Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I have two sons and a daughter. My two sons are twins. They are teenagers. They are good boys. They are both 4.0 students, and I couldn't be more pleased with them. They work hard. I had an experience with them about 1\1/2\ years ago that comes to mind. I was driving down the street with them in my car one day. We were listening to the radio, as I often do with them. We were listening to a popular song familiar to all three of us, a song we had heard on many, many occasions. On this particular occasion I started noticing the lyrics more than I had on previous occasions in the past. All of a sudden, for whatever reason, I noticed that these were not good lyrics. These were not wholesome lyrics. These were not lyrics that any God-fearing father of teenaged boys would necessarily want his sons listening to. All of a sudden I pointed out to my twin sons, turning down the radio, These were terrible lyrics, and I asked them: Have you ever really listened to the words of this song? Do we like the message that is in this song? My son John didn't miss a beat. Without hesitating, without batting an eye, John looked right at me and said, Dad, it is not bad if you don't think about it. I immediately thought it was funny that was his response. This was teenage reasoning at its very best. It is not just teenage reasoning. It is the way a lot of us think about things by saying certain things aren't bad if you don't think about them. In many respects, that is reflective of what we face in our country today. A $17 trillion debt growing at a rate approaching $1 trillion a year isn't bad if you don't think about it. Having a 2,700-page health care law with 20,000 pages of implementing legislation isn't bad if you don't think about it; having between $1.75 trillion and $2 trillion a year in existing Federal regulatory compliance costs is not bad, if you don't think about it; having the world's highest corporate tax rate, at least the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, isn't bad if you don't think about it. A lot of these problems we face are not bad, but only if you don't think about them. The problem is in the Senate it is our job to think about these problems. It is our job to think about the fact that we have on the books a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that will make a lot of things worse for a lot of people, a law that will have an effect not consistent with the lofty sounding title of that law, an effect that will actually result, in many instances, in health care that is both unfair and less affordable. We have to think about what our responsibilities are. We have to think every single day about how this is going to affect the American people. We have to be willing to say we are not going to allow certain things to persist, things that would harm the American people, and that means we have to listen to the American people when they cry out for help. They have cried out for help in recent weeks as they have asked Congress again and again to defund ObamaCare, as they have asked Congress to keep government funded. They don't want a shutdown. We don't want a shutdown. I know I don't want a shutdown. I don't think Senator Cruz wants a shutdown. In fact, I don't think I know any Member of Congress of either House or either political party representing any of our country's 50 States who wants a shutdown. What we want is to keep government funded. What the American people want is for us to fund government while defunding ObamaCare. That is precisely what the House of Representatives has done. I salute the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives, the Republican leadership, has been thinking about it. They have been thinking about this law and the many problems it threatens to create for our Nation's 300 million-plus people. We have to think about the fact that every time we make a law we are expanding the reach of this government. We have to think about the fact that we became an independent nation, a nation that flies its own flag rather than the Union Jack, a nation that pays tribute to the sovereignty of the people rather than to the supposed sovereignty of a monarch. A couple of centuries ago this was not just an act of rejection of the idea of having a monarch, this was not just a rejection of the Union Jack, this was not just a statement to the effect that we did not want to sing ``God Save the King'' or ``God Save the Queen.'' We became our own Republic at least in part because we were subject then to a large distant national government, a large distant national government that was so far from the people that it was sometimes slow to respond to the needs of the people, and that national government based not in Washington, DC, because Washington, DC, did not exist then. What is now Washington DC was then part of the colony of Maryland. Our national capital, based in London, taxed the people too much. It regulated the people too aggressively, too oppressively. When the people called out for help, that government was slow to respond to their needs--in part because it was so far from them, so distant from them. It was not just distant from them in terms of measurement, in terms of geography, but also distant from them in that its interests were somewhat detached from those of the American people. Ultimately we became our own country. Ultimately we declared our independence, we fought for it, we won our independence. Instinctively, reflexively, quite understandably we established a national government because we knew we would need one. We knew that each of these Thirteen Colonies could not exist independently as a freestanding Republic. We knew we would need a national government to provide for those basic things that a national government generally must provide. We knew that national governments, at least our national government in this circumstance, would need to be in charge of a few basic things such as national defense. Yet we feared what national governments could do because we know that when governments become big there is a greater risk toward tyranny--even if it is a type of tyranny that exists only by degrees. We knew that the risk of this kind of tyranny--some might call it soft or incremental tyranny--exists even in republics, even when democratic forces are at play. We knew this type of risk of soft tyranny, as some would describe it, is greatest within national governments. The bigger the nation, the more powerful the government and the fewer the restrictions on that government, the greater the risk that the rights of the people will be undermined; the greater the risk the people of that great nation will become subjects rather than sovereigns--which of course they should always be. So for that very purpose we put in place a very limited-purpose national government, originally under the Articles of Confederation. We put together a weak national government. It was so weak in fact it was ineffective. It was not able to do the things our basic national government needed to do. Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had some powers but they proved to be not enough. It had no power of raising revenue independently of the States. It had no power of regulating commerce or trade between the States and with foreign countries. So after a period of just a few years under the Articles of Confederation, our Founding Fathers came together in that hot, fateful summer of 1787 in Philadelphia and they put together a compromise document. They said we need a national government that is at once strong enough to be able to do what a National Government must be able to do in order to protect us so we can be a nation. Yet we also need those powers to be sufficiently limited that the risk of tyranny, even incremental tyranny or tyranny by degrees, will be kept to a minimum. So our Founding Fathers wisely came up with a list, a list of powers that we knew the national government would need powers that we knew needed to be exercised at the national level. Those powers, the vast majority of which are found in one part of the Constitution--often overlooked but perhaps the single most important portion of the Constitution, at least for our purposes here--the part of the Constitution we have to look to more frequently here, article I, section 8. Article I, section 8, has 18 clauses and goes through the basic powers of Congress. Congress, of course, has the power to tax and the power to spend within the powers authorized by the Constitution. Congress has the power to regulate trade--referred to in the Constitution as commerce--among the States, with foreign nations and among the Indian tribes. Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof; develop the uniform set of laws governing naturalization or what we would today call immigration; the power to provide for our national defense; to declare war; the power to come up with a system of laws dealing with bankruptcy; to establish a uniform system of weights and measures; to establish postal roads. There are a few other powers, but this is the basic gist of them. Then there is my favorite power, the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, a power that we too often fail to recognize, a power I wish we would get to debate and discuss longer and more frequently in the Senate. A Letter of Marque and Reprisal was effectively a hall pass issued by the U.S. Congress in the name of the U.S. Government that entitles the bearer of that hall pass to be a pirate on the high seas. Regardless of how long I might serve in the Senate, I hope one day to be granted a Letter of Marque and Reprisal so I can become a pirate as I longed to be as a child. You are all invited to join me when I get that Letter of Marque and Reprisal. The point is the powers of Congress are limited. These are powers that James Madison cited in defending the Constitution against people who questioned him, against those who feared this Constitution might give rise to a general purpose national government, one empowered with so many powers that it could become a tyrant. He tried to set at ease the concerns of the people in Federalist 45 when he said: The powers that would be granted to the newly established federal government upon ratification of the Constitution are few and defined while those reserved to the States are numerous and indefinite. He was right and he was persuasive. Upon the advice of James Madison and others, the States ratified the Constitution. They did so with that very understanding, that this body, the legislative body created by the Constitution, the U.S. Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives, would possess legislative powers that were not so broad as to encompass all the day-to-day interactions of human beings. We would not possess what people refer to as general police powers. We do not have the power to make whatever law we think is a good idea. A good idea is not nearly enough. We have to find something in the Constitution that puts us in charge of legislating within that area to promote that good idea. We have to find something in the Constitution that gives us the power to do it. During the first 100, maybe 150 years of our Republic as it operated under the Constitution, we followed pretty closely this document, what some describe as the enumerated powers doctrine. Sure, there were arguments from time to time over this or that legislative proposal. There were arguments that arose, for example, over whether we should have a national bank. You had debates among and between the political branches of government, meaning Congress and the Presidency, that often centered on the principles of the Constitution. It was very common to have constitutional concerns brought up on the floor of this body or on the floor of the House of Representatives as a basis for halting serious consideration of a legislative proposal on grounds that it simply was not within Congress's power to enact. It was not necessarily considered acceptable to say let's let another branch of government think about it. Let's let the Supreme Court iron it out. Let's let the Supreme Court decide whether it is constitutional. Within the political branches of government, frequently proposals were stopped on grounds that they were unconstitutional. Fast forward 130, 140, 150 years, and things started to change. The Supreme Court, early in the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, pushed back on a lot of FDR's more aggressive attempts to expand the reach, the size, the scope, the cost of the Federal Government. It resisted those and said: Look, regardless of what the policy merits might be of this Federal program or that one, we still have a limited purpose as the Federal Government and not an all-purpose national government. That limited purpose--the national government--has to find something in the Constitution each time it legislates. If it fails to do that, then no matter how good of an idea it is, it can't fly. By the end of F.D.R.'s Presidency, the Court changed course. There are a number of reasons for this, but the prevailing theory is that the Supreme Court got scared. It got scared as a result of F.D.R.'s Court- packing plan. In 1935, the Supreme Court moved into its new building across the street, the shining marble palace we see just outside the door to the Senate. The Justices liked their new white marble palace. They enjoyed it. They didn't want F.D.R., or any other President, raining on their parade by packing the Court and fundamentally altering the nature of the Court's composition. So for that reason, many theorized, the Court changed its position. The Court stopped resisting F.D.R.'s attempts at expanding the Federal Government's power. People trace the change in jurisprudence to a number of different moments. I think one of the pivotal moments occurred in 1937 when the Supreme Court of the United States decided a case called the NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company. In that case, the Supreme Court adopted an early version of what has become its modern common clause jurisprudence. The Supreme Court started concluding that where there is an activity that is commercial or economic in nature, Congress may regulate that activity so long as there is a substantial connection between that activity and interstate commerce. It was in that case that the Supreme Court, for the first time, smiled upon Federal regulation of what were previous to that time considered local activities, such as labor, manufacturing, agriculture, and mining. That is not to say those things should not be regulated by any government anywhere. It is not to say the Supreme Court--prior to NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel--ever suggested otherwise, but it is to suggest that prior to that case regulation of local activities, such as labor, manufacturing, agriculture, and mining were considered more appropriate for State and local governments and not for our national government. Within the next 5 years, the Supreme Court solidified its position on the commerce clause, and in many respects it allowed its power to reach a high watermark in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. Let's talk about that case for just a minute because I think it bears on what we are talking about. That case involved a farmer by the name of Roscoe Filburn. He got in trouble with the law. You might be asking yourselves: What did farmer Roscoe Filburn do? What did he do to get in trouble with the Feds? Was he a bank robber? No, he didn't rob a bank. Was he a drug dealer? No, he didn't do that. Was he a murderer or a kidnapper? No. You want to know what Roscoe Filburn did? He committed a grave offense against the United States. He grew too much wheat. Yes, scary but true. Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than Congress, in its infinite wisdom, saw fit for any American to grow in any 1 single year. By then Congress decided it needed to regulate every aspect of human existence, if possible. It even had the wisdom and foresight necessary to direct the entire economy right down to how much wheat a particular farmer could legally grow. Roscoe Filburn was fined many thousands of dollars for growing too much wheat. That was a lot of money in those days. Fortunately, Mr. Filburn had a good lawyer. Mr. Filburn was determined not to allow his life to be micromanaged by Federal officials in Washington, DC. Mr. Filburn challenged the enforcement of this law against him with a theory. He said: Look, the statute I have been accused of violating was enacted pursuant to the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 3. The commerce clause applies to interstate commerce or commerce for trade occurring between the States and not intrastate commerce--commerce within a State. Commerce which is within a particular State is not subject to Congress's authority and the commerce clause. Roscoe Filburn argued--through his lawyer--that the wheat he grew in excess of the national wheat production limit never entered interstate commerce because it never entered commerce at all. Roscoe Filburn used that wheat entirely on his farm. He used some of it to feed his animals, some of it to feed his own family, and he reserved the balance of that grain to use as seed for the following season. So on that basis, he said: Look, you can get after me for any reason you want. You can get after me, if you want, for violating this wheat production limit, but the fact is this law can have no application here because this wheat never entered interstate commerce or any other form of commerce. It never left my farm. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court of the United States saw it differently. The Supreme Court of the United States found that even that wheat that never left Roscoe Filburn's farm was subject to the long arm of Congress and the long arm of the Federal Government. It was subject to that same Federal power that James Madison once described as few and defined. All of a sudden the supposedly few and defined powers were broad enough somehow to extend to Roscoe Filburn's pernicious wheat. The Supreme Court said, in essence, that this wheat, because it was grown and used on Roscoe Filburn's farm in excess of the grain production limit imposed by Federal law, it was grain that Roscoe Filburn would have otherwise purchased but did not have to purchase on the open market, a market that was distinctively interstate. Because he grew it and used it on the farm and did not buy it somewhere else, thus by growing too much wheat, Roscoe Filburn shamefully distorted and undermined the interstate market and wheat. He undermined it in the sense that it drove the price in a different direction than Congress, in its infinite judgment, saw fit to direct the economy. So the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the fine that was assessed against Roscoe Filburn. The reasoning of the Supreme Court employed in Wickard v. Filburn is a fascinating study in legal and verbal gymnastics. It is a fascinating study in the idea that everything affects everything else. They basically said that the wheat Roscoe Filburn grew on his farm affects the interstate wheat market in much the same way that butterflies flapping their wings in Brazil can affect weather patterns in North America. We are somehow asked to have faith that this does, in fact, happen. I am told that climatologists can prove there is an impact by the butterflies in South America on weather patterns in North America. I don't know how, but you have to make a lot of inferences before you get there. But as many inferences as has to be made with the butterflies, I think there are even more inferences that have to be drawn with respect to Roscoe Filburn's wheat. I remember studying this case in my high school history class. I remember arguing with my history teacher about this. I remember my history teacher eventually telling me: Get over it, Mr. Lee. The Federal Government is big and powerful, and that is just the way things are. Yet I think we have a certain responsibility to look back through our history and to question from time to time the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States, especially when those judgments enable the Congress to extend its power far beyond what Madison described as few and defined powers. In a sense, what we have done ever since Wickard v. Filburn is we continued to expand Federal authority beyond that. We have never fully retreated from that high watermark. What we have seen is a perpetually expanding national government, one that is capable of imposing an estimated $2 trillion in Federal regulatory compliance costs alone, a Federal Government that imposes a couple of more trillion dollars in taxes a year from the American people, and manages to spend between $3.5 and $4 trillion every single year. That is a very big government. Since Wickard v. Filburn, there are only two instances in which the Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated an act of Congress as being beyond the scope of Congress's power under the commerce clause. Sometimes I almost add a third, but then I remember the Supreme Court stopped short on that third. The first two involved a case called the United States v. Lopez, which is a case from 1995 where the Supreme Court invalidated the Gun- Free School Zones Act prohibiting the bare possession of a handgun within a school zone. The Supreme Court concluded that the bare possession of a gun was not commercial activity at all. It was not interstate commercial activity. It was not interstate commerce, and they couldn't get to the point where they could conclude that this was a valid subject of Congress's commerce clause authority. The second case was decided in 2000. It was a case called the United States v. Morrison in which the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, including that those provisions attempted to regulate acts of violence, however reprehensible, were themselves neither interstate or commercial. Then, of course, in 2012 the Supreme Court sort of invalidated the penalty provisions attached to the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I say they sort of invalidated that provision because the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that provision, though enacted pursuant to the commerce clause, could not be defended as a valid exercise of Congress's power under the commerce clause. To that extent, they concluded it was unconstitutional. But then the Supreme Court went on somehow to conclude that this was a valid exercise of Congress's power to impose taxes even though Congress had attempted unsuccessfully to pass this as a tax, even though new taxes have to be introduced in the House of Representatives and passed into law by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, even though the Supreme Court of the United States has no authority to levy taxes, impose taxes or create taxes. The Supreme Court of the United States created out of whole cloth a new tax which it imposed on the American people. They imposed a middle- class tax hike, which the Court has no power to impose. It has no power to levy taxes. Yet the Court did it anyway. When I tell that story, I get asked all the time: How then did the Court do it? If the Court has no power to do it, how did it do it? It just did. It just declared it to be so and the rest of us were expected to accept that and get over it and move on, just as I was told by my high school history teacher to accept, get over, and move on from Wickard v. Filburn because the Federal Government is big and powerful and we can live with it. Well, we all just have to live with it but only as long as the American people put up with it, only as long as the American people are willing to accept it. The American people have never been enthusiastic about ObamaCare--not from the beginning. Their satisfaction with this law has not improved over time, and it has not been enhanced. The American people don't deserve to have to live under a law that imposes a massive middle-class tax hike on the American people, one that was not imposed by the people's elected representatives in Congress but instead was imposed by five of nine lawyers who wear black robes and sit in big fancy chairs in the building just across the street from us. The American people deserve to live under a system where the laws are written by men and women of their own choosing, who serve in increments of 2 years in the case of Members of the House of Representatives and in increments of 6 years in the case of U.S. Senators. Supreme Court Justices, of course, are smart men and women--every one of them. They are very intelligent, well-trained individuals. I am convinced that each and every one of them loves this country and wants to serve it well. Yet the members of the Supreme Court of the United States are not elected. They are not subject to election at regular intervals, and that is one of the many reasons we don't trust them with the power to write law. It is one of the many reasons we don't trust them with the power to impose taxes. They are there to decide cases and controversies based on the law and the facts before them. In the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, they rewrote the law not just once but twice--once by transforming what was enacted as a penalty into a tax in order to save that law from an otherwise certain doom, a doom necessitated by important constitutional limitations; the second time when the Court concluded by an even wider margin--7 to 2--that Congress had violated the Constitution by imposing on the States a mandate to expand their Medicaid Programs without giving them any reasonable alternative, any available alternative. The Supreme Court, again by a 5-to-4 margin, after 7 to 2--after the Justices, by a margin of 7 to 2, had found that this was unconstitutional, five of them--by a margin of 5 to 4--saved the provisions simply by rewriting the law, by inserting into the law an exception in the law that the law did not provide. I believe it may have been Shakespeare who originally penned the words ``he will cheat without scruple who can without fear.'' I have also heard it attributed to Benjamin Franklin. I am not sure which of them was the originator of that quote, but I have heard it attributed to both. Regardless, there has to be a legal corollary to that. When Supreme Court Justices are able to make law, when Supreme Court Justices are able to impose taxes and no one calls them out on it, that is when the people have to live with that. That is when they get away with it. That is when they are allowed to cheat the American people out of their right to have their laws made by men and women of their own choosing, to have their taxes increased, if at all, only by men and women of their own choosing. This was wrong. This was a dastardly, cowardly act, one we can't simply ignore. One of the things I found so offensive, so appalling, so disturbing, so distressing was the fact that in the wake of this decision, so many people--many of them from my own political party--praised Chief Justice Roberts for his participation in this dastardly, inexcusable act of rewriting the Affordable Care Act not just once but twice in order to save it. They praised him. Some of them said that this showed he was willing to cross the aisle at the Supreme Court. Well, that is a problem. There is no aisle in the Supreme Court of the United States. They sit along a bench. At the center of the bench is the Chief Justice. There isn't an aisle. In fact, particularly once they have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Supreme Court Justices operate in a world in which partisan political affiliation has no meaning. This wasn't reaching across the aisle. Some suggested that this was somehow a statesman-like act by the Chief Justice, an act that revealed that he was willing to sort of balance various interests, an act that some Republicans even were convinced was carefully and wisely engineered to procure a Republican partisan victory in the 2012 election cycle. That is absolutely nonsense, first of all. As a political matter, we saw that it turned out not to work at all. I don't necessarily think there is any validity to the theory that that is what the Chief Justice was trying to bring about. If it was, that would amount to an utter betrayal of his judicial oath. It would also reveal him to be a really bad political tactician, but that is not the Chief Justice's job. It is not the job of any justice or any jurist. The job of any jurist is to decide each case before the court based on the law and the facts of the particular case. Some have suggested that this was designed to protect the enumerated powers doctrine or at least the idea that there is some limit to Congress's power under the commerce clause. I believe that is utter nonsense. This didn't do that. In fact, I think it blew a hole a mile wide in the enumerated powers doctrine because what this suggested is that, OK, the Supreme Court is going to pay at least lipservice to the idea that the power of Congress is, in fact, limited. But if Congress colors outside the lines, if Congress doesn't utter the magic words, if Congress really does something quite wrong in drafting such that its power can no longer be appropriately assigned, its power can no longer be appropriately justified under the commerce clause, then all of a sudden the Supreme Court of the United States will find some other basis in the Constitution upon which to rest this authority. This is really disturbing because if the Supreme Court can do that and if the Supreme Court can do that even to raise taxes, then Congress can pass all kinds of laws in theory purporting to be simply exercises of its regulatory power under the commerce clause and then rely on the Supreme Court of the United States to say: Yes, OK, this may not be a valid exercise of Congress's power under the commerce clause, but we will rewrite it as a tax. We will rewrite it as a tax and thereby uphold it, thereby stand behind it. So we get back to the question--a question I get asked all the time by people around my State, by people across the country when they hear about this decision. They ask: How can the Supreme Court of the United States do this? How can the Supreme Court of the United States get away with it? Well, they can do it because they wear the black robes. They can do it because they have the printing press that prints out those decisions with the fancy wording of the Supreme Court behind it. They can do it because the people still regard the decisions, the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States as legitimate. I do have to point out another aspect of this ruling. In the same ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate provision was a valid exercise of the taxing power, the Supreme Court of the United States also said--with, by the way, the concurrence of Chief Justice Roberts, who was the author of the majority opinion upholding it as a valid exercise of the taxing power--that same opinion authored by the same Chief Justice concluded that this same provision was not a tax for purposes of a law called the Anti-Injunction Act. Had the Supreme Court of the United States not reached that conclusion, had it reached the same conclusion under the Anti-Injunction Act that it reached under the constitutional aspect of the challenge, and had the Court concluded that this was, in fact, a tax and not a penalty, as it did under the constitutional analysis, then the Supreme Court of the United States would have been without jurisdiction to hear the case because the Anti-Injunction Act said: If it is a tax, you can't review the statute being challenged until after it has been enforced, which meant that no legal, no judicial challenge could have been properly brought, could have been countenanced by an article III court of the United States until, at the earliest, sometime in 2014, after enforcement of the individual mandate began. So it was very odd that the Court, led by the same Chief Justice, concluded at once that this was a tax for purposes of constitutional analysis but that it was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Here again, how does the Court get away with that? It gets away with it because we recognize the validity, the legitimacy of the decision. But the more people learn about this, the more they read about it, the more they become upset. I have yet to explain this to a constituent who isn't deeply disturbed by it. I have yet to explain this to anyone who can really defend it on its own merits. So we see that this was a law that was put in place quite improperly. It was a law that was put in place not by an elected legislative body but instead by a judiciary that, at least for purposes of this case, transformed itself into a judicial oligarchy of sorts, a judicial legislative body--one of the many reasons we need to defund the implementation of this law. It was unconstitutional as written in two respects and would have been invalidated but for the Supreme Court of the United States rewriting it not just once but twice. We have to ask ourselves these questions from time to time: Where do we go with this? What do we do with it? That is where we get back to where we are now, where the House of Representatives boldly stood behind the American people and decided to keep funding the government, funding the operations of government while defunding ObamaCare. That bill, that continuing resolution is now moving over here. That continuing resolution is now before us. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves these questions of what is it that we are funding, why is it that we are funding it, and why is it that we should continue to stand behind a law that is causing so much harm to the American people--a law that was improperly brought into being in the first place, a law that was improperly upheld and sustained, ultimately rewritten by the Court, improperly, unconstitutionally rewritten by the President of the United States. So I wish to ask Senator Cruz, does the Senator know how long the Hundred Years War lasted?

Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEE. I wish to ask the Senator from Texas his reaction to a couple of stories that I think relate well to what the Senator from Texas is saying to us about the fact that Congress has adopted a law that has brought about a series of nightmares for the American people, only these are real. This is not some dream we are going to wake up from and discover that this is a figment of our subconscious mind that is causing us torment. It is real. Sometimes we react as a lawmaking body to situations in such a way that we don't necessarily improve upon the status quo. We identify a problem, and we try to act. Sometimes the results aren't necessarily what we intend them to be. Sometimes the results can be quite the opposite of what was intended at the outset. I think this may well have been the case with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which at the end of the day neither protects patients nor makes health care more affordable. It reminds me a little bit of a story, something I experienced a few years ago when I was working at the Supreme Court. I shared an office with three other law clerks at the time. We discovered something very interesting about our office space. During the summer months, when we started our clerkships, our office was almost unbearably cold, something that was unusual for me because I like an office or a home to be relatively cool, but this was unusually cold. It was so cold we were tempted to wear gloves in the middle of the summer indoors because our office was so cold. It was so cold that sometimes we would open our windows to our office, even though it was hot outside, and it would let in this hot, humid air. Sometimes we were tempted to build fires in the fireplace in our small office in the middle of the summer, because it was so cold in the office that our hands would get numb and we could barely write. That is a significant portion of a law clerk's job is to write, write a lot of material. We would walk over to the thermostat thinking that might solve the problem. It was too cold, so we turned the thermostat up thinking that would make it a little bit warmer and, therefore, more tolerable in our office. First we would move it up a little. It didn't do any good. Then we would move it up a lot and it still didn't do any good. It was still freezing cold in our office in the middle of the summer in Washington. When it came to be wintertime, we had a similar problem but at the opposite end of the thermometer. In the wintertime we found that our office was intolerably hot. It was hot all the time. It was so hot that we were sweating. It is hardly appropriate, when working as a law clerk at the Supreme Court of the United States, to wear shorts to work, especially in January, so we didn't do that. Because it was so hot we frequently found ourselves tempted to open the windows again, letting in very cold air from the outside. Because we were so hot we had to do something to balance out the temperature. Again, we went to the thermostat to no avail. It was intolerably hot so we, of course, turned the thermostat down, first a little, and it didn't do any good, and then a lot, and it still didn't do any good. After a while we called the maintenance people of the building. In fact, we called several of the maintenance people in the building. It was an old building, finished in 1935. It was undergoing renovation at the time. The renovation went on for many years. We ultimately got to the top maintenance and management supervisor in the Supreme Court. He ended up spending a fair amount of time trying to find out what was wrong with our heating and air conditioning system, trying to figure out why on Earth it was so intolerably cold in our office in the summer and why it was so intolerably hot in the wintertime. His conclusion was relatively simple, and it was not what we expected. He came to us and he said, OK, I have dismantled your entire system and I found the problem. Your thermostat was installed backward. When you turned the thermostat up, trying to make it warmer, it had the opposite effect. It was only making it colder. When you turned the thermostat down, trying to make it cooler, it was only making it hotter in your office, hence your problem. As he said this, I looked out the window across the street at the Capitol, and I thought I wonder if there is something Congress can learn from this. Sometimes Congress, out of an abundant, legitimate, well-intentioned desire to achieve good in society will do something. Sometimes that something is the only thing Congress knows how to do at the moment. Why? Because Congress legislates. It is what we do. As I have said before, sometimes when you are holding a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Sometimes when Congress acts, even with the best of intentions, it gets it wrong. The risk of this is especially high when Congress acts in 2,700-page increments that no one has read prior to passing those increments into law. I believe that is what happened here. But the proper response to a broken thermostat, or a thermostat that is installed backward, is not to continue using the same thermostat. The solution has to be to fix the thermostat, to replace it. We have got a broken thermostat with this law and it needs to be replaced entirely. I am also reminded of another story, a story that is somewhat related that helps us understand some similar points. One night when I was a teenager, I think I was about 14 years old, I was out with my family. I grew up in a large family, seven children, but in Utah that is sort of a medium-sized family, but that is a discussion for a different day. We were out somewhere with the family. I think we had gone out for dinner, and we were headed home. As we were almost to our home, one of my younger sisters suggested to my dad that we go out for ice cream as a family. We were almost home, and recognizing that we were almost home, I all of a sudden realized I didn't want to go out for ice cream because I had homework. I asked my dad to keep driving home, drop me off at the house. The rest of the family could continue on and go and get ice cream together. That way I could stay home, get my homework done, and I wouldn't have to be up too late. It all worked well. I had all my siblings in the car. That is a lot of kids in the car, but my dad pulled up in front of our house to let me out. I was in the back seat of the car. I opened the car door, and I put one foot out of the car, starting to get out. I wish to tell you something a little bit about my father--my late father, may he rest in peace; he died 17 years ago. He was a very good man, a wise man, a smart man. He was one of my greatest heroes in this life. He had many talents, but he was also very absentminded. Sometimes he wasn't paying attention, and this was one of those moments. As I stepped one foot out of our Oldsmobile, my dad started to drive off with half of my body still in the car. Somehow the Oldsmobile ended up on top of my foot turned around backwards. That is a little bit hard to describe. The Oldsmobile, with a whole bunch of kids in it, weighs a lot. All of a sudden the Oldsmobile was on top of my foot as it was turned around backwards. I was trying to explain to my dad we had a problem, but all that came out were grunts and groans. I couldn't quite find the words to tell him that we had a problem, because I was in so much pain. He realized at that point I was still in the car, but it still didn't occur to him that the car was on top of my foot. Finally I mustered the presence of mind to get out one word, one word that I knew I could pronounce, one word that would send the message unequivocally to my father: Get the Oldsmobile off of my foot. But I couldn't utter that many words, so I spit out one word. The word was ``reverse.'' Dad, reverse. Well, he got that message. He put the car in reverse, and he got the Oldsmobile off my foot. But for my ability to utter that one word in a relatively short period of time that seemed like an eternity under the circumstances, my foot may well have been broken, my siblings probably would have found that mildly amusing under the circumstances, and I probably wouldn't have gotten my homework done that night. As it turned out, I was able to avoid that and it was because I was able to utter that one word, reverse. Sometimes when you are doing something that hurts someone, you have to reverse. You have to turn off that which has been turned on which has been harming people. This law, turned on 3\1/2\ years ago, is harming people. It is going to do a lot more if it remains in the on position. We need to put this car into reverse. We need, at a minimum, to halt the operation of this law. The best way, I believe the only way at this point, to achieve that, short of repeal, is by defunding. Say: Look, at a minimum, let's halt the spending on further implementation and enforcement of this law while we get certain things sorted out as a country, while we figure out what else we can do. The objections to this are many. Some say this can't ever happen. You don't have the political will to do that, and you don't have the political muscle to do that. It can't happen. We know one thing for certain. It is never going to happen if we don't try. We also know a number of other can't-win battles have been fought and ultimately won. A few months ago, Americans were being told we are going to have significant gun control legislation, significant legislation that could eat away in a meaningful way through your privacy and your right to own a gun in this country. We are going to have some form of gun registration system. We were told this is happening, just accept it, just deal with it, there is nothing you can do about it. A few people in Congress disagreed with that conclusion. A few people in Congress resisted, and we stopped it. Only a few weeks ago it was regarded as an indisputable truth that we were going to get involved in some kind of military strife in Syria. A swelling group of lawmakers from both Houses in both political parties started expressing reservations with that idea. Before long people stopped saying resisting that effort was impossible. After a while, they stopped saying it was improbable, and after a while movement to resist getting the United States involved in military action in Syria became absolutely unstoppable. In one way or another, I believe the effort to stop ObamaCare might bear some resemblance to this. It might operate under a somewhat different timeframe. Initially, people said the effort to stop this law was one that was impossible. I think we are reaching the point at which it is being described by many as improbable. In time, as more and more Americans join this cause, as more and more Americans reach out to their Senators and their Congressmen, this effort will become absolutely unstoppable. Because the American people love freedom, the American people were born to live free. The sons and daughters of America have freedom as their birthright, and they don't take particularly well to micromanagement from a large, distant, national government--one that is slow to respond to the needs of the people, one that often approaches the people with something that does not exactly resemble deep sympathy or compassion, because this is not what large national governments are all about. A large national government can do certain things well. It can do certain things no one else can do well. But it can't be all things to all people, least of all physician and general caretaker to all. When we try to do all things, we often cause far more problems than we resolve. So in this circumstance, we have to remember the lesson we learned from the thermostat, the lesson I learned while working at the Supreme Court; that sometimes if you have a broken thermostat, what you do might actually be having the opposite effect of what you are trying to do. What you are trying to do might actually make matters worse if your thermostat's broken, if it is installed backward. We also have to remember that sometimes when you get into a position where you are causing harm or you could cause more harm unless you change direction, that you sometimes just have to reverse. This, I believe, is one of those times. To reframe all of this, we are here at nearly 2 in the morning on an otherwise perfectly good Tuesday night. I guess now it is Wednesday morning. We are here because we feel strongly about how best to proceed with a funding mechanism passed by the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives last week responded to a call from the American people--a call to do something very important, a call to keep the Federal Government funded and operating but to do so while defunding ObamaCare. Once that was passed by the House, once that started making its way over to the Senate, we in the Senate were faced with several alternatives. I believe there are two very good alternatives to addressing that. One is to vote on the House-passed continuing resolution that funds government but defunds ObamaCare on an up-or-down basis, either pass it or don't pass it, but pass it or don't pass it in as-is condition based on how it was passed by the House. That is one good option. Another option would be to subject that same House-passed continuing resolution that funds government but defunds ObamaCare to an open amendment process, a process by which Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, may propose alterations to that continuing resolution as they deem fit. This would require us to debate, discuss, and vote on a number of amendments. Either of these alternatives would be equally acceptable. I can see arguments for either one of them. But what is not acceptable is for the Senate majority leader to do as he is expected to do by many, which is to say we will have one amendment and one amendment only to the House- passed continuing resolution and that amendment will be one to gut the continuing resolution of a provision that was the ``without which not'' measure of the entire bill to gut the defunding language. At the same time, the majority leader is expected widely to fill the tree, meaning to say no other amendments will be allowed. This is it. There is no more. If he is going to do that, he is not going to have my help doing it, and because he is not going to have my help doing it, that means I must vote no on cloture on the bill. In other words, Harry Reid is expected to ask his Members, and is expected to be followed by the 53 other Members in his caucus, for a total of 54 Democrats who will vote yes when it comes to cloture on this bill, who will vote yes knowing full well Harry Reid and the 53 Democrats who follow him, for a combined total of 54, will vote on cloture on this bill. This doesn't mean they are in support of the House-passed resolution as adopted by the House, funding government but defunding ObamaCare. Quite to the contrary, this means they are in favor of gutting it, of severing, of cutting out its most important single provision. If Harry Reid and the 53 Democrats who follow him want to do that, that is their prerogative. As a Republican who was elected to combat ObamaCare, to try to stop it, I will not be voting for cloture on the bill for that very reason. That could change, of course, if Harry Reid decides to bring up this continuing resolution for a vote as is, on its own merits, as it was written or, alternatively, if Harry Reid decides to bring up the House-passed continuing resolution under an open amendment process, allowing Senators to propose, debate, discuss and, ultimately, vote on amendments. But what is not acceptable is for him to allow one and only one amendment, one gutting the continuing resolution of its most important provision. With him doing that, the Democrats can oppose this if they want. I will not be joining them, and I don't believe they need Republican help if that is what they want to do. If they do want Republicans to vote with them, I will not be among them. My job is not to make it easier for them to gut the House-passed resolution. I stand with the House of Representatives. I stand behind Speaker Boehner and the Republicans who assisted him in getting this passed. I want to get this passed. I would like to pass it as is. If we can't pass it as is, on a single as-is vote, I want to see us with an open amendment process. The Senate majority leader is proposing neither. So I ask Senator Cruz: How does the Senator see this, how could one possibly see a ``yes'' vote on cloture on the bill, under the circumstances I have described, as a vote in favor of the House-passed continuing resolution that funds government while defunding ObamaCare?

Mr. LEE. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEE. As I listened to the Senator's remarks, I am reminded of many events throughout our Nation's history. It is a storied history involving a lot of comebacks. There were a lot of instances in which the American people were up against a brick wall of sorts, in which a small group of Americans, often not just a minority but sometimes a minority within a minority, faced a substantial obstacle. The founding of our Republic, at the moment of our independence, involved a battle against what was then the world's greatest superpower. Even within our own continent we did not have unanimous support. Even among our own people, at times it was a minority within an a minority who believed that the cause of independence was worthwhile, that it was worthy of the great effort that declaring independence and fighting a war for it would inevitably require. Yet we persevered, we rallied together as a people, believing fundamentally that our cause was just. And it worked. We followed that formula many times when it has mattered and we have not backed away from fights when those fights were necessary. This may be one of those moments where even though those who are willing to fight against this law, those who are willing to take this effort are not in the majority, are in the minority--in this case in a sense we are a minority within the minority--it is still worth fighting. I commend my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, for his dedication, his commitment, his leadership on this issue. Senator Cruz has never shrunk from this. He has been willing to fight hard for it. He has been willing to speak his mind even at moments when it was difficult, even at moments when many were suggesting it could not be done or should not be done. It reminds me of other examples we have seen over the years, of Senators who were willing to speak at great length. I see our pages who are here tonight, pages who serve us well and who are willing to stay late at night, working hard. I am reminded that 27 years ago I was a page much like these who are serving us here today. I remember a young Senator then in his first term. His name was Harry Reid. I remember watching him speak at great length for 10, 12--I don't know, maybe 13 hours at a time. I am not certain what the issue was at the time, but I know it was important to him. I know it was an issue on which he was somewhat outnumbered. I know that I saw his colleagues approaching him. Some of them were quite critical of the effort in which he was engaged. Yet he stood by his message, he did not shrink from it, because he had an inner commitment to the people he represented and I respected that about him. I could tell he had that kind of tenacity. I watched, as I was a Republican page at the time--I watched my Democratic page colleagues as they brought him a lot of water, hoping perhaps that eventually he would drink enough water that he would decide it was no longer in his best interests to continue speaking on the floor. Yet somehow he managed to stay speaking for, I don't know, 10, 12, 13, 14 hours at a time, and I have a great deal of respect for what he did at that moment. I hope there is some aspect of Senator Reid that is able to sympathize with what Senator Cruz is going through, that is able to respect the great level of commitment it takes to stand here, hour after hour, and engage in this discussion, a discussion that is important for the American people to have. We all continue to hear from our constituents about some of the things ObamaCare might do, some of the things ObamaCare might do to the people rather than for them. I received this one from James in Utah. James writes: Sir, as a retired U.S. Marine Corps gunny, I would like to express my view and ask that you vote to defund ObamaCare. I am part of the security team here at-- And I have deleted the name of his employer. --and our new contract has a massive increase in the cost for health coverage. I fought for the people of this country. Now I ask the same from you. Please help us. Gunnery Sergeant Charlie Jones, U.S. Marine Corps, retired. From Utah. Then I hear comments such as this from constituent after constituent, from people who will write in from throughout my State and from throughout the country. Steven from Minnesota writes: Dear Senator Lee. Please do all you can to stop the implementation of ObamaCare. My work insurance went up 8.1 percent in January in anticipation of ObamaCare. I make about $40,000 a year. We do not have any extra money after bills. I would like to see health care available to everyone. We've gone without health care insurance at times but I believe that ObamaCare is not the solution and will result in poorer quality health care overall, and hurt our economy. Thank you for considering a Minnesota resident's concerns. Steven, I am happy to consider your concerns and I am happy to share those with my constituents. This next one comes from Kevin from Massachusetts. Dear Senator. I strongly urge you to approve and vote yes on the House resolution bill passed by the House and is now before the Senate that fully funds the Government and protects the full credit of the United States but defunds the Affordable Care Act as provided for in the bill and continuing resolution sponsored by Congressman Graves. It is unfair to exempt everyone with political connections from ObamaCare and not to exempt the rest of us. You must understand that ObamaCare is undermining American workers and selling out hard for union benefits. It is not fair for businesses to reduce workers' hours to survive. It is time to defund the Affordable Care Act until such time when it can be repealed and things can be straightened out and workers protected. I urge you please to delay funding for ObamaCare now. That is Kevin, from Massachusetts. When we look at these examples and we read other similar examples like them from people writing from throughout my State of Utah, people writing from throughout the country, we see a consistent pattern. Americans are justifiably, understandably fearful of losing their jobs, of having their wages cut, of having their hours cut, in some instances losing access to health care--sometimes through a health plan upon which they and their families have relied on for many years. This is a difficult situation for them because health care is an especially unusually personal thing. Access to health care is something people do not necessarily want to entrust entirely to their government. Yet that seems to be the direction in which ObamaCare inevitably takes us. It puts more and more of our health care into the control of the Federal Government and, as has been suggested on the floor tonight, as some of my colleagues, some of my Democratic colleagues from within the Senate have acknowledged, this is but a step in the direction of what they hope will be a single- payer, government-funded, government-run health care system, funded, operated, and administered entirely from Washington, DC. There are some things government can do in the sense that there are some things that government is rather uniquely empowered to do. Providing, for example, for our national defense, that is something we do from Washington. That is a power that is entrusted to us by article I, section 8, of the Constitution with roughly one-third of the provisions of article I, section 8, being dedicated in one way or another to our national defense. That is something Washington can do. It is something Washington must do and that Washington is rather uniquely empowered to do under our constitutional system. Health care is of course important, undeniably important. In many respects it is as important as national defense. The fact that it is important doesn't necessarily make it a responsibility of the Federal Government nor does it necessarily qualify the Federal Government as a practical matter, setting aside the constitutional question. It doesn't necessarily qualify the Federal Government as an effective health care provider. Many people fear the day when our Federal Government becomes much more empowered over the very personal decisions of our lives, particularly those affecting our access to health care. Many people are also suspect of the new taxes imposed by this law, the new permutations this law will introduce into the lives of the American people. We have discussed several times today the manner in which this law was enacted, the manner in which it was introduced as a bill, brought to the floor of the House of Representatives after then- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi informed her Members that they needed to pass their bill and then they could find out what is in it. One of the things we have not discussed as much is the fact that even after that was passed, without Members of Congress having adequate opportunity to review this legislation--even after that happened, setting aside the 20,000 pages of regulations that have been added to this corpus of Federal law up until this point, we have had two significant revisions of the law, revisions that were brought about not legislatively but by the judicial branch of government, revisions the judicial branch of government had no authority to impose. I would like to talk about both of those. When the Affordable Care Act was challenged as to its constitutionality, there were two primary constitutional challenges brought to the attention of the Federal court system that ultimately made their way to the Supreme Court of the United States. One of those challenges involved a constitutional attack on Congress's authority to enact the individual mandate. The provision compelled individuals to buy health insurance--and not just any kind of health insurance but the kind of health insurance the Federal Government in its infinite wisdom deemed appropriate, necessary, essential, and indispensable to every American everywhere. The argument presented in those constitutional challenges culminating at the Supreme Court of the United States was that Congress had acted pursuant to its authority under the commerce clause, article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce among the several States, Indian tribes, and foreign nations. The argument said that Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court has interpreted that power rather broadly since 1937. Yet, even under that extraordinarily broad interpretation of the commerce clause, the argument was that Congress doesn't have the power to regulate an activity. The failure to purchase health insurance is not an interstate commercial transaction. In fact, it is not a transaction at all. It is a failure to act. The Supreme Court of the United States accepted that argument and concluded that even under the extraordinarily broad deferential standard of review used by the Supreme Court since 1937, this could not pass muster as a valid, legitimate exercise of Congress's commerce clause authority. The Supreme Court Justices rejected that argument by a vote of 5 to 4. Oddly, however, the Supreme Court went on to conclude that the individual mandate was nevertheless constitutional--not under the commerce power but under Congress's power to tax. In essence, what they had was five Justices of the Supreme Court--led by the Chief Justice of the United States, the Honorable John Roberts--who, as I see it, effectively rewrote the individual mandate provision as a tax. They saved it only by recasting it as a tax or as a valid exercise of Congress's power to impose taxes. There were a couple of problems with that interpretation. First and foremost, Congress could have imposed a tax as an enforcement mechanism to bring about compliance with the individual mandate provision. Yet it decidedly did not. It used language that--under at least a century's worth of jurisprudence--was clearly and unequivocally a penalty and not a tax. There is a long line of cases that help courts decide whether something is a penalty or tax. Under a century or more of jurisprudence, this was a penalty and not a tax. It is also important to note that the House of Representatives initially considered language that would have attempted to enforce compliance with the individual mandate provision by means of a tax and using language that under a century's worth of jurisprudence would have been regarded as a tax. Yet, interestingly enough and not surprisingly, that language was rejected. That proposal did not carry the day. That proposal could not carry the day. Why? Well, most Americans understandably are reluctant to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. It was soundly rejected. It could not carry enough votes even in the Congress that was in place during the first 2 years of President Obama's administration. It could not carry the day in a Congress that was overwhelmingly Democratic in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The Constitution requires that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. If this was a new tax, it would have to originate in the House. In a very significant sense, one could argue that the bill that ultimately became the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, did originate in the House. It came over here to the Senate and had its provisions stripped out and replaced by Senate language, but many people still consider that a House bill. The problem here has a lot to do with the fact that the tax language did not originate in the House or in the Senate. Instead, it originated across the street with five lawyers wearing black robes whom we call Justices. Those five lawyers wearing black robes whom we call Justices are no more empowered than the Queen of England to impose a tax on the American people. Yet they imposed a tax on the American people. This is not OK. This is not acceptable. This was a lawless act. This is something we should be ashamed of as Americans. It was a sad, shameful moment when the Supreme Court of the United States took upon itself the mantle of a superlegislative body, which it is not. Unable to bring about a massive tax increase on the middle class, Congress adopted what it could. What it did adopt the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional on its own terms as it was written. The Supreme Court--apparently unwilling to do its job and all too eager to do the job of the legislative branch rather than acknowledging the unconstitutionality of that provision--simply resurrected it by rewriting it as something that it is not, was not, and never could be. Interestingly, this was not the only insult to the Constitution in connection with that case. In the same dispute in which the Supreme Court rewrote ObamaCare in order to save it, in the same case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rewrote the individual mandate provision as a tax when in fact it was a penalty, they did something else: A separate and even larger majority-- a 7-to-2 majority--concluded that another aspect of the Affordable Care Act as written could not withstand constitutional muster. The Medicaid expansion provisions left the States with no option, no alternative, and no choice other than to accept a significantly expanded Medicaid Program, which is a program that is administered by the States. It is partially funded by the Federal Government but ultimately administered by the States. The Supreme Court of the United States, citing longstanding precedence, said: This is not OK. Congress doesn't have the power to commandeer the State's legislative and administrative machinery for the purpose of implementing a Federal policy. Congress may not do that. It is not within our power. Yet a large majority of the Supreme Court concluded that is exactly what Congress did in the Affordable Care Act. So faced with yet another constitutional problem, the Supreme Court adopted another rewrite that the Supreme Court of the United States was not constitutionally empowered to bring about. What the Supreme Court did in that circumstance was to just read in or write in an opt-out for the States so as to make it constitutional. Some have tried to defend this by saying: Well, that is what courts do. When courts find that something is unconstitutional, they have to look a second time to see whether they can read into it a different interpretation that might be fairly plausible--a fairly plausible interpretation that could allow them to save it. But in this case there was nothing there. There was nothing that could allow them to do this. The Court's job at that moment was to figure out whether the unconstitutional provision could be severed from the rest of the statute, whether it could be excised, sort of like a cancerous tumor, allowing the healthy tissue to remain with the cancerous tissue gone forever. There are rules and standards the Supreme Court is supposed to follow when engaging in this exercise, and whenever it does this, it follows decades-old severability jurisprudence. Well, that standard, I believe, if followed, would have inevitably culminated in the Supreme Court of the United States finding that the Medicaid expansion provisions could not be severed from the rest of the statute--the other provisions in the Affordable Care Act. I suspect that may well be why the Supreme Court did not engage in severability analysis. Instead, it rewrote the law. So the Supreme Court of the United States rewrote ObamaCare not just once but twice in order to save it. This is not OK. This is not constitutional. This is not America. The next response the defenders of this law usually bring up is, well, it is, after all, the Supreme Court's job to decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. So if they say it is constitutional, then it must be constitutional, and who is anyone else to second guess their judgment as to constitutionality? OK. Well, I understand that argument. That argument is fine, perhaps, as far as it goes. You can't read too much into that statement. It is not fair to say that the Supreme Court is the sole expositor of constitutional meaning. It is true, of course, that within our Federal system the Supreme Court has the last word in deciding questions of Federal statutory and constitutional interpretation for the purpose of deciding discrete cases and controversies properly before the Court's jurisdiction. However, that does not excuse the rest of us from independently exercising our own judgment, nor is it the case that every constitutional infraction and every constitutional indiscretion is necessarily within the competence of the Federal courts to resolve. In fact, there are countless circumstances in which, either because the courts might lack jurisdiction or because no plaintiff can be brought forward with article III standing necessary to challenge the Federal action in question or because the courts have recognized that there is a nonjusticiable political question at stake--for whatever reason, courts might not be competent to address a particular issue. In other circumstances, a case for whatever reason simply is not brought. In many circumstances the courts don't have occasion to address a constitutional infraction. Regardless, we are never excused. We, as Senators of the United States, having taken an oath under article VI of the Constitution to uphold the Constitution of the United States, are never excused from our responsibility to look out for, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. When we see an unconstitutional action, we need to call it out as such, and we need to do whatever we can to stop the Constitution from being violated. The Constitution was violated, the Constitution was distorted, and the Constitution was manipulated. It was defiled not once but twice by the Supreme Court of the United States when the Court rewrote the Affordable Care Act twice in this decision that was rendered at the end of June 2012. This is one of many reasons why I think it is important for us to have this debate and discussion about whether we fully fund the implementation and enforcement of this law--a law that was never read by those who enacted it, a law that has become less popular rather than more popular subsequent to its enactment, a law that has now spawned some 20,000 pages and counting of new regulatory text. This same law was rewritten not just once but twice by a supreme court of the United States that openly flouted the Constitution of the United States. They thumbed their noses at their own constitutional responsibilities. We are now being asked whether we should continue funding the implementation and enforcement of that act, and I think not. In addition to the unconstitutional rewriting by the Supreme Court of the United States, we now have several instances in which the President of the United States himself has attempted to rewrite the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The President of the United States has said that although enforcement of the employer mandate provision is set to begin on January 1, 2014, the President's administration will not implement and enforce that provision effective January 1, 2014. Although the President lacks any constitutional or statutory authority to make this decision, although the President has neither sought nor obtained a legislative modification from the legislative branch of government--Congress--the President is treating the law as if it contained that modification already. There was another modification that took place with respect to the implementation of the out-of-pocket spending limits, the spending caps. This, too, was done without any legislative or any constitutional authority. There is another modification the President made with respect to proof of eligibility for subsidies on the exchange network set up by the Affordable Care Act. All three of these modifications were made by the President without any statutory authority, and they were, therefore, extra constitutional modifications. As I understand it, a few weeks ago somebody asked the President of the United States why this was appropriate. Somebody challenged the President of the United States with regard to his authority on these modifications. His response was something similar to this: Under ordinary circumstances, under more ideal circumstances, perhaps I might have gone to Congress to get Congress to modify the statutory provisions in question, but these are not ordinary or ideal circumstances. I am not sure exactly what he meant, but it sounds to me as though what he was saying was, I am in a tough spot so I have to do what I can do, what I can get away with, because I have a Congress that is now less cooperative, less inclined to cooperate with me, less inclined to do what I as President of the United States want Congress to do, than the Congress that was in place in 2010 when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted into law. That is interesting. It is interesting on a number of levels because, No. 1, one of the reasons Congress is now less inclined to be cooperative with the President, one of the reasons the Congress is no longer as inclined to do the President's bidding is, interestingly enough, because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because of the widespread public outcry that came from across this country as a direct result of the enactment of this statute. It is not at all unusual to have a divided Congress. It is not at all unusual for one or both Houses of Congress to be under the control of a party other than the President's own political party. Yet it has never been the case and can never be the case if there is somehow an exception to the Constitution, if there is somehow an exception to article I's provision that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution shall be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and of a House of Representatives. The fact that the President finds political dissent within the Congress irritating does not make him a king. The fact that Congress will not always do the President's bidding does not vest him with the powers of a despot. When someone holding the office of President of the United States purports to wield legislative power, when the President of the United States purports to make law by the stroke of the executive pen, we have exited the territorial confines of constitutional government. These are some of the reasons we have focused this debate back on ObamaCare. People are frequently bringing up the argument: This is law. This is settled law. Because it is settled law, you must fund it. First of all, I am aware of no constitutional command that says that simply because a law has been adopted, Congress must fund any and every provision authorized under that law. In fact, quite to the contrary. Because Congress holds the power of the purse, Congress may--Congress must--continue to have the authority to decide which programs to fund and which programs not to fund. Were it otherwise, we would have a straining set of circumstances in which one Congress could bind another Congress simply by passing a piece of legislation and not by a constitutional amendment. That is not the case. It never has been the case. It never could be, should be or will be the case under our constitutional system today. What we see is the fact that this is not simply a partisan political debate. Many are casting it as that. Many are pointing to the fact that we have some Republicans agreeing with some Democrats, but for the most part we see widespread disagreement between Republicans and Democrats. But that dramatically oversimplifies the matter. This is no longer simply a dispute between Republicans and Democrats. In many respects, this represents a dispute between the political ruling establishment in Washington, DC, on the one hand and the American people on the other hand. One of the things we are often told we have to face is that we have to choose to keep everything funded or we have to choose to fund nothing. It is a frequent source of frustration to many who serve in this body. It certainly has been a frequent source of frustration to me and to the 3 million people I represent in the State of Utah. It is odd that we find ourselves in a position to vote on a continuing resolution that funds everything in government or nothing in government. It is a frustrating exercise we have to go through. Because of the fact that we have chosen to appropriate this way year after year, we basically have one opportunity to decide what we are going to fund in government and what we are not going to fund in government. I wish what we could do is, at a minimum, a bare minimum--it should be a lot more than this-- but at a bare minimum, to have two different debates, two different discussions, both starting with the presupposition that we fund nothing but culminating in funding or not funding something; one that would deal with funding for ObamaCare and another one that would deal with funding for everything else in government. It would be nice if ObamaCare funding had to stand or fall on its own merits. If we were starting from zero when it came to providing ObamaCare funding and we had to justify it, we had to make the case for it, and we had to say, let's prove to the American people why we ought to be funding the enforcement of this law--this law that will make health care less affordable rather than more and this law that is being implemented in a fundamentally unfair manner, I think that would prove a very different debate and discussion. But very often the way things work in Washington, the way continuing resolutions work, is we are faced with a set of circumstances that don't accurately reflect the way we make decisions in any other aspect of our lives. I sometimes am inclined to analogize this kind of continuing resolution spending default. This is a vast oversimplification, but suppose someone lived in a very remote area. Suppose the closest town to where they lived was at least 100 miles away, but there was one market, one grocery store just 1 mile from their home. It was the only grocery store within at least 150 miles, let's just say. One day the person's spouse calls them on their way home from work and says: Stop at the store. We need bread, milk, and eggs. The person goes to the grocery store and finds the bread, puts it in the cart, finds the milk and eggs, puts them in the cart, and goes to the checkout counter. The cashier checks out those things and then the cashier says: Wait a second. You can't just buy these things. You cannot just buy bread, milk, and eggs. You say: Why on Earth can I not buy just these three items? This is all I need. This is a different kind of grocery store. This is a grocery store patterned after the U.S. Congress. In order to buy bread, milk, and eggs, we are also going to require you to buy a bucket of nails, a half ton of iron ore, and you can use our wheelbarrow to take it out to your car, a book about cowboy poetry, and a Barry Manilow album. You say: I don't want any of those things. And the cashier says: That is fine. Then you don't get your bread, your milk, and your eggs. At that point, the shopper, not wanting to come home to a very disappointed spouse, is likely to say: Fine, even though I don't want the nails or the iron ore or the cowboy poetry book, and I definitely don't want the Barry Manilow album, I am going to buy those things because I can't buy the things I need unless I also buy those things. That is how we spend in the Congress. Whether we like it or not--and most of us don't like it--that is what we are stuck with. So that is one of the reasons we are having this debate now, one of the reasons I think it is appropriate for us to have this debate in connection with this. It is unfortunate in many respects that we tie something so fundamental to who we are as a country, something so essential to our ongoing existence as a nation as national defense. It seems absurd that we should tie that to funding for ObamaCare. Yet that is where we find ourselves because of the fact that we have been operating under a continuous string of back-to-back continuing resolutions for the last 4 or 5 years. It is time for us to start breaking away from those false and ultimately ridiculous choices. It is time for us to demand more as a people from our Congress. It is time for us as a people to start to demand independent debate and discussion, debate and discussion that far more closely reflects the will of the American people and their ongoing needs. If the Senate must choose between standing with the longstanding interests, the entrenched interests of the political governing class in Washington on the one hand or, on the other hand, standing with the American people, I hope--I expect--that we will stand with the American people. If we ask any Member how constituents are feeling about the Affordable Care Act, how constituents are feeling about ObamaCare and its coming implementation and enforcement, the response we will get is that, at best, constituents are mixed. In many cases, they are apprehensive, they are uncertain. But overwhelmingly, we will find a lot of opposition from people who are seeing those all around them facing job losses, wage cuts, cuts to their hours, and cuts to their health care benefits. How long are we going to have to continue to hear these things before we act? Are we as a Congress willing to just look at these things and say: Yes, well, bad things happen. Let's just allow them to happen. Are we willing to do that? Those who are Democrats, are they willing to do that saying, yes, I know this law is not perfect, but it is a speed dump that we have to cross over on our way to a single-payer system run by the health care system? As Republicans, are we willing to endure that, saying, yes, it is a train wreck, but the good news is it might inure to our political benefit if it gets in? I hope we are not willing to do that. I hope we have not descended to such a shameful, cynical low that we would be willing to allow those political interests to trump the needs of the American people who are calling out, crying out for help and for relief. Ultimately, as we think about our responsibilities as Senators, as we think about our responsibilities as citizens, I hope we will reflect from time to time on the fact that we have all taken an oath to uphold this document, this 226-year-old document, a document that I believe was written by the hands of wise men raised up by their Creator for that very purpose, to help foster and promote what will become--what has become--the greatest civilization the world has ever known. To the extent that we respect and honor this document, to the extent that we follow it, to the extent that we defend it, we uphold it at every turn, to the extent that we consider it not just a responsibility of the judiciary but also of the political branches of government, including our own branch, we have prospered as a country. And to the extent that we will return to those practices, we will benefit directly as a result. So I have to ask Senator Cruz, as a constitutional lawyer, as one of our Nation's preeminent appellate litigators, as one who has argued many times before the U.S. Supreme Court, and as one who clerked for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and now as a U.S. Senator, how does the Senator see this role, the role of what some describe as coordinate branch construction of the Constitution? What role does it play in this body? What role does the Constitution play in the Senate? Does it have a place or is that something that is supposed to be left to the nine men and women wearing black robes across the street who are lawyers and hold a different constitutional office than we do? (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)

Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I say to Senator Cruz I have come with some updates from the outside world, updates based on what I am hearing from my constituents at home. You may be interested in learning, I say to Senator Cruz, that just today in the last 12 hours or so my office has received nearly 1,100 e-mails, 1,093 to be precise. Almost every single one of those is asking us to do whatever we can, do whatever it takes, to defund ObamaCare. People are asking us to fund government, keep government functioning, but to defund ObamaCare. I also have some news from a local paper in the State of Utah. This is from the Box Elder News Journal in the northern part of my State. In an article written by Mike Nelson, an associated editor with the Box Elder News Journal, we read about Brigham City moving to adjust its pay, to cut its payroll, in order to avoid certain ObamaCare provisions. I am going to quote just from part of it here. It says: Changes are coming for paid on-call employees at Brigham City Emergency Services Department in an effort by the department and the city to avoid employee eligibility for health care under the Affordable Care Act. ``Back in February it became apparent the ACA-- Or for those of you who see the newspapers, ObamaCare-- was going to dramatically impact the way we manage our fire and ambulance crews,'' said emergency services director Jim Buchanan, while addressing the issue at an August 1 city council meeting. This is one of many examples of not just businesses but also local governments that are having to make cuts in their payroll in order to adjust for this law. This is having a real impact on real people. It is having an impact also on students. I received a message from a student in Utah named Sarah. Sarah, today, a college student, writes: I am a student facing a shrinking job market with fewer options. Now it seems ObamaCare is going to force me as a healthy young person to pay more to keep the President's health plan functioning. How is that fair? She asks rhetorically. Sarah, it is not fair. Sarah, I would add to that, we have this health care law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The idea of it is it is supposed to make health care more affordable. What we have found in recent months is that it is going to make health care less affordable, with premium hikes expected around the country. What we are seeing is that this law will make health care not only less affordable, it is also fundamentally unfair. It is unfair in that it is forcing a lot of people to have cuts made to their wages, cuts made to their hours. In many cases, people are losing access to health care plans that they have enjoyed for years. In some cases, they are even seeing that they will no longer have access to the same physician or other health care provider that they have enjoyed for years. This is a law that while touted as making health care somehow more affordable is actually making it less affordable. It is also being implemented in a manner that will make our health care system fundamentally unfair. Within my State, the State of Utah, we have no fewer than five school districts and three universities that have been announcing cuts in their hours, cuts in their number of employees, all in response to this law. It is interesting that what we are discussing, much of what we have been discussing, has been on the upcoming cloture vote. There have been those who have argued that if you want to support the continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives-- remember, this is the continuing resolution that will keep our Federal Government funded while defunding ObamaCare--that if you want to support that, that you must vote yes on the cloture vote on the bill. That is an interesting take on it because not withstanding the fact that some in my party have been making that suggestion, it is anticipated that Mr. Harry Reid--the Senator from Nevada who is currently serving as the Senate majority leader--that Harry Reid and 53 Democratic allies will, as I understand it, all be voting for cloture on that bill. That begs the question, are those same people who are suggesting that if you support the House-passed continuing resolution, the one that funds government, keeps government funded while defunding ObamaCare, that you have to vote yes on cloture on the bill, does that mean that Harry Reid and the 53 Democrats who are likely to follow him are also supporting the House-passed continuing resolution, the one that keeps government funded while defunding ObamaCare? I find that a little strange. I find that a little counterintuitive. I think it is important that we remember, and we continually remind ourselves, what this is about. When this continuing resolution passed by the House last week--heroically in my opinion. It showed a real strong sense of leadership by Speaker John Boehner and by the other Republican leaders in the House of Representatives and by the rank-and-file Members of the House who voted for this legislation. When they voted for this legislation to keep government funded while defunding ObamaCare they stood with the American people who asked them for relief from this bill. American people had been telling them: Look, we need help. They have been asking: How many of us will have to see our hours cut? How many of us will have to experience wage cuts? How many of us will have to lose access to the health care we have enjoyed for many years before Congress acts? The House of Representatives did act. The body within our government, the branch within Congress that is most responsive to the American people, acted to protect the American people from this harmful law while simultaneously keeping the Federal Government operating. Now that that has happened and that bill is moving over to the Senate, the ball is in our court, we have a couple of possible responses to that. The first would be we could take it up and we could vote on it as is. We could vote on it just as it was passed by the House. We could vote on it, up or down, as is without any amendment. That would be fine. I would be fine with that. If that is what we were doing, I would be voting yes on the cloture vote. Of course I would. I suspect my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, would as well. There is another option. We could say rather than vote on it as is, let's make adjustments to it. Let's invite amendments. Let's have an open amendment process whereby Senators, whether Democrats or Republicans or the couple of Independents we have, could submit amendments as they deem fit, have those amendments not just proposed but debated, discussed, and ultimately voted upon. That would be an acceptable alternative. People around here often call this, the Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body. They call it that because this is a place where, in theory, we are supposed to have access to an open amendment process; theoretically unlimited debate. Is it time consuming? Yes. Is it cumbersome? Absolutely. Can it be frustrating? Without question. But it is one of the things that distinguishes this body. It is one of the things that makes this the Senate. So if we were to have an open amendment process, it would take a lot of time and it might even require another all-night session just like we had a few months ago in connection with the budget resolution, but it would be worth it. It would be entirely acceptable, and I would be voting yes on cloture on the bill if that is what we were faced with. But what we are faced with, what we are told is going to happen, what we are told is being prepared to accept is neither of those options; not being given the opportunity to vote yes or no, up or down on the resolution passed by the House of Representatives nor would we be given the opportunity to have an open amendment process, one that allows individual Senators to propose amendments and have those amendment considered, voted on in this body. What we are being told instead is that what we will have is a single amendment brought forward by the Senate majority leader, one amendment and one amendment only, and that amendment, by the way, would strip out the defunding language, it would gut the House-passed continuing resolution of a provision that many would consider the ``without which not'' part of the House-passed bill, meaning the part without which the House of Representatives could not and would not have gotten the necessary 218 votes to pass a continuing resolution. That is a problem. That is a problem indeed because that suggests that by voting for cloture in that posture, where Senator Reid is contemplating allowing neither an open amendment process nor an up-or-down vote on the House- passed resolution in as-is condition--in either of those circumstances, we would be fine. But we are not getting that. We are getting stuck with something else. He wants to gut the House-passed continuing resolution with the defunding language without any open amendment process and without the opportunity for an up-or-down vote. So in that circumstance, I don't understand why it would be the case that Republicans would feel that voting yes would be supporting the House of Representatives and voting no would be voting against the House of Representatives. In fact, it seems to me, I say to Senator Cruz, that would be quite the opposite of that. It seems to me that if, in fact, one wanted to stand behind the House of Representatives and stand behind their willingness to defend the American people and protect them from this harmful law, at the end of the day that would entail that anyone who wanted to stand with the House of Representatives on that point would necessarily need to vote no if, in fact, Senator Reid does what we expect him to do later this week. Would the Senator agree that is what one could expect in that circumstance? And would the Senator also agree that Senator Reid is likely to have 53 Democrats going along with him, and if Senator Reid has 53 Democrats going along with him, doesn't that rather undercut the argument that in order to support the House-passed bill one must vote yes on the cloture vote on cloture on the bill?

Mr. LEE. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEE. I would ask my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Texas, a series of questions with regard to this concept to make DC listen. It is interesting that we are having this discussion right now at a time in our history when never has it been easier for so many people throughout the country with so few resources to be heard by so many. In the past, you had to own a newspaper or perhaps in more recent years you had to own a radio station or a television company or something like that to be heard by a lot of people. But these days pretty much anyone can gain access to a telephone or the Internet, they can send an e-mail, they can submit a post. It is one of the things that have made possible a groundswell of people--just a few minutes ago the Senator mentioned 1.6 million Americans just in the last few weeks signing a petition asking for Congress to make a decision to protect the American people from the harmful effects of ObamaCare. They want government funded, just as we want government funded. They want government to be able to continue to do the things government does. They want people to be able to rely on government to protect them, to protect our borders, to protect our sovereignty, protect our homeland against those who would harm us. They want government to be able to carry out its basic functions and its responsibility. They want their government funded. But they do not want that held hostage by something else. They do not want that funding tied to the funding of ObamaCare in the sense that they want to keep government funded but they want us to defund ObamaCare. The House of Representatives shows that at least that side of DC, that side of the Capitol was listening. I applaud the Speaker of the House and the other leaders in the House of Representatives who did that. That suggests to me that they were listening on that side of the Capitol. They had many millions of Americans calling out on the telephone, through mail, e-mail, every conceivable medium for relief from this bill. They listened. They listened because they understand that the American people are being hurt by this. They ask the same questions the Senator from Texas and I and others have asked: How many more Americans will have to lose their jobs because of ObamaCare before Congress acts? How many more Americans will have to see their wages or their hours cut as a result of this ill-conceived law before we do something about this? How many more people will have to lose access to health coverage before Congress does something? Just last Friday we saw Home Depot--one of America's great companies, one of America's great success stories, one of America's great employers--announce that 20,000 employees will be losing their health coverage. How many more stories like this will we have to hear before Congress does something to protect Americans from the harmful effects of this law--a law that was passed a few years ago without a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives; a law that was passed a few years ago without a single Republican vote in the Senate; a law that was passed--all 2,700 pages as it was then constituted--without, as far as I know, many, if any, Members of this body or the other body in the Capitol having had the opportunity fully to read it. Since then, of course, it has expanded. We have had an additional 20,000 pages of regulations promulgated, increasing rather exponentially the impact of this law. The popularity of the law has not improved with time, just as the complexity of the law has not become less problematic in the intervening 3\1/2\-year period. So as we look at this, we think about the fact that it is important for Congress to listen to the American people. Again, today it has never been so easy for so many Americans with so few resources at their disposal to make sure that they are, in fact, heard. So we have to ask ourselves the question--I have to ask the Senator the question: How long will it be before Congress acts? I am pleased that the Senator referred to the opportunity crisis, the economic opportunity crisis in America. He referred to the economic ladder in this country. You know, I think it is an interesting fact and we need to consider that--according to one recent study published I believe just in the last few weeks--for the first time in American history, 40 percent of those born in America, into the bottom quintile of the American economy, the bottom 20 percent of income earners in this country--40 percent of the bottom 20 percent will remain in the bottom 20 percent throughout the duration of their lifetime. To my knowledge, that has never happened in this country. To my knowledge, this undercuts what has long been a very distinguishing, enviable characteristic of the United States. It is what has made this the greatest civilization the world has ever known--the fact that this is a country where regardless of where you were born on the economic ladder, regardless of the circumstances in which you came into this world or came into this country, you could make it. In fact, your chances of doing so were relatively strong. Yet 40 percent of those people, we now understand, will stay there throughout the duration of their lives. Another study came out, also a few weeks ago, indicating that in 34 States and the District of Colombia, an individual or a family is actually likely to see a dip in their well-being, a dip in their standard of living if, instead of receiving welfare benefits, they decide instead to shed those benefits and go on to an entry level job. That is sad. That is sad because that suggests that our government--as well-intentioned as many of those programs might be, they will have set in place a series of conditions that trap people, especially parents, into a vulnerable, poor condition. If there is one thing that I think parents feel somewhat universally, it is a degree of risk aversion. People do not like to take risks that could jeopardize their ability to provide for their children. If we set up a set of conditions in which people, in order to maintain their level of certainty that they might have while surviving under a system of welfare benefits provided by the Federal Government--if they become locked into that, locked into poverty in perpetuity because of that, that is disconcerting because the risk is always too high to make that jump to an entry level job. Without the entry level job, there will never be the secondary job, there will never be the first raise or the second raise or the first, second, or third promotion. Without those things, there is no ladder. Without those things, there is an opportunity lost and people remain on the bottom rungs of that very ladder. We see at the top rung a system of crony capitalism that sometimes has the impact of keeping some people and some big businesses artificially held in place at the top of the economic ladder at the expense of others, at the expense of would-be competitors who are driven out or held out from the beginning from the competitive marketplace through the oppressive intervention of the government, through the government's favoritism, and through the government's ability sometimes, regrettably, to choose winners and losers in the marketplace. You see where most Americans are, right in the middle of the ladder. On the middle rungs you see people working, trying to get by from day to day. They are able to survive, able to provide for the basic needs of their families. But they would like to do better. They would like to be able to provide a more comfortable living for their families. They find very often that no sooner do they find an increase in their income than that same increase has been gobbled up by a combination of oppressive taxes, oppressive regulations, and a devastating impact of inflation. When those things happen, we find people are unable to make their way up that economic ladder. We find ourselves at a precipice of sorts. We find ourselves about to embark on a very bold experiment in which we rather dramatically expand the role of the Federal Government, injecting it more directly, more completely, more dangerously into one of the most personal aspects of most people's lives, into the health care industry. This is an industry that comprises a very significant portion of our Nation's economy in an area in which people feel strongly about their own right, about their own innate, inherent need and desire to maintain a degree of control that is not subject to the will and whim of government bureaucrats in Washington. At the same time the government is doing that, the government will be consuming an increasingly large share of the resources moving through our economy, making it even harder for people who are trying to get by to do so and to do so without undue interference from the government. This is an issue that is important to so many people. This is an issue that reminds people of the fact that whenever government acts, it does so at the expense of our own individual liberty. It does so at the expense of our ability to live our lives as we would live them. It does so very often at the expense of the American economy. It does so very often at the expense of economic opportunity for Americans, you see, because when we expand government, we expand its cost. We make ourselves as a country less free. We leave ourselves with fewer alternatives. Is there a role for government to play in health care? Absolutely. Of course there is. No one disputes that. Are there improvements that can be made to our health care system? Certainly there are. But a 2,700-page law that was passed after Members of Congress were told they had to pass it in order to find out what is in it, that has expanded since then to include within its penumbra 20,000 pages of regulatory text, a law that has become less and less popular as time has gone on--this has become very difficult. We find this becomes less and less something that the American people support. I would ask if Senator Cruz feels that the American people have every right to speak out on this. Specifically does the Senator feel the American people have every right to expect that those of us serving in the Senate will do everything we possibly can, even casting difficult votes, even casting procedural votes that might be difficult to cast or difficult to explain? Do they have every right to do that even if it causes great inconvenience for them and for us in the process of complying with their wishes?

Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on Friday a unified House Republican conference sent a strong message to the American people: Let's keep the government open, and let's protect the American people simultaneously from the harmful and potentially devastating effects of ObamaCare. It is now time for the Senate to act. We know the President's health care law is not ready to implement. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the government's software that runs the online insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, simply is not ready. It can't reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage. In the face of this and the other aspects of the law that are not ready--many of them by the President's own admission--if the administration goes ahead with this law anyway, we know ObamaCare will be implemented in a manner that is manifestly unfair and that is likely to harm hard-working Americans. Big business, unions, and other special interests may well all receive special treatment under ObamaCare while the rest of the country will be forced into ObamaCare's unfair, unworkable, and fundamentally unsound system. We know the law is unaffordable. We know it will be bad for the economy. At a time when we are running annual deficits approaching $1 trillion, ObamaCare is going to cost roughly $2 trillion over the next 10 years. The law is forcing employers to shed workers, cut back hours, and stop providing health insurance for employees. And we know it is not going to work. The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that after 10 years of ObamaCare, 31 million Americans will still lack health insurance. We understand these are inconvenient facts for the President and for Members of this body who still support this law. But those are the facts, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. How many more people will have to lose their jobs, wages, and health care benefits before Congress acts? How many more States will have to announce that premiums are going up before we do something to protect the country? If the President won't act to protect the American people from this law and its harmful effects, Congress should. Last Friday a unified Republican House showed tremendous courage in enacting legislation, knowing full well what the media would say, what the President would say, and what Democrats on both sides of the Capitol would say. Two hundred twenty-eight Republicans responded to the will of the American people and overwhelmingly passed a bill that would fund government and protect the country from ObamaCare. Only one party has voted to fund the government. Only one party has voted to avoid a government shutdown. Right now the ball is in the Senate's court. Once the ball has reached the Senate, as has now happened, the Senate can respond in one of several ways. Basically, I see three options on the table, two of which are perfectly appropriate, one of which is unacceptable. The first option would be for this body, under the leadership of our majority leader, to take a vote on the House-passed continuing resolution--the House-passed continuing resolution that keeps government funded but defunds ObamaCare--and to give that an up-or-down vote, to vote on that bill, as is, without any modification. The second approach would be to open it for an open amendment process, to allow us to debate and discuss and consider amendments on the House-passed bill as each individual Senator might deem appropriate for this body to consider. Both of these first two options are appropriate. Both of these first two options are understandable and acceptable under the totality of the circumstances. Some might naturally lean toward the first option, moving quickly to consideration of the House-passed bill in an as-is condition, given the fact that we are T-minus 7 days and a few hours until the existing continuing resolution expires on midnight of next Monday night. We are a little over 7 days before that continuing resolution expires. So under those circumstances many of us might suggest the best option might be to take that first approach, for the Senate to open this for a vote on the House-passed continuing resolution in as-is condition. But if this body doesn't want to do that, if it wants to amend the House-passed continuing resolution, it would still be appropriate for us to have an amendment process. But that needs to be an open amendment process, one that is appropriate for this body--a body that many have described as the world's greatest deliberative body. If in fact it is great and deliberative, if in fact we want to continue this tradition, then we need to have an open amendment process when amendments are considered. The third option I referred to, the option I would consider unacceptable, would be an option in which the majority leader would use a procedural trick to allow the majority party to gut the House-passed continuing resolution, removing its single most significant provision without allowing even consideration of one single additional amendment. This is not OK. What I am saying is we need to either pass the bill as is--pass it or don't pass it--or we need to open the amendment process so all Members of this body have the opportunity to introduce and vote on amendments as each individual Senator deems appropriate. Those are the only two acceptable options. It would not be an acceptable option if the majority leader were to decide to use a procedural trick to allow only one amendment--an amendment that would gut the House-passed continuing resolution and effectively negate its single most distinguishing provision. The question that leaves us with is that once this bill comes up in this body, will we as Senators be courageous? Will we do the right thing for the American people or will Senate Democrats threaten to shut down the government in order to protect an ill-conceived, unworkable, unaffordable, and fundamentally unfair law? There is no doubt that many voices will say we can't win this fight, but I am not so sure. Two months ago these same voices said we could not and would not get this far. They said this effort would amount to bad politics. They said this simply would not work in the Congress as it exists in 2013. And they were wrong. They were wrong because what the House of Representatives passed on Friday is what the American people have been demanding, and they have been demanding it overwhelmingly. They have demanded that Congress act to keep the government open and functioning while protecting the American people from the harmful, potentially devastating effects of ObamaCare. That is why I believe we can win. The Senate majority may have the upper hand, but the American people will and always must have the last word. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on April 16, 2013 President Ma Ying-jeiou of Taiwan gave a speech on a videoconference with Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. I feel my colleagues could benefit from reading this speech. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record President Ma Ying-jeiou's speech.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. That is correct. That is correct, and it is how it has happened in the past. This is not something we want. This is not something we have threatened. This is something we think can and should be avoided and we want to avoid. In the unfortunate, completely avoidable event that did happen, it would be largely as the Senator described it.

Mr. LEE. Surely.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, those of us who share this position feel strongly that it is indisputably, constitutionally the prerogative of the Congress to exercise the power of the purse. This means we don't have to vote to fund something with which we fundamentally disagree. Some have suggested that because this was passed by Congress 3 years ago, we somehow have an obligation to fund it. Well, I would remind my colleagues who might make that statement that the Congress as it existed then is not the same Congress as it exists today. That was two Congresses ago. The Congress that enacted that law was fundamentally changed in part because it enacted that law. The law has not been popular. It has not been good to those who voted to enact it. Ever since the majority party in the House of Representatives changed hands after the 2010 election--due in large part to ObamaCare--there have been a lot of people who have suggested that the Republicans in Congress need to defund ObamaCare's implementation and enforcement. For a variety of reasons, that has not happened. We have continued to pass continuing resolutions with no restrictions on ObamaCare's implementation and enforcement, at least as it relates to the ultimate implementation and enforcement of the exchanges, of the individual mandate, and so forth. Republicans have had reasons for doing this. Some of those reasons have included the statement to the effect that, well, the Supreme Court is going to knock it down. It will strike it down. It will invalidate ObamaCare because it is unconstitutional. Of course it is, and a majority of the Supreme Court concluded that it was unconstitutional as written. But the Supreme Court, rather than invalidating it, instead rewrote the law not just once but twice in order to save it. Some Republicans have also justified continuing to vote for funding bills that contain ObamaCare implementation funding because they believed a Republican would be elected President in 2012 and would stop ObamaCare. Well, that did not happen either. We have one last opportunity to defund the implementation of this law before these provisions I just mentioned kick in on January 1--one last opportunity--and that is in connection with our current spending bill, our current continuing resolution that is set to expire on September 30--just 62 days from right now. So what we are saying is that if you agree with us, if you agree with the President that this law is not ready to be implemented as it was written, as it was enacted by Congress, if the President is not going to follow the law, then the American people should not have to fund it. If you do not like it, if you agree it is not ready, do not fund it. We can and we should and we must fund government but not ObamaCare. So I would ask the Senator from Florida if these are sentiments that are consistent with what he has been thinking, sentiments that are consistent with what he has been hearing from his constituents in Florida.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I see we have been joined by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Texas. I wish to ask him if his observations from his interactions with his constituents in Texas have been similar to those that have been shared today by the junior Senator from Florida.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in support of parents, families, students, employees, taxpayers, and other hard-working Americans, who, as of January 1, 2014, will find themselves unfairly impacted by ObamaCare. ObamaCare is an ill-conceived, poorly crafted, and economically damaging piece of legislation. We have known for some time now that ObamaCare would create a set of circumstances that would make health care unaffordable. It is unaffordable from several standpoints: No. 1, for the country and for the U.S. Government. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity, recently reported that this law is likely to cost the U.S. Government about $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. That is significantly more--some would say roughly double--than the initial estimates given to Congress when this law was passed. This is an enormous amount of money. It is an especially enormous amount of money for a government that is now $17 trillion in debt and is adding to that debt at a rate of about $1 trillion every single year. It is not as though we have an overabundance of money within the Federal Government. It is not as though we can afford to take on newer, more expensive programs, such as this one, especially when they run pricetags that are substantially above and beyond what was presented to us. It is also proving to be unaffordable for American families. There are a number of studies that have been conducted in recent months which tell us that premiums are going to become more expensive. The name of the law, of course, was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This implies, of course, this would protect patients and make health care more affordable, not less. What we found is that this is a misnomer. What we have found through the studies that have been released recently is that it is going to make health care less affordable for American families, not more affordable. The interesting thing about these studies is that they are all over the map. We don't know exactly how much health care is going to cost us. We don't know exactly how much less affordable health care will become under the Affordable Care Act because there are so many uncertainties created by this law. The 2,700-page bill that became ObamaCare has been modified and will continue to be modified by countless pages--tens of thousands of pages of regulations. This act has also been modified in significant ways on a couple of occasions, which we will get to in a minute. All of these modifications have created additional uncertainty that is a source of a lot of concern to a lot of Americans. What we do know is that it is likely to result in premium increases. One study concluded that even on the low end, the increased premiums families would be paying in a small group premium context would go up between 13 and 23 percent, on average. Other studies--including one that was conducted in the State of Indiana--suggested that premiums would go up in that State by 72 percent for those with individual plans. I am told Maryland's biggest health insurance provider has proposed raising premiums for individual policies by an average of 25 percent next year. In many instances, these numbers are even worse for young people. There are also numbers which suggest that there is a lot of uncertainty, and we truly don't know. It is almost impossible to know. An analysis of more than 30 studies has shown that premiums are likely to increase between 145 and 189 percent for young people seeking health insurance. In Utah, my State, there is a study suggesting that for young people seeking health insurance, their premiums are likely to increase between 56 and 90 percent with respect to individual policies. This law is also bad for America's workers. Businesses are cutting hours, moving workers to part-time, and in many cases they are not hiring at all. According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 74 percent of businesses will fire employees or cut hours; 61 percent will not hire next year. Daniel Kessler, who is a professor of law and business at Stanford University, has predicted that 30 to 40 million Americans will be directly harmed by ObamaCare through higher premiums, stiff penalties, cutbacks in hours, and job losses. We have known for some time--as a result of these studies--that ObamaCare was going to make health care unaffordable. We now know it is also going to be fundamentally unfair. The President recently admitted the law is not ready for prime time. He admitted he is not ready to implement the law as it has been written. Because ObamaCare was so poorly crafted, he simply is not going to enforce it the way it was crafted. He is going to selectively enforce its provisions. Most important, the President of the United States has said that while he is going to require hard-working Americans, individuals, to comply with the law's individual mandate. According to one recent study, only 12 percent of the American people actually support that provision today. However, he is going to implement and enforce that provision, but at least for the first year of the law's full effect next year, he will not be implementing or enforcing the employer mandate. So hard-working Americans have to comply but big business does not have to comply. This is significant because the law doesn't give the President of the United States the power to rewrite the law. The law sets forth a specific set of timelines, a specific set of deadlines that cause the law's various provisions to kick in. This did not give the President the authority or the discretion to decide which among the law's several provisions could be favored or disfavored by the President of the United States. So we have hard-working Americans, individuals, and families on the hook, and we have big business being thrown a big bone. This is not fair. This is not something that is consistent with the rule of law. This is not something the American people ought to tolerate. The Affordable Care Act, as it is called, will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but in many instances it will destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that has become the backbone of the American middle class. It will do all of this in a way that will contribute to or be part of a system of selective unfair enforcement. The American people deserve better. The American people demand better. The American people deserve not to have this law implemented and enforced if, as the President of the United States has told us, it is not ready for prime time. Then it is not ready to be implemented. I ask of my friend and colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Florida, how he feels about this and how the people in the State of Florida feel about the selective implementation and enforcement of a law that Americans already knew would be unaffordable and a law they know will also be unfair.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. I also ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business and to be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues.

Mr. LEE. Based on historical precedent, we have every reason to believe that once this new entitlement program kicks in, it is not going away. It is a one-way ratchet. You have death, taxes, and entitlements. Once created, they do not go away. To answer the second part of that question, I am not aware of any plan among any Republicans--aside from this one; aside from the plan that says: Do not fund ObamaCare, fund government but not ObamaCare-- that would address this issue. I am not aware of any plan. The only other plan I am aware of would be one that says: Let's just wait and see what happens. Let's wait and see what a horrible disaster this will be. Let's wait and see how awful this will be for the American people, how utterly intolerable they will find it. And let's just hope that will provide enough political momentum for us perhaps to win elections at some unknown point in the future. This is not a good way to run a government. This is not a kind thing to do to an unsuspecting public who hopes and expects that we have their best interests at heart. So to all those in this body who support ObamaCare, this argument might not be all that persuasive to you, although you ought to look at the fact that the President, who signed this into law, has said he himself is not ready, is not willing, is not able to enforce and implement the law evenhandedly as it was written. So maybe that ought to give you pause as to whether you should fund it. But for those of you in this body who are, in fact, opposed to ObamaCare, I ask you: How can you oppose it, be against it, and yet fund it? So I would invite you to consider the possibility that what you are doing in thinking about funding it is not really where you want to go. Consider what might be said about this. Defund it or own it. If you fund it, you are for it. This law was enacted without a meaningful opportunity for the Members voting on it to read it. It is 2,700 pages long. After it was enacted into law, it was rewritten a total of four times: twice by the Supreme Court of the United States, twice more by the President of the United States. The President's rewrite came just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court's rewrite was over a year ago. But what the President did was acknowledge that this law is not ready for prime time. This law is not ready to implement. This law is not one that he is willing to implement as written. He is going to implement and enforce it selectively, holding hard-working Americans, individuals and families to the fire, while throwing a big bone to big business. This is not acceptable. This is un-American. This is not something that those of us who purport to be against ObamaCare can support by funding it. So I invite my colleagues to join me in this cause to vote to fund government but not ObamaCare.

Mr. LEE. Well, first of all, that tells me that those who are part of that union do not want to be subject to the same provisions of the same law they will be enforcing. What it also tells me in the bigger picture is that above all, this law creates uncertainty. That is why we see so much angst among people right here on Capitol Hill who are facing the very real prospect, the very real future in the next few months of going onto these exchanges because nobody knows what this is going to look like. Nobody has any idea. One thing Americans really do not like, in this world of a lot of unavoidable uncertainties, is more uncertainties heaped upon them by dictate of the Federal Government. We have enough uncertainties in life. We do not know when somebody is going to get sick. We do not know when accidents are going to happen. So we should be able to avoid those things that government thrusts upon us. This is one of the many reasons why there is so much angst within the IRS and within the ranks of the Capitol Hill workforce. People do not want to go onto these exchanges because they have absolutely no idea what this is going to look like.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I rise to honor PFC Walter Herbert Anderson, who has been awarded a posthumous Purple Heart for his service in World War I. He was born in Toquerville, Utah Territory, on February 3, 1895, 1 year before Utah officially became a State. Little did he know that his service would take him around the world and change the rest of his life. PFC Anderson was involved in some of the largest American offensives of the war and served his country with honor. He was part of the famous 91st Division, affectionately referred to as the ``Wild West Division.'' The division consisted of a group of inexperienced young men from several Western States. Although they were shipped to Europe in the eleventh hour of the war, as all Americans were, they fought in some of the most ferocious operations. Private First Class Anderson, a member of the 346th artillery regiment, was part of three major offensives: the Saint Mihiel Offensive, France; the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, France, and the Ypres-Lys Offensive, Belgium. During the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in October 1918, Private First Class Anderson was debilitated by a German gas attack. In World War I, due to the limited knowledge regarding the effects of chemical warfare, gassed soldiers were not counted among the wounded in medical records or morning reports. According to the U.S. Army Medical Department's Office of Medical History, 229 soldiers were gassed from the 91st Division during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. These soldiers were not put in the hospitals because of gas residuals, which were active for days. The American casualties from mustard gas were carried to portable ``gas hospitals.'' These consisted of temporary shelters or local homes. In all, during the Meuse-Argonne campaign, there were 20,000 chemical warfare casualties, comprising 22 percent of all injuries during the campaign. Within 24 hours of exposure, victims experienced skin irritations, which often turned into large blisters. If eyes were exposed, as Private First Class Anderson's were, resulting symptoms usually included swelling, pus, and temporary blindness. U.S. doctors treated Private First Class Anderson in a private home at La-Ferte-Barnard, France, for about 6 weeks. He was not counted among the wounded. His injuries consisted of temporary blindness, sticky eyes, burning and pain, bronchial problems, and nervousness. Such was the sacrifice that Private First Class Anderson, along with many of his brothers-in-arms, made to defeat the despotic regimes of Central Europe. Private First Class Anderson was released from the Army in April 1919. Upon release, he was told that his eye problems and nervousness would go away. On April 6, 1921, Private First Class Anderson signed an affidavit of disability and honorable discharge, stating that he ``was gassed about October 2, 1918, at the Meuse-Argonne, and was treated by U.S. doctors in a private home at La-Ferte-Bernard, France.'' His eyes had a film over them, and his eyelids were granulated. He was officially diagnosed with trachoma, which was caused by exposure to mustard gas. He lived honorably with this disability for the rest of his life. Private First Class Anderson left a legacy of service and sacrifice to his posterity. He served as the post commander of the Utah Veterans of Foreign Wars, and two of his sons also served in the U.S. Armed Forces. He was Salt Lake County commissioner from 1937 to 1938 and also served as a clerk for the Utah House of Representatives. At age 57, he lost an eye as a result of a tumor development and subsequent operation. He pushed on with one eye, until in 1955, stricken with cancer, he left this frail existence for a more exalted sphere. To Walter and his dear wife Lola and to their posterity, on behalf of the U.S. Senate and the people of Utah, I sincerely thank you for your sacrifices, your love of country, and your honorable service. May the life of PFC Walter Herbert Anderson, deserving the honor of being included in The Military Order of the Purple Heart, shine as an example for us and for future generations. It is my prayer that we will always remember the sacrifices of our brave military men and women who have fought and who continue to fight in defense of our Constitution and our liberty.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a recently fallen soldier, 1SG Tracy L. Stapley, one of Utah's finest. He left this earth on July 3, 2013, while serving our country at Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar. First Sergeant Stapley was an Army man, and his family is an Army family. His love for our country showed through his actions. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve for 26 years, and was assigned to the 308th Medical Logistics Company. He also worked full-time for the Army Reserve as a civilian, and his presence among co-workers will be sorely missed. The 308th recently posted a tribute to First Sergeant Stapley online, part of which I would like to read: First Sergeant was an amazing leader, mentor, and friend. He always placed his soldiers first and had their backs from day one. To many, he was more than just a first sergeant, he was a friend and a confidant. First Sergeant Stapley was the glue that held the unit together. He excelled in all aspects of his life; from the unit's first sergeant, to his civilian employment, to being a husband and father. Tracy and his dear wife Antionette are the parents of two beautiful children, Trase and Kennedy. Known as the ``dance dad,'' Tracey was an ardent supporter of Kennedy's dancing. He also loved to attend Trase's sporting events. The unmatched pride of a father was frequently seen at many recitals, and on many sidelines. I trust that all Utahns share the pride that I feel, knowing that this fellow Utahn served not only his country, but also his family with honor and love. It is comforting to me to know that First Sergeant Stapley's love for our country and dedication to excellence lives on through his family. His son Trase is currently a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and I am confident that he is representing Utah and the Stapley family well. First Sergeant Stapley was always helping others, even when help was unsolicited. His son Trase wrote that Tracy was ``a man worth praising and a friend worth having; . . . a fun-loving jokester.'' Trase added: He loved the family and loved being around us making sure we had everything we ever needed and more. He was the best. We love you Dude, Rest in Peace. Come see us sometime. It warms my soul to witness the sustaining power of faith, and the love that a son has for his father. I imagine that First Sergeant Stapley, like many of our service men and women, would deny the claim that he is a hero. To Tracy, and all of our soldiers, I would say that you are among the few heroes left in our modern world. As Americans, we all feel a profound sense of pride and honor when we see a uniformed soldier, and we would be wise to remember our heroes in all that we do, especially in this body. It is true that we honor those who have gone before by living our lives with excellence today. I thank 1SG Tracy L. Stapley for his honorable service in defense of the Constitution and our freedom, and I thank all of our men and women who have also given the ultimate sacrifice. I would like to convey my condolences and profound gratitude to his wife Antionette, his daughter Kennedy, his son Trase, and his father John. Our thoughts and prayers are with you, and with your entire family. It is my solemn hope that we, as Senators, will always remember the tremendous sacrifice, laid upon the altar of freedom by our brave soldiers and their families.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, while most Americans were busy getting ready for the Fourth of July holiday, the Obama administration made a stunning announcement about the President's signature legislative accomplishment, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The President admitted to the American people that because ObamaCare was so poorly crafted, he was delaying the enforcement of the employer mandate and would not assess fines and penalties to big companies that refused to provide insurance to their employees. The President explained that businesses could not handle ``the complexity of the requirements,'' and government bureaucrats would spend the next year simplifying the reporting rules so companies could comply. I expected that in the next paragraph he would acknowledge that American families also deserve relief because, as polls consistently reflect, they have very big problems with the requirements as well. They have concerns about the government-run health care scheme known as the exchanges. Henry Chao, the chief technical officer in charge of implementing the ObamaCare exchanges, has said: I'm pretty nervous. . . . Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience. American families also have very grave concerns about how much ObamaCare is going to add to our national debt. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the cost to taxpayers over the next 10 years will be $1.8 trillion. Young Americans are particularly concerned about ObamaCare because it is becoming clear that they will see the highest increases in health care premiums. One study published in the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries shows that middle- and low-income single adults between 21 and 29 years of age will see their premiums rise by 46 percent even after they take the ObamaCare subsidy. A joint report by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce, Senate Finance, and Senate HELP Committees that looked at over 30 different studies concluded that: Recent college graduates with entry-level jobs who are struggling to pay off student loan debt could see their premiums increase on average between 145 and 189 percent. Some studies estimate young adults could experience premium increases as high as 203 percent. In my State, the State of Utah, premiums for young people will jump anywhere from 56 to 90 percent. As I read this statement from the Treasury Department, I was shocked to find no mention of these people. Parents, families, students, employees, taxpayers, hard-working Americans in general were totally left out, along with their concerns about the complexity of the requirements imposed by ObamaCare. A senior adviser to the President took to the White House blog to spin the administration's announcement before long. She said: In our ongoing discussions with businesses, we have heard that you need time to get this right. But why aren't American families part of these same ongoing discussions? Isn't the White House obligated to get this right for them too, before assessing fines and penalties and forcing them into a government-run third-world experience? We knew ObamaCare would be unaffordable, but now we know it is also going to be unfair. It is fundamentally unfair for the President to exempt businesses from the onerous burdens of his law while forcing American families and individuals into ObamaCare's unsound and unstable system. It is unfair to protect the bottom lines of big business while making hard-working Americans pay the price through higher premiums, stiff penalties, cutbacks in worker hours, and job losses. It is unfair to give businesses more time to figure out complex regulations but force everyone else to figure out equally complex mandates and requirements applicable to individuals. This administration has chosen to put its own political preferences and the interests of various government cronies ahead of those of the American people. Republicans in Congress must now stand up for the individuals and families who do not have the money, who do not have the lobbyists, who do not have the connections to get this administration's attention on this important issue. We should do so using one of the few constitutional powers that Congress still carefully guards: its power of the purse. As long as President Obama selectively enforces ObamaCare, no annual appropriations bill and no continuing resolution should fund further implementation of this law. In other words, if the President will not follow it, the American people should not fund it. Last week's admission by the administration means that after more than 3 years of preparation and trial and error, the best case scenario for ObamaCare will be rampant dysfunction, waste, and injustice to taxpayers and working families. Even the President himself is now admitting that ObamaCare will not work. It is unaffordable and unfair. If he will not follow it, we should not fund it. The only reasonable choice now is to protect the country from ObamaCare's looming disaster, start over, and finally begin work on real health care reform that works for everyone. I would like to shift topics and speak briefly in opposition to the confirmation of Fred Hochberg to continue as Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank. By confirming Mr. Hochberg, we would perpetuate the existence of an organization whose sole purpose is to dispense corporate welfare and political privileges to well-connected special interests. The Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im as it is commonly known, is an example of everything that is wrong with Washington today. It is big government serving the interests of big corporations at the expense of individuals, families, and small businesses throughout America. I am, of course, not alone in this view. I have good company. In 2008, while campaigning for the office of President of the United States, then-Senator Barack Obama referred to Ex-Im as ``little more than a fund for corporate welfare.'' So it is. After all, in fiscal year 2012, $12.2 billion of Ex-Im's $14.7 billion in loan guarantees went to a single company--one company. Our free enterprise system may not be perfect, but it is fair. Crony capitalism which is promoted by the Export-Import Bank is neither. Abraham Lincoln once said that the leading object of government was to ``lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.'' Crony capitalism is the opposite of this noble vision. It lays on artificial waste, obstructs paths of laudable pursuit, and makes the race of life fettered and unfair. We may have honest disagreements about when and whether and to what extent and under what circumstances it is a good idea for the government to redistribute wealth from the rich and give it to the poor, but can't we all agree it is always a bad idea to redistribute wealth from the poor and the middle class and give it to large corporations? The saddest part is it is not even clear the bank actually helps U.S. firms to outperform their foreign competitors. Ex-Im's convoluted financing has been accused of pricing at least one U.S. airline out of being able to compete with foreign firms, and at least one court has agreed. Cronyism is a cancer. It undermines public trust in our economy and in our political system. Ordinary Americans who have the gnawing sense that the game seems rigged against them unfortunately have good reason to feel that way. It is not the free market that serves the middle men at the expense of the middle class. It is the crony cartels of big government, big business, and big special interests conspiring against the American dream, helping each other to American taxpayers' money. The Ex-Im Bank is part of this graft. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this nominee and the crony capitalist organization that he leads.