Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. There is objection. I am sorry. I cannot be asked to consent to an unnamed consent agreement. Given that the majority leader, as I understand, is not going to consent to extend my time, then let me say quite simply to the majority leader that I will yield time to him for a question when the majority leader is prepared to yield to the American people. But I am not prepared to yield prior to that because Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, and Senator Inhofe are waiting to speak. I believe they are endeavoring to listen to the American people. If the majority is going to cut off and muzzle us in another 24 minutes, then at this point I don't feel it is appropriate to allow the majority leader to consume that time. I will note to any Senators who were here--if anyone would care, I know a number of Senators are waiting to ask questions, I am prepared to yield to a question from any of them.

Mr. CRUZ. I have decided to not yield my right to the floor. I was amenable to a colloquy. The majority leader is giving a speech. Given that, as I understand, the majority leader is not going to consent to extend the time, I have 24 minutes, I am going to reassert my time on the floor since I have not yielded my time on the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. With the reservation that I do not lose the right to the floor, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with the majority leader.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Well, I object. The majority leader asked for consent, and I object.

Mr. CRUZ. I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, I am happy to discuss it with the majority leader, but at this point, yes, I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, does the Senator yield?

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, these two unanimous consent requests have the virtue of clarifying this debate the Senate will face this week. I am going to suggest to the Presiding Officer that the Senate has not faced a more important debate in the short time he and I have both served in this institution. No American wants a government shutdown. I do not want a government shutdown. No one on this side of the aisle wants a government shutdown. The House of Representatives does not want a government shutdown. Five minutes ago the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown. The requests I promulgated to the majority leader were to pass the continuing resolution the House of Representatives passed. If that had happened, there would be no government shutdown. A government shutdown would be taken off the table. The specter the Presiding Officer and I see on the television screen every day--the countdown clock that has started to appear--would disappear. But unfortunately the majority leader chose to object--to object and to say, no, he would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it. Why? Again, the majority leader was quite candid: because he supports the law called ObamaCare. I would note that a component of that also--one of the pieces the House of Representatives passed--is a law that has been called the Default Prevention Act. The President of the United States has been doing a fair amount of public speaking, raising the prospect of a default on our debt. The House of Representatives acted boldly to include in their continuing resolution language that would say the United States will never, ever, ever default on its debt, that in the event the debt ceiling is not raised, we will always pay our debt first. I suspect every Member of this body has spoken publicly about the calamity that would come from a default on the debt. I think it is quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and objected to by name taking a default off the table. I think that is unfortunate. There is a tendency in this town toward brinkmanship, toward pointing to events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try to get your way. I wish the majority leader had been willing to step forward and say: I agree, No. 1, that the government should be funded; we should not have a government shutdown; and, No. 2, that we should never ever even discuss a default on the debt. Had the majority leader simply said, ``I consent,'' a default on the debt would have been taken permanently off the table. Why didn't he? We all know why he didn't. Because the majority leader embraces ObamaCare. I am going to suggest that this body a little over 3 years ago passed ObamaCare. It passed on a straight party-line vote. In the time since it has passed, America has learned it is not working. Americans all over this country are suffering because of ObamaCare. It is the single biggest job killer in America. Every day we are seeing more and more evidence that ObamaCare is killing jobs; that it is hurting American workers who are struggling; that it is causing people to be forcibly put into part-time work, 29 hours a week; that it is jacking up their health insurance premiums. It is causing more and more people, who are struggling, to lose their health insurance altogether. Today the New York Times reported that because of ObamaCare, ``Insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.'' That is today in the newspaper. USA Today reported on a new ``family glitch'' that could cause up to a half million children to go without insurance coverage. A headline in the Washington Post today read, ``One week away, ObamaCare's small business insurance exchanges not all ready for launch.'' Even the labor unions that once championed ObamaCare are now publicly decrying it as a threat to the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class. That is in the words of organized labor. This law is hurting the American people. It is why there is bipartisan consensus outside of Washington, DC, that we need to step up and stop it. That would be the responsible thing for Senators on both sides of the aisle to do, to say: The same rules should apply to hard- working American families that apply to big corporations and that apply to Members of Congress. We have seen the President unilaterally put in place exceptions for giant corporations and Members of Congress. I would submit, hard- working American families deserve that same exception. So I think it is unfortunate the majority leader chose to object to continuing government, to preventing a shutdown, to taking a default off the table. But I do think it is clarifying to make clear, as the majority leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown. He is willing to force even a government shutdown in order to insist that ObamaCare is funded. That leads to the second unanimous consent request I put forward, a simple request that every amendment on this continuing resolution be subject to 60 votes. Everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual request in the Senate. Amendments in this body are routinely subjected to 60-vote thresholds. Indeed, a few months ago when this body was debating the issue of guns--a contentious issue, an emotional issue, an issue of great moment for this country--the majority leader agreed with the minority that every single amendment on the floor would be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Those were the terms under which every aspect of the gun debate was debated. I would note that one amendment that was submitted during that gun debate was the Grassley-Cruz amendment. It was the law enforcement amendment that put real teeth in going after felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns. It put real teeth into forcing States to report mental health records so we can prevent those with serious mental illnesses from illegally purchasing firearms. I would note that the Grassley-Cruz amendment received a majority vote in this institution. A majority of Senators voted for it, including nine Democrats. It was the most bipartisan of the comprehensive gun amendments voted on in this body. Yet it did not pass into law because the majority leader set a 60-vote threshold for every amendment. I would suggest that ObamaCare is no less important. ObamaCare is no less controversial. ObamaCare, likewise, should be subject to the same threshold. If the majority leader believes ObamaCare is good for America, if the Democrats in this body believe ObamaCare is good for America, then I would encourage this body, let's debate--not in the artificial sense in which we debate, one or two Senators talking to an empty hall, but in the real sense of making the case to each other and the American people about whether this law is working or whether it is not. Because everywhere I travel in the State of Texas and across the country, Americans come to me and raise the single biggest challenge they are facing: ObamaCare. It is killing their jobs. It is taking their health care. It is not working. We all know that 3\1/2\ years ago ObamaCare was forced into law on a strict party-line vote, by straight, brute force. But it should not be funded that way. That is not the way a government should proceed. That is not the way this institution should proceed. A 60-vote threshold does not require that the majority leader get a great many Republican votes, but it does require that he get a few, that he cannot simply do it with the votes of only the Democrats in this body. This country will be better off if we work together to restore economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from ObamaCare. In fact, regarding a 60-vote threshold, here is what the learned majority leader has had to say: For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and the American people and our country. I agree with Majority Leader Reid. I agree that 60-vote thresholds ensure that we behave not just in a partisan manner but in a way that brings us together. Given the challenges coming from ObamaCare, I believe nothing is hurting the American people more, nothing is hurting the economy more, nothing is damaging jobs more, than ObamaCare. Given the majority leader's objection raised today, the path the majority intends to go down is now clear. It is clear to Democrats, it is clear to Republicans, it is clear for the world to see: The majority leader has stated it is his intention to force a vote to fund ObamaCare, and do so using just 51 votes, to do so on what could be a straight party-line vote, in all likelihood would be a straight party- line vote. I would suggest that is not a responsible course of action. It is not a course of action that I think Republicans should acquiesce to. If it is the majority leader's intent to fund ObamaCare using just 51 votes, then I would submit to every Republican in this body it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding ObamaCare with 51 votes. Any Member of this body who votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare on 51 votes. I think that vote is a mistake. I think that vote disserves our constituents. I think that vote hurts the people of America. So 232 Members of the House of Representatives came together and said explicitly: Do not fund ObamaCare. I would note that included two Democrats who came together with Republicans in a bipartisan manner to say: This law is not working. Maybe we thought it would work, but the facts, the evidence, have proven it is not working. The Senate should do likewise. The House acted last week because the House listened to the American people. I would suggest that every Member of this body should do exactly the same: Listen to the American people. Because if we listen to the American people, we will, No. 1, keep the government running. I wish the majority leader had agreed to my request to take a government shutdown off the table by passing the House continuing resolution. If we listen to the American people, we will, No. 2, take any default on the debt off the table. I wish the majority leader had not objected to doing so right now. I wish the majority leader had not said he intends to continue to use the threat of a default to engage in brinkmanship to try to force ObamaCare on the American people. If we listen to the American people, we will recognize that this law is not working. That is why big corporations asked for and received an exception. That is why Members of Congress asked for and received an exception. That is why unions have recently come forward and asked for an exception. They have not yet been granted it, but I will venture a prediction now that if Congress votes to continue funding ObamaCare, that union exception will not be far away. Then we will be left in a world where the burdens of ObamaCare, the job-killing consequences of ObamaCare, fall on hard-working American families, not on big corporations, not on Members of Congress and, in the near future, I predict not on union bosses, only on hard-working American families, on single moms, on young people, on people struggling to climb the economic ladder. I would suggest that is getting it exactly backward. This body should be not be granting special rules, special favors for the ruling class, for those with power and privilege. We should be fighting for those who are struggling. Those are the people who are getting hurt the most by ObamaCare. I believe this week will be a critical week for the Senate, where every one of us--and I hope to see Republicans and Democrats stand together and to say, setting aside partisan differences, we have an obligation to the people of our States. ObamaCare is not working, so we are going to step forward and recognize the simple reality that it is the biggest job killer in this country and we should not affirmatively fund it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, at this time I now ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 20 minutes to speak.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the second unanimous consent request that I would put forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that any and all points of order be waived; that during consideration of H.J. Res. 59, adoption of any amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and that upon disposition of all amendments, the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRUZ. The first unanimous consent request that I would put forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that no debate, amendments, or motions to the resolution be in order; that any and all points of order be waived; that the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRUZ. And I am hopeful my remarks will be persuasive when the Senator watches them.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would be happy to ask the unanimous consent requests at the outset if that would be preferable to the majority leader.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 20 minutes to speak.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I am going to be brief and not take my entire time. I think the underlying extension and reform of the Helium Program in this bill is a good provision. It maintains the program. Helium is critical for our businesses, for our industry, for our high- tech community. So I salute the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Alaska for working together. As written, the Senate bill raises $500 million over 10 years in new revenue. The House bill took the revenue raised by this program and put it to deficit reduction and reducing our debt. The Senate bill--I think unfortunately--instead of using the revenue for deficit reduction, uses $400 of the $500 million for new spending. I raised internally an objection and asked my colleagues if they would consider reducing spending in other parts of the budget to balance it given that we have nearly a $17 trillion national debt. I think the more fiscally responsible thing to do, if we have $500 million in new revenue, is to use it to pay down the deficit and the debt. We have worked together in a bipartisan way to allow this to come to a vote. I thank the Senator from Oregon for agreeing to do that. I intend to vote no, but I am hopeful that in conference committee perhaps the House and Senate can work together to take care of the important concerns with the Helium Program but at the same time demonstrate some additional fiscal responsibility, which I think would be a win-win for everyone.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Oregon and my friend from Alaska for their leadership. As do they, I support extending the Helium Program. This is a good and important program that is critical to industry, it is critical to jobs, and it is critical to our high-tech community. I salute both the Senate and the House for a positive bill that generates revenue for the Federal Treasury and that gets the Government, in time, out of the helium business. I think that is a good and positive step. I would note the House of Representatives passed a bill that continued this program but that devoted the revenue that came from this to deficit reduction. At a time when our national debt is approaching $17 trillion, I think devoting that revenue to deficit reduction is a good and appropriate place to direct that revenue. When the bill came to the Senate--this bill is projected to generate approximately $500 million in new revenue for the Federal Government over 10 years. When it came to the Senate, roughly $400 million in new spending was added to the bill that came out of that $500 million that was generated. In my view, given the fiscal and economic challenges in this country, that revenue would be better spent paying down our deficit, reducing our national debt, than it would be on new spending. Indeed, over the course of this week, I have had numerous conversations with my colleagues where I have urged them that if new spending were to be added, for them to endeavor to find other areas of Federal spending that could be reduced, that could be cut to make up for that, so we could devote the full $500 million to reducing the deficit. I think that would be the most fiscally responsible approach to be taken. For that reason, I have had concerns about proceeding on this bill with unanimous consent, proceeding on this bill authorizing an additional $500 million in new spending without debate, without a vote. Earlier this week, I had lodged internally an objection to do so. I am pleased to note that in conversations with Senator Murkowski and Senator Wyden, we have reached an agreement where this matter will not proceed by unanimous consent but, rather, will proceed with a rollcall vote to be scheduled this afternoon, where each Senator will cast his or her vote. With that agreement, I am happy to withdraw any objection and allow us to go forward. I would note it is important for economic growth and for the high- tech industry to maintain this program, but at the same time I hope going forward, when new spending is authorized, all of us will work to cut spending to compensate so we can devote the maximum resources possible to paying down our deficit and paying down our debt.

Mr. CRUZ. That is correct. In terms of a technical offset, the spending is offset by the revenue. I am not arguing that it fails to offset in the typical language of the Senate; rather, my concern is that is $500 million in new revenue that could be directed to deficit reduction. Given the magnitude of our national debt, if we have $500 million in new revenue from selling helium, sending it to the private sector, I would far rather see that $500 million used to pay down our deficit. What I have urged my colleagues to do is, if there are new spending programs that are of particular concern to the citizens of their States, to find other aspects of the Federal budget that could be cut to offset it so that entire $500 million could go to deficit reduction rather than to funding the new spending.

Mr. CRUZ. I am pleased to tell my friend it would be acceptable. I have no objection to that. I appreciate the willingness of the Chairman, along with Senator Murkowski, to allow this to come to a rollcall vote so each Senator may be on the record with their views.

Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Alabama, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas for his leadership and for his reasonable call that we ascertain the truth on this very important matter. As we do every year, last week as a nation we marked the somber anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For the first time this year we also remembered the victims of Benghazi: Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was our first Ambassador murdered while serving since Adolph Dubs in 1979. The anniversary of the Benghazi attacks, however, should not simply be an act of remembrance; it should serve as a wake-up call. An entire year has gone by since these American heroes lost their lives in the service of our Nation, and we still have far too many unanswered questions: Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security in Benghazi? Why were no military assets mobilized while the attacks were going on even if they might not arrive before the attacks were over? If then-Secretary Panetta had ``no question'' in his mind that this was a coordinated terrorist attack while it was going on, why did Ambassador Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a spontaneous demonstration about an Internet video in the days after September 11, 2012? Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to delete the references to ``Islamic extremists'' and ``Al Qaeda''? Why did the FBI not release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack and released them only 8 months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing last April? What role, if any, did the State Department's own counterterrorism office play during the attack and in its immediate aftermath? Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress? Why do the Benghazi whistleblowers still fear retaliation and retribution? To get the answers to these questions, we need to hear from the survivors of the attack to gain firsthand understanding of what happened that night. We need to ensure that the whistleblowers on Benghazi can tell their stories without fear of reprisal. We need the President to make good on his promise of September 12, 2012, ``to bring justice to the killers who attacked our people.'' That still has yet to happen. Over the past year it has become evident that we need a joint select committee to get these answers because we have an administration that is actively trying to avoid learning more about Benghazi. We have a former Secretary of State who responds to congressional inquiries about why we were attacked in Benghazi with ``what difference at this point does it make?'' We have a current Secretary of State who responds to congressional inquiries about why the administration deliberately misidentified the nature of the attack by saying that he does not want to spend a whole year ``coming up here talking about Benghazi'' to Congress. We have a White House Press Secretary who responds to press inquiries about difficulties in interviewing the survivors by simply dismissing Benghazi as something that ``happened a long time ago.'' And we have a President who complains that ``phony scandals'' are distracting him from his domestic agenda, by which, his Press Secretary clarified the next day, he meant the IRS targeting and Benghazi. In addition, we have seen in recent weeks an escalating pattern of obstruction by the administration into any investigation into Benghazi and a reluctance to take any action to retaliate against the attack or to prevent a future episode. On August 14 there were press reports that the team of special operators who were in Libya to track down those responsible for the Benghazi attack were being pulled out despite repeated recommendations for action, some as recent as August 7. On August 20 we learned that the only disciplinary action taken after Benghazi would be reversed as the four State Department employees who had been placed on administrative leave after the attacks were reinstated. On August 23 the State Department said it was ``not prepared'' to allow the Benghazi survivors to testify to Congress--a denial that was reportedly reiterated by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 10. On September 11 we learned from the State Department's own internal review that the Department is ``lagging behind'' in implementing the new security measures recommended after the Benghazi attack, with, for example, only 100 of the recommended 1,000 marines being deployed for potential hotspots. On September 15 we learned of serious allegations in a draft House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report that the Accountability Review Board report requested by Secretary Clinton whitewashed the responsibility of senior State Department officials for the decisions that resulted in the lack of proper security at the Benghazi facilities. Just today at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted that the FBI investigation in Benghazi has ground to an indefinite halt because of the security situation in Libya. Mr. Kennedy also asserted in this hearing that the reassignment of four State Department employees represented ``serious accountability'' for the four Americans who died in Benghazi. This state of affairs is, in a word, unacceptable. Truth is not partisan, and every Member of this body should want to ascertain what happened. Given the yearlong collective failure of our government either to gain clarity on what happened in Benghazi on September 11 or to extract any retribution for the terrorist attacks, Congress should now form a joint select committee to launch a proper investigation. The attacks on our diplomatic facilities in Benghazi are part of a larger threat we have faced for the last 12 years from radical Islamic terrorists. We cannot let this anniversary pass with just ``a thought, a hope, a prayer or a wish'' as Secretary Kerry recommended in an all- staff e-mail to the State Department regarding the Benghazi attack. We need a chief counsel who can systematically ascertain the truth and can follow the actual facts of what happened that night to their full and logical conclusion, wherever that may lie, so that we can honor these American heroes and we can ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent this sort of attack from ever happening again. If we refuse to seek the answers to these questions, then we are inviting future tragedies. We have four dead Americans. It has been a full year. My cosponsors on this resolution and I have had enough without answers and without the truth. Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 225 I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 225, that the Senate proceed to its consideration, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Utah for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to stand with Senator Lee, Senator Rubio, and with so many others. I can tell my colleagues that in the State of Texas, Texans overwhelmingly understand that ObamaCare isn't working, that this legislation is failing and it is hurting the American people. When we look at jobs, there is no legislation currently in effect that is damaging the economy more or damaging jobs more than ObamaCare. In direct response to the law, 41 percent of small business owners have held off plans to hire new employees. Thirty-eight percent said they pulled back on plans to grow their businesses. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that 71 percent of small businesses say ObamaCare makes it harder to hire workers. Beyond that, one of the most pernicious aspects of this law is that it is forcing more and more employees to be moved to part-time employment, to be moved to working 29 hours a week or less to get out of the ObamaCare 30-hour threshold. In 2013, employers have added more part-time employees, averaging 93,000 a month, seasonally adjusted, than full-time workers. And it is important to understand who it is that is moved to part-time work, who it is that is hurt by ObamaCare. It is the most vulnerable among us. It is not the CEOs. It is not the wealthy. It is young people, Hispanics, African Americans, single moms. According to the most recent census data, in 2011 the poverty rate for those who worked full-time was only 2.8 percent. The poverty rate for those working less than full-time year-round was 16.3 percent. I am reminded of earlier this year when we were debating the issue of ObamaCare and I read from a newspaper article out of the State of Oklahoma that quoted a single mom who is working in a fast food restaurant. She and all of her coworkers had their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week or less. This single mom said: I have two little kids at home. I can't feed my kids on 29 hours a week, and neither can the other single moms who are struggling to make ends meet. Beyond the impact on jobs, on the economy, and beyond those being forced into part-time work, we also have the compliance costs. According to Federal agency estimates, ObamaCare will add paperwork burdens totaling nearly 190 million hours or more every year. To put that in perspective, Mount Rushmore, which took 14 years to build, could be constructed 1,547 times with the paperwork ObamaCare requires in 1 year. Not only do we see jobs being hurt, the economy being hurt, workers being hurt, hours being reduced, paperwork going up, but we are seeing premiums going up--premiums going up far too high--and it is hitting those who are suffering the most. On Monday, Florida's insurance commissioner told the Palm Beach Post that insurance rates will rise by 5 to 20 percent in the small-group market and by 30 to 40 percent in the individual market. As those who are at home in Florida watching what is happening, as they are seeing their insurance rates go up--they are going up because of the impact of this failed law. The Ohio Department of Insurance announced that ObamaCare in Ohio will increase the individual market health premiums by 88 percent. If a person in Ohio right now is seeing their premiums go up, they can thank the men and women of the U.S. Congress. According to the Wyman Firm, looking at young people, young people in particular are hurt by ObamaCare. The Wyman Firm estimates that 80 percent of Americans age 21 to 29 earning more than $16,000 will pay more out-of-pocket for coverage under ObamaCare than they pay today. If young people at home are watching this today and wondering how they are going to get a job, how they are going to climb the economic ladder, how they are going to achieve the American dream, ObamaCare is driving up their health care premiums right now. We all know that at the time ObamaCare was being debated, the President promised the American people: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. The facts have conclusively proven that wrong. According to a February 2013 report by the Congressional Budget Office, 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored insurance. McKinsey & Company, a very well-regarded consulting firm, found that 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance in the years after 2014. This bill isn't working, and I would note there is growing bipartisan consensus on that front. As the facts have come in, the American people have kept an open mind, have looked at this bill, and have seen that as it is being implemented, it is not working, it is hurting the economy, and it is hurting jobs. According to an ABC-Washington Post poll, in 2010, 74 percent of moderate conservative Democrats--there are a significant number of Democrats who describe themselves as moderate or conservative--in 2010, 70 percent of them supported ObamaCare. Yet, in July, just 46 percent supported ObamaCare. Not only that, we have seen the lead Senate author of ObamaCare--a senior Democrat in this body--describe ObamaCare as headed toward a ``huge train wreck.'' We have seen unions-- which initially supported ObamaCare--over and over turning as they realize the consequences. In April the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers called for ``repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act to protect our employers, our industry, and our most important assets, our members and their families.'' If we listen to the voices of unions, unions are saying ObamaCare is failing; it is not working. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers released a white paper in July explaining that ObamaCare ``threatens to harm our members by dismantling multiemployer health plans.'' And then--really quite striking--James Hoffa, Jr., the president of the Teamsters Union, wrote a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stating that ObamaCare ``will destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hard-working Americans.'' Why? Well, Mr. Hoffa explained that ObamaCare is destroying the 40-hour workweek that has been the backbone of the American middle class. If we trust the voices of unions, if we have a concern for the American middle class, then listen to the bipartisan voices that are rising up saying that ObamaCare isn't working. Most strikingly, we have President Obama himself, who just a few weeks ago was forced to unilaterally and without legal authority delay implementation of ObamaCare for large corporations, for companies with more than 50 employees--he unilaterally moved the employer mandate until after the next election. I would suggest there are at least two things we can derive from President Obama's decision to do that: No. 1, if ObamaCare were a good thing, if it were working, we can be sure President Obama would want it to go into full effect before the next election. He would want to take credit with the American people for the benefits of this signature bill. The fact that the President was forced to concede that the wheels are coming off and to move the employer mandate until after the next election I would suggest is highly revealing. No. 2, it raises the obvious followup question: Why is President Obama willing to grant a waiver for giant corporations but not for hard-working American families, not for the men and women who are struggling to make ends meet, who are climbing the economic ladder, who want, like their parents and grandparents before them, to achieve the American dream? ObamaCare is standing in their way. So what are we to do about it? Well, the most important constitutional check and balance that Congress has on an overreaching Executive is the power of the purse. The Framers of the Constitution wisely gave authority over expenditures of money to the Congress, and that is why the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Florida, and I, among many others, are standing together and saying: This isn't working, and Congress should defund it. In 62 days the continuing resolution that funds the Federal Government will expire. Each of the three of us, along with a number of others, has publicly stated that under no circumstances will we support a continuing resolution that funds one penny of ObamaCare. If 41 Members of this body stand together and make that same statement or if 218 Members in the House of Representatives stand together and take that same position, we can do something different than we have seen this year. Over the past couple of years we have seen 39, 40, 41 votes to repeal ObamaCare, all of which have been effectively symbolic because none of them had a real chance of passage. With the continuing resolution, we have a chance to successfully defund ObamaCare. Right now we don't have the votes in this institution. If the vote were held today, we would not hold 41 Senators to defund ObamaCare. But we have 62 days until September 30, and every one of us takes very seriously our obligation to represent our constituents. If in the next 62 days we see what I believe we are going to see, which is the American people rising up en masse--hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans standing up and saying: It isn't working, it is hurting our jobs, it is hurting our economy, it is hurting our health care, it is making our lives worse, and we need to defund it--if enough Americans speak out and demand of their elected officials that we do the right thing, I am confident we will. I am confident that Republicans will, and I am hopeful that Members of the Democratic Party will as well, that every one of us will. I believe the American people should hold their elected officials accountable, and that most assuredly includes me. It includes all of us. We should be held accountable by our constituents. The American people know this bill isn't working. There is bipartisan agreement on it. We have the potential in the next 62 days to show real leadership-- not to give a speech, not to give a meaningless, symbolic vote, but, if we stand together, to actually defund it. Let me make one final point. Those who disagree with the position that is being taken by Senator Lee and Senator Rubio and me and say that taking this stand will mean Republicans will be blamed for a government shutdown, let me be clear on what I think should happen. I believe the House of Representatives should pass a continuing resolution to fund the entirety of the Federal Government except for ObamaCare and should explicitly prohibit further funding of ObamaCare and should adopt the legislation I have introduced as a condition to the continuing resolution. Now, the next step. There will be partisan critics who immediately charge Republicans with threatening to shut down the government. I would suggest that we then take the argument to the American people. The American people should decide. If there are Members of this body who are willing to shut down the Federal Government in order to force ObamaCare down the throats of the American people, in order to say President Obama will grant a waiver to giant corporations but not to hard-working American families, let's take that argument to the American people because I think the American people want economic growth back. That should be our top priority. Nothing is killing jobs more. Nothing is hurting the American economy more than ObamaCare. There is bipartisan agreement on that. I am hopeful that Members of this body will stand and lead. I thank the Senator from Utah for taking the lead on what I believe is the most important battle this Congress will confront.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I do indeed share those thoughts and feelings and the obligation we owe to our constituents to honor our word and put action behind our words. I would ask the Senator from Utah if he would yield for a series of three short questions?

Mr. CRUZ. The first question is, There has been much talk of a shutdown. Am I correct that we do not have to hypothesize what a shutdown would look like, that we, in fact, saw that in 1995 with two temporary, partial shutdowns that occurred when Republicans in the House stood up to President Clinton? When that occurred in 1995, we saw several things. No. 1, we saw that the parade of horribles that was brought out did not occur. Social Security checks continued to flow, the military continued to be funded, interest on the debt continued to be paid, planes did not fall out of the sky. Indeed, what occurs--if Democrats decide to block a continuing resolution and force a temporary shutdown in order to force ObamaCare on the American people--is a partial, temporary shutdown where nonessential government services get suspended for a period of time, not a shutdown of essential services, such as paying for the men and women who are fighting in the military and providing Social Security checks. We have seen that in the past; is that correct?

Mr. CRUZ. A second question I would ask is this: This week we saw the rather stunning news that the IRS employees union--the men and women at the IRS charged with enforcing ObamaCare are asking not to be made subject to ObamaCare. Indeed, the union leaders have said to their union members: Draft letters to send to Members of this body, saying that we, the IRS employees union, do not want to be subject to ObamaCare. Likewise, ObamaCare subjects Members of this body and their staffs to ObamaCare. I am not aware of a single Senate office that is not deeply concerned about that, that is not facing the prospect of staff quitting the congressional offices because the arms of ObamaCare are so significant, and there have been many a panicked discussion among Democrats and Republicans about what to do about subjecting Members and their staff to ObamaCare. My second question of three short questions is, What does it say to the Senator that the IRS employees union is asking: Let us out from ObamaCare, and that Members and congressional staff are deeply concerned about the harms ObamaCare is going to do to them?