Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ. It is not currently proposed.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. I urge ObamaCare be repealed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I need only 5 minutes.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.