discussion about expanding background checks. Right now, background checks are required of any individual who purchases a firearm from a licensed Federal firearms dealer. That is the existing system, and the system that the amendment I am proposing would work to improve.

There is an amendment pending before this body to expand that system significantly and in particular to cross a threshold that has not previously been crossed: to require Federal Government background checks for purely private sales between private individuals. If an individual wants to sell, for example, his shotgun, and he puts an ad on Craigslist advertising that shotgun, under the pending bill, by putting that ad on Craigslist, that individual would be required to submit to a Federal background check, would be required to go to a Federal firearms dealer to do so, and would, of necessity, have to pay whatever fee was set.

I would note that fee could well be substantial. We do not know what that fee would be, but we do know the District of Columbia right now charges $150 to conduct a background check. If the fee turned out be anything in the order of what the District of Columbia charges, the effect of passing that bill would essentially be a Federal Government penalty, potentially as much as $150, on an individual who wanted to sell his or her shotgun or rifle to another law-abiding citizen in a purely private transaction.

I would suggest if the objective is to stop violent crime, in all of the hearings we had before the Judiciary Committee, there was no evidence submitted that purely private transactions between private citizens were a significant source of firearms used in crimes and that regulating them would help reduce violent crime. Indeed, as I said, one police chief told the committee he did not have time to prosecute felons and fugitives who were illegally trying to purchase guns.

If law enforcement does not have time to prosecute felons and fugitives, then I would suggest they especially do not have time to prosecute private citizens in a private consensual sale, when neither of those individuals have committed a crime; they are law-abiding citizens. That is not an effective use of law enforcement resources.

But even more problematic, extending background checks to private transactions between private individuals--if this body did that--I believe would put us inexorably on the path to a national gun registry. The reason is simple: Because by extending background checks to private transactions--the Department of Justice has been very candid about this. The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice explained that with respect to universal background checks, ``effectiveness depends on requiring gun registration.''

I am happy to yield.

What is not the exact same is extending it to a private individual selling to another private individual.

But what is consequential is extending it to private sellers, not licensed dealers. Because the argument surely would be--if this bill passed, the argument would immediately become: Well, it cannot possibly be effective because we do not know who owns those firearms.

In my opinion, adopting mandatory Federal Government background checks for purely private transactions between law-abiding citizens puts us inexorably on the path to a push for a Federal registry.

It is not currently proposed.

But if the bill that is being considered were adopted, it would put us on that path, and I think that path would be profoundly unwise and would be inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I am happy to yield to my friend from West Virginia.

With respect, the legislative language, as I understand it, is triggered whenever there is any form of advertising, be it on the Internet or on Craigslist or The Greensheet or anything else, and that sweeps in a whole category of new sellers, purely private sellers who are not commercial firearms dealers.

Commercial firearms dealers are already, as my friend is well aware, subject to significant regulation. Shifting to a new category of private law-abiding citizens is a major threshold and one that I think is unwise.

Well, except the bill also applies to any advertising. It is not limited to the Internet. I would apply to a listing on Craigslist, to a listing in the local newspaper. If an individual wanted to sell his or her firearm and advertised in any way, they would potentially be guilty of a felony for not going through the Federal background check.

What I would suggest--and I want to be respectful of my time because I think I am nearing the conclusion of it--what I would suggest is all of us want to stop violent crime. In drafting this substitute, what a number of Senators endeavored to do is look at the most effective proposals to do exactly that: to stop violent crime. My view is, if you have a violent criminal, we should come down on them like a ton of bricks. But at the same time we should be especially careful to safeguard the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The Second Amendment is a critical part of the Bill of Rights, and each of us has taken an oath to defend the Constitution--an oath that I know every Senator takes quite seriously.

I would suggest there is no evidence to support the claim that regulating millions of law-abiding citizens, who do not currently pose a threat, would be remotely effective to stop violent crime. What it would do is increase the pressure substantially for a national gun registry.

I would suggest, instead, the contrast between this substitute and the Democratic bill is striking. The Democratic bill includes no additional resources for prosecution at all. It does not focus on prosecuting criminals. I would suggest that omission is quite striking.

It is my hope that--we are going to have a vote on background checks; this body will decide its view in terms of whether to expand those to private citizens--but I am hopeful that after

that vote, when this substitute is considered, we will see some significant bipartisan agreement that says let's provide the resources to the men and women of law enforcement to go after violent criminals, to go after and to incapacitate those with serious mental illness. Let's do everything we can to stop violent crime and protect the most vulnerable among us.

Is the Senator suggesting that the Senate should move these votes?

I think that is ordinarily the right process to follow. In this case, this bill, this substitute took considerable time and was the result of extended negotiation among a great many Senators. And I know my friend from West Virginia has gone through those extended negotiations before and surely will again. This was filed as soon as there was agreement that brought people together in an area that is my hope we should be able to find consensus. We should be able to find consensus on targeting violent criminals. That is what this bill endeavors to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Grassley- Cruz substitute.

Now that the previous vote has been taken, I would suggest this is a bill we all should be able to support. This is a bill that provides major resources to prosecuting violent criminals, to going after felons, to going after fugitives, to preventing them from getting guns. It provides resources for school safety. It provides additional resources to improve the background check system and to encourage States to provide more records on mental health illness.

This is a strong law enforcement bill. I know everyone in this body, regardless of party, wants to act decisively to stop violent crime, and it would be a shame if this amendment is subject to a partisan vote which would result in inaction rather than our standing together to put law enforcement resources toward stopping violent crime.

Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment. It is worthwhile to strengthen the protections against straw purchasing and trafficking, but unfortunately this language, in my judgment, is overbroad and in particular has a real risk of criminalizing innocent conduct. For example, if your father asks you to purchase a firearm for him and your father pays you, under this bill both you and your father become felons because it bans any purchase for another person if that individual pays for it. In my judgment, that is overbroad, and that is the reason why in the prior amendment we changed the language to target bad actors and to exclude innocent conduct, to avoid ensnaring those law-abiding citizens with no ill will and inadvertently making law- abiding gun owners into felons.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to honor the memory of Margaret

Thatcher. When she passed, the United States lost a great ally and the world lost one of the greatest champions of liberty who has ever lived. I commend our colleague Senator Mitch McConnell for today offering a resolution that was approved by unanimous consent praising Thatcher's leadership. I commend all 100 Senators for consenting to and adopting that resolution.

I would like to spend a brief amount of time talking about the incredible import of Margaret Thatcher's legacy. Margaret Thatcher became familiar to so many of us in the United States after she started winning elections. We think of her as the scourge of the Socialist policies that threatened to ruin Britain, as the resolute victor of the Falklands War, and, of course, as the ideological soulmate of President Ronald Reagan, who battled the Soviets.

I have always been fond of her admonition that conservatives need to first ``win the argument,'' then we will win the vote; in other words, that we need to effectively communicate our ideas in order to prevail in elections, and elections will naturally follow as the consequence of doing so.

I would like to talk about her days winning the argument, in particular, her seminal speech on January 19, 1976, entitled ``Britain Awake.'' At the time, it seemed to many that the conservative movement had failed. As James Callaghan succeeded Harold Wilson as the Labor Prime Minister, the Tories were in apparent disarray.

Thatcher had wrested control of the party from former Prime Minister Edward Heath. Few gave her a chance at broader electoral success. Indeed, she said at the time she did not anticipate a female Prime Minister in her lifetime. I would be remiss if I did not note Margaret Thatcher was Britain's first and, to date, only female Prime Minister.

Thatcher was a trailblazer, and her ascension wasn't simply a matter of breaking the glass ceiling as much as it was refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Thatcher made the argument in that 1976 speech. She began by observing:

The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people

against external aggression. To guarantee the survival of our

way of life.

She then addressed the Soviet menace, noting: ``They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns.'' She bluntly and truthfully said the Soviets were ``a failure in human and economic terms.''

She went on to tell the nation: ``The advance of Communist power threatens our whole way of life.''

However, she stated:

That advance is not irreversible, providing that we take

the necessary measures now. But the longer that we go on

running down our means of survival, the harder it will be to

catch up.

These comments strikingly were echoed not long after by President Ronald Reagan, when he spoke so clearly and addressed the Soviet Union as an evil empire. He went on to observe that Marxism would end up discarded on the ash heap of history.

At the time Margaret Thatcher's comments and Ronald Reagan's comments were derided by much of the intelligentsia, the media, the academy, and by many observers who knew far better than these seemingly naive souls. They were derided when President Reagan was asked: What is your philosophy of the Cold War? He responded: It is very simple. ``We win, they lose.'' This was seen as a simple Manichean view of the world and not realistic. Yet I would suggest their vision ushered in a far safer day for humanity.

Margaret Thatcher laid out the stark decision before the nation.

There are moments in our history when we have to make a

fundamental choice. This is one such moment--a moment where

our choice will determine the life or death of our kind of

society--and the future of our children. Let's ensure that

our children will have cause to rejoice that we did not

forsake their freedom.

Margaret Thatcher won the argument. She took office during Britain's ``winter of discontent'' when Britain had double-digit inflation, a top income tax rate of 83 percent, and rising unemployment. She revolutionized the economy with free market ideas in her 10 years of service which ushered in a new decade of prosperity.

When she took office, the top income tax rate was 83 percent. It was cut to 60 percent and then to 40 percent. The middle tax rate was cut to 30 percent, and the lowest tax rate was eliminated altogether.

When she took office, the top corporate tax rate was 53 percent. She cut it to 35 percent. The top capital gains tax rate was a stifling 75 percent. Thatcher cut it to 30 percent. As a result of progrowth policies, unemployment fell from a high of 12 percent early in her tenure to 7.5 percent near the end. Public spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 45.1 percent of GDP to 39.4 percent of GDP. Inflation fell from almost 22 percent in 1979 to a low rate of 2.4 percent in 1986.

Perhaps the most telling tribute to Margaret Thatcher's leadership is 3 days after she gave her ``Britain Awake'' speech, the heroic fearless speech, she was dubbed ``The Iron Lady'' in the Communist news outlet, the Red Star.

When your military enemies are describing you as formidable as ``The Iron Lady,'' it indicates you are winning the argument, that your message is being heard.

Margaret Thatcher wasn't great just because she gave a good speech. She became great because she explained what was at stake. She articulated the meaning of economic freedom, freedom which allowed someone such as she, a shopkeeper's daughter, to rise to prosperity and leadership.

She articulated the value of national pride and convinced the public of the virtue of standing for freedom and against tyranny and oppression.

As Baroness Margaret Thatcher lays down the tortured freedom she spoke of in 1976, we can pay no higher tribute to her than to heed her arguments which are as valid today as they were then.

It is unfortunate news accounts have indicated the U.S. Government will not be sending a member of the current administration to her funeral tomorrow. I hope those news accounts are mistaken.

I hope President Obama, Vice President Biden or senior Members of the Cabinet make the decision to travel to Britain and to honor the incredible legacy of Baroness Margaret Thatcher. It was truly a providential blessing Margaret Thatcher served alongside President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. Together, the three of them did something which previously had been unimaginable.

So many had opined the Cold War was unwinnable. We had to accept detente. We had to accept a condition in which the United States would constantly be in military conflict with the Soviet Union and our children would constantly be in fear of potential catastrophic nuclear war.

Yet when Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul all ascended to leadership together, they had the vision to do something very few imagined was possible, to win the Cold War without firing a shot.

Had that been suggested in the 1970s, this would have been diminished as crazy talk. Yet this is precisely what they did. Indeed, I would suggest in modern times there are few, if any, more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than those three leaders whose vision, courage, and collective leadership transformed the global debate and ended the Cold War which jeopardized the very fate of humanity. There have been no other leaders in modern time more deserving of recognition of a prize such as the Nobel Peace Prize than the three leaders who avoided war without firing a shot.

Today, many of us are the children of the generation which fought and won the Cold War. We can gratefully rejoice that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II did not forsake our freedom.

As the children of those great leaders, it is now incumbent upon us, the next generation, to ensure freedom remains every bit as vital and real, not just for this generation but for our children and their children's children.

Baroness Margaret Thatcher was an extraordinary leader and courageous leader, a woman of vision, a woman of principle, and a hero--a hero to the United States and to the world. All of us, in my judgment, are in her debt.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Rhode Island for his stirring remarks and, indeed, his powerful arguments against this Nation going down the road of Greece and Spain and much of Europe. Those were indeed compelling statistics of 27-percent unemployment in Greece, and negative nearly 7-percent growth in Greece. I found myself moved looking at those statistics that all of us should act, and act with leadership, to prevent going down that road, to stop the out-of- control spending, the out-of-control debt that put Greece and Spain in those circumstances.

We are right now in a situation where our Nation faces debt larger than our entire economy, greater than 100 percent of our entire economy. That is where the United States is right now. I would suggest the irresponsible policies of this Congress and this administration are why we are seeing stagnant growth. Last quarter, our

economy grew 0.1 percent. I found the speech of my friend from Rhode Island quite powerful for arguing why every Member of this body should vote against the Democratic budget that will be coming up for a vote, because it is clear that raising taxes $1.5 trillion on top of the $1.7 trillion tax increase that has already been put in place will only accelerate our path to where Greece and Spain and much of Europe are.

Adopting a budget that never balances in perpetuity, as sadly the Democratic budget does, will only accelerate our path to where Greece and Europe are. So I thank my friend for that stirring recitation.

I would note also that tomorrow is an important milestone. Tomorrow is the 3-year anniversary of the adoption of ObamaCare. As we vote later today, I will be introducing an amendment to establish a deficit- neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of ObamaCare.

ObamaCare was passed with many promises. Yet the reality is it has not delivered. When ObamaCare was being proposed, the President told Americans, the average American family would see our premiums drop by $2,500. Instead, today, the average American family has seen our premiums rise by $3,000. That is a $5,500 difference between what was promised and what has been delivered.

Young people in particular have been hit incredibly hard by ObamaCare. The actuaries predict that young people trying to climb the economic ladder could see their premiums rise anywhere between 145 percent and 189 percent.

Seniors also have been hit severely by ObamaCare. As a result of ObamaCare, some 14 million, nearly 15 million seniors are on Medicare Advantage. Half of them will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage as a result of ObamaCare. Seven million seniors will lose Medicare Advantage. I would note, a very large percentage of those are low- income seniors, are Hispanic seniors, are African-American seniors.

Every one of us should ask, when confronted with Hispanic seniors in our State, why is it that we are content to see 7 million seniors lose their Medicare Advantage program. I would suggest we should not be.

Last Wednesday, all 45 Republicans stood united voting in support of an amendment I offered to delay funding ObamaCare at least until our economy gets growing. Our economy is stagnant right now. It is not growing. Last quarter it was 0.8 percent. Sadly, every Democrat who voted voted to continue implementing ObamaCare even as the economy is gasping for breath and to risk very potentially knocking this Nation into a recession.

I would urge this body to reconsider this decision, when so many people are hurting, not to put the kind of impact that could send this country backwards into a recession. ObamaCare itself includes some 20 tax increases, over $1 trillion. Many in this body talk about the middle class. Many of those tax increases fall directly on the middle class.

Yesterday, over 70 members of this body voted against the medical devices tax. I celebrate that. That is a terrific recognition of the tax burdens of ObamaCare. I hope that amendment is not simply voted on in an aspirational sense, but that it becomes law and we repeal that amendment. But I would suggest the medical devices industry, a critical industry, employs a virtual army of lobbyists. The lesson yesterday illustrated is if you are wealthy, if you are connected, if you are an important industry with lobbyists that can get Senators to come to cocktail parties, you too can see some of the burdens of ObamaCare perhaps lifted from you.

But as we voted for that--I happily voted to lift that tax--it struck me, what about the millions of small businesses that do not have lobbyists in Washington, that do not have the ability to corral Senators and say: It is so important that this burden not fall on me. We respond, quite rightly, to the pleas from one power industry and yet we ignore the pleas from the mom-and-pop shops, from the millions who are struggling.

I will note, if you look at the Hispanic community, there are 2.3 million Hispanic small business owners in this country. Roughly one in eight Hispanic households is a small business owner. But you know what. They do not have lobbyists here who capture the attention of some 70 Senators. Instead, they face the costs and the burdens from ObamaCare.

I want to read to this body a couple of recent press stories illustrating that this is not a Republican talking point or a Democratic talking point. These are the facts. This is what is happening under ObamaCare. The Associated Press on March 13, 2013, so just earlier this month, reported--this is the opening line of the story:

Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next

year as the health care overhaul laws expand coverage to

millions of people.

It goes on to say:

The biggest price hikes are expected to hit a group that

represents a relatively small slice of the insurance

population. That includes some roughly 14 million people who

buy their own insurance as opposed to being covered under

employer-sponsored plans, and to a lesser extent some

employees of smaller companies. Yet again, the impact of

ObamaCare hitting small businesses, hitting the struggling

entrepreneurs.

I would note, two-thirds of all new jobs in our economy come from small businesses. If this body continues to make it harder for small businesses to survive, we will continue to see 23 million Americans out of work, because the new jobs are going to come from small businesses, and we cannot continue to put more and more costs and burdens on them.

The Associated Press continued:

Young people who currently have low-cost coverage may see

some of the biggest hikes.

To all of the college kids right now who stood for ``hope and change,'' to all of the young people who are coming out of school struggling to find jobs and are not able to find jobs right now, I would point out that what the Associated Press reported is that alone, the ObamaCare impact could cause the premium for a 24-year-old who pays $2,400 annually to jump $1,800. As their resumes go up, as they see additional dollars taken out of their pockets, as they are struggling to climb the economic ladder, I hope the young people realize the cause for those impacts.

Just this week, the Washington Post, hardly a bastion for conservative thought, had a major story headlined ``Health-care law uncertainty grips Old Town Alexandria cafe--and other small businesses.'' It explained there is a cafe in Old Town Alexandria which employs 45 people. The owner says:

There is tremendous confusion and fear among many of my

competitors and other business owners in my network,

particularly about what you have to cover and how you have to

report.

This comment was by Hugh Joyce, owner of James River Air Conditioning in Richmond. Continuing:

In speaking to them, I am convinced that the primary reason

we aren't seeing a robust economic recovery is the

uncertainty and costs associated with this health-care law.

This is from a small business owner saying why don't we see growth, why don't we see the economy blooming? Because ObamaCare stays in force and it is crippling jobs.

The Washington Post continues:

One in eight small-business owners who responded to a

survey by the National Federation of Independent Business

said their insurance providers had notified them that their

plans would be terminated. A study released last week by

Adecco, a human resources consulting firm, showed that nearly

a third of employers said they stopped hiring of cut their

workforce because of the law.

I urge ObamaCare be repealed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow is the 3-year anniversary of the passage of ObamaCare. ObamaCare is hurting. It is hurting seniors, it is hurting Hispanics, it is hurting African Americans, it is hurting single moms, and it is hurting the economy. It should be repealed.

Yesterday over 70 Members of this body voted to remove one of the most pernicious taxes in ObamaCare, the tax on medical device providers. I happily voted for the amendment, but I would point out this is a wealthy industry which can afford to hire lobbyists.

We should be responsive not only to wealthy corporate lobbyists but to the people and small businesses that are being hurt by ObamaCare and to the workers who are being hurt by ObamaCare. We should be responsive to the American people. For that reason, this amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to defund ObamaCare and repeal ObamaCare.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund to reduce foreign assistance to Egypt and to increase funding for an east coast missile defense shield.

Just 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced he had freed an additional $250 million in an unconditional economic support fund for the Government of Egypt. This was in the midst of the sequester and at the same time the American people were told there were insufficient funds to pay for police officers, firefighters and teachers, and even White House tours.

All of us are concerned about the situation in Egypt--a nation that, among other things, has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the abuse of women and to the persecution of Christians.

Last week the European Union threatened to hold its 5 million euro pledge of economic aid to Egypt absent meaningful reforms. We should do at least as well as the EU. This amendment would reduce, in an unspecified amount, the foreign aid to Egypt and allow that money to be put to vital national security ends here at home; namely, missile defense.

I ask the amendment be adopted.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this amendment would create a budget point of order prohibiting any measure that provides taxpayer funds to the United Nations while any member nation forces citizens to undergo involuntary abortions.

I recognize Members of this body have differing views on the right to life, but surely all of us can be agreed that for a woman to be forced against her will to abort her child is a horrific evil. Yet the world was shocked when photographs surfaced last year of 23-year-old Feng Jianmei and her aborted child.

China recently acknowledged under its one-child policy it has carried out 336 million abortions, more than the entire population of the United States. Those are 336 million lives that never breathed a breath of life on this Earth.

In 1997, the House passed a Forced Abortion Condemnation Act that, unfortunately, died in the Senate. This body should condemn that policy.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I need only 5 minutes.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Madam President, I note that today is the 40th anniversary of the release of John McCain from a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam. I wanted to take a moment in this body to thank Senator McCain for his extraordinary service to our Nation.

On October 26, 1967, John McCain, then a young man, volunteered to serve his country, to put himself in harm's way. He found himself very directly in harm's way, captured and imprisoned in the infamous Hanoi Hilton and subject to unspeakable torture and abuse.

He did so for our country. He did so for every American. When midway through his imprisonment he was offered early release, John McCain showed extraordinary courage and valor, turning that down, believing it inconsistent with his obligations as an officer.

That is the sort of bravery that those of us who have never endured imprisonment and torture can only imagine. Yet he continued to remain in harrowing circumstances, suffering beatings and abuse that to this day limit his mobility. Forty years ago, John McCain was released, able to come home to America and return a hero. Since that time, since being released from Vietnam, he has been a leader on a great many issues. He has been a public servant in this body and he has repeatedly exemplified courage and integrity. I thought it only fitting that we as a body, I have no doubt, would unanimously agree in commending his valor and integrity and sacrifice for his country and recognize this very important milestone, this 40th anniversary.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 30.

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

Madam President, I rise to deliver my first official speech on the floor of the Senate on an issue which I believe is the most urgent issue facing the country; namely, the dire need to restore economic growth to our Nation.

I will note at the outset this is the second opportunity I have had to speak on the Senate floor. The first was last week during the historic filibuster led by the junior Senator from Kentucky for nearly 13 hours.

I will note a particular debt of gratitude I owe to Senator Paul. The very first time I spoke on this floor was in a colloquy with Senator Paul. I had the opportunity to read Travis's letter from the Alamo, to read Shakespeare's ``St. Crispin's Day Speech,'' to read the opening monolog from ``Patton,'' and to read Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech, ``A Time to Choose.'' This is a debt I will always owe Senator Paul. As they say in the beer commercial: ``It don't get no better than that.''

Sadly, I promise my colleagues in the rest of my tenure, I am confident we will not have an opportunity to rival those glorious words William Barret Travis penned as he was standing for principle 177 years ago.

This being said, the topic of the day is, in my judgment, a topic of exceptional importance. Every elected Member of Congress, whether Republican or Democratic, should have as their very first priority restoring economic growth in this country. In the last 4 years we have seen stagnant growth. In the last 4 years our economy has averaged 0.8 percent growth each year. To put that in context, this is a fraction of historical levels. Since World War II, our economy has enjoyed 3.3 percent growth per year.

Last quarter the economy was struggling along and grew 0.1 percent. It was effectively stagnant.

If we want to solve the great many fiscal and economic challenges facing this country, growth is the critical precondition. If we want the 23 million people who are struggling to find jobs to get back to work--and I know every one of us wants those 23 million people to get back to work--we must restore economic growth. If we want to turn around the train wreck which is the balance sheet of the Federal Government, our perennial recurring deficits and debts, this can't be done without restoring growth.

In my view we should be working across the aisle in a bipartisan way to focus on bringing growth back. This should be our No. 1 priority. Given that, the purpose of this amendment is to advance economic growth and, in particular, to delay funding of ObamaCare until economic growth returns.

Let me be clear. In my view ObamaCare should be repealed in its entirety, which was the very first bill I introduced in the Senate. At a minimum, in my judgment, ObamaCare should not be funded and implemented at a time when our economy is gasping for breath, at a time when our economy is struggling to such a degree that implementing it right now could well force us into a recession.

It seems to me every Member of this body should stand together in acting decisively to prevent this economy from being pushed into a recession. Implementing ObamaCare at a time when the economy is so weak could do just that. ObamaCare hurts the economy. It hurts jobs. It hurts young people. It hurts Hispanics. It hurts African Americans. It hurts single moms. It hurts everybody struggling to climb the economic ladder.

I would like to initially talk about four promises which were made when ObamaCare was passed and the reality we have seen as it has begun to be implemented. It is ironic the law is called the Affordable Care Act. In the 3 years it has begun to be implemented, it has proven to be neither affordable nor caring.

No. 1, before ObamaCare was adopted, President Obama promised the American people ObamaCare would reduce the cost of insurance. In particular, the President said American families would pay $2,500 less for their insurance premiums by the end of his first term. I would note his first term ended not long ago. Today, American families are not paying $2,500 less in health insurance premiums. They are not paying a penny less. Indeed, today American families are paying $3,000 more in health insurance premiums than they were. That is a $5,500 swing out of the pockets of hard-working Americans who are struggling make ends meet. The reality has not lived up to the promise.

The management consulting firm Oliver Wyman issued a new study recently which predicted people aged 21 to 29 could see a 42-percent hike in premium costs. The higher premiums in particular are hitting young people. Indeed, I would point out, if you are a young person, this law going into effect right now when the economy is struggling is particularly problematic. If you are a young person coming out of school today, you are facing: No. 1, fewer jobs. If you didn't graduate from high school, you are facing an unemployment rate today of over 12 percent. You have less opportunity. If you are between 16 to 19, you are facing an unemployment rate of over 25 percent.

If you are a minority, if you are Hispanic, you are facing an unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent. If you are African American, you are facing an unemployment rate of over 14 percent.

What are you seeing actually in the job market if you are lucky enough to get a job? More and more employers are dropping health care coverage because of the burdens of ObamaCare. More and more employers are forcing employees to work fewer hours because of the burdens of ObamaCare. More and more individuals are seeing their premiums climb, especially young people.

If you are a young person coming out of school today, you may not find a job.

It is harder to find a job because of economic growth right now. If you do find a job, there is a real possibility that job will not have health insurance and you will find your hours reduced. If you do have health insurance, you will pay higher premiums. The promises have not lived up to the reality.

The second differential between promise and reality is President Obama repeatedly told Americans, ``If you like your health plan, you can keep it.'' This unfortunately has not proven to be the case.

The latest forecast from the Congressional Budget Office estimates some 7 million people are expected to lose or be dropped from their employer-provided health insurance by the year 2020. Indeed, health insurers in 34 States have stopped carrying child-only insurance policies. In my home State of Texas, one of the largest insurance markets in the country, every single carrier has dropped its child-only health insurance coverage. The same is true for other large States such as Florida and Illinois. The promise, if you like your health care coverage, you will be able to keep it, has not lived up to reality, as more and more Americans are losing their health insurance.

No. 3, President Obama pledged repeatedly not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. That promise has not materialized. Within ObamaCare, there is a tax on those who do not maintain government-approved health insurance. There are increases on the threshold of the deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses. There is an increase in taxes on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and from flexible spending arrangements. Indeed, in total, over $1 trillion in tax increases are contained within ObamaCare. The promise has not lived up to the reality.

The fourth promise which has not lived up to the reality is in February of 2010, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ObamaCare would create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately.

This was in 2010. By 2011, the CBO Budget Director testified before a House Budget Committee that ObamaCare would result in an estimated 800,000 fewer jobs in the United States by 2021. The promises have not lived up to reality.

I wish to talk about five distinct harms which have come from ObamaCare and made life more difficult for Americans.

No. 1, ObamaCare harms the poor and those who are struggling to climb the economic ladder. Right now, 60 million people are enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid is a program which is struggling, which is challenged and desperately in need of reform to improve how it operates. ObamaCare, by raising the eligibility age and trying to incentivize and pressure States into expanding Medicaid, is designed to move at least an additional 18 million people onto Medicaid over the next 10 years.

The data demonstrates Medicaid beneficiaries face worse health outcomes than just about anybody else in the marketplace.

In 2010, the ``Annals of Surgery'' issued a landmark study which examined the outcomes from nearly 900,000 individuals undergoing surgery from 2003 to 2007. The conclusion of this study was Medicaid patients were almost twice as likely to die as those with private insurance. Medicaid patients' hospital stays were 42 percent longer and cost 26 percent more.

Even more striking, Medicaid patients, when compared to people without health insurance, people who were uninsured, Medicaid patients were 13 percent more likely to die. They stayed in the hospital for 50 percent longer and cost 20 percent more.

In 2011, Johns Hopkins did a study of patients undergoing lung transplantation. Their conclusions were very much the same. They found that Medicaid patients were 8.1 percent less likely to be alive 10 years after the transplant compared with those with private insurance and also compared to those without any insurance at all. Overall, the Johns Hopkins study found that Medicaid patients faced a 29-percent greater risk of death, and yet ObamaCare is moving more and more of the economically disadvantaged onto Medicaid, which subjects them to those worse health care outcomes.

No. 2, ObamaCare hurts seniors. ObamaCare took $716 billion from Medicare, a large portion of which came from the Medicare Advantage Program which serves a great many seniors, and especially poor seniors. According to the Office of the Actuary at the Center for Medicaid and Medicaid Services, the Medicare Advantage cuts in ObamaCare will reduce enrollment from 14.8 million to 7.4 million by 2017. It will cut it in half. Seven million people will lose their coverage under Medicare Advantage.

I would remind everyone that the President said, ``If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.'' Yet 7 million seniors are losing Medicare Advantage.

The Heritage Foundation found the substantial cuts to Medicare Advantage in particular hurt seniors in the States of Texas, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alaska, New York, Massachusetts, and also in the District of Columbia. Those States are expected to lose more than 50 percent of their enrollees by 2017.

I would suggest that each of us, as we return to our constituents, as we return to address seniors, any in this body who vote today to implement ObamaCare despite the difficult economic times, should be prepared to answer to seniors in our States who say: Why did you vote to damage the Medicare Advantage Program that I was relying upon?

Also, the harm to Medicare Advantage in particular is visited upon minorities. Hispanics are twice as likely to enroll in Medicare Advantage than the average Medicare beneficiary. African Americans are 10 percent more likely. So ObamaCare targets a program that is helping seniors and in particular is helping those seniors who are most vulnerable. In addition, 31 percent of African-American Medicare beneficiaries and 38 percent of Hispanic beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

So those of us who return to our States that have substantial minority populations need to be prepared to explain to Hispanic seniors and African-American seniors why this body, why the Federal Government is damaging a program they are relying upon for essential health care.

No. 3, ObamaCare is harming jobs. In March 2013, the Federal Reserve said, in its annual ``beige book''--which analyzes economic data from across the country--that ``employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.''

Added health care costs are making it harder for businesses to hire new workers and especially low-skilled workers. This is a point that is worth underscoring because the detrimental effects of ObamaCare are not uniformly distributed throughout our population. They fall the hardest on those who are most vulnerable among us. The Heritage Foundation found that ``workers who cannot produce at least $20,000 per year'' for a single plan ``or $27,500 per year'' for a family plan ``of value to employers will have serious difficulty finding full-time jobs.''

Madam President, when I read those statistics, those are not simply empty words on a page. Those are data that strike very close to home because 55 years ago that precisely described my father. When my father came as an immigrant from Cuba in 1957, he was 18, he was penniless, and he could not speak English. The very first job my father received in Austin, TX, was washing dishes making 50 cents an hour.

The reason--he told me--he got that job was, he said: Look, I couldn't speak English. I couldn't interact with people as most jobs required, but I could wash dishes. So he worked 7 days a week. The reason he worked 7 days a week is because when you washed dishes, they allowed the employees to eat, and he didn't have the money to buy food. So by working 7 days a week, he ensured he ate 7 days a week.

So when I read statistics like this and the words, ``those who cannot produce $20,000 per year in value to an employer will find themselves unable to find jobs,'' I can't help but think about my dad as that 18- year-old kid just beginning to climb the job ladder, not speaking English, not having yet developed skills, but what he could do

was wash dishes. And working at 50 cents an hour is what enabled him to pay his way through the University of Texas. It is what enabled him to graduate, to get a higher paying job, and eventually to start a small business. Then, today, to become a pastor.

My father is here today visiting me, and I think about the impact these burdens would have had on him, and I tell you I am grateful that in 1957 this so-called Affordable Care Act had not been implemented because it could well have shut down the opportunity for him to survive and pay his way through school and begin climbing the economic ladder.

Additionally, ObamaCare keeps small businesses small. ObamaCare is designed so that its principal burdens are triggered when a business has 50 employees or more. As a consequence, there is an incredible deterrent to small businesses hiring more than 50 employees because hiring that 50th employee triggers enormous burdens and expenses. That has particular implications for everyone in this economy struggling to find work because two-thirds of all new jobs come from small businesses. By keeping these businesses small, what we are doing is stifling the ability to grow the economy, and in particular to grow the economy by creating opportunities for those who need to begin and want to begin climbing the economic ladder.

By hiring the 50th employee, if a small business does not provide government-approved insurance, it faces a penalty of up to $3,000 for each uncovered worker beyond 30 employees. Thus, as the Wall Street Journal explained:

If a company with 50 employees hires a new worker for $12

an hour for 29 hours a week, there is no health insurance

requirement. But suppose that worker moves to 30 hours a

week. This triggers a $2,000 Federal penalty. So to get 50

more hours of work a year from that employee, the extra cost

to the employer rises to about $52 an hour--the $12 salary

and an ObamaCare tax of what works out to be $40 an hour.

Moving to 33 hours a week costs the employer about $10 more

in ObamaCare tax.

The result is small businesses are staying smaller, and the opportunities for those struggling to achieve the American dream are limited. That leads to the fourth harm: ObamaCare hurts workers.

One of the consequences we are seeing over and over is that in order to avoid the crushing costs of ObamaCare, employers are limiting the hours employees can work. So, for example, in January, a Wendy's franchise in Nebraska announced it would cut the hours of nonmanagement employees to 28 hours a week. As a result, about 100 employees' hours were cut. That is a direct impact of ObamaCare for those 100 employees who were working at Wendy's.

Now, some may say: Well, is Wendy's a career? So many kids, so many young people, so many Hispanics and African Americans begin, as my father did, washing dishes or flipping burgers, and they use those jobs to gain skills and advance up the economic ladder. To have a law that forces small business owners to reduce those hours, to limit the hours those workers can work, is particularly harmful.

A Taco Bell in Guthrie, OK, has also cut worker hours. A single mother of three told Oklahoma News 9:

They informed everybody that nobody was considered full

time any longer, that everybody was now considered part-time,

and [they] would be cutting hours back to 28 hours or less

due to ObamaCare.

She went on:

Several of the people I work with, some of them are single

parents, and we do the best we can, and 28 hours a week just

isn't going to cut it for the bills.

For those who are struggling, for the single moms in this country who are working as hard as they can to provide for their kids, seeing their hours reduced because of the consequences of this law is a real and material hardship, and that, sadly, is happening all over the country.

Stephen Caldeira, president of the International Franchise Association, predicts that ``many stores will have to cut worker hours out of necessity.''

Let me point out, by the way, it is not hard-heartedness on the part of those small business owners. It is the simple reality of trying to survive in this economy. As Caldeira continues, it could be the difference between staying in business or going out of business.

Indeed, a 2011 Hudson Institute study estimates that the insurance mandate will cost the franchise industry $6.4 billion and put 3.1 million jobs at risk. That is worth underscoring: 3.1 million jobs at risk of kids flipping burgers, of single moms struggling to provide for their kids who are facing hard times because of ObamaCare. It is those who are most vulnerable who are hit the worst.

Indeed, if we look at the premium increases, in particular for young people, they have been significant. If ObamaCare is fully implemented, they are likely to be extraordinary. According to a 2013 staff report from the Senate Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the ObamaCare impact on young adults in the individual market is expected to be staggering.

If we look at the city of Austin--a city I have lived in for many years, a terrific city, a city whose slogan unofficially is ``Keep Austin Weird.'' It is a young, hip, vibrant----

Weird, which in Austin is very fitting. It is a young, hip, vibrant city. It is referred to as the ``Live music capital of the world.'' Right now, a young adult in Austin in the individual health insurance market pays an average premium of $648. Under ObamaCare, that is anticipated to rise to $1,836. That is a 183-percent increase.

I wish to repeat that, to underscore it. Today, they are paying $648. That is expected to rise to $1,836. An additional $1,200 out of the pocket of a young person struggling to survive is substantial. And, indeed, nationally, that is consistent with the pattern that is expected all over the country. That is the average annual increase. It is parallel to what is expected in Chicago, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Milwaukee.

Madam President, I have been informed that the Senator from Utah has a time issue. I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Utah, and thank him for joining me.

Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

In terms of my remarks, I have about an additional 10 minutes I wish to give. But I was just informed that the Senator from Utah had a scheduling issue, and asked if we could show him consideration. I am being told now that--if the Senator from Maryland would prefer, I am happy to continue my remarks.

Madam President, the issue has been obviated. So if I may simply continue my remarks, and when I conclude, I will yield the floor.

The fifth impact of ObamaCare is that it imposes a substantial harm on the economy. On the economy altogether, ObamaCare includes more than 20 tax increases. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that over the next 10 years ObamaCare will raise $1 trillion in taxes. That is $1 trillion from the private sector that is not going to be available to be used to hire new workers.

Job losses just in the medical device industry, as a result of the medical device excise tax, could total as much as 47,100 or 10 percent of the medical device industry employment. Those jobs are needed. Those job losses are not

driven by market conditions. Those job losses are driven by one thing, which is the policy decisions of the Federal Government to implement ObamaCare.

On March 5, 2013, Russell George, the inspector general for the IRS, testified in the House Committee on Appropriations:

It is unprecedented in recent history the amount of

responsibility the IRS is being given in an area that most

people don't think of as an IRS function.

He went on, ``This is going to lead to problems.''

The Congressional Budget Office expects ObamaCare penalties to total $130 billion over the next 10 years. That is up $13 billion from previous forecasts. And more taxpayers will be hit with ObamaCare taxes as time goes on. There is a 0.9-percent tax surcharge on individuals' earned income, and a 3.8-percent surcharge on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000.

But those taxes are not indexed for inflation. And so as inflation raises the nominal income of Americans, it will push more and more from the middle class into paying those taxes. The Tax Policy Center estimates that by 2013, 2.4 percent of households will pay one or both of those taxes; by 2022, 4.6 percent of households will pay; by 2032, 9 percent of households will pay. That is a significant additional tax burden falling on Americans.

In addition, one of the most problematic short-term and long-term implications of ObamaCare is less innovation. The United States has enjoyed tremendous advantages because our free-market system encourages investment in innovation. In health care in particular we have seen incredible innovation--whether in medical devices or whether in pharmaceuticals--because the incentives are there to invest in new health care treatment. As a result, millions have lived better lives, have lived longer lives, have not died from diseases that previously were incurable and previously were untreatable. Because of the innovation we have had in the medical field, it has led to the United States enjoying a world-class health care system. ObamaCare is substantially diminishing innovation in health care.

Venture capital, the seed money that funds new research and development in health care, has dropped precipitously. In 2010, venture capital in health care services was $1.2 billion. By 2011, it had dropped more than in half, to $541 million. According to Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute, only about 30 venture stage health care services companies got funded last year, compared to hundreds from previous years.

If we want to continue the incredible medical innovation we have seen over the last century, we can't be drying up the capital that is devoted to research and development, that is devoted to new and innovative companies. And that is exactly what ObamaCare is doing.

Then there are the compliance costs. The compliance costs from ObamaCare are, quite simply, massive. ObamaCare will require American businesses, families, health care providers to spend more than 127 million hours per year in compliance costs. What could be done with 127 million hours? The problem with big numbers is it is hard to get your mind around them. What does it mean that 127 million hours are being spent on complying with ObamaCare?

To put that into perspective, Mount Rushmore--which took 14 years to build--could be completed over 1,000 times, and that is each and every year. That underscores how staggering; we are talking about 1,000 Mount Rushmores each and every year. I would note there may be some Members of this august body who would like to see themselves on those 1,000 or more Mount Rushmores.

But rather than needless compliance, we should be putting that energy into productive endeavors. None of that compliance cost is productive. As we say in Texas, it produces neither trucks nor tortillas. It is simply wasted time dealing with the burdens of government.

To give you a sense of the volume of burdens, as of today the administration has created more than 19,000 pages of regulations, bulletins, and guidance since ObamaCare became law. If the IRS and HHS and the Department of Labor continue at their current pace, we can expect an additional 3,000 pages of rules--which is what I have here, 3,000 pages--in the next 6 months, the period covered by this continuing resolution.

This is 3,000 pages right here. I will tell you, I am very glad I don't have to sit down and read these 3,000 pages. But I will tell you also, yesterday I held a tele-townhall with thousands of Texans. A small business owner asked a question. She said, Look, in our small business, we are struggling to make ends meet. How do we ascertain what these regulations contain? I will tell you, I was very frustrated that I could not give her a good answer, because on my desk here is 3,000 pages, and yet what has already been promulgated is over 19,000 pages. So take this stack and send it six times up in the air. It would reach nearly into the gallery.

I told her, I don't have a good answer for how you, struggling to make payroll, to make sure your employees keep their jobs, possibly digest 19,000 pages of regulations, with new pages coming out without ceasing.

Why is our economy struggling? It is not hard to figure out why our economy is struggling when you think about the compliance costs and regulations that are being heaped on small businesses, when they are told, Figure out what is in the 19,000 pages of regulations, and if you get it wrong, you can be assured the hammer of the Federal Government will come down upon you.

That is why I am introducing this amendment today. This amendment to the continuing resolution is a very simple amendment. It simply provides that none of the funds within the continuing resolution shall be spent to implement ObamaCare or to engage in rulemaking under ObamaCare.

Let me be clear. In my view, ObamaCare should be repealed altogether. I think the harms from ObamaCare--and particularly the harms of the most vulnerable among us--are significant enough that we should repeal it in its entirety. I recognize that is not a view shared by every Member of this body. At a minimum, however, I would submit that every Member of this body will agree that restoring economic growth should be a critical priority. And with our economy gasping for breath--last quarter, we were at 0.1 percent growth--allowing ObamaCare to be fully implemented right now has the potential of pushing this economy into a recession. I know no Member of this body wants to see the economy go into a recession. No Member of this body wants to see the American people pay the price for damaging economic growth. If we allow ObamaCare to be funded and implemented right now, each of us who votes to do so will bear a significant amount of responsibility for the economic damage that comes.

I would submit that every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat, should stand together and say, at a minimum, let's restore growth first; at a minimum, let's wait until we get back to historic levels of growth--3.3 percent--before implementing such an incredibly antigrowth, job-killing omnibus bill.

Let me close with a simple observation of the power of growth. If we could get back to historic averages, 3 percent to 5 percent, every other problem this body wrestles with becomes much simpler to resolve. Four percent growth for a decade would create over 10 million new jobs. Four percent growth for a decade would produce over $3 trillion in additional tax revenue. I would note, that exceeds the tax increases. The revenue from the tax increases that have been proposed by President Obama exceeds the revenue from the tax increases that, my understanding is, the Budget Committee will include in its budget before this body.

I am all for new revenue to pay down our debt. I just believe the revenue should come from economic growth and not from higher taxes that hammer small businesses, kill jobs, and restrict growth.

Most importantly, 4 percent growth over a decade would lift over 3 million out of poverty and into the middle class. Growth sometimes seems to be an abstract number that only economists worry about, but sustained growth is what has led to the unprecedented prosperity of our great Nation. It is the reason why for centuries millions of people have come to America seeking a better life, because there has

been no country on Earth that has allowed so many people to start with nothing and achieve anything.

A stagnant economy hurts, first and foremost, those struggling to climb the economic ladder. And, in my opinion, every one of us should come in to work every day fighting for those struggling to climb the economic ladder to make sure we remain the land of opportunity; to make sure we remain the hope and beacon to the world; to make sure that every American has a fair chance to achieve the American dream. With stagnant growth, millions are shut off from that American dream. And I know no Member of this body wants to see that happen.

Respectfully, I would urge my colleagues to restore growth first. Do not allow this bill to be implemented, to kill economic growth, to kill jobs, and to potentially push this economy into a recession. Instead, let's get growth back, let's maintain our economic strength and security, and let's make sure opportunity remains--not just for us but for the next generation and the generations after that.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

I wish to ask the Senator's reaction to the testimony Attorney General Eric Holder gave the Senator this morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wish to describe that testimony for the Senate and ask the Senator's reaction to that testimony.

I would begin by saying that Senator after Senator on the Judiciary Committee invoked the leadership of the Senator from Kentucky on the issue of

drones and asked Attorney General Holder about the standards for drone strikes in the United States. Indeed, although the Senator does not serve on the Judiciary Committee, it was as if he were serving in absentia, because the Attorney General was forced over and over again to respond.

I would note the Senator's standing here today, like a modern ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile. My only regret is there are not 99 of our colleagues here today standing with the Senator in defense of the most fundamental principle in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution; namely, each of us is endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator and that first among them is life, the right to life, and the right not to have life arbitrarily extinguished by our government without due process of law.

At the hearing this morning, Attorney General Holder was asked about the letter he sent the Senator in which the Senator asked him whether the U.S. Government could use a drone strike to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. As the Senator knows, Attorney General Holder responded in writing he could imagine a circumstance where that would be permissible. The two examples he gave were: No. 1, Pearl Harbor; and No. 2, the tragic attacks on this country on September 11, 2001. In the course of the hearing, Attorney General Holder was asked for more specifics. In particular, both of those were military strikes on our country with imminent and, indeed, grievous loss of life that flowed from it. Few, if any, disagree that the U.S. Government may act swiftly to prevent a military attack which would mean immediate loss of life. The question Attorney General Holder was asked three different times was whether the U.S. Government could take a U.S. citizen, who was suspected of being a terrorist, on U.S. soil, who was not engaged in any imminent threat to life or bodily harm, simply sitting at a cafe-- could the U.S. Government use a drone strike to kill that U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

Three times when asked that direct question, Attorney General Holder responded that in his judgment that was not ``appropriate.''

The first question--and if I may, I wish to ask a series of questions--does it surprise the Senator the Attorney General would speak in vague, amorphous terms of appropriateness and prosecutorial discretion rather than the bright lines of what the Constitution protects, namely, the right of every American to have our life protected by the Constitution?

Would the Senator yield for additional questions?

After three times declining to answer a direct question, would killing a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with a drone strike when that U.S. citizen did not present an imminent threat, would that be constitutional--after three times of simply saying it would not be appropriate, finally, the fourth time Attorney General Holder responded to vigorous questioning--in particular during the course of the questioning, the point was made that Attorney General Holder is not an advice columnist giving advice on etiquette and appropriateness. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the United States. I will note I observed it was more than a little astonishing the chief legal officer of the United States could not give a simple one-word, one-syllable, two-letter answer to the question: Does the Constitution allow the Federal Government to kill with a drone strike a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who is not posing an immediate threat? The proper answer I suggested at that hearing should be no. That should be a very easy answer for the Attorney General to give.

Finally, the fourth time around, Attorney General Holder stated: Let me be clear. Translate my appropriate to no. I thought I was saying no. All right? No. Finally, after three times refusing to answer the question whether it would be constitutional to do so, the fourth time the Attorney General answered.

The question I want to ask is the Senator's reaction to this exchange. In particular when Attorney General Holder on the fourth time finally stated his opinion--and I assume the opinion of the Department of Justice--that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who does not pose an imminent threat, when he stated that, my response was I wish he had simply said so in his letter to the Senator at the beginning. I wish John Brennan in his questioning the Senator provided had said so in the beginning.

Indeed I then said: The Senator from Kentucky and I are going to introduce legislation in this body to make clear that the U.S. Government may not kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. I observed that if the Attorney General's view was that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government to do so, then I assumed he would be supporting that legislation. I would welcome the Senator's reaction to that exchange.

If the Senator would yield for one final question, is the Senator from Kentucky aware of any precedent whatsoever--any Supreme Court case, any lower court case, the decision of any President of the United States, beginning with George Washington up to the present, the stated views of any Member of this Senate, beginning with the very first Congress up to the present--for the proposition that this administration seems willing to embrace, or at least unwilling to renounce explicitly and emphatically, that the Constitution somehow permits, or at least does not foreclose on, the U.S. Government killing a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who is not flying a plane into a building, who is not robbing a bank, who is not pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon, but who is simply sitting quietly at a cafe, peaceably enjoying breakfast?

Is the Senator from Kentucky aware of any precedent whatsoever for what I consider to be the remarkable proposition that the U.S. Government, without indicting him, without bringing him before a jury, without any due process whatsoever could simply send a drone to kill that U.S. citizen on U.S. soil?

If I may give my views on that question and then ask for the Senator's response to my views on whether the executive may determine its own limitations, I would suggest the genesis of our constitution is found in the notion that the President is not a king, that we are not ruled by a monarchy, and that no man or woman is above the law. Accordingly, no man or woman may determine the applicability of the law to himself or herself.

For that reason, the Framers of our Constitution won not one but two revolutions. The first revolution they won was a bloody battle for our independence from King George, and a great many of them gave the ultimate sacrifice so that we might enjoy the freedom we do today. But the far more important war they won was the war of ideas, where for millennia men and women had been told that rights come from kings and queens and are given by grace, to be taken away at the whim of the monarch. What our Framers concluded, instead, is that our rights don't come from any king or queen or president; they come from God Almighty, and sovereignty does not originate from the monarch or the president, it originates from we the people.

Accordingly, the Constitution served, as Thomas Jefferson put it, as chains to bind the mischief of government. And I would suggest that anytime power is arrogated in one place--in the Executive--that liberty is threatened. And that should be a view that receives support not just from Republicans, not just from Democrats or Independents or Libertarians, that should be a view that receives support from everybody; that none of us should want to live in a country where the President or the Executive asserts the authority to take the life of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without due process of law and absent any imminent threat of harm.

I would suggest the idea that we should simply trust the Attorney General, trust the Director of the CIA, or trust the President to exercise an astonishing power to take the life of any U.S. citizen, in my judgment, is fundamentally inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. And I would, therefore, ask the Senator from Kentucky for his reaction and whether he shares my understanding that our rights are protected not at the whim or grace of the Executive, but they are protected by the Constitution and, ultimately, they are rights that each of us was given by our Creator, and we are obliged to protect the natural rights to life, liberty, and property that every man and woman in America enjoys?

Mr. President, would the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator his reaction as to the possible justification for the administration's repeated reluctance to answer what should be a very straightforward question.

I find myself genuinely puzzled that both Mr. Brennan and Attorney General Holder, when asked whether the U.S. Government may kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with a drone strike, absent an imminent threat of harm to life or grievous bodily injury--I find it quite puzzling that both of them did not simply respond: Of course not. Of course we can't. We never have in the history of this country, and we never will. The Constitution forbids it.

In my understanding of the Constitution, that was not a difficult question the Senator asked, and I find it quite remarkable that they treated it as a difficult question.

To be clear, there is no dispute--at least no serious dispute--that if an individual poses an imminent threat of harm--if an individual is robbing a bank, there is no dispute that law enforcement, a SWAT team, can use deadly force to prevent the imminent threat to life or limb.

What this issue is about is an individual who is not posing an imminent threat--a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil--and

the administration's continued reluctance to say: The Constitution forbids killing that U.S. citizen without due process of law.

So what I want to ask the Senator about is efficacy.

Let's take a hypothetical individual whom the U.S. Government believes to be a terrorist, who is sitting at a cafe enjoying a cup of coffee, not posing an imminent threat to anybody. The question I would like to ask about efficacy--and if I might, I would like to ask a couple of questions.

No. 1, if it turns out the intelligence is incorrect, that this individual the U.S. Government suspects of being a terrorist is not in fact a terrorist, that they have the wrong guy; and if a drone strike is used and that individual is killed, is there an effective remedy to correct that tragic mistake?

Mr. President, if I could ask the second question, in the instance where the intelligence was wrong and a U.S. citizen was killed by his or her government without due process of law, there obviously would be no remedy. But I would ask about the alternate scenario.

If it were the case that this individual was in fact a terrorist, was involved in a plot to threaten the lives and threaten the safety of other Americans; if this U.S. citizen sitting in a cafe is killed with a drone strike--focusing on efficacy--once he is killed, am I correct that you can't interrogate him further; you can't find out who else was in the terrorist plot with him; you can't find out what methods he had put in place; you can't find out if there is an imminent threat planned that he may know about? But if a drone from the sky simply kills him, that knowledge perishes with him at that cafe and so undermines the legitimate efforts of our government to protect the safety and security of all Americans.

One final question for the Senator from Kentucky.

I am aware the Senator from Kentucky is originally from the great State of Texas. As the Senator is no doubt aware, today is the 177th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo.

One hundred eighty-two men were stationed at the Alamo, and after 13 days of a bitter siege, fighting an army of thousands, those patriots gave their lives for freedom. They put everything on the line to stand against tyranny and to stand for the fundamental right of every man and woman to breathe freely, to control our own lives, our own autonomy, to make decisions about what our future would be.

If I may presume to speak on behalf of 26 million Texans, I would say I have no doubt that Texans are proud to see the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, as a native-born Texan, fighting so valiantly for liberty and serving as such a clarion voice for liberty at a time when sometimes liberty has few champions.

Indeed, I would suggest if those brave patriots of the Alamo were here, William Barrett Travis and Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie and each of the others who gave their lives for freedom, they would be standing side by side with the Senator and would be proud to call him brother.

If the Senator from Kentucky would allow this question, I would like to respond to his very gracious invitation and ask if the following letter gives the Senator from Kentucky encouragement and sustenance as he stands and fights for liberty? This letter was written February 24, 1836, and it begins as follows:

To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World:

Fellow citizens and compatriots;

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under

Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and

cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has

demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison

are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have

answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still

waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or

retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of

patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to

come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving

reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or

four thousand in four or five days. If this call is

neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as

possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due

to his own honor & that of his country. Victory or Death.

William Barret Travis

My question is, Does that glorious letter give you encouragement and sustenance on this 177th anniversary of the Alamo?

I thank the Senator from Kentucky, and I want to ask the following question: Is the Senator from Kentucky aware of the reaction the American people are having to his extraordinary efforts today?

Given the Senate rules do not allow for the use of cellular phones on the floor, I feel quite confident the Senator from Kentucky is not aware of the Twitterverse that has been exploding. So what I want to do for the Senator from Kentucky is to give some small sampling of the reaction on Twitter so he might understand how the American people are responding to his courageous leadership, to Senator Paul's doing something that in the last 4 years has happened far too little in this Chamber, which is standing and fighting for liberty.

So I will read a series of tweets.

So proud of Rand Paul standing up for what's right. Stand

with Rand.

Rand Paul: a reason to be proud of your elected

representatives again. Keep going, Rand.

Proud of Senator Rand Paul and all who have joined him in

this effort. Stand today with Senator Rand Paul.

So happy with Rand Paul right now. Someone finally using

the system to aid, not usurp, our rights.

Rand Paul filibusters Brennan nomination--over four hours

now. Glad someone in the Senate has some spine.

That was tweeted a while ago.

Rand Paul is a hero today, a man with a backbone.

Today Rand Paul is my hero.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is a true constitutional hero in

his filibuster against CIA nominee.

I can honestly say, I am proud to currently live in Rand

Paul's State of Kentucky.

So proud of Rand Paul. He's bringing it. He's not going to

let our constitution get trashed. A breath of fresh air. PRAY

4 THIS FIGHT 4 RAND.

I am so beyond proud of Rand Paul and the way he is

standing up for each and every American citizen right now by

filibustering the Senate.

I am VERY proud of Senator Rand Paul. This is an important

moment when one person had the courage to yell STOP. Stand

with Rand.

So proud of Rand Paul. We need more like him. Stand with

Rand.

Rand Paul is now in hour 7 of his filibuster. He is

standing up for our rights. Thank you. Stand with Rand.

It is frightening that Obama seeks to have an ever growing

amount of power. Drone strikes are frightening. Stand with

Rand.

Dear GOP. The base is crying out for more of you to stand

with Rand. If you want the base's votes, get it together.

Stand with Rand. We need you now more than ever. This

president has usurped his power. We can't say anything bad

against him.

Stand with Rand. So long as Rand speaks, we'll be tuned in.

It is unconstitutional to target and kill Americans on

American soil with a drone. Stand with Rand.

A retweet from Senator Rand Paul. I will commend the Senator from Kentucky. He was so flexible he was able to tweet while he was standing on the floor. A retweet from Senator Rand Paul's tweet: ``I will not sit quietly and let President Obama shred the Constitution,'' with the hashtags ``filiblizzard'' and ``Stand with Rand.''

Here is a more mixed one, but nonetheless demonstrating the respect the Senator from Kentucky is earning across the aisle.

I may not always agree with Rand Paul but he has my

respect. He's very willing to do what he feels is right.

Stand with Rand.

From Congressman Justin Amash:

Why won't President Obama simply state that it is

unconstitutional and illegal for government to kill Americans

in U.S. without due process? Stand with Rand.

Stand with Rand, because we deserve to know if American

citizens should fear murder from our Government.

Everyone should be aware of this important moment in

American history. Stand with Rand.

Proud to call Rand Paul my Senator. Stand with Rand.

It is unconstitutional to target and kill Americans on

American soil with a drone. Stand with Rand.

The Federal Government does not have the power to kill its

citizens whenever it wants. There is something called due

process. Stand with Rand.

Fight for our constitutional rights and liberties. Stand

with Rand.

Stand with Rand. I have gained a lot of respect for Senator

Paul today. This is not a right or left issue, it is a civil

liberties issue. Thank you Rand Paul and others who are

taking a stand for patriotic Americans.

A great day for liberty when Senator Rand Paul and a

handful of others stood up for liberty. Stand with Rand.

It is ironic that a Nobel Peace Prize winner won't

guarantee that he won't use drones against Americans. Stand

with Rand.

I will note to the Senator from Kentucky and ask his reaction to these--this is but a small sampling of the reaction in Twitter. Indeed, in my office I think the technical term for what the Twitterverse is doing right now is ``blowing up.''

I suggest to the Senator from Kentucky and then ask his reaction--I suggest that this is a reflection of the fact that the American people are frustrated. They are frustrated that they

feel too few elected officials in Washington stand for our rights, are willing to rock the boat, are willing to stand up and say the Constitution matters. And it matters whether it is popular or not, it matters whether my party is in power or another party is in power. The Constitution matters. Our rights matter. And I think so many Americans are frustrated that they view elected officials as looking desperate to stay in power, desperate to be reelected to do everything except fight for the Constitution and fight for our liberties, and I think this outpouring the Senator from Kentucky is seeing is a reflection of that great frustration.

I join with the sentiments of these and many others on Twitter. I ask the Senator from Kentucky if he was aware of this reaction and what his thoughts are to the many thousands more--I haven't been able to read their tweets--and their words of encouragement as the Senator from Kentucky more than anyone is standing with Rand.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky for allowing me to ask him a series of questions and to address both what the Attorney General said and the substantive issue.

I wish to begin my questioning, though, with simply an observation. I would like to take a moment to thank the Senator from Kentucky. I have had the privilege of serving in this body 9 weeks, and today is the first day I have ever had the extraordinary privilege of speaking on the floor of the Senate. On my first time to speak on the floor of the Senate, I found myself being given the chance to read from Travis's letter from the Alamo. As I observed walking off the floor of the Senate, as they say in the beer commercial, it don't get no better than this. So I thank the Senator from Kentucky for giving me the opportunity to be welcomed to the floor of the Senate and having a chance to stand with him fighting for liberty.

There are a number of things I would like to address and ask the views of the Senator from Kentucky. I will begin by observing, as I did the last time the Senator from Kentucky and I had a colloquy, that Twitter never sleeps, and we heard from a number of tweets across the country. But those have not ceased. So since the Senator from Kentucky is still prohibited from looking at his cell phone, I wanted to prevent him from going into technology shock and withdrawal and provide an in- person feed for him.

This is about The Constitution. Stand with Rand. Get it

together GOP.

Stand with Rand. Rand praising Dem OR Sen Ron Wyden for

raising the same questions and concerns he has. Where are all

the other Dems?

Sad day when killing Americans is up for debate. Sad day

that every Senator is not up there with him. Stand with Rand.

We are watching you guys.

I don't know how Sen Rand Paul does it . . . I'm tired just

from WATCHING him. . . . a tip of the cap to you, sir. Thank

you. Stand with Rand.

Sen Rand Paul is extemporaneously giving a better human

rights speech than Barack Obama ever has. Stand with Rand.

And I am pretty certain that for the record I can confirm that no teleprompter was in front of the desk of the Senator from Kentucky.

Sen Rand Paul, Jimmy Stewart would be proud, sir.

Sen Rand Paul, look what's trending. Stand with Rand.

It's been awhile since I could say I am a proud American.

Thank you, Rand Paul. Stand with Rand.

Rand Paul might be waiting a long time for an answer from

The White House. Stand with Rand.

I would note that it has been 10 hours, so that would indeed be a correct observation of fact.

Democrats--Why not just agree that the POTUS cannot use

drones to summarily kill US citizens on US soil? Stand with

Rand.

Sen. Rand Paul crosses 8 hr threshold of filibuster. Stand

with Rand.

Stand with Rand, please.

Sen Rand Paul did not filibuster for the right or the left,

he did it for every person in this country. Stand with Rand.

Once you give up your rights, you will not get them back.

Believe that. Stand with Rand.

We should all go to the U.S. Capitol and Stand with Rand.

I would note that quite a few Members of the House of Representatives have crossed over the Capitol and joined us precisely to stand with Rand, as have the men and women in the gallery who have been here throughout this long and historic stand.

Finally able to sit and watch the Rand Paul filibuster.

Just epic. Stand with Rand.

Read the constitution and explain why each sentence is

relevant to today. Not worthless and outdated.

7 hours and counting for Sen Rand Paul in the filibuster.

This can end, Brennan, just say u won't unilaterally kill us.

Stand with Rand.

America is watching. Stand with Rand.

I get the feeling that a more libertarian stance is the

only thing which can bring about a fresh start for the GOP.

Stand with Rand.

I stand with Rand in his 9th hr awaiting the President

saying he doesn't have the power to kill Americans at will.

``I haven't killed anyone yet and I have no intention of

killing Americans, but I might''--Barack Obama. Stand with

Rand.

The federal government was closed today. Yet Sen Rand Paul

working overtime. YouDaMan.

D-a-M-a-n is the precise spelling of that.

Sen Rand Paul, 100% support you. Keep going. Stand with

Rand.

This isn't a filibuster. This is a line in the sand drawn

with a quill pen that penned the constitution.

I think that one is particularly cool.

Do you agree with your colleague, Rep Justin Amash? Stand

with Rand.

Almost always the answer to that one should be yes.

Do you stand with Sen Rand Paul and demand an answer from

the WH on extra-judicial assassinations of Americans?

There is a word we do not hear too often within our own borders-- assassinations. Yet that is exactly what we are talking about here tonight.

Don't think I've ever been quite so proud to say I'm from

Kentucky. Stand with Rand.

Sen Rand Paul getting to the heart of issues. Not partisan

politics, but a question of due process.

He's just about 8 hours away from having the 5th longest

filibuster.

I apologize to the Senator from Kentucky if that is less than encouraging.

Stand with Rand.

I have a renewed sense of hope for our leaders in

Washington today. Thank you, Sen Rand Paul, for standing by

We The People. Stand with Rand.

I am a strong liberal supporter and two time Obama voter. I

Stand with Rand.

Dr. Rand Paul, Excellent, excellent work today. We stand

with Rand, too.

I hope Sen Rand Paul Can keep them up all night. There

hasn't been a real filibuster on the Senate floor in years.

Stand with Rand.

And I would note, as I was walking in, that this is certainly the least well-shaven I have been on the Senate floor. And it is particularly ironic that the desk at which I am standing, in addition to having been the former desk of a great hero of mine, Senator Barry Goldwater, was also the former desk of Senator Richard Nixon. So perhaps that spirit is animating the 5 o'clock shadow that I find myself at 10 o'clock at night sporting.

Stand with u I do. Stand with Rand.

I wonder if that one was from Dr. Seuss.

Stand with Rand because you have the freedom to do so.

Obama is going to have to address the points raised by

Paul. Stand with Rand.

I stand with Rand . . . best line of the filiblizzard thus

far. RT--

Yet another of Senator Rand Paul's miraculous tweets that

he did from the floor of the Senate, a tweet of Senator Rand

Paul--

``They shouldn't just drop a hellfire missile on your cafe

experience.''

I would suggest to the Senator from Kentucky that at the end of what I am sure will be a long and very distinguished career in politics, fighting for every American, that with statements such as that, a subsequent career at Starbucks may indeed be promising.

The fight for liberty has a real hero. May the spirits of

past patriots fuel you.

Until you get an answer, Rand, keep on going. Let's take it

into tomorrow.

Is suspicion enough? Obviously not. Sen Rand Paul.

If you have family or friends in the Middle East, you might

be a terrorist. Stand with Rand.

For the first time since November, I feel like I see a

light at the end of the tunnel. It is a long tunnel. Stand

with Rand.

Sen Rand Paul: If you have no bounds, you have an unlimited

imperial presidency. So true.

Sen Rand Paul, eight hours, and still going strong. Thanks

for standing for the Constitution. God bless you. Stand with

Rand.

Thank you, Rand Paul, for standing up for our Constitution.

We are behind you. Stand with Rand.

Go get 'em, Rand Paul. Great way to end my birthday. Stand

with Rand.

I hope we do not make it to that individual's next birthday.

Best TV I've seen in a while. Stand with Rand.

Sen Rand Paul, I'm superproud of my Senator today. I have

always been proud of him, but today I'm more proud than ever.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I do indeed have additional questions. The heart of what the Senator is standing for, what some of the other Senators tonight are standing for, is liberty. I think that has always been the foundational value in the United States of America.

Our country was founded by Framers who understood that concentrated power is always inimical to liberty, that any time great power is undivided the freedom of the people is at jeopardy. As Lord Acton observed: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is for that reason that the Framers of our Constitution did what the Supreme Court has described as splitting the atom of sovereignty, taking what used to be one discrete indispensable concept of power and sovereignty and breaking it up, breaking it up between the three branches of the Federal Government and breaking it up between the Federal Government and the 50 States and the local government as well.

The purpose of doing all that is to prevent what James Madison in Federalist No. 10 described as factions. Today we would call them special interests that might take control of one branch of government. If all power were concentrated in the Executive, and one faction, one special interest was to gain influence in that Executive, then the liberty of the people would be at peril.

In Federalist 10, Madison explained the factions are never going to go away. Human nature is such that we will divide into factions with different interests. The genius of the Framers was not to imagine human nature was somehow different than it was but to recognize that it was. As the Federalist Papers explained: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. The great challenge in forming a government is to enable the governed to do what it must. Yet at the same time oblige it to govern itself.

For that reason, splitting the atom of sovereignty, separating power prevents any one branch of government from acquiring unchecked power. It is, indeed, the responsibility of this body to do what we are doing now. If a President of the United States decrees the power to take the lives of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without due process of law, I would suggest it is integral to the oath of office of every Member of the Senate and every Member of the House of Representatives to stand and say: Mr. President, respectfully, no, you may not. The Constitution gives you no such power. Each of us on entering office--in my case just a few weeks ago standing on those steps, the Vice President asked me to raise my hand and take an oath to honor and defend the Constitution. Every Member of this body took that oath.

It is our responsibility, especially when one branch of the government is overreaching, is usurping power that the Constitution forbids him and that is threatening to the liberty of the people, it is the responsibility of all of us to stand and resist that.

One of my alltime heroes, Ayn Rand in ``Atlas Shrugged,'' described how the

parasitical class would put into place arbitrary power, standardless rules precisely so the productive citizens in the private sector would have to come on bended knee to those in government seeking special dispensation, seeking special favors, because that arbitrary and standardless rule empowers the political class and disempowers the people.

I could not help but think about Ayn Rand's observation this morning as I heard the Attorney General over and over refuse to say it would be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. He would say it would be inappropriate. He said that three times in response to direct questioning. It would be inappropriate and we should trust him. The Federal Government would not do so.

I found myself thinking of those arbitrary standards Ayn Rand talked about; that if the only protection we the people have against the Federal Government choosing to take the life of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is our trust that they would refrain from doing what is inappropriate rather than the protections of the Constitution, then I would suggest our liberty is fragile indeed.

Indeed, when we think about the concentration of power, no judicial opinion is more important than Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel seizure case. Justice Jackson, as the Senator from Kentucky knows, was a giant on the U.S. Supreme Court. My former boss, Chief Justice William Rhenquist, served as a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson.

Indeed, Justice Jackson took time off from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court to serve as the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, during which he made the powerful observation following World War II, when the United States brought to trial the horrific war criminals in the Nazi regime.

Justice Jackson observed at Nuremberg that four great nations, flushed with victory and stunned with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law, is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.

I would suggest to the Senator from Kentucky, and I feel confident he would agree, that what we are talking about right now is the tribute that power must and should pay to reason and that unchecked power is always a threat to liberty.

As Justice Jackson opined in Youngstown Steel seizure ``that comprehensive and undefined Presidential powers hold both practical advantages and grave dangers for the country will impress anyone who has served as a legal adviser to a President in a time of transition and public anxiety.''

Those words could have been written as easily tonight as they were half a century ago. Justice Jackson continued:

While the Constitution diffuses power to better secure

liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate

the dispersed power into a workable government. It enjoins

upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy

but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but

fluctuate, depending on their disjunction or conjunction with

those of Congress.

When a President acts pursuant to an express or implied

authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum,

for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus

all that Congress can delegate.

Justice Jackson explains:

No. 2: When the President acts in absence of either a

congressional branch or denial of authority, he can only rely

upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of

twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent

authority, or in which the distribution is uncertain.

Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence

may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if

not invite, measures on independent Presidential

responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is

likely to depend upon the imperatives of events and

contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories

of law.

Now, perhaps, prior to 11:45 today, Eric Holder and John Brennan would have argued they fall into this second category, a category where Congress has been silent and, accordingly, they might presume some Presidential power. But as of 11:45 today, they can no longer claim that.

Justice Jackson explained the third category of Presidential powers.

When the President takes measures incompatible with the

expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its

lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own

constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of

Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain executive

presidential control in such a case only by disabling the

Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to

a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be

scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the

equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

As we stand here tonight, later than the typical hour for the Senate being in session, indeed, later than many Members of this body had anticipated being in Washington, DC--many Members of this body had envisioned being on planes and returning home by now--it occurs to me that those Senators who have heeded the encouragement of the twitterers to stand with Rand, those Senators who have come here today, I am reminded of Henry the Fifth, as Shakespeare observed:

What's he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;

If we are mark'd to die, we are enow

To do our country loss; and if to live,

The fewer men, the greater share of honour.

God's will. I pray thee, wish not one man more.

By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,

Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;

It yearns me not if men my garments wear;

Such outward things dwell not in my desires.

But if it be a sin to covet honor,

I am the most offending soul alive.

No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.

God's peace. I would not lose so great an honour

As one man more methinks would share from me

For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more.

Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,

Let him depart; his passport shall be made,

And crowns for convoy put into his purse.

We would not die in that man's company

That fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.

He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,

Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

He that shall live this day, and see old age,

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,

And say ``To-morrow is Saint Crispian.''

Then he will strip his sleeve and show his scars,

And say ``These wounds I had on Crispian's day.''

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,

But he'll remember, with advantages,

What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,

Familiar in his mouth as household words--

Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,

Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester--

Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.

This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered--

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition.

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon St. Crispin's day.

I would observe to the Senator from Kentucky that those glorious sentiments expressed centuries ago are precisely applicable to the stand here tonight because it is a stand against, indeed it is a stand against an administration that refuses to acknowledge limits on its power. It is a stand for the same purpose, for liberty.

There is a frustration across this country, a frustration not with Democrats or Republicans, not with one party or another, a frustration with entrenched politicians in Washington who don't seem to work for anybody.

I am convinced there is something credible happening in this country when the people are standing and reminding the men and women of this body that every one of us works for ``we the people.'' It is our principal task to stand and defend liberty, especially when liberty is threatened.

Indeed, that St. Crispin's Day speech had a saying--and even in some ways a different manifestation. In one of the greatest movies of all time, Patton, the opening scene of Patton, I will confess to the Senator of Kentucky I have more than once in preparation for an oral argument in court simply watched George C. Scott marching out in front of a flag the size of North Dakota. Standing in front of the flag, General Patton observed in a tribute to that very same speech I just read--I am going to modify it slightly to make it PG.

I want you to remember that no ``fellow'' ever won a war by

dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor

``fellow'' die for his country.

Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting

to fight, wanting to stay out of the war is a lot of horse

dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real

Americans love the sting of battle.

When you were kids you all admired the champion marble

shooter, the fastest runner, big-league ball players, the

toughest boxers.

Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.

Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot

in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans

have never lost and will never lose a war because the very

thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

George C. Scott continues as Patton:

Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't

want to get any messages saying we are ``holding our

position.'' We're not ``holding'' anything. Let the Hun do

that. We're advancing constantly. We're not interested in

holding on to anything except the enemy. We're going to hold

on to him by the nose and kick him in the ``posterior.''

We're going to kick the ``heck'' out of him all the time and

we're going to go through him like crap through a goose.

Thirty years from now when you're sitting around your

fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you,

``What did you do in the great World War II?'' You won't have

to say, ``Well, I shoveled 'manure' in Louisiana.''

That same sentiment, the same sentiment in St. Crispin's Day speech, talked about a tradition that has been a tradition in America for centuries, of men and women rallying against hard odds, rallying against challenging obstacles.

(Ms. HEITKAMP assumed the chair.)

I would observe that fight should not be a partisan fight. This is not a question of Republican or Democrat, liberty, the right to life of every American citizen. Arbitrary taking at the hands of the Federal Government should not simply be a value that one side or another of this Chamber embraces.

Indeed, I would note during the hearings this morning with Eric Holder, some of the most enthusiastic audience participants in that hearing were self-identified members of Code Pink, who I would suggest are not ordinarily individuals who would be described as card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

But liberty does not have a partisan affiliation. Indeed, to the Senator from Kentucky, I think it is an interesting question what the reaction in this Chamber and outside would be if the very same statements that have been made were made by a President who happened to be Republican. I think there is little doubt the outcry would be deafening, and rightly so. I will say to the Senator from Kentucky, if a President made the identical representations and happened to have an ``R'' behind his or her name, I have not one shadow of a doubt that the Senator from Kentucky would be standing here 10 hours protesting the arbitrary assertion of power by a President regardless of whether we share his party or not.

Indeed, I would note to the Senator from Kentucky this is a scenario which is not entirely hypothetical. Prior to serving in this body, I had the great privilege of serving my home State of Texas as the solicitor general of Texas. During that time, we faced a tragic and epic battle in a case called Medellin v. Texas.

Medellin began with a crime that shocked the conscience. Two little girls were horrifically abused and murdered by a gang in Houston. They were apprehended, confessed, and they were convicted by a jury of their peers, quite rightly.

At that point, the case took a very strange turn because the World Court, which is the judicial arm of the United Nations, issued an order to the United States to reopen the convictions of 51 murderers across this country, including one of the murderers in this case, Jose Ernesto Medellin.

I will tell you, Jose Medellin wrote a four-page handwritten confession in that case. It is one of the most chilling documents I ever had the displeasure of reading. In it he bragged about hearing those little girls beg for their lives. A tiny detail he included in those letters was in many ways the most haunting, and I know it will remain with me for the rest of my life. He described how the youngest of those girls was wearing a Mickey Mouse watch and how he kept it as a trophy of that night because he was so proud of the atrocities they had committed. It is truly sickening what those young boys did that evening. And yet the World Court asserted a power that heretofore has never been asserted. It was the first time in history a foreign court has ever tried to bind the U.S. justice system. The World Court claimed the authority to reopen those convictions, so Texas stood up and fought the World Court.

I had the honor of arguing this case twice in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. On the other side, 90 foreign nations came in against the State of Texas--90 nations came in and argued the U.S. justice system should be completely subject to the authority of the World Court and the United Nations.

Also on the other side, most disturbingly, was the President of the United States. The President signed a two-paragraph order that attempted to order the State courts to obey the World Court. Again, that order, like the World Court's order, was unprecedented. It was the first time in history any President had ever attempted to order the State courts to do anything.

Unfortunately, the President at issue in that case was a Republican. It was President George W. Bush, a man for whom I worked, a man who, in many respects, I respect. Yet in that case, he asserted a power that could be found nowhere in the Constitution. And in consultation with my boss at the time, Attorney General Greg Abbott, I went before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued on behalf of the State of Texas that the President of the United States has no authority to give away U.S. sovereignty.

That was done notwithstanding the fact that he was a Republican, notwithstanding the fact the President was the former Governor of my home State of Texas. Because at the end of the day, defending liberty, defending sovereignty, defending the Constitution is not a partisan choice. It is not a game of dodge ball with shirts and skins; that if your team happens to have the ball, you stick together. Every one of us has taken an oath of office and we have an obligation to stand up.

So I stood before the U.S. Supreme Court representing the State of Texas and arguing that no President of the United States, be he Republican or Democrat, has the authority to give up U.S. sovereignty and make the State courts subject to the World Court.

I would note in that case the State of Texas had support from a number of unlikely sources. Indeed, we had a wide range of amicae-- friends of the court--who came in and supported us. One brief was filed on behalf of law professors. It was joined by several law professors, one of whom, John Yoo, is widely considered the law professor with the most expansive view of Presidential authority. And, indeed, he was an individual who served in the Justice Department and had advocated under President Bush an expansive view of Presidential authority.

That very same brief was joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law. Dean Chemerinsky is a very well-known and proud liberal academic. I suspect it may well be right that this is the only time ever that John Yoo and Erwin Chemerinsky joined a single brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. And both agreed, despite the fact they come from very different places in the legal academy, that unchecked power in the hand of the executive is fundamentally a threat to liberty.

Indeed, I would note for the Senator from Kentucky, in talking to both of them and asking for their support in Medellin, I made the point to each to imagine a President from the other side who might have the power that was being asserted.

To the friends of mine on the right, I suggested that if a President had the power to set aside State laws on grounds of international comity, which was the basis that was being asserted in that case-- without any sanction from Congress, without any sanction from another branch of the Federal Government, but simply on his own unilateral authority--an activist President on the left could use that power to assert, for example, that in his or her judgment the marriage laws of all 50 States should be set aside.

It may well be that all 50 States will choose to set their marriage laws aside. That is a judgment right now that has

been in the hands of the voters in each State. But regardless of what the 50 States decide--and I suspect they will not decide the same thing--it seems to me clear that no President has the authority unilaterally, with the flick of a finger, to remove laws from the State books of all 50 States.

Likewise, to my friends on the left, I asked them to envision their nightmare of a rightwing President. They each had slightly different incarnations, but they all managed to do that. And I said: If this assertion of power is correct, that any President can set aside any State law if he or she deems it inconsistent with international comity, even though no treaty requires this--and, indeed, in Medellin the Justice Department maintained no treaty required this, this was simply a power that was being asserted to further comity, to further our relationships with foreign nations--I suggested if the President has that power, what is to stop a President on the right from saying: I am setting aside the punitive damages laws in all 50 States? It upsets comity when foreign companies are subject to punitive damages awards; therefore, tort reform shall be the law of all 50 States.

And for that matter, there are States such as California that persist in putting in place incredibly restrictive environmental laws. If the President has the authority to flick aside State laws, what would prevent a President on the right from saying those environmental laws are no more?

I would note for the Senator from Kentucky that my view on all those questions was very clear and very straightforward. No President may do so, whether he or she is of the right or of the left. If the Federal Government is to set aside a State law, it may do so only through exercise of the supremacy clause. The Framers required that in order to set aside a State law that had been adopted by the democratically elected legislature in the State, that two branches had to work together in concert, either through legislation that passes the House of Representatives, passes the U.S. Senate and is signed into law by the President or through the form of a treaty that is signed by the President and ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. But in both instances the Framers required two branches to work together.

Why? The same reason we discussed before. The reason from Federalist 10, that you do not want power unified in one branch of government, where a faction, a special interest, may seize control of it. You want it divided.

I will note that it was an unusual position for the State of Texas to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court and argue that an action by a Republican President and former Governor of the State of Texas was unconstitutional. Yes, I can tell you I was very proud to have the opportunity to do just that, and I was even more proud when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 in favor of the State of Texas, concluding, No. 1, that the World Court has no authority whatsoever to bind the U.S. justice system; and No. 2, the President has no authority under the Constitution to give away our sovereignty.

I would suggest that is the way our system is supposed to work; that all of us, regardless of party, should be standing together for liberty. And when I think of standing for liberty, some of the frustration people have across this country is they feel it doesn't do any good. It doesn't make a difference who they vote for. Whoever they vote for, they go to Washington and keep spending money, and spending more money, and more money, and more money, and the debt goes up and up and up, and the Federal laws get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, and the Federal regulations get more and more and more, and nothing seems to change. And I understand that frustration. It is a real frustration. It is a frustration I share, and I know it is a frustration the Senator from Kentucky shares.

I would suggest that part of the import of tonight is that the Senator from Kentucky is standing with millions of Americans who are frustrated by politicians in Washington who are unwilling to rock the boat, who are unwilling to stand for change. I am reminded that change can sometimes seem hopeless. Indeed, I mentioned that the desk I am standing at was previously occupied by Barry Goldwater. I have yet to acquire, but I intend to acquire, a leather-bound copy of ``Conscience of a Conservative,'' which I intend to keep in this desk.

When Barry Goldwater became a national leader, it was thought impossible for his views to receive a wide audience. The views that were in the ascendancy were the views of the left; that government control of the economy, of our lives, was the proper and right direction for our Nation.

I am reminded of someone else, as the Senator from Kentucky knows, who gave a speech on October 27, 1964. He said the following:

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have

seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues

confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this

campaign--

And here he is referring to the campaign in 1964 for President.

--has been telling us that the issues of this election are

the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been

used, ``We've never had it so good.''

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity

isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the

future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden

that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents

out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax

collector's share,

Ah, those were the days.

and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day

more than the government takes in.

Would that we could say today the government spends only $17 million a day more than it takes in.

We haven't balanced our budget in 28 out of the last 34

years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last 12

months,

I will remind you this speech was given in 1964, not last week.

and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger

than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world.

We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury; we don't own an

ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion. And we've

just announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45

cents of its total value.

Again, a scenario with which we are quite familiar.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among

us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or

son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this

is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they

mean peace or do they mean we just want to be left in peace?

There can be no real peace while one American is dying

someplace in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with

the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his

long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if

we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of

ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that

those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its

happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we

still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the

Founding Fathers.

This next section is a section particularly dear to my heart. It was given before I was born.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a

Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and

in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the

other and said, ``We don't know how lucky we are.'' And the

Cuban stopped and said, ``How lucky you are? I had someplace

to escape to.'' And in that sentence he told us the entire

story.

Turning and seeing the junior Senator from Florida, I know he and I both know, as I hope every Member of this body knows, just how precious and fragile the freedom is that we enjoy in this country.

As President Reagan continued in that speech:

If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.

This is the last stand on Earth.

This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are increasingly told that we have to choose

between a left or right. I would like to suggest there is no

such thing as left or right. There is only up or down--[Up]

man's old-age dream, the ultimate in individual freedom

consistent with law and order, or down, to the ant heap of

totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their

humanitarian motives, those who would trade freedom for

security have embarked on this downward course.

Given the topic of this discussion, the asserted power of the President to take the life of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without due process of law, that last portion bears reading again. ``Those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course to the ant heap of totalitarianism.''

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the ``Great Society,'' or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, ``The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.'' Another voice says, ``The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.'' Or, ``Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.'' Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as ``our moral teacher and our leader,'' and he says he is ``hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.'' He must ``be freed,'' so that he ``can do for us'' what he knows ``is best.'' And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as ``meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.''

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as ``the masses.'' This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, ``the full power of centralized government''--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce.

I am going to skip further along, to the end of the speech which, I will confess, not unlike the speeches given on this floor, was not a short speech. I will move to the end where President Reagan continued and said:

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of

the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution

of peace without victory. They call their policy

``accommodation.'' And they say if we will only avoid any

direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil

ways and learn to love us. . . . We cannot buy our security,

our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an

immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now

enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, ``Give up your dreams of

freedom because to save your skins we are making a deal with

your slave masters.'' Alexander Hamilton said, ``A nation

which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master,

and deserves one.'' Let's set the record straight. There is

no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there

is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can

have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there's a risk in any course we follow other

than this, but every lesson of history tells us the greater

risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter that we

face. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear

and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains

and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did

this begin?

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies. ``There

is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which

they must not advance.'' And this, this is the meaning in the

phrase of Barry Goldwater's ``peace through strength.''

Winston Churchill said, ``The destiny of man is not

measured by material computations. When great forces are on

the move in the world we learn we are spirits--not animals.

And he said, ``There is something going on in time and space,

and beyond time and space which, whether we like it or not,

spells duty.''

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope

of man on Earth or we will sentence them to take the last

step into 1000 years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has

faith in us, he has faith that you and I have the ability and

the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and to

determine our own destiny.

That path, the path of standing and fighting for freedom,

even when it seems daunting, even when it seems the gestalt

of the moment is on the other side, is a path with many

honorable forebears.

I can tell you, speaking and echoing the sentiment of the millions on twitter, of the people following this stand for principle tonight, if the 100 Senators in this body stand together and say regardless of party, liberty will always prevail; regardless of party, the Constitution is the governing body, the governing document in this Nation, then we will be doing our jobs.

I commend Senator Paul for a lonely stand that, as the night has worn on, has not proven quite so lonely. Indeed, were he the only Senator standing at his desk this evening, it would not be lonely in that circumstance either because he would be standing shoulder to shoulder with millions of Americans who do not wish the Federal Government to assert arbitrary power over our lives, over our liberty, over our property, but who, instead, want a government that remains a limited government of enumerated powers that protects the God-given rights each of us is blessed to have.

The question I ask: What in the Senator's judgment is America without liberty? Who are we, if we are not a free people?

I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

I would point out that the questions of imminence, I don't think, are difficult as has been suggested. Indeed, I would like to thank the senior Senator from Illinois for braving this long evening and for expressing his equal and heartfelt concerns about the limitations on the power of the executive to take the lives of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

I would point out that at the hearing we had yesterday with the Attorney General there was a series of questions exploring in further depth what the position of this administration was because, in response to the inquiry of the Senator from Kentucky, Attorney General Holder put in writing that he could imagine circumstances in which it would be permissible to take the lives of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

The two examples he gave were Pearl Harbor and 9/11. As the Senator for Kentucky responded, and I think everyone here agrees, those examples are unobjectionable. Both of those instances were instances of grievous military attacks. I think nobody doubts that if Kamikazi planes are coming down on our ships in Pearl Harbor, the United States can use lethal force to take out those planes and to save the lives of our service men and women. There is no question about that, legal or otherwise.

Likewise, I think nobody doubts if terrorists have taken over an airliner and are steering it into a building, that tragic a decision would be as heartrending as the decision on 9/11 must have been for the President to give the order to shoot down that fourth commercial airline--if it began approaching yet another target where it could inflict thousands of deaths--I think nobody disputes that stopping an imminent, immediate, act of violence, and indeed, a military act of war is fully within the authority of the Federal Government.

The question posed to the Attorney General was the question Senator Paul had asked originally--not that question--rather, it was if there is an individual, a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who is suspected of being a terrorist, and for whom we can say arguendo there is abundant evidence to demonstrate this individual as a terrorist, and if this individual is on U.S. soil and is not currently an imminent threat of violence--if he or she is sitting in a cafe in rural Virginia having a cup of coffee, the question I posed to the Attorney General is, in those circumstances, would it be constitutional for the U.S. Government to send a drone to kill that U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with no due process of law if that individual did not pose an imminent threat?

In my judgment that was not a difficult question. I think the answer, frankly, I expected was, of course not. Of course the Federal Government cannot kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who does not pose an imminent threat. That has been the state of the law from the day our Constitution came into effect and from before.

Instead, the first response of the Attorney General was it wouldn't be appropriate to use lethal force there, and we wouldn't do so. I pressed the question again on the Attorney General and said: With respect, the question is not whether it is appropriate, it is not a question of prosecutorial discretion. Do we trust you would not choose to exercise lethal force in those circumstances? Rather, it is a question would it be constitutional to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with a drone if that individual did not pose an imminent threat?

The second time the Attorney General said: I don't believe it would be appropriate. Yet a third time I asked the Attorney General: I am not asking about appropriateness. As the Attorney General of the United States, you are the chief legal officer for this Nation. Does the Department of Justice have a legal opinion as to whether it is constitutional for the U.S. Government to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if he or she does not pose an imminent threat? Yet a third time the answer was it wouldn't be appropriate.

Then, finally, when asked a fourth time, the Attorney General said: When I say ``appropriate,'' I mean it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Finally, after asking four times, the Attorney General agreed.

My response to that questioning was: General Holder, I am very glad you have stated that position. I emphatically agree with that position. I don't understand why it took such gymnastics to get to that position. I wish you had simply said that in response to Senator Paul now 2 days ago. It would have been a very straightforward and simple thing to say.

What I also said to the Attorney General is Senator Paul and I have drafted legislation which will make explicitly clear the U.S. Government may not kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who does not pose an imminent threat.

I hope, based on the Attorney General's representations, the Department will support that legislation. That ought, in my judgment, be legislation which should be bipartisan legislation that should pass this body 100 to 0 because it is truly phrased with as unobjectionable a legal truism as I could come up with.

I will admit I have been flabbergasted as these days have gone on why John Brennan, when asked by Senator Paul this question, did not simply say no. Why didn't Eric Holder, when

asked repeatedly, simply say no--at least not at the first. Why now, over 12 hours since this filibuster has proceeded, the White House has not put in writing the absolutely correct statement of constitutional law the Federal Government cannot kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not pose imminent threats.

I would note, with the hypothetical that the Senator from Illinois posed to Senator Paul, even in that situation, Osama bin Laden was a horrible enemy of the United States who committed a grievous act of terror and was the mastermind behind it. I am very glad that after a decade-long manhunt, we were able to find him and we were able to, on a military battlefield, take him out. I would suggest that if he were not in Pakistan, if he were living in an apartment in the suburbs of Chicago, and if he were asleep in bed--and even if he were Osama bin Laden, a really, really, really bad guy--there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to fire a missile at an apartment with a sleeping person in it in the United States of America if that individual was a U.S. citizen. And if he was in the United States, what we would do is what we would expect to do with any other really, really, really bad guy, which is go in and apprehend him.

Behind enemy lines, you can't always do that. There are things that happen on the battlefield that we would never do at home. But I would suggest that any argument that says someone sleeping at home in bed presents an imminent threat is an argument that stretches the bounds of the word ``imminence'' beyond where its natural meaning should lie.

If an individual is pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon or robbing a bank or committing another crime of violence, there is no doubt that force--and lethal force--can be used to stop that crime of violence. But I think that there likewise should be no doubt that the Federal Government lacks the authority to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if there is no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

So I am hopeful that the results of this extended discussion will be several. I am hopeful, No. 1, it will prompt the White House to do what the White House has heretofore refused to do, which is, in writing, explicitly answer the question posed by Senator Paul now over a week ago and expressly state as the position of the United States of America that the Federal Government cannot kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

I also hope that a consequence of this extended discussion is that we will find widespread agreement in this body behind passing legislation to make clear that the Constitution does not allow such killings. I am hopeful that legislation will command wide support on the Republican side of the aisle but likewise wide support on the Democratic side of the aisle.

I would hope for and would certainly welcome the support of the senior Senator from Illinois and, indeed, every Member of the Democratic caucus. And should this body come together in a bipartisan way or, even better, in a unanimous manner and clarify that the Constitution prohibits killing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil absent an immediate threat, I would suggest this debate will have accomplished a great deal because it will have made clear the limits of the Executive power, and it would be, indeed, carrying out the finest traditions of this body--serving as a check on unchecked government power.

So I would ask the Senator from Kentucky, does he agree that if those were the outcomes of these proceedings, this would have indeed been a beneficial proceeding for helping focus the American people on these issues and helping draw a line that the Executive cannot cross consistent with the Constitution?