Latest Breaking News On - Wayne hoffman - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
hooded figures walk out from the corner over here. >> a new development overnight in an effort to rescue a family off the coast of mexico. how the navy is a step closer to bringing the family home. >> reporter: we're live in menlo park where the search continues for a missing hiker last seen on mount tam. "mornings on 2" starts right now. and police are going door to door after yet another shooting. you are looking live at a neighborhood that's been blocked off all morning. coming up in two minutes, the new information ktvu reporter janine de la vega has learned about the victim and the car he was found in. good morning. welcome to "mornings on 2." i'm tori campbell. >> good morning to you. >> good morning. >> i'm dave clark. let's talk about weather and traffic. steve, can you give tori campbell a nice day? >> i would like that. >> i always try. i always try. we have clear skies. it's already nice out there. really mild to warm. some locations in san francisco are hovering close to 60. it will be clear and we'll be out of the gate with warm temperatures. clear, nice, sunny, mild. 70s and 80s. if you enjoyed sunday, we'll bump it up more. san jose, 80. starting off at 54. a high today of 84. it will be 70 at noon. 40s, 50s. a couple of locations are on the cool side. it's clear. coast, bay, inland. system there might give us a slight cooldown. probably the warmest day today. if not today, tuesday. low to mid 80s. here's sal. we're looking at a commute that's affected by a crash, southbound it state 880 at stevenson. the crash was in the lanes. it has been moved from the shoulder. we're looking at 35 to 40- minute-wait delays, drive time, which is about 15 minutes longer than it normally is. you have to add extra time for that commute. we don't have a decent alternate because some of the other roads are jammed. 880 is slow. let's take a look at some live pictures. between 20 and 30 minutes. really depends on which line you are in. an average time of 20 minutes to get from the toll plaza area to the san francisco exits here. san mateo bridge about 10, 1511 minutes from hayward to foster city. back to the desk. >> thank you, sal. developing news. police in san jose are searching for suspects in an early-morning shooting. it happened on snow drive in south san jose not far from the elementary school. janine de la vega is live from the crime scene with new information on the victim and what victims are saying. good morning, janine. >> reporter: good morning. people in the neighborhood tell me they heard, yelling, possibly arguing and then five gunshot wounds. they recognize the silver lexus that you see there in the middle of the street and say it belongs to one of the neighbors. there is a tow truck on the scene expected to pick that car up, we're assuming for evidence. police say the victim was in it before the shooting happened. people started calling 911 around 3:00 this morning after hearing the shots fired. when officers arrived, they found a black man in his 30s, suffering from one gunshot wound. he was conscious and breathing an rushed to the hospital. we're told -- and rushed to the hospital. we're told he's in stable condition. this is just a couple of blocks away from samuel elementary school. this is not considered a hot spot for police. >> i've been here for like ten years and nothing like this before had happened i was surprised. >> reporter: police have been going door to door doing a canvass of the neighborhood. they are trying to find out if there was an argument going on, if this was gang-related. there is an officer at the hospital. at this point, we don't know the motive and no arrests have been made. again back out here live, you can see that tow truck has backed up against that car and is going to pick up that silver lexus. police were not able to confirm if the victim actually owns that car but again, they found it in the middle of the street. the victim was not in it. he was there suffering from a gunshot wound. but they think how it's connected. reporting live from san jose, janine de la vega, ktvu channel 2 news. >> thank you, janine. also new this morning in san jose, firefighters are trying to figure out what sparked a fire at a business complex. it started shortly after 3:00 on old bayshore highway this morning. firefighters says several businesses are located in the complex. but it looks like the fire started in the back of a landscaping business. >> this is a scarily large building with -- fairly large building with smoke coming up. it made it difficult for us to access. >> there were workers in the building when the fire started. they were not seriously hurt. a search expected to resume for a missing menlo park woman who disappeared after heading out for a hike on mount tamalpais. brian flores is live in menlo park to tell us how her family will help out in the search. >> reporter: yes. her family is expected to arrive from maryland sometime later today. not sure exactly what time, however. the 33-year-old has been missing for over a week now. we're live in menlo park. this is the last city where she was known to live. we should mention we stopped by an apartment complex in emeryville at an address where she also lived. but no one was there. the search continues this morning for the 33-year-old expected to get underway, the search. yesterday, more than 100 search- and-rescue volunteers combed mount tam. this is surveillance photos of her. she's described as a caucasian woman with blonde hair, wearing a pink polo as she was paying for parking. a rental car she drove was still there with bags of groceries in the passenger seat. she's been missing for more than a week. there were concerns about the elements of the cold, rainy weather from earlier last week to the warming conditions now. >> there could be a hundred different scenarios that could play out. we don't have that much information to go on. >> reporter: she apparently told her landlord and friend she was going for a day hike. but she didn't say where. now, search records indicate that magdalena has lived in the state of washington, maryland and a few places here in the bay area, including san francisco, menlo park and emeryville. we're live in menlo park, brian flores, ktvu channel 2 news. >> all right. thank you. investigators want to know the discuss of the fire that destroyed a marin county home. it broke out at 4:30 yesterday in the morning on pan ma'amic highway -- panoramic highway. a marin county firefighter took this photo of efforts to get the flames under control. three people were asleep inside the home when the fire started. they got out okay. the suspension of say senator le has left his constituents with no representation in sacramento. the state senate suspended leland yee after he was charged with corruption and gun trafficking. the president of the state senate has asked yee to resign so someone else could fill his senate seat but yee has refused to do that. so his staff members are continuing to respond to questions from people or refer them to their representatives in the assembly. kamala kamala harris says she's engaged. she will marry los angeles attorney douglas emfoff sometime this year. they are both 49 years old. they met on a blind date set up by a close friend of harris's. he has offices in l.a. and san francisco and harris frequently travels to san francisco for her work soy they plan to live in both places. we're following new developments in the search for the missing malaysia airlines jet. a u.s. ping locater has twice picked up signals consistent with the sounds sent out by the plane's black box recorders. they say although this is encouraging news, it may take days to confirm whether these are from flight 370. time is running out. the batteries usually last just 30 days. >> already one day past the advertised shelf life. we hope that it keeps going for a little bit longer. >> there are new reports that the plane might have taken a route around indonesian airspace. experts say that would indicate whoever was piloting the plane was trying to avoid radar detection. police in santa rosa investigating the death of a man who died in their custody. 48-year-old wayne hoffman was riding a bike on nordike avenue when police tried to stop him for a traffic violation. they say he refused to stop. after a brief chase and shugle, he was taken -- struggle, he was taken into custody. that's when police say he suffered a medical emergency. he was rushed to the hospital but later died. the coroner is conducting an autopsy to determine the exact cause of his death. it will cost now to attend a california state school. in 2012, the fees were frozen. but now there will be a student success phoebing -- phoebing charged. dozens of nurses are planning to picket outside of this area. it was built as a seismic replacement for the hayward hospital. it's sparking controversy. protests have been held for months following the loss of the pediatric care facility in hayward. it will not be replaced in san leandro. protesters say that leaves one 100,000 families without access to care for their children in alameda county. 7:12. they were tossed around like toys. several smart cars flipped over last night. an unusual vandalism spree. we'll let you hear from a man who saw what happened. a new problem in chile after the 78:2 earthquake. find out why violent protests are breaking out. good morning. we're looking at a commute that is really at its peak right now as we look at 237. slow traffic coming up. we'll look at another problem getting into the south bay. severe clear already. temperatures are going to warm up. [mom] yes? [boy] whoa,whoa,whoa... [mom and dad] [laughing] [boy] whoa,whoa,whoa... [mom] you've got two left feet,boo. welcome back. a san diego husband and wife are thanking the military for rescuing them and their sick baby from a stranded boat off the coast of mexico. the rescuers including a team from moffett fieldworked for several days -- fieldworked for several days over the weekend. the coffmans set sail across the pacific back in march and a short time later, their baby developed a fever and rash and was not responding to medication. >> they are tired and resting but everything is looking good. it's a great, happy ending. >> yesterday morning, the family boarded the u.s.s. vandergriff. they are expected to arrive back in san francisco sometime later this week and then after they boarded, the family said they are bethankful to be safe and well. we also appreciate all of the concerns of everyone back at home for the health of our kaur. she's doing -- daughter. she's doing rel now and continues -- well now and continues to improve. president obama and the first lady will attend a memorial service on wednesday at fort hood. last week, i ivan lopez shot and killed three soldiers and wounded 16 others before taking his own life. he reportedly got into an argument with someone at the human resources office before the shooting. the obamas were scheduled it be in texas already this week to take part in democratic fund- raisers. they visited fort hood also in 2009 when tan army psychiatrist shot and killed 13 people. mark coleman was killed after a crash on an advanced run at north star ski resort. it happened at 11:00 yesterday morning on the rail splitter trail. he was airlifted to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. an autopsy is planned for today. investigators say he was wearing a helmet. >> in chile, people who live in the areas hardest hit by the magnitude earthquake are beginning to complain about the pace of recovery. people can be seen carrying buckets of jugs and water. authorities say 9,000 houses were damaged in the quake. the interior minister says government agencies are beginning to distribute supplies and food and water. general motors will start the repairs on the more than 2.5 million vehicles at the sent of a recall. faulty ignitions are tied to 13 deaths at least. gm said they found out about the problems with the ig official switch as early as 2004. now, owners can bring their vehicles to a dealer to have that switch replaced. spiders are causing problems for mazda cars. that's why mazda is recalling 42,000 mazda 6 cars in the u.s. the issue is attracted to the smell of gasoline. so it call crawls up into the vent hoses and causes it to crack. they will fix the problem for free. they had a problem with spiders back in 2011 that prompted a recall. caltrans is planning to spend $12 million in solve a bird problem on the old bay bridge. right now, about 7800 double- crusted nest from april to august on the far eastern end of the old bridge. but with the demolition already six months behind schedule, caltrans can't wait until august and needs the birds to leave now. so far, it spent 709,000 to build condos for the birds on the new span. they consist of stainless steel nesting platforms and nesting materials but so far, those birds are not moving in. happy with their old place. well, sal is watching the birds, the bay bridge, highway 24. you are watching everything, sal. >> got it all right here. >> it's right there. >> yes. >> we do have some problems getting into the south bay as i mentioned. southbound 880. a little slow, we had a crash at stevenson. it's out of the lanes. traffic will be slow. you will start with highway 24 and we're looking at the drive time here. this is 15 minutes between walnut creek and oakland which is just a little elevated here. bay bridge that is backed up for a 20 to 30-minute delay. it bedepends on what -- depends what line you are in. if you are driving on the nimitz, at stevenson, slow traffic there. 580 grantline to 680 two minutes. let's go to steve. >> wasn't i just in the newsroom talking to you? >> yes. quick how i got there. >> nice. coast, bay inland. we're starting off clear. we'll end up with a lot of upper 70s and low to mid-80s. could be a pient of patchy fog. everything looks good today and on tuesday. highs on tund, very nice. concord, 79. san jose, 76 and san francisco, a beautiful 71. it's already warm in san francisco. i know china basin is 59. if you are in the city, it's mild, it is. mid-80s. doesn't take long. clearlake, antioch. this time of year. clear skies, sunshine, vacaville. sunny for all. coast, bay, inland. everything in on it. 74 today. officially 55. there are other areas about 57, 58. some locations in the 40s. half moon bay at 46. 10 warmer at sfo. there's that 55 in san francisco. mountain view is in there. low 50s. fairfield, walnut creek. nationally, the severe season has kicked in in a big way. warm coming out ahead of it. you would expect severe weather. you can see the severe line of thunderstorms racing through there. tornado activity likely and wrapping back around around st. louis, cincinnati and indiana as well. severe conditions there. for us, severe clear. high pressure is here. this could give us a cooldown on tuesday. inland temperatures will still be well above average. today is the warmest day. it will be nice, coast, bay, inland. mild to warm temperatures. low 80s in there. st. helena, novato, petaluma. clearlake, 84. same for antioch, 84 gilroy. woodside, menlo park, all in there. san bruno 74. daly city 70. jocelyn said i like this weather. please no fog. i can do that today. i can do that because the fog will be back for you. it will be warm on tuesday. then becool it down on wednesday, thursday. friday looks like the coolest day. a little rebound on the weekend. not as warm on sunday. chilling testimony in the murder trial of oscar pistorius in south africa. >> i wake up to being terrified. >> pistorius told the judge and -- what pistorius told the judge and jair hours ago -- and jury hours ago. ♪ hey, that's the last crescent! oh, did you want it? yeah. we'll split it. [ female announcer ] made fresh, so light, buttery and flakey. that's half. that's not half! guys, i have more. thanks, mom. [ female announcer ] do you have enough pillsbury crescents? so i should probably get the last roll... yeah but i practiced my bassoon. [ mom ] and i listened. [ brother ] i can do this. [ imitates robot ] everyone deserves ooey, gooey, pillsbury cinnamon rolls. make the weekend pop. scary moments on a southwest jet from seattle yesterday. a crack in the windshield forced it to make an emergency landing in boise, idaho. one of the passengers said she was frightened but she liked how the crew handled the situation. >> not to panic, that they would get us >> after landing in boise, the passengers boarded a new plane. the homeland security toured oso and encouraged many victims to apply for help from the government. >> when you meet a family member encountered with a tragedy, there's nothing you can say to ease the pain except to say we're here spo tort and help you. >> so far 190 people have applied for rental assistance from fema. get out your wallet. it's gonna cost you twice as much to park in one busy bay area city starting today. it's not just how much but when. >> reporter: we're live in san francisco, where vandals targeted smart cars. we'll tell you what they are doing to them and where they are doing it. good morning. we're looking at a toll plaza delay that's up in the 20- minute range. when we look at the toll plaza here, i will tell you more about some of the other drive times crossing the bay. we're looking at sni already. coast, bay, inland. temperatures warmed up as you know. will they continue that today and for how long. it was a rude awakening for some owners of smart cars. check this out. someone went after flipping over the small vehicles overnight in san francisco. ktvu's tara moriarty has been in the city all morning and coming up in two minute, you will hear from one man who said he witnessed the vandalism. good morning. welcome to "mornings on 2." i'm tori campbell. >> i'm dave clark. >> let's talk about your weather and traffic. steve is right over there. good morning. we have clear skies. it looks nice today. temperatures warming up really fast. three suns in a row. 50s, 60s, 70s. 70s and 80s by this afternoon. san jose starting off 54. we'll go for a high of 80 degrees. 70 by noon. 50s for many. 50s. 55 officially san francisco. i did see some 57, 58s. it's really mild in san francisco and parts of the coast. this system might give a slight cooldown on tuesday with some patchy fog but more likely on wednesday. sunny and warm. two very good friends of mine. 70s and 80s. here's sal. all right. traffic is moving along pretty well if you are driving on some commutes and not so well on others. 20 to 30-minute delay. it depended on which line you get into it. i should say the drive time is 20, 30 minutes. the delay at the toll plaza is less than that. but still you will be waiting unless you are in the carpool lane. looking at the commute here on the richmond san rafael bridge approach. you can see the traffic is gonna be busy as you drive out of richmond over to marin county. there's slow traffic hon the bridge as well. i want to mention if you are driving across the san mateo bridge, you can see some slow traffic across the span now. the traffic on the span to -- from hayward to foster city is taking about 15, 20 minutes which is more than it normally does. look at 880. we had an earlier accident in the lanes at stevenson. this drive has taken 30 minutes plus. back to the desk. >> all right, sal. in san francisco, a very unusual crime targeting those super compact smart cars. this all happened a couple of miles apart. now, tara moriarty has been on this story since we found out about this at 1:30 a.m. tear ray, i know you talked to some of the neighbors out there. >> yeah. >> reporter: they think it's amusing but they are upset that they are being targeted. this is a very bizarre things. these vandals are flipping these cars. some on their sides, some on their roofs. all of the cars have since been towed. you can see the glass that remains. this was the glass from one of the smart cars' car shattered windows. a vehicle was found on its roof and then ten minutes later a vehicle was found on its side. the last around 1:30. a couple of minutes away a smart car on its rear wheels popped up in the portola neighborhood on sweeney. a witness said he was shocked when he saw a group of a half a dozen people walk up to his roommate's car and flip it. we talked to a smart car owner nearby whose vehicle was not vandalized and she thinks it's a teenaged prank. >> it has to be -- it would take them a while to flip it over. >> would you think twice about leaving your smart smart car on the street now? >> no. it gives us time to call the companies. >> company -- to call the cops, she says. >> reporter: we're live in san francisco, tara moriarty, ktvu channel 2 news. police in san francisco also investigating the death of a man hit by a car last night while crossing the street. it happened about 11:00 at van ness and golden gate avenues. investigators say a car hit the man while he was crossing that busy intersection but earlier reports indicate he was not in the crosswalk. the driver did stop and is cooperating with police. seven people have now been killed this year while crossing san francisco streets. four of those accidents were right there on van ness. san francisco police are vowing. they are gonna recrack down on vehicles. changes go into effect in downtown walnut creek. parking fees are going to double. alex savidge is there with the other changes that will take place that will have you shelling out more money every day of the week. >> reporter: this is a steep increase. some people say it's going too far starting today if you want to park at most meters in downtown walnut creek, you will be paying twice as much money. bring along extra quarters, if you plan to shop downtown. the rate jumps from a dollar an hour up to $2. on top of that, other changes. meter enforcement hours changing. you can forget about 9:00 to 5:00, you need to pay at 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 at night. another big change, sundays will no longer be free. parking meters will be enforced seven days a week. the city approved these changes and there was a campaign to give drivers a heads up on everything. some people we talked to are a bit frustrated and say this parking price hike may keep them away from the downtown district. >> i'm not -- i'm not thrilled with that. i understand the city coffers are a little bit lean. i don't like being gouged. that's what this feels like. >> reporter: this series of changes to the downtown meters here in walnut creek means it will be cheaper to simply park in one of the city-owned garages and there are several here in the downtown area. at those garage, the first hour of parking will be free. that's the incentive for drivers there to not park at the metered spots. the good news, there will be a bit of a grace period. for the next two weeks, the city will be issuing warnings in the evenings and on sunday. the hours are mosted on the meters letting you -- posted on the meters letting you know the meters will be posed. the rate goes from a dollar an hour up to $2 an hour starting today. alex savidge, ktvu channel 2 news. also happening today, the cost to drive over the golden gate bridge has gone up by $1. that's raised the toll to $7 for fast track users. it's $6 now. carpools and people who qualify as disabled now pay $4 and this increase is just the beginning. the toll will rise by 25 cents a year for the next four years. the bridge district says the extra money will help pay down a $142 million deficit. officials say it's game over for those gambling dens in san francisco's excelsior district. police have warned the remaining sweepstakes cafe operating on mission streets, it's time for for them to shut down on be shut down. the businesses look like internet cafes but host slot machine style gambling on computer terminals. these are blamed for a rise in crime. san jose is trying to keep police officers from moving away to other cities. the mercury news reports the city council is ready to ease the disability retirement benefits from its signature pension reform program. now, san jose's police union has argued that injured police officers could be left without a job, without a pension under the measure b retirement limb is that voters approved two years ago. the union says measure b is the main reason police officers keep packing up and moving away to other cities. the city council will take up this issue tomorrow night. 7:38. tomorrow people who live in the small coastal town of bodega bay decide whether to tax themselves more to pay for their nine-person police department. only a thousand people live but tourists descend and those are the ones being rescued by firefighters. >> they fall off cliffs. they get washed out to sea. >> first responders for the county parks and the county parks and the state parks. and yet, we receive no money from other one. we receive no money from either one. >> if measure a passes, homeowners will see their fire district tax from $500 a year to $700. opponents of measure a say they are subsidizing emergency care for out-of-towners. it will cost you more for gasoline to get to work or to go to that spring break destination if you are driving. the latest lundberg survey says the average price at the pump has gone up 5 cents in the past two weeks. here in california, we're paying 4.5. in -- 4.03. in the bay area recollection 4.08. san francisco, 4.08. the vacation home market is heating up. an ules sales jumped -- annual sales jumped. the national association of realtors says the sales were spurred by a stronger stock market. 7:40. a lifetime of royal duty has already begun for prince george of cambridge today. the 8-month-old along with his parents arrived in wellington, new zealand today, kicking off a three-week tour. they will spend ten days in new zealand before flying to australia. this is baby george's first but certainly not his last trip. an actor on sign meld has died -- seinfeld has died. >> there goes the money for the lipo. >> 50-year-old john pinette was found yesterday inside a pittsburgh hotel room. tmz said he was suffering from liver and heart disease. last year, pinette went to rehab for a prescription pill addiction. an early-morning shooting in the bay area's biggest city. coming up at 8:00, what police are telling us about the gunfire and the victim. it's called the most promising lead yet. but is this the breakthrough searchers have been hoping for in the missing malaysian jet. we're looking at the commute that's still busy at the toll plaza. we're update this and other commutes in san francisco. not a cloud to be found. temperatures will start to warm up pretty fast. how warm and for how long? well-known bay area chef cindy and her husband are recovering after being hurt in a violent car crash that took the life of a 4-year-old boy in napa county. the crash happened yesterday on 121 and 12. a 4-year-old boy was kill and his mother seriously hurt. the child and mother were passengers in an suv. the chp says the suv's driver 23-year-old flauv yo-- flavio crashed the daubl line before slamming into another car. the chp says he may have fallen asleep behind the wheel. the boy was strapped into a booster seat and everyone was wearing seat belts. paulsen in the other car was taken to the hospital along with her husband. they were in the car that was hit head on and are both expected to survive. she's a long-time napa valley chef. from south africa, very chilling testimony in the murder trial of oscar pistorius. it happened just hours ago. >> i'm scared to sleep for several reasons. i have terrible nightmares about things that happened that night. i wake up and i smell -- i can smell the blood and i wake up to being terrifyed. >> that was the voice the oscar pistorius. cameras were not allowed to show his face. the testimony started with an's motional apology to the family of reeva steevkamp. he admits kitting her in his home on valentine's day last year. he said he was only trying to protect her, he thought he was shooting a produder. the prosecution says it was premeditated. we're following new developments in the search for malaysian flight 370. pam cook is in the newsroom now. pam, you've got new information that the searchers say is the most promising lead so far. >> it involves high-tech equipment brought in from the united states. a u.s. ping locater has picked up signals that investigators say are consistent with the sounds that are sent out by airplane black box recorders. authorities say although the news is encouraging, it may take days to actually confirm if the signals picked up in the southern indian ocean are from flight 370. time is running out. the batteries in the black box recorders usually only last 30 days. >> i am more optimistic. i would like everyone to continue to pray. i'm very cautious about saying any more than that. >> there are also reports that the plane might have taken a route around indonesian airspace. analysts say that would indicate whoever was piloting the plane was trying to avoid radar detection. the questions they don't want to answer, how much has this search mission cost. that's coming up in the next hour of "mornings on 2." pam cook, ktvu channel 2 news. >> good question there. all right. thank you. well, a new study shows airplane performance is getting worse. that's because more carriers are falling behind schedule and mishandling more bags. but the number of complaints among customers is actually down 15%. most of the worse grades were not earned by the big airlines but regional carriers. more information is expected to be released today. 7:48. hey, sal, i'm hearing that it's not easy trying to drive into the city right now. >> everyone is trying to do it at the same time. first of all, let's start off with san francisco, northbound 101 trying to get into downtown from the peninsula. if you are gonna use 101 northbound, you will see traffic that's busy now. this is a look at the toll plaza area, westbound coming up to the toll plaza. the traffic here does look okay with no major problems. i will -- is a look at the richmond bridge. the traffic here is not bad getting across. i think -- well, we were gonna look at 101. we'll look at that next time around. this is a look at westbound 580. quite a bit of slow traffic. this is somewhat disappointing because it started off okay but now look at all of the slow traffic getting into dublin. 7:48. let's go to steve. >> hold on there, sal. >> hello there, steve. let's go to steve now. good morning. hello, hello. clear skies. a little chill in the morning. we'll warm up pretty quick. you can feel it yesterday. people looking at their car thermometers. running a little warm. we've -- no fog, clear skies. upper 70s for some. near 80. santa rosa says we were 80. san rafael was close. 778, concord 79. san jose, 76. very nice san francisco. today they will be warmer. warmer today, probably the warmest day. it will be warm inland. there could be patchy fog closer to the coast. 70 to 84. sunny and warm conditions with low to mid-80s. clearlake, an tip okay, vacaville, clear skies, sunshine, sunny for all. nice to mild to warm. some areas upper 60s, 70s. san francisco, we'll bump you up 3 to 74. starting off very mild. upper 40s for a few. there's the morning trifecta. half moon bay way 46. now 50. 56 san francisco, also sfo, low 50s for some. walnut creek, livermore, fairfield. 48 for ukiah. 28, 38 ukiah. reno, and tahoe. you can see right there. that little system, not much to it. sunny and warm. nice by the coast. really nice today. 70s, 80s to mid-80s. clear lake 84. 81 sonoma. novato 81. fairfield, 83. same for pittsburg, antioch, brentwood. oakley, 84. 74 for alameda, 76 in berkeley and 84 in gilroy. 70s the coast. low 80s. close for redwood city, palo alto, mountain view, menlo park, woodside, san mateo with 70s on the coast. half moon bay in there. pacifica and daly city. a beautiful day. more of the same on tuesday. could be a dip on the temperatures. then everyone cools down. get more of an onshore push. the weekend looks better. slightly warmer. 7:51. two teens in vacaville killed in a cash crash. we don't know yet if three others who were seriously hurt in the crash will survive. this happened saturday afternoon in a rural part of vacaville. police say the teen's pickup truck was speeding. it went up a curve, out into an open field and rolled several times. it appears no one was wearing seat belts. all five of the teens were ejected from the truck. the chp says alcohol was a factor. in fairfield, police are investigating a shooting that sent four teenagers to the hospital. this happened about 10:30 saturday night during a house party on camelia and orchard streets. witnesses say a fight broke out and someone started shooting. police say all four of the victims are in stable condition. this is the second shooting in the area in a back. back on thursday, police shot and killed brothers suspected of drive-by shootings. eight minutes before 8:00. apple keeping everyone guessing, once again, when the silicon valley giant plans to make its next big announcement. he was one of the best. one of the last surviving stars of the golden age of hollywood. mourning the death of mickey rooney. it's standing up. the winter soldier, number one at the weekend box office with a debut of $the 6.2 million. its -- $96.2 million. this is the newest installment in the movies. this one stars chris evans as "captain america." hundreds of people gathered in philadelphia watching a giant game played on that 29- stoifer building in philly -- story building in philly. l.e.d. lights were embedded in the glass facade of the building. competitors used their joysticks to maneuver the shapes saturday night. this kicked off a series of events called philly tech week and it also marks the 30th anniversary of the best-selling video games of all times. 7:55. hollywood is mourning the loss of a true movie legend. mickey rooney has died at age 93 after a long illness. ♪ >> george, he chopped down the tree. if they locked him up for that, where would this country be? >> he did silent movies from tv to broadway theater. he started his career in his parent' vaudeville act while still a toddler. he won two special academy awards for his film achievements. people are leaving flowers on his stars on the hollywood walk of game. he has four of them. they are for radio, tv, film and live performance. >> incredible performer. a bench-clearing brawl broke out at a charity hockey game between new york city police and new york city firefighters. this is wild. what do you do? call the police? >> yeah, really. >> the fight started in the second period. the score was tied at three. this fight led to a 25-minute delay. the sticks were picked up. the gloves were picked up. players were kicked out of the game. the nypd won, 8-5. but so far, neither the police department nor the fire department will comment on what happened out there on the ice. >> you kind of -- did anyone get arrested? it's kind of interesting to watch. >> yes. the search is on for a missing south bay hiker last seen on mount tam. the response today and the clues investigators have to go on. police are trying to track down who is responsible for shooting a man in a south san jose neighborhood. we're live at the scene. we'll tell you what new evidence police took here that they hope will proclues -- will provide clues. good morning. the traffic on 28 northbound is slow. we'll give you an update straight ahead. just by looking at the window, you probably have a clue about what the weather is like. will it be warmer on monday? good morning nelly! woah. hey! have you ever tried honey nut cheerios? love 'em. neat! now you on the other hand... you need some help. why? look atchya. what is that? you mean my honey wand? [ shouting ] [ splat ] come on. matter of fact. [ rustling ] shirt. shoes. shades. ah! wow! now that voice... my voice? [ auto-tuned ] what's wrong with my voice? yeah man, bee got swag! be happy! be healthy! that's gotta go too. ♪ hey! must be the honey! [ sparkle ] sweet. well, good morning. welcome back to "mornings on 2." we're taking you live to san jose. the scene, this is the scene of yet another shooting. >> the latest one happened in the 5100 block of snow drive. this is near samuel stype elementary school. janine de la vega has been out there for hours now. she'll be here in just a minute or two to tell you why police have been going door to door most of the morning. stay tuned for that. monday morning. it's april 7th. i'm dave clark. >> i'm tori campbell. quick look at weather and traffic. i heard yesterday, very nice. it will be like that today. >> absolutely, tori unless you don't like warm weather. there are those of you who don't. today will be sunny and warm. we're above average. nothing outrageous. a lot of sunshine. starting it off. continuing at noon and then finishing it off later this afternoon. it will be clear all the way through. san jose started off 54. 80 degrees today. 70 at noon. looks -- i jumped there? >> yes. >> 40s and 50s. sunshine and warm temperatures for you, me, everyone. warmest day probably today. i think there will be fog creeping back to the coast. today is good to go. 70s, low to mid-80s. here's sal. right now traffic is going to be busy if you are driving in many areas. we're looking at the south bay. a lot of slow traffic. northbound 101 and 280. we also have slow traffic on 85 from 87 all the way up into saratoga. we're looking at the peninsula. 101 southbound through palo alto is slow. i think 280 is a better route. let's move along to live pictures. san francisco, northbound 101, not too bad. the drive time is very low getting into the downtown area. bay bridge, 20, 30-minute drive time between oakland and san francisco. 8:01. let's go back to the desk. we're starting our 8:00 hour. san jose police are searching right now for suspects in an early-morning shooting. it happened on snow drive in san jose not far from samuel stype elementary school. jag is live with more. >> -- janine de la vega is live with more. >> reporter: in the last minute, a woman pulled up saying she will was the sisters of man who was shot -- she was the sister of the man who shot here. she was trying to figure out what happened here. she was very concerned. in the last hour, two cars were towed away as evidence. one was in the dribway. the -- driveway. we're told there was a woman screaming when officers first arrived. officers are trying to figure out what happened here and why the man was shot. it happened just before 3:00 a.m. in this neighborhood located near brannam neighborhood. neighbors heard yelling and multiple gunshotped and when officers arrived they found a black nan his 30, suffering from at least one gunshot wound. he was outside but there was a lexus with the lights on. police think that the victim was in it prior to the shooting. the man was rushed to the hospital where he is in stable and in serious condition. >> i was kind of scared really. i was just hoping that nothing happened to us really. i don't know who he is. i hope they can get these guys. >> reporter: police did a canvass of the neighborhood looking for anyone who may have seen or heard anything. they are trying to figure out if there was some sort of argument that occurred. if this was gang-related. they are hoping there will be clues as to what happened. there is an officer at the hospital with the victim. when he's able to talk, they are hoping to get more answers. back out here live, police have cleared the scene. but there is a crime scene cleaner here sort of moving up from the aftermath of the shooting. janine de la vega, ktvu channel 2 news. also new in san jose, san francisco firefighters are searching for the cause of a fire at a business complex. several businesses are from this complex but it looks like the -- are in this complex but it looks like it started in the rear of the building. >> a fairly large building with smoke coming up from the center of it. it made it difficult r for us to access -- difficult for us to access. >> 8:04. today, searchers are expected to continue looking for a menlo park woman who disappeared after going hiking on mount tam. brian flores is live in menlo park and brian, this case is a real mystery. >> it certainly has been. the woman fea family is expected to arrive from maryland sometime later today. i did just get off the phone with california parks rangers a few moments ago. they say that they will not be conducting a full-blown search today as they are just received new leads on whether she may have made some contact during this time that she has been missing. now we're here live in menlo park. this is the last known ski where she was last known to live -- ski where she was last known to live before going on that day hike. we also stopped by an address in emeryville. no one was available to see if any knew who she was. more than 100 search crews and rescue volunteers combed the mountain yesterday and on saturday. several surveillance photos were released. she's described as a caucasian woman with blonde hair and blue eyes. at the time she went missing, she was last seen wearing a pink pullover as she was paying for parking. a rental car was still there. it's since been moved to the sheriff's department. that car had greaseries in the passenger seat -- groceries in the passenger seat. again, she's been missing for over a week. there's concern and a deep mystery about her disappearance. >> generally when a person is missing, there's reports of a person missing. there why no reports filed with any agency. we initiated the missing person's report ourselves. >> reporter: now, she apparently told her landlord or friend she was going for a day hike but she didn't say exactly where. it was only after a few days her car was parked at the lot. there were earlier reports that she may have changed her linked- in report. park rangers says that was not the case. it's not been changed since she went missing. park rangers will not conduct a search. they will be conducting searches. police in santa rosa, investigating the death of a man who died in their custody. 48-year-old wayne hoffman was riding a bike on nordike avenue when police tried to stop him for a traffic violation. police say he refused to stop. after a brief chase he was taken into custody. that's when police say they a medical emergency. he was rushed to a hospital but later died. the coroner is conducting an autopsy to determine the exact cause of his death. 8:07. the suspension of leland yee has left his constituents in san francisco and san mateo counties with no representation in sacramento. the state senate suspended leland yee after he was charged in an fbi affidavit with corruption and gun trafficking. the president of the state senate has asked yee to resign so someone else could fill his senate seat and represent his constituents but yee has refused to do that. for now, his staff members are continuing to respond to questions from people and refer them to their representatives in the assembly. 8:08. happening today -- labor activists in san francisco will file papers today in an effort to raise the city's minimum wage. now, the ballot measure if approved would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, the highest in the country. this would cover all part-time, temporary and contract employees. now, the proposal would also create a new employment standards oversight committee to make sure the new law is enforced. this last month, the city of richmond raised its minimum wage to $8 to $12.30 an hour. by the way, if you are looking for a job in the san jose area, head for the double tree hotel today. coast-to-coast career fairs will host a job fair from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the hotel on gateway police. re crouters are trying to -- recruiters are trying to figure hundreds of jobs. recruits will be there to represent with resumes. it will cost more to attend a california state school. the rising cost of college tuition was frozen around the state in 2012 but this fall, 11 of the 23 csu campuses will begin charging a student success fee. that money will go to things such as classes and faculty salaries. that will raise the total campus fees at san jose state to almost $2,000 a year. that's the second highest in the state. 8:09. san jose is taking a bold new step now trying to stop police officers from moving away to other cities. the mercury news reports the city council is aideriy to -- is ready to ease disability limits. the pension union argues that injured police officers could be left without a job or pension under the retirement limits voters approved two years ago. they say measure b is the main reason that police officers are moving away to other cities. the city council takes up the issue tomorrow night. kamala harris said she's engaged. she said told the chronicle she will marry los angeles attorney douglas emhoff sometime this year. the two have been dating since they went on a blind date. emhoff has offices in southern california and northern california. so they plan to live in both places. vandals are targeting a certain kind of car. wait until you see what's happening. a rash of incidents that has smart car owners and the police on high alert. results of new experimental medicine for breast cancer being called the most impressive ever. the reason why experts say this new pill is shattering expectations. we're looking at slow traffic on many of these commutes. we haven't had any major accidents. we still look at traffic getting to the richmond bridge slow. we'll take a look at some of the other east bay commutes. clear skies. a lot of sunshine. temperatures warm up. is there cooler weather on the way. place in iowa ie-o we heard of a where every thursday people ride 10 miles for tacos. we thought we'd show up and surprise them with a better kind of taco made with jennie-o ground turkey cooked thoroughly to 165. i feed my kids turkey tacos over regular tacos any day. i think they are light and they are just fresh tasting. yeah. when i eat well, i feel well. anncr: it's time for a better taco. the tacos tonight were pretty much perfect. make the switch. look for jennie-o ground turkey in a store near you. wirethey're big. fast. andome. dependable. and at net10 wireless, we let you tweet, text, talk and surf... on those amazing nationwide networks... without getting locked into a pricey phone contract. america's best 4g lte networks for half the cost. that's wireless your way. unlimited* talk, text, and data starts at just $40 a month. and now android smartphones start at under 50. net10 wireless. welcome back. 8:14. a san diego husband and wife are thank, the military for rescuing them and -- thanking the military for rescuing them and their sick baby off a stranded boat off mexico. rescuersers, including a team from moffett field helped out. there's the coffman family. they set sail across the pacific in march. a short time later, their baby developed a feevern and rash and was not responding to med -- fever and rash and was not responding to medicine. >> they are tired and everything is looking good. it's a great happy ending. >> the family is expected to arrive in san francisco sometime later this week. after boarding the ship, the family released this statement. it says "we're very thankful to be safe and well. we also appreciate all of the concern of everyone back home for the health of our daughter, lyra. she is doing well and continues to improve." president obama and the first lady will attend a memorial service wednesday at fort hood. last week, army truck driver ivan lopez shot and killed three soldiers and wounded 16 others before taking his own life. he reportedly got into an argument with someone at the human resources office before the shooting. the obamas were already scheduled to be in texas this week to take part in democratic fund-raisers and visited fort hood back in 2009 when an army psychiatrist shot and killed 13 people. 8:15. today, general motors will start the repairs on the more than 2.5 million at the center of a controversial recall. that bad ignition switches are tied to at least 13 deaths gm announced the recall two months ago but said they found out about the problems with the ignition switches back in 2004. now, owners can bring their vehicles to a dealer to have that switch replaced. caltrans plans to spend more than $12 million. they are trying to solve a bird problem on the old bay bridge. right now about 800 of these double crested birds net from april to august on the far end of the old bridge. with the demolition already six months behind schedule, caltrans want wait until august. they need the birds to fly array now. they've spent $709,000 to build condos for the birds on the new span. it's made out of stainless steel with nesting materials but so far, none of the birds have moved in. we could find out apple's newest ideas in two months. they announced june 2nd for the worldwide developers' of a kens frens. that's the -- developers' conference. that's the time when they predict updates for the phones. an experimental medicine is reportedly slowing the pace for breast cancer. the medication is called palbosiblib. women seeching the -- wall street analysts say the medicine has the potential to generate as much as $10 billion in annual sales. now the company is waiting to see if the fda will consider approving the medicine base odd p this study or if it -- based on this study or if it will require a larger one. sal, i know you are watching highway 24. i was at the red cross gala. ran into all of these sal castanedo fans. >> they are everywhere. >> you would be surprised when i'm out, people ask about you guys, tori, dave, and they ask about steve in particular. >> i know. i know. >> let's take a look at the commute. i always tell them, steve did his time. he's on a parole. he's doing -- he's on parole. he's doing great. that was a joke. the traffic is moderate up to the calldy tut tunnel. bay bridge toll plaza traffic -- -- caldecott tunnel. bay bridge toll plaza traffic doing well. 101, i'm not that pleased with. not looking that great. first in san mateo, then palo alto. 280 looks good. that would be a decent route across the bay if you are driving into the area, it looks okay here as i look over to 80 westbound. the eastshore freeway is busy into richmond, let's go to steve. clear skies. it will be nice today and tomorrow. temperatures warming up. if you are heading to the giants' home opener, there -- it will be nice. might be a little fog. it will still be nice. temperatures look pretty good. a little warmer today. a slight cooldown tomorrow. still near 70 at game time. all good to go for tomorrow. today, clear skies. looks really nice. temperatures warmed up on sunday. it was nice, people reading their car thermometers today. 80. it's 80. well, it will do that again today. we'll get some maybe mid-80s. close. it will be close for a few. clear skies, no fog. the coast looks great as well. sunny for all. we're already bouncing off the morning lows and starting to warm up. we'll go 74 officially in san francisco. 50s already. 59 in snow. 60 in san francisco. i think the low was 59 in china basin. there's a little component of the offshore breeze. spring time difference in temperatures, 40, 50s. you get the severe weather. that's what's going through the deep south into georgia, alabama, mississippi and wrapping back around towards st. louis, indiana and cincinnati. we have nothing but severe clear. they have severe weather back there. 50 in ukiah. looks like a beautiful day for everybody. top to bottom down to san diego. the warmest day, i think today for everyone. tomorrow will be warm inland. coast will cool down. a little bit tomorrow. napa, 82. petaluma, 80 degrees. clearlake, 84. fairfield, 84. brentwood, oakley a shot out to oakley. walnut creek, 82. 76 in berkeley. 84 gilroy. 80 san jose. santa clara, and cupertino. fremont will be close. palo alto. upper 70s for some. daly city, half moon bay. warm again on tuesday. a little bit of a cooldown. weekend we rebound a little bit. 8:21. it's being called the most promising break yet in the search for the malaysian airplane. the big clue that could finally reveal what happened to the flight. a new problem in chile. why violent protests are breaking out in the country. avo: safeway gets that staying on budget can be a real bear. that's why... ...they've gots lots of ways to save. real big club card deals, the safeway app and gas rewards. this week,... ... life's just a little sweeter with delicious red, seedless grapes. just $1.99 a pound. clean up with bounty paper towels, only $8.99 for 8 large rolls. and honey bunches of oats are just $1.88. there's more savings to love... ...at safeway. ingredients for life. welcome back. 8:24. in chile, people who live in the areas hardest hit by the big earthquake last week, they are starting to complain about the pace of the recovery. demonstrators set fire to barricades angry that many homes still have no water or electricity. you can see people carrying buckets of water. authorities say more than 9,000 houses were damaged in that big quake. chile's interior minister says government agencies are beginning to distribute food, water and sanitary supplies. the death toll from washington's deadly landslide has risen to 33. the federal government says it will continue to help the victims affected by last month's disaster. in fact, yesterday, the heads of fema and homeland security went to survey the damage in oso. the homeland security secretary jay johnson encouraged many victims to apply for help from the government. >> when you meet a family member encountered with a tragedy like this, it's -- there's really nothing you can say to ease the pain except to say that we're here to support you. we're here to help you. >> so far, 190 people have applied for rental assistance through fema. johnson says he hopes others take advantage of the help with repairing damage and insurance issues. 8:25. there is a new survey that finds a growing percentage of americans got health insurance as the enrollment period under the affordable care act ended. the index shows the share of adults without health insurance was 17.1% at the end of the laugh year. it fell to 15.6% for the first three months of 2013 which translates to more than 3.5 million uninsured people gaining health insurance coverage. well, several parts of the bay area are scoring high marks when it comes to managing obesity. a new gallup poll ranks the south bay has a community with the second lowest rate of obesity in america. just 19.5% of the population. san francisco and the east bay came in third overall. 19.7%. the denver, colorado, and san diego areas had the best marks in the nation, while the most obese community was memphis, tennessee. almost a third of the population is obese. 8:26. the prices to mark your car on the streets in one bay area city are going up. we'll tell you where the cost is doubling starting today. >> reporter: we're live in san francisco where some smart car owners are on edge after their cars are flipped by vandals. we'll tell you where the bizarre crimes are happening. if you are driving into the city right now, northbound 101 does look good approaching the 80 split but the bay bridge is another story. we'll update you on that and some of the other bay crossings. looking good for wall-to- wall sunshine. temperatures warmed up on sunday. will they continue to do that today and if so for how long? well good morning. welcome back to "mornings on 2." you know what these are? you know what they are for but i bet you don't know where the prices are going up, starting today. these are live pictures. in fact, the prices are doubling. coming up in about six minutes from now, we'll tell you where it may be cheaper to park in a garage than out on the street. stay tuned for that. monday morning, april 7th. i'm dave clark. we can talk about your weather and traffic. steve is right over there. >> that until 8:00 is a tough one. >> yeah, i know. all right. tomorrow, everything is fine. there will be a little bit of patchy fog. we're good to go for the giants' home opener. today will be warmer. no fog at all. but it's -- i'm not worried about it. some of that fog, you can see off the coast. it mate get enhancement -- might get enhancement tomorrow. today looks great, fabulous. san jose, a high of 80. started off at 54. temperatures are already warming up fast. 50, 60s. i don't know about the 63 in antioch. san francisco is already 60. i think their low is 55. they are warming up quick. very mild in the city. that system will give us a slight cooldown but more likely on wednesday for everybody. today, looks sunny around warm for everybody. really nice by the coast. 70s there. upper 70s. mid-70s around the bay. low to mid-80s inland. here's sal. right now traffic is going to be busy in some areas still as we get to the late commute. steady drive time between 20, 30 minutes. it depends on which line you are in, if you are fastrack or not, the average time timed around 25 minutes when you take into account the traffic on the bridge. the morning commute is okay. they just cleared a stalled vehicle on the san mateo bridge. you can see the tow truck on the right. 15-minute drive time across the bridge. 80 still pretty slow in western:00 d.c. county. it's -- in western contra costa county. it's slow down to the maze. 24 is improving and westbound 4 is improving as well. back to the desk. new this morning, san francisco firefighters investigating a fire that destroyed a carmer. look at this. the carmer was parked in the walgreens parking lot on lombard. one of our viewers, jay, thank you, he sent us this video in the past 30 minutes. you can see the top of the rv is fully engulfed. the firefighters are out there trying to put the flames out. thart's no word -- there's no word of anyone being injured in that. pay attention if you own a smart car. would you look at this. those cars are being targeted by vandals in san francisco. there were three incidents overnight. tara moriarty live in san francisco with more on why some say teenagers may be doing this. what happened, tara? >> reporter: well. all of these vandals have been flipping these cars over. i just got a facebook message from kevin reed who said the same thing happened to him three years ago and it took three tow trucks to get his vehicle up again. the video may look funny. all of the cars involved in these latest attacks have been towed away. but you can see on the ground, the glass in this street here where one of the cars had the windows shattered. this all started around 1:00 when a smart car on the 200 block of anderson was found flipped on the roof. about ten minutes later, another car was found flipped on anderson and ogden. the last occurred around 1:30 a couple of minutes away in the portola neighborhood. a witness said he was shocked when he saw a group of about a half a dozen people in hooded sweatshirts walk up to his roommates smart car and flip it vertically. >> it seems like it's some sort of organized act against smart cars or a bunch of guys trying to cause havoc. >> reporter: all of the cars sustained shattered windows and body damage. we did talk to a sergeant. we were told that the incident is under investigation. we're live in san francisco. tara moriarty, ktvu channel 2 news. 8:33. san francisco police investigating the death of a man hit by a car as he crossed the street. it happened about 11:00 last night at van ness and golden gate avenues. investigators say the car hit the man as he was crossing the busy intersection but there are early reports indicating he was not in the crosswalk. the driver did stop. he's cooperating with police. seven people have been hurt crossing the street. four of them on van ness. san francisco police are gonna reduce the number of deadly number of accidents. they are cracking down on speeders, red light runners and other dangerous drivers. police have written 50% more traffic tickets this year than last year in a campaign to make the streets of san francisco safer. 8:34. also happening today, the cost to drive over the golden gate bridge has gone up by $1. that's raised the toll to $7 for fastrack users. it's $6. carpools and people who qualify as disabled now will pay $4 and this increase is just the beginning. the toll will rise by 25 cents a year for the next four years. the bridge district says the extra money will help pay down a $142 million deficit. happening today, visitors to downtown walnut creek are paying double to park. alex savidge has more on the changes going into effect and why some business owners are really pretty concerned. >> reporter: good morning. one shop owner said she's worried this price hike may deter customers from coming downtown. starting today, if you are coming to this area, you will want to bring along a lot of extra quarters. the price is park is about to double in downtown walnut creek, starting today. the rate will jump from $1 to $2. meter enforcement hours are changing. forget about 9:00 to 5:00 enforcement. now you need to pay at the meter from 10:00 a.m. all the way to 8:00 at night. and sundays no longer free. parking meters will be enforced seven days a week. the city council approved these changes late last year. there has been a campaign ever since to give drivers a head up to what was coming. the owner of forget me now flowers on main street in walnut creek is hoping this price hike doesn't discourage customers from coming downtown. >> for myself, my customers are in and out. but for the restaurants or the beauty salons and other stores that the customers stay here for a couple of hours, that would be hard. >> the business owner is worried about the fact that the city will be charging for parking on sunday. all. changes mean it will be cheaper to park in one of the city- owned garages and there are several. at the garage, the first hour is free for everyone. the good news for drivers is there is a bit of a grace period so you can get used to the changes to the parking meters in downtown walnut creek. for the next two weeks, the city will be issuing warnings, during the evening hours and on sundays. alex savidge, ktvu channel 2 news. 8:37. officials say it's game over for the gambling dens in san francisco's excelsior district. police have warned the remaining cafes still operating on mission it's time to shut down or be shut down. the businesses look like internet cafes but they host slot machine style gambling. some business owners have blamed the dense for a rise in crime like vandalism and assaults. price at the gasoline pump keeps going up. according to the latest lundberg survey, the average price has gone up 5 cents in the past two weeks. in california, people are paying about 4.03 to fill up. in the bay area, it's higher. the average about 4.05 a gallon. san francisco has the highest prices at 4.08. happening now -- president obama is just arriving in maryland where he's visiting a high school. he's there to announce the winners of a competition he launched last fall to bring together educators and employers to give high school students access to real world career skills and college level courses. let's listen in. >> in the midst of one of the economic crisis of our lifetime, and it's been hard and it's been painful. there are a lot of families that lost their homes, lost jobs, a lot of families that are still hurting out there but the work that we've done, the groundwork that we've laid has created a situation where we're moving in the right direction. our businesses have created almost 9 million new jobs over the last four years. our high school graduation rate is the highest on record. dropout rates are going down. among latinos, dropout rates have been cut almost in half since 2000. [ cheers ] >> you are listening live to president obama. i understand it's in maryland in bladensburg, talking about some of the progress that's been made with students across the country. he will be announcing the winners of a competition that he launched last fall to try to increase job opportunities. >> good for them. police in santa barbara say they saw violence this weekend they haven't seen in more than a decade. take a look at the pictures. the reason thousands of people were outen the streets causing all -- out on on the streets causing all kinds off problems. >> reporter: a woman shaken after learning her brother was shot in a south san jose neighborhood. what we're learning about the investigation. we're still learning about drive times. you may want to add extra time if you are commuting across the bay bridge. we'll give you the drive time. skies are clear. it will be sunny and warm today. it was yesterday but even warmer today. we'll show you how much and see if that will hold into tuesday and wednesday. bulldog: you don't need superpowers to help someone. sometimes, all it takes is a warm heart and a cold nose. that's why mattress discounters good deed dogs is raising money to train service dogs for people with disabilities. i would never imagine a life without an assistance dog ever again. i relied on people a lot. he helps me live a more independent life. bulldog: we need your help to do more. give at mattressdiscountersdogs.com, or any mattress discounters. mattress discounters good deed dogs helping dogs help people welcome back. 8:43. let's bring you up to date on some of the top stories we're following for you. several workers in san jose escaped an early-morning fire. it happened at this business complex. this happened about 3:00 this morning on old bayshore highway. it appears the fire started at a landscaping business. the cause of the fire is under investigation. we're also following developing news from san jose. police are searching for suspects in an early-morning shooting. it happened on snow drive in san jose san jose -- in south san jose. janine de la vega has been out there for hours. you are back now. what's the latest, janine. >> reporter: people i spoke to say they heard yelling and then multiple gunshots. you're looking at snow drive. a man was found shot here. there was a car with no one in it. let's go to video wither yerm this morning. this happened at 3:00. when officers arrived, they found a black man in his 30s suffering from at least one gunshot wound. he was conscious and breeblthing and rushed to the hospital. we're told he's in stable but serious condition. the man's sister says his girlfriend lives in the neighborhood but is unsure what happened. she's very worried. neighbors are concerned as well. there's a lot of families with young children and this is just a couple of blocks away from the school. >> i've been here for like ten years and nothing like this before has happened. i was surprised this morning. >> reporter: police went door to door trying to find out if there was some sort of argument going on or if this was gang related. they collected evidence and towed away a lexus on snow drive as well as another drive parked in the driveway near where the shooting happened. there is an officer at the hospital. they are hoping to get more answers when the victim is able to speak to them. we don't know the motive. no arrests have been made. we do know that they are speaking to a woman, a i parentally a witness -- apparently a witness at the scene and found screaming when officers arrived. they are talking to her to see if they can get more clues. janine de la vega, ktvu channel 2 news. new developing in the search for a missing malaysia flight 370. pam cook is in our newsroom with new information that searchers say is the most promising lead so far. good morning, pam. >> good morning. malaysia's defense minister said he's cautiously optimistic. now, a u.s. ping locater and an australian ship have both picked up signals that investigators say are consistent with the sends sent out by an airplane black box recorder. investigators warn although the news is encouraging, it may take days to confirm if those signals are from flight 370 and time is running out. as we've been reporting, the batteries on the black box recorders usually last just 30 days. >> ladies and gentleman, the new developments has been the most promising lead we've had. i urge all malaysian and the international community to unite in prayers and not give unhope -- up hope. >> hope that some proof will be found about what happened to the flight. but at what cost? the u.s. billion, it's reported, is already in the millions of dollars. some countries like china sent more ships to the area than us. a senior analyst from australia says much of this is good training. australia is spending more than $500,000 a day on one of the ships it has in the indian ocean. there are new reports that the plane may have taken a route around indonesian airspace. analysts say that would indicate whoever is piloting the plane is trying to avoid radar detection. pam cook, ktvu channel 2 news. let's go to sal. can you help your friends on highway 24, sal? >> well, are they really my friends. >> they are all your friends. >> they are your friends, sal. >> you know i always try to help. let's take a look at highway 24. i will help anyone out with this commute and let them know that the drive time between 680 and 24 is only 15 minutes. it looks worse than it is pie looking at this picture of -- by looking at this picture of la fayette. it's beginning to loosen up. if you have the luxury of waiting around, that might help as well. let's take a look at the bay bridge toll plaza, it's been steady at about averaging 25- minute drive time between oakland and san francisco and that's -- you know, that's the -- that's the worse upon -- we always go by the slowest car. of you might get in quicker than that. this is 80 westbound. still a lot of red on this map. it's somewhat surprising that 80 is slow. drive time from 280, nine minutes stoped-and-go traffic. 101 is 11 minute -- stop -- stop-and-go traffic. 1011 minutes -- 101 is 11 minutes. let's go to steve. we have clear skies and temperatures, they are already beginning to warm up. it looks good. what about tuesday at at&t? looks great. it might be slightly cooler. it will still be just fine. no worries. there will be a little bit of fog. our forecast looks good. today we get a hint of an offshore breeze. that means everybody on the coast warms up. a lot of sunshine through noon and this afternoon. temperatures warm today. sunday was nice. today in san francisco, we'll go for 47 for a high. the lows are mild. talked a couple of people who live in the city. 31 up in tahoe. 41 in reno. 57. looks good up and down the coast. that little system will give a tiny bit of fog. sunshine around warm temperatures. now, tomorrow inland might be. coastal cooldown a wee bit. 70s to upper 70s. santa rosa at 80. concord, 82. brentwood, 83. 77 in oakland. alameda a beautiful 74. 76 santa cruz. low 80s all over. saratoga, san mateo, millbrae, 78. san bruno, 74. pacifica, half moon bay, daly city. sunshine and 70. it will still be warm tomorrow. slight cooldown by the coast. more so wednesday, thursday. it looks like the coolest day will be friday. ten minutes before 9:00. from served and protecting to pushing and decking. the unbelievable video showing the finest and bravest taking rivalry to a whole new level. this was at a charity event. [♪] new this morning, a dramatic moment in the murder trial of os cass pistorius. it happened hours ago in a south african courtroom. >> i would like to take this opportunity to apologize to -- to riva's family. >> the cam cameras were not allowed to show his face. his testimony began with his emotional apology to the family of reeva steevkamp, the girlfriend he admits killing inside his home last year. he said he was trying to protect her thinking he was shooting an intruder. prosecutors say it was a premeditated killing. he faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted. the voting has started in india. the world's biggest election. there are 814 million eligible voters in india. they will spend the next five weeks voting for members of parliament. the voting takes place in dink parts of the country because india is so huge. many members of the parliament face a tough re-election fight because of corruption scandals and the resent economic slump. two teen -- two teens were killed over the weekend in a car crash. family and friends hope three others injured in the crash will survive. the accident happened saturday afternoon in a rural area of vacaville. police say the pickup truck was speeding when it went up a curve and out into an open field where it rolled several times. it appears no one was wearing seat belts. all five of the teens were ejected from the truck. the chp says alcohol was a factor. in fair field, police are investigating a shooting that sent four teens to the hospital. this happened around 10:30 saturday night during a house party on camelia and orchard streets. witnesses say a fight broke out and someone started shooting. police say all four victims are in stable condition. this is the second shooting in the area within a week. on thursday, federal and local police shot and injured two brothers suspected of drive-by shootings. spring break celebration in southern california turned violent. look at this. at least six law enforcement officers, dozens of partiers were hurt in santa barbara over this weekend during a street party. police tried to control -- almost 15,000 people quickly got out of control. more than 100 people were arrested. deputies say there they've never seen anything like this in 15 years. the university says all of this is under investigation. the students who took part in this may face penalties. a bench's clearing brawl broke out in a charity hockey game between new york city police officers and new york city firefighters. >> the fight started in the second period yesterday when the score was tied 3-3. the brawl led to a 25-minute delay. sticks and gloves were picked up. players were ejected. new york police department won 8-5. neither side is commenting on the brawl. not sure about any arrests or -- or fines anything. >> that's bizarre. 8:57. hey, sal, come on back. take care of the folks, take them where they need to go. >> one more traffic report here. nothing to be alerted about. let's go out to the live pictures. 280 is improving. if you are driving in the santa clara valley. i would say 85 is the worst freeway and 280 is the best with 101 in between. bay bridge toll plaza, that's a 25-minute drive time into san francisco. as we look at the maps here a lot of slow traffic on 880 and 580 in the east bay. let's go to steve. thank you, sal. sunshine, coast, bay, inland. 70s by the water's edge. upper 70s, mid-70s around the bay. low to mid-80s inland. slightly cooler tuesday. no problem for the giants' home opener. it will be cooler for everyone midweek. >> i'm looking that. >> yeah. we had a lot of rain last week. that's our report. >> be sure to stay tuned for nascar race that delayed because of the rain. it can be seen immediately following "mornings on 2." you can follow us at ktvu.com and facebook and twitter. thank you for joining us. everything's bigger in texas. and that included the length and breadth of yesterday's lingering storm that prevented us from even starting the 500-mile race. but now it's on. drivers are behind the wheel, crews are at the ready, and the the fans that could stay are here and ready to go.
FremontCaliforniaUnited-statesAlabamaAustraliaAlameda-countyBrentwoodRedwood-cityMountain-viewVacavilleTurkeyChina game over, you lose. look, i understand the political virtue of making that argument. it's always good to convince those who disagree with you to just give up their beliefs. sometimes those of us on this side of the aisle oblige by doing so. but it's not an argument that has any basis in the constitution. is obamacare currently the loft land? of course. it's passed into law, some statute books. no one on this side of the aisle is arguing that it's not. we're arguing that it shouldn't be. that's a very different thing than saying it's not. and congress has the power of the purse. congress has the power -- i'll finish this point and then i'm happy to yield for a question. congress has the power to appropriate and there's no obligation for congress to appropriate, to fund a law that isn't working. that evidence and experience that what the american people are experiencing has demonstrated it isn't working. and so the house of representatives in voting to defund obamacare while funding the rest of government is fulfilling its constitutional function and if this body took up that same gantlet, kept government funded, never shut down government, funded every aspect of government except obamacare because it isn't working and hurting the american people we would be hurting the people. i think the senator from virginia rose for a question. i'll be happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. kaine: i ask the senator to yield for a series of questions, first comments you made earlier about helpful reforms that could be made to the health care system, and second, your comments about the need for members of this body to live to their -- live to their constituents. being in the chair and hearing you, i couldn't resist but follow up on those two items. on the issue of reform, i understood one of your points to be that a helpful reform might be for congress to take up and potentially eliminate the current prohibition of purchasing insurance across state lines. is that -- did i hear that correctly? mr. cruz: yes, that is correct. i'm happy to yield for seakd question without yielding the floor. mr. kaine: in addition i understood and i agreed with a comment you made about potential reforms even the whole notion of health care provided through employers is a little bit of a historical anomaly, that came up in the aftermath of world war ii. i wasn't sure if you were suggesting that as part of the health care reform you would want to alter that norm of employers providing at least some health care provision for their employees. mr. cruz: i thank you for that question. what i was suggesting is we should do disoarm that -- tax reform that encourages policies to be personal and portable. right now federal laws heavily favor employer-provided health insurance and that creates some real failures in the market where when someone loses their job they lose their health insurance. we would be better serving i believe our constituents if health insurance became like car insurance that went with you regardless of what job you were in. mr. kaine: you engaged in a colloquy with the senator from illinois about a provision i wanted to follow up on. prior to the passage of the affordable care act it was lawful and, in fact, common for insurance companies to turn down individuals for insurance because of preexisting health conditions. i don't think but i want to make sure about this, i don't think you were arguing we should go back to that day and that we should go back to a status quo where children would be turned down for health insurance because of preexisting health care conditions. mr. cruz: i thank you for that question. let me point out that preexisting conditions and the individual mandate of obamacare are integrally connected. the way the health insurance market works -- let me take an example that doesn't deal with health insurance. let's talk about fire insurance. fire insurance, i spoke both our homes have fire insurance. imagine if congress were to pass a law that says fire insurance companies cannot take into account preexisting conditions such as whether the home has already burned down in a fire. now, if that were the law, would any rational person would do, you and i would cancel our fire insurance policies because our house hasn't burned down and if it did, we could buy a fire insurance policy and say please pay for my house. now, under that rule the whole insurance regime collapses because the basis of insurance is you get people whose homes haven't burned down to pay relatively small premiums to create a pool of cap tal that -- capital, we don't know who, put in money and premiums there will be a pool to pay for whichever unlucky soul faces their home burning down. the health insurance market works quite similarly which is the rule is simply anyone regardless of their medical condition, any insurance company has to cover them no matter what, the incentive is the same as with fire insurance if you and i are healthy, it's, frankly, irrational to get health insurance if the rule is if i get sick iraq get health insurance and they have to cover me. what you end up with is insurance who consists only of people who have sicknesses, who have grave diseases and that bankrupts every insurance plan. if you have a mandate that country take into account whether someone is already sick before giving them insurance, it means the health insurance companies dough go out of business and what it leads to is what majority leader reid has argued for, it leads ultimately to single payer government insurance. mr. kaine: does the affordable care act require conditions at the same rate across the board? mr. cruz: it restricts the terms at which the terms are given. mr. kaine: you are opposed to the provision in the affordable care act that requires health insurance companies to write insurance to individuals within those limitations regardless of preexisting conditions? mr. cruz: i will answer your question but want to finish the explanation. that's the reason why obamacare includes the individual mandate. to use the fire example again, it would be the equivalent of if you're saying you got to issue a fire policy to anyone regardless of whether their house has already burned down or not, it would be the equivalent of saying everyone who has a house has to buy a policy. because that's the only way you prevent the insurance market from being bankrupted. so the individual mandate, the reason why obamacare says we're forcing everyone to buy insurance whether you want to or not, is because of the preexisting condition. lch, my -- listen, my view on preexisting conditions is we ought to reform the market to deal with that problem. i don't think obamacare is the right solution. i think obamacare is the wrong solution. i think we ought to defund it now and ultimately ought to repeal it on its entirety. on preexisting conditions i'll point out number one if you are have an issue, there have been issues with insurance companies acting in bad faith, dropping someone when they get sick. and i think there the legal system should work to prevent that. if you've purchased insurance, paid your premiums, your company should not be dropping you when you become sick and there's a vital role for state insurance regulators to be involved and for our contract and tort system, the legal system, to be involved there. and i think if we move towards changing the federal tax laws to make health insurance policies portable, personal, it will go a long, long way to solving the problem of preexisting conditions. i'm not maintaining it will solve it in every instance 100% of the time. it's very difficult to come up with a federal rule that will address 100% of the inequitable circumstances you could come up with and if you tried to, the unintended consequences can be staggering. obamacare was justified in terms of wanting to provide insurance for those without insurance. listen, i'd like to see those without insurance get health insurance. i'd like to see a competitive market where low-cost catastrophic policies were attractive to people and they chose to purchase it. but, you know, one of the best ways for someone to get health insurance is for them to get a good job, for them to actually start making money, have some disposable income, start climbing the economic ladder and the unintended consequence of obamacare is its ended -- it's ended up hammering economic growth, hammering small businesses and so a lot of the people that the law was trying to help have been made worse off. mr. kaine: senator, if i could, a reform in your view that might encompass a different solution for the preexisting condition or an ending of the ban on interstate purchasing of insurance, if we get through this week and we're into next week and obamacare hasn't been defunded and we have funded government operations going forward, you could introduce a reform bill proposing to do just those things, couldn't you? mr. cruz: i thank the senator for that question. i could and i will confess our policy team is working on a number of health insurance reform affirmative policies. now, i will confess and -- for some reason we're kind of going with the home fire analogies so let's stick with it right now. there are some in the course of health care matters argue that the heavy focus of those of us who are opposed to obamacare should be what's the alternative, that that should be the heavy focus and listen, i absolutely think the health care system needs reforms to change real problems in it. i'm a strong believer in that. but an analogy i've used before is if your home is on fire, you pout the fire first. before building an addition to the house. likewise with obamacare, i think obamacare is such a train wreck, such a disaster that the first imperative is to stop the damage from obamacare and then i think we should work and i'd like it to be in a bipartisan way. you and i have talked many times about how we could work together. we have yet to find a great opportunity to do so but i am hope thankful will change because i'd like to see us listen to our constituents and work constructively to fix the problems that hardworking americans are struggling with. and so when it comes to introducing affirmative health care legislation, i fully anticipate that our team will do so and we're working on proposals now, as you know well our having been here just nine months, it has been not a quiet nine months --, mr. kaine: senator, if we get to that point and you introduce affirmative legislation to reform the health care system after we get through this debate, that would be legislation that would not be connected to the question, the existential question of whether or not government would continue to operate on october 1, and so it wouldn't be intergralt grally wrapped up with sort of a threat to the economy that would be posed by a potential government shutdown, and it could be analyzed just on its own merits. is this a good reform or a bad reform, without being wrapped around the question of whether we would shut down the government and do we lay off the -- or put on some kind of furlough the nurses at fort belvoir hospital who are taking care of wounded warriors every day. that would be a reform bill where we could really dig into the reform and analyze what's good and what's bad and what should be fixed and maybe what shouldn't be without it being wrapped around the question of a government shutdown. wouldn't you agree with that? mr. cruz: i thank the senator from virginia and i would certainly agree this body should spend considerable time working and working together on positive, proactive health care reforms. to expand competition, empower patients. and i also agree with something else the senator from virginia said which is we should not be threatening a government shutdown. i don't want a government shutdown, i want the government to continue. i salute the house of representatives for passing a continuing resolution that keeps the government funded. but it also defunds obamacare and in my view, that is responsive to the suffering that so many millions of americans are experiencing, to the loss of jobs, to being forced into part-time work, facing higher health insurance premiums, to losing their health insurance. mr. kaine: senator, would you not agree that the best way to avoid a government shutdown or threats of a government shutdown or talking about the consequences of a government shutdown would be to separate out your question of what are the right reforms of the health care system, from the funding of government operations? mr. cruz: well, i would certainly agree with the senator from virginia that we should stop holding hostages and so an ideal way and i had an earlier exchange with senator enzi from wyoming, who pointed out the entire reason we're having this continuing resolution battle is because congress failed in its job to pass appropriations bills. and so, for example, the house of representatives has passed a defense authorization. i think we should take it up and pass it immediately. so that any discussion of government shutdowns does not in any way, shape or form doesn't even remotely threaten the salary of our men and women of the military. and i'm confident you and i agree under no circumstances should anyone who is risking his or her life to defend the rest of us find their compensation, their salary threatened. now, in my view, existing law allows and even requires the president to fund the military, regardless of what happens on the continuing resolution, regardless if we had a partial temporary shutdown. a senator: ask acceptable for discussion -- is it acceptable for government shutdown to threaten the nonmilitary priorities that are important to the american public? mr. cruz: i appreciate the question from the senator from virginia and i would note, i don't think we should shut anything down except obamacare. i think we should fund it all. and, indeed, i have indicated a willingness. now, the senator from virginia knows well that i think we've got a deep spending problem in this country, that congress has abdicated its responsibility, has built a record debt. it's gone from $10 trillion when the president was elected to now nearly $17 trillion, over a 60% increase. and so if you ask me, "do i like a continuing resolution that funds everything the federal government is doing without having significant spending cuts?" no. no, i would much have real spending cuts, roll up our sleeves and address the out-of-control spending and debt. but i'm perfectly willing to vote for a continuing resolution that maintains the status quo on everything except for obamacare because i view the gravity of obamacare, the threat of obamacare to hardworking men and women so grave that, as you know, in politics and life, you've got to pick your battles, and you've got to pick your battles one at a time. so over time, i'd like for us to work to have real spending cuts. but i don't think the avenue to doing that is that we should shut down the government. and in my view, we shouldn't shut down the government. and the only way a government shutdown will happen -- and it may happen -- is if majority leader harry reid and president obama decide they want to shut down the government in order to force obamacare on the american people. mr. cane: so, senator, you -- mr. kaine: so, senator, will you not vote to continue government operations unless obamacare is defunded? mr. cruz: the senator from virginia is correct that i have stated that i will not vote for a continuing resolution that funds obamacare. and i believe this body shouldn't vote for a continuing resolution that funds obamacare. why? because the facts show it isn't working. that's why the unions, who used to support it, are one after the other coming out against it. mr. kaine: senator, i want to switch and ask you a question about the make washington listen, the second piece. i gather, if you'll let me get back into a little bit of campaigning activity -- you and i were candidates at the same time in 2012 -- i gather that you told your constituents that you were opposed to obamacare and that you would vote to repeal or defund it if you were elected to office; is that correct? mr. cruz: that is most assuredly correct. mr. kaine: and i believe i'm correct that you won your election not by a small margin but by a large margin; is that correct? mr. cruz: thanks to the work of a whole lot of texans, men and women across the state who really worked their hearts out, yes, we were privileged to win the primary by 14 points and to win the general election by 16 points. mr. kaine: and would it be fair to say that part of your mission here is you told your voters what you would do and they knew what you would do and chose you to do the job and what -- one of the things you're doing today on the floor with this effort is to basically live up to the promise that you made to them and the mandate that they gave to you? mr. cruz: i would agree with all of that. mr. kaine: let me offer you a hypothetical situation. contemplate another state and another race between two candidates where one candidate took the strong position that obamacare should be repealed and the other candidate took the strong position that obamacare should not be repealed. and in that state, the candidat that won by a sizable margin was the candidate who said, obamacare should not be repeal repealed. having been plain about it with the voters and the voters, having heard the choices and made a choice, do you think it's also the case that a senator in that hypothetical state should come to the body and do what he said he was going to do to his voters? mr. cruz: well, i appreciate the question from the senator from virginia and i think he raises a very good point and a fair point. and i think that point is particularly valid for those senators. and i would note that all three of the senators in the chambers right now -- in the chamber right now were elected in 2012. i think the point that he raises is particularly valid for those of us who were running in 2012. when this was an issue before the voters. now, the hypothetical you gave, which i'm not sure is entirely hypothetical, what i don't know is the exact representations that candidate made to the voters of his or her state, the exact statements that candidate made. i absolutely agree that we should honor the commitments made to the people. i would also note that -- that all of us have an obligation to take note of chang changed circumstances, to take note of new fact that come to life. and even honoring your commitments means that you ignore changed circumstances. to give an example, prior to world war ii, there were quite a few members of this body and the house of representatives who campaigned and said, we will keep america out of the war. following pearl harbor, it was a different circumstance, it was a changed circumstance. and i think quite reasonably, people changed their views, the constituents changed their views and the representatives changed their views based on changed circumstances. and so i would submit -- listen, the argument you make is a serious one and i would not encourage any member of this body to disregard the commitments they made to their constituents. but i would at the same time encourage every member not just to keep in mind the promises made on the campaign trail but the ongoing views of your constituents, because as circumstances change, all of us respond to changed circumstances, including our constituents. and so one must certainly respect the promises made but at the same time in the nine months we've been here, in the year since the three of us were active candidates, the situation on obamacare has changed. look, i very much opposed bay, a year ago, two years ago and three years ago, at the time it was passed, i thought it was a bad idea. but a year ago, the unions didn't oppose it. a year ago, the president hadn't granted exemptions for big corporations. a year ago, members of congress hadn't gone to the president and asked for an exemption and gotten it. a year ago, we hadn't seen companies all over this country forcing people into 29 hours a week. a year ago, we haven't seen one big corporation after another dropping their health insurance coverage, such as u.p.s. telling 15,000 employees, you're health care is being dropped. so i would submit, mr. president, that the circumstances have changed. mr. kaine: and the last thing i'd ask, senator, is the three senators who are now in the chamber are each from different states. we all ran in 2012. i don't know about the presiding officer's situation. i was in that hypothetical, as you understand, running against a candidate who promised to repeal on obamacare.i promised to worobamacare; i promisedto w. but the voters of virginia chose the candidate who was not for repeal of obamacare. i don't know if it was the same situation in connecticut or not. i suspect that it probably was. we each represent one state. there was also a national election in 2012. between a candidate, a president, who said that the affordable care act was the law of the land and i'm willing to work on and improve it but i will fight against efforts to repeal it or defund it and a candidate who pledged to repeal the affordable care act. and an election result and a presidential election is listening to america, i believe. i'm a believer in this system. i'm a believer in small "d" democracy and the power of presidential elections and mandates. and i think the result in that election between the candidate who promised to maintain the affordable care act and work to improve it, and the candidate who promised to repeal the affordable care act was not particularly close. i think it was a 53% to 47% election among the large, sizable national electorate rejectinrejecting the appeal ofe affordable care act position. is that something that this body should at least consider or take into account as we wrestle with this question? mr. cruz: well, i appreciate the question from the senator from virginia as well. and, look, there's no doubt president obama was reelected. i wish he had not been. i obviously did not support his election but the majority of the american people voted for him to be reelected and that is to his credit of i would point out that i am -- do not agree with one of the premises of the question proposed by the senator from which is namely that the national election was fought over obamacare. i think the national election, number one, president obama is a spectacularly talented candidate, a far more talented candidate than the republican candidate, who i think mitt romney is a good and decent man but not the political candidate that barack obama is. but, number two, once we got to the general election, much to my great dismay, republicans didn't make the selection about obama obamacare. and, in fact, if you contrast the elections in 2010 and 2012. 2012, republicans ran all over the country that let's stop obamacare. and the result was a tidal wave for republicans in the house of representatives and in the senate. it resulted in new personnel in both places. it resulted republicans taking over the house of representatives. it resulted in a significant number of new republicans in this body. in 2012, republicans department focus, indeed, the general election did not make nearly as much of an issue about obamacare and how much it's failing the american people as they should have. and as a consequence, i think an awful lot of people stayed home. now, i will commend the obama campaign. they did a fabulous job of mobilizing their supporters, their voters. and that's part of what politics is about. they also did a very good job of focusing on a lot of other issues other than obamacare. and, indeed, i would suggest to the senator from virginia that if the premise of your question were correct and president obama would have campaigned to "i passed obamacare. vote for me, i passed obamacare." we would have seen tv ads saturating. and it was very interesting, that was not the campaign president obama ran. there was almost a bipartisan agreement not to mention obamacare. unfortunately, the republicans did far too little of it. but it's not like the president ran around focusing a lot on it either. mr. kaine: one last comment and then a final question. i don't know -- i'm not skilled at the -- how campaigns are run but i would challenge your assertion, i think everyone -- virtually everyone in this country who voted in the presidential election in 2012 knew that one candidate, the president, would fight to maintain the affordable care act and another pledged to repeal it. how much they did it in ads and in tv, i can't comment on that. i actually saw a lot of ads about the very subject in a battleground state of virginia. but i think the voters knew exactly the positions of the two candidates on this issue. and while it wasn't the only issue in the campaign, it was an important one and they had that before them as they made the decision. the last question i would ask is really a little bit of a rhetorical one but it's a sincere one. i very much hope that, regardless of the outcome of this debate over the next few days -- well, and i strongly want the outcome of this debate to be that government continues and that we continue to provide the services that we need to and that we save the debate about health care reform for another day -- but i very much hope that you introduce legislation about health care reform ideas, that that legislation not be wrapped up with the question of whether government should shut down or want but be stand-alone legislation, that it not be wrapped up with the question of whether we should default on our debts or not. but it should be stand-alone legislation. because i have a feeling that there are many democrats and republicans that would love to work on reform ideas. in this body and in the house, we have a somewhat limited bandwidth. we're trying to deal with a lot of different issues. health care is a very important one. i think there are a lot of members here who would love to have a debate about reform. but for the last three-plus years, the only debate has been about repealing or defunding instead of about reform. and that makes it a fairly simple vote for many of us. it makes it a simple vote for many of us who feel like the will of this body has been expressed, that the supreme court has rendered an opinion about the affordable care act, that the american public has rendered an opinion about two positions in a presidential election in 2012. a defunding repeal strategy, which has been now done four dozen times by the house, is actually a pretty simple thing to move aside based on the foregoing, but if we set aside those efforts and try to take up the kinds of concrete reform ideas that you talked about earlier, i actually think there might be a number of things that we could all do together to improve the situation, but we just don't need to do it while we're talking about the shutdown of the government or defaulting on america's bills for the first time in our history. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor back. mr. cruz: well, i appreciate the question from the senator from virginia, and let me say i appreciate the good faith and seriousness with which he approaches this issue and other issues before this body. one of the notable things, three senators who are on the floor right now, all of us are freshmen, and one of the things i appreciate about this freshman class is all of us came in november to washington before we had been sworn in as senators, and we had a week-long orientation process. we went and we had dinners with our spouses. we got to know each other as human beings. that's something that doesn't happen very often in washington anymore. it used to happen in a bygone era, but it doesn't happen very much anymore. and one of the interesting consequences that not many people have commented on, but it's something that i find quite significant is the freshmen, the freshman class, there were far more democrats than republicans, but to the best of my knowledge, no freshman has spoken ill of another freshman. i am not aware of it if it has happened. and i think part of the reason for that was spending that time together, getting to know each other as people. the senator from virginia and i disagree on a number of issues, and yet i hope and believe that we both understand the other is operating in good-faith based on principles that we think are correct. that's a foundation for actually solving problems and moving forward for this country, and one of the unfortunate consequences is you see both sides of this chamber pummel each other, is many of us don't even know each other. one of the interesting dynamics from my perspective, many of the senior democrats that frequently choose to say some fairly strident things directed at me, many of them i don't really know. i haven't had the opportunity to get to know them and i have had conversations with freshman democrats asking the senior republicans do you know them, and the answer i have been told is not really. we sit on committees, but most of us are on four or five committees. you're running from one hearing to another. you often run into a hearing, you ask a few questions, you run out, you're off to the next meeting, you meet with a constituent, you're doing this, you're doing that, and you don't have an opportunity to get to know each other. so i am hopeful that the goodwill that we have seen among the freshmen can spill over more broadly. but i want to say also on the point that the senator from virginia made about reasonable and productive amendments to improve the system, look, it's very difficult to have the sort of reforms i talked about with obamacare in place, because obamacare has so dominated the health care market. it has made government the chief mover and operator, and you can't have positive free market reforms with obamacare there. the approach i'm advocating doesn't work as long as obamacare makes government the chief mover and operator, and that is much the same as the situation in nations that have adopted single-payer socialized health care. but i would note the senator from virginia expressed an interest in positive reforms to address some of the most egregious aspects of health care. i would encourage the senator from virginia to direct those comments to the majority leader of this body, because the majority leader of this body has decided on this vote that we'll have one amendment and one amendment only as far as i understand. that amendment will be funding obamacare in its entirety, so the majority leader has decided we're not going to have amendments on the sorts of things that the senator from virginia suggested, ways to improve the system. so, for example, the majority leader does not want an amendment apparently on addressing the medical devices tax. a large majority of senators in this body voted in the budget proceeding against the medical devices tax because it is destroying jobs, destroying innovation, one of the most punitive, destructive aspects of this bill, and yet the majority leader as i understand it said we're not going to have a vote on that. why? because that would affirmatively help fix things, so we're not going to do that. i'm putting words into why, but that's the only reason i can think of. another example is senator vitter's amendment, to repeal the congressional exemption. now, look, i understand many members of congress don't want to be on the exchanges, don't want to lose our subsidy, don't want to have the same rules that apply to us that apply to millions of americans. i understand that personally, but i think it is utterly indefensible for members of congress to be treated better than the american people. i think we ought to have a vote on the vitter amendment, and i have stated before i think it ought to be expanded so that every member of congress, all congressional staff, the president, the political appointees and every federal employee should be subject to obamacare. they shouldn't be exempted. there shouldn't be a gilded class in washington that operate on different rules than the american people. now, that would be a positive reform. indeed, i would suggest that it would be a populist reform. and yet the majority leader has said no, we can't vote on that. now, i'm going to assume part of the reason is because having a debate on that on the merits, the position that congress should have a privileged position on the merits is indefensible. another example -- the house of representatives has voted to delay the individual mandate. they have said listen, if you are going to delay the employer mandate for big businesses, why treat big businesses better than individuals and hardworking american families? let's delay them both. if you delay one, delay them both. that passed a majority of the house and indeed a considerable number of democrats, i don't have the number in front of me, but a considerable number of democrats in the house voted for that. the majority leader of the senate has said no, we're not going to vote on that. yet another instance, we have all been astonished and dismayed by the abuse that's occurred in the i.r.s. that's been made public, that's been admitted to. quite a number of members of this body would like to see the i.r.s. removed from enforcing obamacare. now, that's a position a large majority of americans support. the majority leader of this body, as i understand it, has said no, we can't vote on that. we're not going to have that positive reform. we're not going to have a vote. we're only going to vote to fund it all. there are a great many amendments we could make that would make the situation better, and it is only because the majority leader has decided to shut down the senate, to not make this process work that we're not having those amendments. so i appreciate the senator from virginia, and i would urge him to make those arguments to the leader of this party and this institution, so that we can have full and open debates and vote on these amendments. because this thing isn't working. it's fundamentally not working, and we need to respond to the american people. we need to listen to the american people, and we need to fix it. now, at this point, mr. president, i would like to return to reading some more tweets. as the night goes on, i hope to read even more tweets. so i would encourage anyone that would like to see -- i note folks in the gallery who just waved -- they do have their electronics. if you tweet it, it may end up here and i may have a chance to read it, the hashtag make d.c. listen. we don't want it, don't need it and can't afford it. please tell them to listen to its citizens. make d.c. -- oh, i've done these. i need to get -- they're good, but i don't want to -- okay. maybe it's just -- okay. here i think these i have not done. it was just that page. make d.c. listen, because we the people are on to you and will not stand for tyranny. hoorah. i like that. defund obamacare. because if i can't get a job now, what hope will i have later? make d.c. listen. make d.c. listen, because it makes entry level jobs disappear for young americans. make d.c. listen, because i want to keep my own doctor. defund obamacare because we don't want government-run health care. make d.c. listen. obamacare is a job killer. we can't afford it. make d.c. listen. make d.c. listen, if it's bad for congress, they have no right to force it on their constituents. vote to defund it. i want my 40 hours. make d.c. listen. start listening to the people instead of who is lining your pockets. we are the ones who vote. make d.c. listen. oh, here is -- here is a tweet from greg abbott, my former boss, the attorney general of texas, running for governor of texas, a very good man. obamacare is destructive to our economy, to jobs, to liberty and to health care access. make d.c. listen. thanks, boss. i appreciate it, and i agree. make d.c. listen. by committing to always cast your vote for those who do listen and act accordingly. make d.c. listen. this government is too large already, period. obamacare violates our rights. we cannot as america allow this solution to continue, solution is in quotes, make d.c. listen. small business owner. if obamacare is implemented, i will be forced to drop my group insurance for my employees. make d.c. listen. when can the citizens expect our waiver? if everyone else is getting them, shouldn't we? make d.c. listen. that's a great point. why is it that president obama treats giant corporations and members of congress better than hardworking americans? i think it's indefensible. and yet, this body right now, unless we act differently, is going to allow that status quo to continue. saying senators should live by the same rules as the american people should not be controversial. it should be obvious. make d.c. listen. that's exactly right. congress has exempted itself and staffers from the monstrous law for a reason. don't we deserve the same? make d.c. listen. make d.c. listen. americans are finally seeing what's in the bill, and we hate it. thank you for standing up to the status quo in d.c. senate phone lines are jammed. start using facts, social media. go to, and it lists a private web site for a list of twitter accounts. make d.c. listen. i think that point, by the way, is really quite potent. that's as effective as the phones are, the phones are very effective. there is email, there is facebook, there is twitter. there are an awful lot of ways for the american people to speak up and make d.c. listen. today the cleveland clinic saved my dad's life. wow. u.s. senate saved their jobs. make d.c. listen. that's powerful. how can any american support a law that punishes success? that's un-american. defund america now. make d.c. listen. defund obamacare because it's a tax that was never read until it was passed. we the people demand representation. make d.c. listen. defund obamacare because it will ruin our generation and will destroy america and the american dream. make d.c. listen. obamacare is destructive to our country. defund obamacare. stand up for our freedom. make d.c. listen. if obamacare is so great, why is everyone not going to have it? make d.c. listen. the congress, president, and federal workers have forgotten they work for us and should have to obey the same laws and rules we do. make d.c. listen. make d.c. listen. my children cannot get full-time jobs because of obamacare. can't wait to see how much my premiums will go up during open enrollment. defund obamacare because it's not good enough for congress. make d.c. listen. the american people are screaming to stop obamacare, stop obamacare is in all caps. make d.c. listen, leave us alone. mr. president, at this point i want to talk about the topic of rate shock. we all remember some three and a half years ago when president obama told the american people that by the end of his first term the average american family's health insurance premiums would drop by $2,500. the end of his first term, as we know, was last year. that hasn't happened. that has not been the effect. what has happened instead? well, according to kaiser family foundation report in 2012, the average cost of premiums for family coverage has risen by more than $3,000 since 2008. now, $3,000 compared to $2,500 that's a $5,500 swing. that's a big swing. that's a big impact for any hardworking american families but do you know who is impacted the most? those who are struggling the most, single moms working one or two jobs trying to feed their kids, put food on the table. $5,500 a year, that's a real difference and the consistent pattern is the people who are the biggest losers under obamacare are the most vulnerable among us, young people, hispanics, african-americans, single moms because they're the ones not getting jobs, being laid off from their jobs, the ones forcibly 39-into part-time work at 29 hours a week, facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, they're the ones losing their health insurance. actuarial firm oliver wyman estimates premiums in the individual market will increase an average of 40%, the society of actuaries estimates an average premium increase of 32% in the individual market. the obama administration unilaterally delayed the provision of the law that limits out-of-pocket payments, e.g., deductibles, co-pays, to $6,350 per individual for $12,700 per family. according to avic roy a senior fellow, a writer for forbes.com, -- quote -- "if you compare the cheapest plan on health care.gov to the cheapest, quote, bronze plan on the covered california insurance exchange, premiums for healthy 25-year-olds will increase by 147%. a median of $183 on the exchange versus $74 today. and premiums for healthy 40-year-olds will increase by 149%. a median of $234 on the exchange versus $94 today. and because california bars insurers from charging different rates based on gender, and so do colorado, maine, massachusetts, minnesota, montana, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, oregon, and washington, the war on young people's premiums will fare just as poorly for women in california and many other states. despite obamacare subsidies, many americans will still be paying higher premiums in 2014 as a result of obamacare, even with the government subsidy they'll be paying higher premiums. for example, americans earning as little as $25,000 will still pay more even including the subsidies. the ohio department of insurance -- mr. president, we talked about it earlier, how every four years both parties focus rather intensely on ohio. when it's a presidential year, when it's a swing state, ohio is the center of the universe. you get to 2013, not a presidential year and ohio seems to command an awful lot less attention in this body. but what's happening in ohio? the ohio department of insurance announced obamacare will increase individual health insurance premiums by 88%. mr. president, that's not a mild increase. that's not a percent or two. 88% is a big deal for a family that is struggling to pay the bills. in california, obamacare is estimated to have increased individual health insurance premiums by anywhere from 64% to 146%. in florida, florida's insurance commission, kevin mccarty told the palm beach post insurance rates will rise between 5% to 20% in small group market and 30% to 40% in the individual market next year. if the men and women of america can easily afford to pay an extra 30% or 40% or in the case of california an extra 146% on health insurance, we don't have anything to be worried about. but you know what, when i travel home that's not what the men and women of america tell me. that's not what texans say. texans say they are working hard to make ends meet. that their life has gotten harder because of obamacare. you know, a constituent in vidalia, texas wrote on september 13, 2013, -- quote -- "i decided to do some research on obamacare insurance for me and my husband since neither of us have any insurance. i used the calculator to calculate how much of, quote, affordable insurance would cost us. i had hoped this might be our chance to get insurance. to my shock -- and shock is in all caps -- it would cost us $16,026 and this was for the silver plan which only pays 70%. my husband is disabled and receives social security benefits but they say he cannot get medicaid for two years after he was approved. he has another year before he qualifies. he is 6 and i am 56. and we have been without insurance since he lost his job four years ago. there is no possible way to pay $16,026 from our take-home pay plus have to pay an additional 30% cost on any health cost we may incur. this is not affordable health care. the crime of it all is if my husband and i do not enroll, we will be fined. this is crazy. please, stop this madness." you know, i will pass on some more words from texans. today we received the welcome news of support from several of our friends in the texas legislature who are backing our effort to fund the government and to defund obamacare. the texas conservative coalition and 67 members of the texas legislature released a letter which i would like to read. it begins dear senators cornyn and cruz and texas members of the house of representatives, representing the state of texas with its 26 million people we write at this most urgent hour for you to do all you can to defund obamacare and fund the federal government. we have done all that we can to help stop obamacare from harming texans. number one, we refused to create the obamacare health exchanges and number two, we refused to expand the medicaid program under the false pretense of taking federal money now while burdening taxpayer with billions of dollars in new costs later. some of the most pernicious parts of obamacare can only be stopped at the federal level. only you can stop the federal government from enforcing the individual mandate. only umbrella stop the government from creating a new budget-busting entitlement that will drive up the cost of insurance around the country. only you can stop federal bureaucrats from drafting and imposing thousands of pages of red tape and only you can stop the federal government from destroying the quality of our health care system. therefore we applaud the action of the united states house of representatives on friday, september 20, 2013, to pass a bill that defunds obamacare and funds the federal government. next, it is up to senators cornyn and cruz to hold the line and make sure democratic senate majority leader harry reid does not use procedural strips to strip the defunding language from the house bill. by note, this is not in the letter, this is me speaking -- i would note that's the debate we're in the middle of right now. the vote on friday or saturday on cloture is going to be the critical vote of this battle in the senate. if republicans stand together we can prevent harry reid from shutting off debate, we can prevent harry reid from funding obamacare using 51 democratic votes on a straight party-line vote. but that's only if republicans stand together. if republicans instead choose to vote for harry reid, choose to vote for giving the democrats the ability to fund obamacare, then that, too, will be our responsibility and each of us will -- it will be incumbent on us to explain to our constituents why we voted to allow harry reid and the democrats to fund obamacare despite the fact that it's destroying jobs and hurting millions of americans. returning to the letter, we know that republican senators will need continued support from the republican-led house to prevent democrats from funding obamacare. together we can prevail. remember the spirit of so many texans who have fought much worse odds in the past. stay strong, stay resolute, and do not give in. i am thankful -- this is me now -- the letter has ended -- i am thankful my home state of texas has some principled conservatives mooj the elected officials his who fought hard to resist obamacare and i'm grateful for their support and their encouragement. their leadership is the reason texas has one of the strongest economies the nation, is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. texas is proof conservative principles put to practice actually work and provide the country for the -- opportunity -- provide opportunity for the most vulnerable among us. there is a reason why so many people from across this country are moving to texas because texas is where the jobs are. and if you look across this country obamacare is killing jobs all over this nation. i want to look at the impact in my home state of texas. obamacare will debate jobs -- devastate jobs, growth and the economy. it happened been fully implemented and it's already hurting americans even in conservative states who worked hard to resist the influence of obamacare. according to the advisory board's daily briefing, 15 governors are opposing medicaid expansion. i applaud those conservative leaders, governor haley in south carolina, governor jindal in louisiana, brownback in kansas and many others. but particularly governor perry in my home state of texas. texas leaders in the house and senate and elected statewide have stood united to resist the influence of obamacare in our state. but the tragedy is even with their efforts texans still aren't exempt from its negative impact. governor perry in march of 2011 said -- quote -- "obamacare will cost the state of texas at least $27 billion over the next ten years." senator jane nelson, chair of the senate house and health and human services committee said in 2012, obamacare is the wrong approach to our health care challenge as it does more harm than good. it will eliminate jobs, balloon the state budget and most importantly stretch to the limit our already overburdened health care system. senator nelson also observed texas is a large geographically diverse border state with challenges that are unique from other states. the one-size-fits-all approach of obamacare is wrong for texas. if given the opportunity we can -- opportunity week designed design a better system that fits the needs of our citizens. in march of 2012 senator nelson observed obamacare creates more problems than it solves, ballooning the state budget and burdening our employers at a time they're struggling to survive. in march of 2010 senator nelson observed in texas i'm deeply concerned with the devastating impact of the federal health care reforms will have on our state budget. the health and human services commission estimates it will cost up to $24 billion over a ten year period. considering our projected budget shortfalls will be somewhere between 9 billions and $16 billion, it is clear our health and human services budget which accounts for a third of the total spending already will continue to consume precious resources that would otherwise be available for our schools, our highways, and other important services. i am concerned that the federal government's plan will jeopardize our efforts on the state level. one size does not fit all, especially in texas. our state government spreads more health care dollars across mortar rain -- more terrain than any other state. we have challenges across the -- along the border and in our remote rural areas and in our inner cities that are unique to our state and our costs will be disproportionately weashtdz, the union of roofers, waterproofers and allies international, the president issued the following statement on april 16, 2013. calling for a repeal or complete reform of the president's affordable care act. let me note this is not the unions calling for a slight adjustment. this is the unions calling for a repeal. repeal the law outright. quote -- "our union and its members have supported president obama and his administration for both of his terms in office. so these are president obama's supporters. these are the labor unions. but regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in the a.c.a. have not been addressed or in some instances totally ignored. in the rush to achieve its passage many of the act's provisions were not fully conceived resulting in unintended consequences inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it. these provisions jeopardize our multiemployer health plans and have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members. create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multiemployer health plans. for decades, our multiemployer health and welfare plans have provided the necessary medical coverage for our members and their families. to protect them in times of illness and medical needs. this collaboration between labor and management has been a model of success that should be emulated rather than ignored. i refuse to remain silent or idly watch as the a.c.a. destroys those protections. let me read that sentence again because that is coming from the leader of a labor union that has supported president obama in two elections. "i refuse to remain silent or idly watch as the a.c.a. destroys those protections. i, therefore, call for repeal or complete reform of the affordable care act to protect our employers, our industry and our most important asset, our members and their families. mr. president, let me ask you right now, do members of the senate have concern for hardworking union members? do the members of the senate have concern for the families of the hardworking union i.r.s. union leaders provided their members with a form letter expressing concern with legislation to -- quote -- "push federal employees out of the federal employee health benefits program and into the insurance exchanges established under the affordable care act." mr. president, i want to focus on exactly what happened here. the i.r.s. employees union sent letters to their members, form letters drafted to you and me, drafted to members of the senate where the i.r.s. employees union asked the i.r.s. employees write a letter to your senators, to your congressmen, saying exempt us from obamacare. apparently the i.r.s. employees union believes congress will listen to them. how about the american people? these are the men and women in charge with enforcing obamacare. these are men and women the statute gives the responsibility to go to every hardworking american and say we are going to force you to participate in obamacare. they don't want to be in it. mr. president, i would suggest that's not an accident. they know exactly what they don't want to be a part of and the fact that they have sent those letters ought to be a warning call that sounds from the high heavens. and yet another example, this is an example i've made multiple references to tonight, it's a letter from the teamsters. dear leader reid and leader pelosi. i would note neither leader reid or leader pelosi on the house floor, neither participating in this debate but here's the letter sent to both of them. when you and the president sought our support for the affordable care act, you pledged if we liked the health plans we have now, be we could keep them. sadly, that promise is under threat. right now unless you and the obama administration enact an equitable fix, the a.c.a. will shatter only our hard earned health benefits but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class. like millions of other americans, our members are front-line workers in the american economy. we have been strong supports are of the notion all americans should have access to quality affordable health care. we have also been strong supporters of you. in campaign after campaign -- this is directed to majority leader harry reid and minority nancy pelosi. in campaign after campaign, we have put boots on the ground, gone door to door to get out the vote, run phone banks, and raised money to secure this vision. now this vision has come back to haunt us. mr. president, let me read that again. this is the president of the teamsters describing the political efforts that members of the teamsters all over this country have done to elect democrats to the united states senate and the united states house and in his words he said because of obamacare their vision of supporting democrats politically, now this vision has come back to haunt us. mr. president, if that doesn't get the attention of men and women in this body, i don't know what does. the letter continues since the a.c.a. was enacted we have bringing our deep concerns to the administration seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations of the statute that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. as you both know firsthand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the white house and the pertinent agencies. let me stop there. mr. president, the average american does not have the political sway that a major labor union like the teamsters has. the average american especially does not have the political sway that a major labor union has with this president, a democratic president with a democratic majority in the senate. and yet the head of the teamsters say that they have been met with -- that their persuasive arguments have been disregarded and they have been met with a stone wall by the white house and the pertinent agencies. mr. president, a powerful labor with friends in high offices, with stroke in washington is met with a stone wall? what do you think the average american is met with? do you think the reception is more welcoming to the average american? perhaps the average american doesn't even get to see that stone wall to be rejected, doesn't even have a forum to raise those arguments to have them disregarded and rejected. the letter continues: "this is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. most disconcerting, of course, is last week's huge accommodation for the employer community, extending the statutorily mandated december 31, 2013, mandate for the employer mandate and penalties. time is running out. congress wrote this law. we voted for you. we have a problem. you need to fix it. the unintended consequences of the a.c.a. are severe. perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios." nightmare. nightmare. that's the words the teamsters used -- nightmare. some democratic senators object to the use of the word train wreck. perhaps nightmare would be better. that comes from the teamsters in writing, describing what obamacare is doing. why are we here? you know, nightmare is fitting -- it's past midnight. why are we here? because the american people are experiencing the nightmare that is obamacare. and we need to help them wake up from this very bad dream. the teamsters' letter continues: "first the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. the impact is twofold. fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits." mr. president, how does that sound? the majority leader told the american people on television that obamacare is terrific. now, fewer hours meaning less pay and losing your current health benefits -- that doesn't sound terrific to me. it doesn't sound terrific to the millions of teamsters, millions of union workers, the millions of hardworking americans who are experiencing the negative consequences of obamacare. the letter continues: "second, millions of americans are covered by nonprofit health insurance plans like the one in which most of our members participate. these nonprofit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the taft heartily -- taft-hartley act. our health plans have been built for decades by men and women. as demonstrated by this legislation, our employees will be treated differently and not afforded subsidies afforded other citizens. as such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help offered to buy for-profit insurance plans. and secondly, even though nonprofit plans like ours won't seem the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they will be taxed to pay for these subsidies. taken together, these restrictions will make nonprofit plans like ours unsustainable and will undermine the health care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies. on behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent." mr. president, i would say -- note he didn't say on behalf of the hundreds, on behalf of the thousands. he said, "on behalf of the millions of the working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the affordable care fact will destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hardworking americans." mr. president, i want you to remember that phrase, "we can no longer stand silent." i'm going to return to it in a moment. "we believe there are commonsense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to keep their current health benefits and plans, just as you and the president pledged. unless changes are made, howev however, that promise is hollow. we ton stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of americans, including the members of our respective unions. we are looking to you to make sure these changes are made. signed james p. hoffa, general president, the international brotherhood of teamsters." now, mr. president, i don't have to remind anyone that the teamsters that mr. hoffa are not loyal republicans, they're not even disloyal republicans. they have been active foot soldiers in the army to elect president obama and to elect democrats to this body. this letter describes obamacare as a nightmare. this letter describes how it is hurting millions of americans, including the members of their respective unions. and interestingly enough, this letter uses the same phrase, "we can no longer stand silent" that the roofers' union used, we won't stand silent either. why is it that both of these unions used that same phrase? i would suggest, listen, everyone in this body understands politics, understands sticking with your team, dancing with the team that brung you. no union is -- is eager to criticize president obama. they have got too much invested in this administration. and there is a lot of pressure, a lot of pressure on the labor unions. i can't imagine what the repercussions were to mr. hoffa and to the teamsters after this letter was sent. i am quite certain it did not produce joy and celebration in the political classes in washington. i think it's quite striking, though, that both the roofers union and the teamsters say we can no longer stand silent because the pressure is enormous. and at the time me tell you someone else, another group that is right now standing silent that i hope can no longer stand silent, and that consists of elected democrats in this body. you know, elected democrats in this body, these union men and women knocked on doors, worked to elect many members of this body. if their union leaders can't stand silent, i would hope the politicians that threj to fight for them won't stand silent either. that we would see what a remarkable thing it would be to see a democrat have the courage of james hoffa, to see a democrat senator stand up and have the courage to say, you know, look, i supported obamacare. that's what mr. hoffa said. i supported it at first because i believed the promises that were made. i thought this thing might work, but we have seen it has and it's a nightmare. it's hurting hardworking american families. and, mr. president, any democrat who did so could be certain to receive serious repercussions from the party. political parties do not like it when you rock the boat. i can promise you senator lee and i have more than a passing awareness of that in our respective party. but at the end of the day, if you're responding to the american people, if you're listening to the american people, you're doing your job. i hope in the course of this week that of the 54 democrats in this body that we see one, two, three, i hope we see a dozen have the courage that mr. hoffa showed. have the courage to speak out about the train wreck, about the nightmare that is obamacare that is hurting americans, that is killing jobs, that is pushing people into part-time work, that is driving up health insurance premiums and that's causing more and more people to lose their health insurance. that's the courage we need, but you know what? it will not come from business as usual in washington. it will not come from wanting to be popular. it will only come from elected officials making the decision, the radical decision to get back to the job we're supposed to do of listening to the people. make d.c. listen, that's what we should be doing. mr. lee: will the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. lee: senator cruz, as i listened to your remarks, i am reminded of many events throughout our nation's history. the storied history involving a lot of comebacks, 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. based on substantial obstacle. the founding of our public. at the moment of our independence. this involved the battle against what was then the world's greatest superpower. even within our own continent, we didn't have unanimous support. even among our own people. at times it was a minority within 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. and yet we persevered. we rallied together as a people, believing fundamentally that our cause was just, and it worked. we have followed that formula many times, when it's mattered, and we haven't 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 effect are not in the majority, we're in the minority. in this case in a sense we're a minority within the minority. it's still worth fighting. i want to commend my colleague, the junior senator from texas, for his dedication, his commitment, his leadership on this issue. senator cruz has never lung -- 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 that it couldn't be done or shouldn't be done. and you know, it reminds me of other examples that we've seen over the years of senators who are willing to speak at great length. i see our pages who are here tonight, our pages who serve us well and who are willing to stay late at night, working hard, and i'm reminded that 27 years ago i was a page, much like these who are serving us here today, and i remember a young senator then in his first term, his name was harry reid, i remember watching him speak at great length for ten, 12, i don't know, maybe 13 hours at a time. i'm not certain what the issue was at the time, but i know it was important to him. i know that 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. and yet, he stood by his message, he didn't 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, i watched as they brought him a lot of water, hoping perhaps that eventually he would drink enough water that he would decide that it was no longer in his best interests to continue speaking on the floor, and 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. and i hope that there is some aspect of senator reid that is able to sympathize with what senator cruz is going through, that's able to respect the great level of commitment that it takes to stand here hour after hour and engage in this discussion, a discussion that's important for the american people to have. now, we all continue to hear from our constituents about some of the things that obamacare might do. some of the things that 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 at gunning, i would like to stress my view and ask that you vote to defund obamacare. i'm 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. and i hear comments like this from constituent after constituent, from people who will write in throughout my state and throughout the country. steven from minnesota writes -- "dear senator lee, please do all you can to stop the implementation of obamacare. my insurance went up 8.1% 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 have 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 our minnesota residents' concerns." steven, i'm happy to consider your concerns and i'm happy to share those with my constituents. this next one comes from stefan who is from massachusetts. he writes -- "dear senator, i strongly rnlg 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 cruz. it is unfair to exempt everyone from political connections from obamacare and not 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's kevin from massachusetts. when we look at these examples and we read other similar examples like them, people writing from throughout my state in 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 to a health plan upon which they and their families have relied 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 that people don't necessarily want to entrust entirely to their government, and yet that seems to be the direction in which obamacare inevitably takes us. it puts more and more of our health care in 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, administered entirely from washington, d.c. now, there are se things that 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's something that we do from washington. that's a power that's entrusted to us by article 1, section 8 of the constitution. with roughly one-third of the provisions of article 1, section 8 being dedicated in one way or another to our national defense. that's something that washington can do. it's something that 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's as important as national defense. the fact that it's 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 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 permiatations that this law will produce 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 the bill and then they could find out what's in it. one of the things that 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 and setting aside the 20,000 pages of regulations that have been added to this corpus of federal law up until this point, we've had two significant revisions of the law, revision that is were brought about not legislatively but by the judicial branch of government. revisions that the judicial branch of government had no authority to impose. i'd like to talk to you 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' authority to enact the individual mandate. the provisions compelling individuals to buy health insurance. not just any health insurance but that federal -- that kind of health insurance that the federal government in its infinite wisdom deemed appropriate and necessary and essential, indispensable to every american, everywhere. the argument presented in those constitutional challenges culminating that's the supreme court of the united states was that congress had enacted -- acted pursuant to its authority under the commerce clause, article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the constitution, which empowers congress to regulate commerce among the several states with the indian tribes and with foreign nations. the argument said congress does have power to regulate interstate commerce and the supreme court has interpreted that rather broadly since 1937. even under that extraordinarily broad interpretation of the commerce krause claws, so the argument went, congress doesn't have the power to regulate inactivity, the failure to purchase health insurance is not an interstate commercial transaction. in fact, it's not a transaction at all. it's a failure to act. the supreme court of the united states accepted that argument and concluded that even under the extraordinarily broad denver reference -- defer reference standard, this could not pass muster as a legitimate exercise of congress' commerce clause authority. the supreme court justices rejected that argument by a vote of 5-4. oddly, however, the supreme court went on to conclude that the individual mandate was nevertheless constitutional, not under the commerce power but under congress' power to tax. in essence what you 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, saved it only by recasting it as a tax or as a valid exercise of congress' power to impose taxes. there are a couple of problems with that interpretation. first and foremost, congress could have adopted a tax, could have imposed a tax as an enforcement mechanism to bring about bring -- bring about compliance with the individual mandate provision and yet it decidedly did not. it used language that under at least a century's worth of jurisprudence was unequivocally a penalty, not a tax. th there's a long line of cases that helps courts decide whether something is on one hand a penalty or on the other hand a tax. this was and century's worth of jurisprudence a penalty and not a tax. it was important to note the house of representatives initially considered language that would have attempted to enforce compliance with the individual mandate provision by means of a tax, using language that under a century's worth of jurors republicans would have been -- jurors bruins priewns would have -- jurisprudence would have been considered a tax. interestingly enough and not surprisingly that language was rejected. that proposal did not carry the day. that proposal could not carry the day. why? 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 in place during the first two years of president obama's administration, a congress that was overwhelmably -- overwhelmingly democratic in the house of representatives and in the senate, it could not carry the day. so the constitution requires that revenue bills originate in the house of representatives. if this was a new tax it would have had to have originated in the house. in a sense, in a very significant sense one could argue the bill that ultimately became the affordable care act, obamacare, did originate in the house. it came over here to the senate, 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. it originated instead across the street. it originated instead across the street with five lawyers wearing black robes who we call justices. those five lawyers wearing black robes who we call justices are no more empowered than the queen of england to impose a tax on the american people and yet they imposed a tax on the american people. this is not okay. this is not acceptable. this was a lawless act. this is something that we should be ashamed of as americans. this 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, the 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 to do the job of the legislative branch rather thanking acknowledging the unconstitutionality of that provision simply resurrected it by rewriting it. by rewriting it as something that is not, was not and never could be. interestingly, this was not the only insult to the constitution in connection with that case. you see, 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. you see, a separate majority and an even larger majority, a 7-2 majority concluded that another aspect of the affordable care act as written could not withstan -- with withstand constitutional muster. it left the states with no option, no 80 tern tiff, no choice -- alternative, no choice, other than to accept a significantly expanded medicaid program, a program administered by the states that's partially funded by the federal government but ultimately administered by the states. the supreme court of the united states citing long-standing precedent said this is not okay. you see, congress doesn't have the power to commandeer the states' legislative and administrative machinery for the purpose of implementing a federal policy. congress may not do that. it's not within our power. and yet a large majority of the supreme court concluded that's exactly what congress did in the affordable care act. so faced with yet another constitutional problem, the supreme court adopted yet another rewrite, yet 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 optout for the states so as to make it constitutional. now, some have tried to defend this by saying, well, that's 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 possible, a fairly plausible interpretation that could allow them to save it. but here 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 or not the unconstitutional provision could be severed from the rest of the statute, whether it could be excised out, sort of like a cancerous tumor, allowing the healthy tissue to remain with the cancerous tissue gone forever. there are rules, there are standards that the supreme court is supposed to follow when engaging in this exercise, and whenever it does this, it follows decades-old several ability jurisprudence. well, that standard i believe if followed would inevitably have 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. and i suspect that may well be why the supreme court did not engage in severallability analysis. it instead rewrote the law. so the supreme court of the united states rewrote obamacare not once but twice in order to save it. this is not okay. this is not constitutional. this is not american. now, the next response, the defenders of this law usually bring up, well, it is after all the supreme court's job to decide what's constitutional and what isn't constitutional. so if they say it's constitutional, then it must be constitutional, and who is anyone else to second guess their judgment as the constitutionality? 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's not fair to say that the supreme court is the sole ex pozzor of constitutional meaning. it is true 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. that, however, does not excuse the rest of us from independently exercising our own judgment. nor is it the case that every constitutional infraction, 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 court might lack jurisdiction or no plaintiff can be brought forward with article 3 standing necessary to challenge the federal action in question, or because the courts have recognized there is a non judicial question at stake, for whatever reason, the courts in a number of circumstances might not be competent to address a particular issue, in other circumstances a case for whatever reason simply is not brought. in many, many circumstances the courts don't have occasion to address a constitutional infraction, but regardless, we are never excused, we as senators of the united states having taken an oath under article 6 of the constitution to uphold the constitution of the united states, we're never excused from our responsibility to look out for and protect and defend the constitution of the united states. and when we see an unconstitutional action, we need to call it out as such as and we need to do whatever we can to stop the constitutional from being violated. the constitution was violated, the constitution was distorted, the constitution was manipulated, it was defiled, not once but twice by the supreme court of the united states when the court rewrote the obamacare act, 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's important for us to have this debate and this 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 ÷ -- this same law that has been written not one but twice by the supreme court of the united states that openly frivilous lawsuited the constitution of the united states, thumbed its nose at its own constitutional responsibilities. we're 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've now had several instances in which the president of the united states has himself 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, that 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. and there's another modification that the president made with respect to proof of eligibility for -- for subsidies on the exchange networks 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. now, as i understand it, a few weeks ago when someone asked the president of the united states why this was appropriate, when somebody challenged the president of the united states with regard to his authority on these modifications, his response was something like th 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'm not sure exactly what he meant but it sounds to me like what he was saying was i'm in a tough spot so i've got to do what i can do, what i can get away with because i've got 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 -- than the congress that was in place in 2010 when the patient protection and affordable care act was enacted into law. well, that's interesting. it's interesting on a number of levels, because, number one, one of the reasons why that congress is now less inclined to be cooperative with the president, one of the reasons why the congress is no longer as inclined to do the president's bidding is, interestingly enou 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's not at all unusual to have a divided congress. it's not unusual at all for one or both houses of congress to be under the control of a party other than the president's own political party, and yet it has never been the case and can never be the case that there is somehow an exception to the constitution, that there is somehow an exception to article 1'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 won't always do the president's bidding does not vest him with the powers of a despot. and when someone holding the office of president of the united states purports to wield legislative powers, 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 why we have focused this debate back on obamacare. people were 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 in 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 what programs to fund and which programs not to fund. were it otherwise, we would have a really strange set of circumstances in which one congress could bind another congress simply by passing a piece of legislation and not by constitutional amendment. that is not the case, never has been the case, never could be, should be or will be the case under our constitutional system today. and so 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 of washington, d.c., on the one hand and the american people on the other hand. you know, one of the things that we're often told that we have to face here is that we have to choose to keep everything funded or we have to choose to fund nothing. it's 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 from the state of utah. it's odd that we find ourselves in a position to vote on a continuing resolution, one that funds everything in government or nothing in government. it's a frustrating exercise that 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're going to fund in government and what we're not going to fund in government. i wish that 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. both of them starting from the presupposition that we fund nothing but both 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, 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, this law that's being implemented in a fundamentally unfair manner. i think that would prove as a very different debate and discussion. but very often the way things work in washington, the way continuing resolutions work, we're faced with a set of circumstances that don't really 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 to the following. this is a very oversimplification. but, you know, suppose that you lived in a very rural, remote area. suppose that the closest town to where you lived was at least a hundred miles away but there was one market, one grocery store just a mile from your home. it was the only grocery store within at least 150 miles, let's just say. and one day your spouse calls you as you're on your way home from work and says, "stop at the store; we need bread, milk and eggs. eggs." you go to the grocery store. you find the milk, the bread, the eggs, you put those in the cowmpcounter and you go to the cashier. and the cashier says wait a second, you can't just buy these things, you cannot buy just bread, milk and eggs? and you say why, why on earth can i not just buy these three items? this is all i need. well, this is a different kind of grocery store. this is a grocery store patterned after the united states congress. and in order to buy bread, milk and eggs, we're also going to require you to buy a bucket of nails and a half ton of iron ore. you can use our wheelbarrow to take it out to your car, and a book about cowboy poetry and a barry manilow album. and you say, well, i really don't want any of those things. the cashier says well, that's fine, then you don't get your bread, your milk and your eggs. at that point, you as the shopper, not wanting to come home to a very disappointed spouse, are 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'm going to buy those things because i can't buy the things i need unless i also buy those things. that's how we spend in the united states congress. whether we like it or not -- and most of us really, really don't like it -- that's what we're stuck with. and so that's one of the reasons why we're having this debate n now, one of the reasons why i think it's appropriate for to us have this debate in connection with this. it's 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. and yet that's where we find ourselves because of the fact that we've been operating under a continuous string of back-to-back continuing resolutions for the last four or five years. it's time for us to start breaking away from those false and ultimately ridiculous choices. it's time for us to demand more as a people from our congress. it's 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 united states senate must choose between, on the one hand, standing with the long-standing 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. and if you ask any how constituents are feeling about the affordable care act, how constituents are feeling about obamacare and its coming implementation and enforcement, the response you will get is that, at best, constituents are mixed. in many cases, they're apprehensive, they're uncertain. but overwhelmingly you'll find a lot of opposition. 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 really as a congress willing to just look at these things and say, yeah, 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 say that, saying yeah, i know this law's not perfect but it's -- it's a speed bump that we've got to cross over on our way to a single-payer system run by the health care system? as republicans, are we really willing to endure that, say yeah, it's a train wreck but the good news is it might inure to our political benefit if it kicks 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, trying 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 that 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 to that very purpose to help foster and promote what would 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, that 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 we will return to those practices, we will benefit directly as a result. and so, senator cruz, i have to ask you as a constitutional lawyer, as one of our nation's preeminent appellate litigators, as one who has argued many times before the united states supreme court and as one who clerked for the late chief justice william rehnquist, and now as a united states senator, how do you 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 united states 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. cruz: well, i thank my friend, the junior senator from utah, for his very fine, learned question. and it is truly a privilege to serve in this body alongside a constitutional scholar, alongside a senator who takes fidelity to the constitution so seriously, so appropriately seriously. you know, senator lee's question is exactly right. how serious do the men and women in this body take the constitution? how seriously do we take the obligation? you know, each of us swears to uphold the constitution. and yet it's easy, particularly in an era where the supreme court is deemed to be the primary arbiter of constitutionality, for members of congress, members of the executive branch to say that's their problem, we passed the laws, the court figures out if they are constitutional. and i would very much agree with senator lee's proposition that doing so is an abdication of our responsibility, that every one of us has an obligation to not support any law that's contrary to the constitution and to oppose any law that is. i would note that among the house members who joined us, congressman justin amash came to the floor of the senate to join us, to support this effort, and i would note congressman amash has the unique distinction of joining you and me and senator paul in the description of being -- i believe the term was wacko birds, which i for one am not sure which particular alien species to which that refers, but which ever one it is, if it reflects a fidelity to the constitution, a fidelity to liberty and a willingness to fight and defend the principles this country was founded on, then i and i believe i can speak for you and rand and congressman amash and i think quite a few others of us are very, very proud wacko birds. you know, we're talking about an important topic. we're talking about a topic that impacts millions of americans, but at the same time we can't lose our sense of humor, and we can't lose our sense of hope and optimism. i'll note my staff who has been with me here all night, tirelessly fighting because they believe in america. we believe in america. we believe there can be something better. you know, you look at the explosion of government, the explosion of spending, the explosion of debt, the explosion of taxes, the explosion of regulation, this stagnation of economic growth, then it's easy to throw up your hands and say can we ever get back to that united states of america that we once were? but there are signs, glimmers of hope. you look right now at one of the most popular television shows in the united states, duck dynasty. this is a show about a god-fearing family, of successful entrepreneurs who love guns, who love to hunt and who believe in the american dream. it's something that, according to congress, almost shouldn't exist, yet a lot of wisdom, millions of americans tune in to "duck dynasty," so i want to point out just a few words of wisdom from "duck dynasty" that are probably good for all of us to hear. willie observed you put five rednecks on a mower, it's going to be epic. phil said in a subdivision you call 911. at home, i am 911. cy said some people say i'm a dreamer. others say if you fall asleep at work again, we're going to have to let you go. jay said redneck rule number one, most things can be fixed with duct tape, extension cords. that's actually very true. phil said i think our problem is a spiritual one. phil also said when you get older and you start dating, i want you to be able to say one thing -- i can bait a hook. one day, maybe caroline and katherine will be able to say that. phil also said very simply happy, happy, happy. i say this to the junior senator from utah. when we defund obamacare, we're all going to be happy, happy, happy. miss kay said our marriage is living proof that love and family can get you through everything. cy said i live by my own rules, reviewed, revised and approved by my wife, but still my own. jeff said faith, family and facial hair. i point out to the junior senator from utah, if we continue doing this long enough, we may have facial hair on the floor of the senate. that's all right. willie said are you kidding me? i'm straight up hunger games with a bow. cy said ford f-150, chevy silverado, dodge ram, toyota tundra. as a married man, these are the only pickup lines i'm allowed to use. jay said where i come from, your truck is an exact reflection of your personality. cy said i make up people all the time to get out of stuff. cy also said a redneck walking into bass pro shops gets more excited than a 12-year-old girl going to a justin beaver concert. cy also said your beard is so hairy, even dora can't explore it. cy also said your beard is so stupid, it takes two hours to watch "60 minutes." and finally, cy said i am the mcguyver of cooking. you bring me a piece of bread, pine cones, a woodpecker, and i will make you a good chicken potpie. now, let me suggest that kind of home-spun wisdom is what this country was built on. it's who we are. you know, look, that's -- there are some things to chuckle on but there is an awful lot of common sense. on the same theme, i want to point to one of my favorite songs. it's a song that came out following the tragic attacks on this country on 9/11, but it speaks more broadly to who we are as americans, that we can overcome any challenge, any obstacle, including i think the obstacle of obamacare. admittedly a very, very different challenge than that that occurred on 9/11, but ultimately the american spirit and the faith and freedom that underlies it will help us overcome every challenge. and that is tobey keith's song "courtesy of the red, white, and blue." tobey keith observed -- and, mr. president, i am going to make a promise to you. i am not going to endeavor to sing because even if it might not violate the senate rules, it would violate rules of musical harmony, human decency and possibly even the geneva conventions, so i will not subject you to my musical rendition, but i will at least share the words from "courts of the red, white, and blue." american girls and american guys will always stand up and salute, will always recognize. when we see old glory flying, there is a lot of men dead so we can sleep in peace at night when we lay down our head. my daddy served in the army where he lost his right eye, but he flew a flag out in our yard until the day he died. he wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me to grow up and live happy in the land of the free. now, this nation that i love has fallen under attack, a mighty sucker punch came flying in from somewhere in the back. as soon as we see clearly through our big black eye, man, we lit up your world like the fourth of july. hey, uncle sam, put your name at the top of his list, the statue of liberty started shaking her fist. and the eagle will fly, man, it's going to be hell when you hear mother freedom start ringing her bell. and it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you, brought to you courtesy of the red, white, and blue. justice will be served, the battle will rage. this big dog will fight when you rattle his cage. and you will be sorry that you messed with the u.s. of a., because we'll put a boot in your posterior -- edited for our friends on c-span -- it's the american way. hey, uncle sam, put your name on the top of your list, and the statue of liberty started shaking her fist, and the eagle will fly. man, it's going to be hell when you hear mother freedom start ringing her bell. and it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you, brought to you courtesy of the red, white, and blue. you want to talk about american spirit, it's hard to listen to that song and not think about who we are as a people, not think about the threats. now, let me give you an example of a different threat, a lirch threat to our liberty that every bit as much we have to ride up against. i want to read for you a statement, september 12, 2012, that hobby lobby put out on obamacare and religious freedom. religious freedom is foundational to who we are, so let's read what david green, the c.e.o. and founder of hobby lobby stores incorporateed stated." when my family and i started oue working out of a garage on a a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to god's word. from there, hobby lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run hobby lobby together as a family. we're christians and we run our business on christian principles. i've always said the first two goals of our business are to one, run our business in harmony with god's laws, and two, to focus more on people than on money. that's what we've tried to do. we close early so our employees can see their families at night. we keep our stores closed on sundays so our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. we believe that it is by god's grace that hobby lobby has endured and he has blessed us and our employees. we've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've also raised wages for the past four years in a row. our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage. but now the government threatens to change all that. a new government health care mandate says that our family business must provide what i believe are abortion providing drugs as part of our health insurance. being christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions. which means that we don't cover emergency contraceptives, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. we believe that doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. it goes against the biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. if we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million per day in government fines. our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. it's not right. i know people will say we ought to follow the rules, that it's the same for everybody but that's not true. the government has exempted thousands of companies for reasons of convenience or cost. but it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief. so hobby lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. with great reluctance we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the beckett fund for religious liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. we don't like to go running to court. we no longer have a choice. we believe people are more important to the bottom line and that honoring god is more important than turning a profit. my family has lived the american dream. we want to continue growing our economy and providing great jobs for thousands of employees. but the government is going to make that much more difficult. the government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. i say that's a choice no american and no american business should have to make. now, mr. president, you might ask what does that letter from hobby lobby have to do with toby keith's terrific song? i suggest they have an awful lot to do with each other. our nation was founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution from across the globe, fleeing governments that thought -- sought to impose their rules to restrict the religious liberty of men and women. and our founding fathers, the people who formed the united states of america fled those countries and came here, wanting to establish a country where everyone could worship god with all of your heart, might, soul according to the dictates of your conscience. now, mr. president, the men and women watching this at home, not all of you may share the religious convictions of the c.e.o. of hobby lobby. you may or may not be christians. if you are christians, you may not share his faith and his interpretation of what his faith requires. but if you look at the history of our country, the federal government is telling that c.e.o., the federal government is telling catholic hospitals and catholic charities they must violate their religious beliefs. why? because government knows best. you know, there is a reason why the bill of rights begins with the first amendment and why the first amendment begins with protecting religious liberty. protecting the religious liberty of all of us because foundational -- the founding fathers who formed our country understood that if you don't have the freedom to seek out god, then every other freedom can be stripped away. and yet this administration has demonstrated a hostility to religious faith that is staggering. indeed, in recent months we saw an air force cap lane in alaska -- chaplain in alaska face punishment and repercussions for posting a blog post in which he stated there are no atheists in foxholes. mind you, this was a chaplain. his job is to minister to the spiritual life of the men and women of the air force. and yet that statement was deemed ins hospitable to atheiss and inconsistent with the military and this administration. the irony, of course, is that particular statement was said previously by a gentleman named dwight d. eisenhower, who as we all know was president of the united states. and indeed president eisenhower, dwight d. eisenhower had more than a passing familiarity with the military. that speech comes from -- that statement comes from a speech president eisenhower gave to the american legion, i believe it was 1954, in which he was describing a story of four immortal chaplains, and that story, it's a story young people don't learn anymore, a lot of people don't know, i had the opportunity recently to speak at the american legion's national convention and i had the opportunity to share it and there were a number of older veterans, world war ii veterans of the who knew the four immortal chaplains. this was the u.s.s. dorchester hit by a torpedo and there were hit by a torpedo and was sinking and there were four chaplains, two were protestant, one catholic and one was jewish. they realized they didn't have enough life vests for the memorial on that ship and each of those four chaplains removed his life vest and gave it to another passenger. those other passengers were saved and those four chaplains stood together on the deck of the ship, singing and praying as the ship went down. and the point of the story is when the chaplains put the life vests on other passengers, gave their life vests, gave their lives for other passengers, they didn't ask each passenger are you a christian, are you a jew, is your religious faith the same as mine? because as president eisenhower explained there are no faith atheist in foxholes and they were there sacrificing for their fellow man. religious liberty is foundational to who we are. and one of the most pernicious aspects of obamacare is it disregards religious liberty when you have the federal government getting so intimately involved in health care. it has necessitating the federal government trampling on the good faith religious beliefs. nobody has questioned the good faith religious belief of the owners of hobby lobby. and even if you don't share their views, what about your religious beliefs? if the government can order them to violate their religious beliefs, what's to stop them from ordering you to violate you yours? that's wrong. that is inconsistent with who we are as americans. it's one of the many reasons americans are fed up with what's happening under obamacare. you know, earlier i was reading some of the stories from individual constituents and i'd like to return to that. a constituent in humble, texas wrote on september 10, 2013 i am one of many americans adversely affected by mr. obama's mchealth care. i just received a letter stating as the affordable care act draws closer to full implementation i will no longer have access to the group p.p.o. or dental plan, effective january 1, 2014. a. i don't know what my options will be if i can even afford a government-run plan. mr. president, that's not me speaking. that's reading a letter from one individual who is 62 years old who had insurance but is losing that insurance because of obamacare. it's not working. it's simply not working. another constituent from fort worth, texas wrote on september 9, 2013, my husband was with i.b.m. for over 30 years. and we consider the health insurance was part of our salary. two weeks ago, i found out that they are canceling the insurance for retirees and their spouses because of obamacare. they say they will give me a lump sum of money to buy a plan but i assume once that money is gone i will be responsible for the payments. thank you for all you are doing to stop obamacare. by the way, my primary physician just closed his practice because of obamacare. he said he didn't think he could give the kind of care his -- to his patients that they deserved. there are two things there that are really striking, mr. president. number one, the situation of this woman is the situation that so many americans across this country are experiencing where they had a health plan, they had a health plan they liked, health insurance they liked. we remember three and a half years ago when the president promised the american people if you like your insurance, health insurance, you can keep it. we now know that statement was flatly, objectively, 100% false. we now know that it is not the case if you like your health insurance you can keep it because obamacare is causing people all over the country like this woman in fort worth, texas to lose her health insurance. and they are understandably not happy about it. they are hurting, they are suffering. but it's interesting point about the primary physician. we're also seeing doctors leaving the practice of medicine, advising young students, don't go to med school. because obamacare is destroying the practice of med. if the goal is to expand access to health care, driving good physicians out of the practice of medicine is completely antithetical to that goal. another constituent, a retired couple from bayou vista, texas, wrote, my wife and i are retired living on a fixed income. we worked hard protecting our credit, saved enough money to buy a modest home in bayou vista, texas. if the insurance premiums being accomplished in the local newspaper materialize, we will no longer be able to afford to live in our home. we couldn't sell it either. this act if left unchanged will destroy many coastal communities and result in our personal financial ruin. we would have no choice but to walk from our mortgage. we would lose all the investment we had made in this house. our credit would be ruined. mr. president, these are the words of a retired couple living on a fixed income who have managed to save up to buy a home for their retirement, for their golden years. and obamacare is threatening to turn their retirement into a nightmare. i'll remind you that word nightmare is not mine. that word "nightmare" is the word of james hoffa, the president of the teamsters. that nightmare is very, very real for that couple, and it's real for so many americans and yet it's a nightmare -- it's now late at night. i'm going to venture to say most members of the united states senate are home in bed, asleep. while america lives the nightmare. if we were listening to the people, we wouldn't be home asleep, if we were listening to the people we'd be experiencing that nightmare, we'd be waking up much like my little girls do with -- sometimes when they have a scary dream, but we'd be responding like any parent does when your child has a nightmare, you'd come in and try to make the nightmare go away. america is experiencing that nightmare and it's even worse because here the united states senate caused that nightmare. we passed the law that is the nightmare for the american peop, on both sides of the aisle have been telling the american people they're too too many other priorities on their list to even about the nightmare that is obamacare. mr. president, that is wrong. that's fundamentally wrong. we need to make d.c. listenmen . mr. lee: will the gentleman yield for a quea? mr. cruz cruz: i'm happy to yier a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. lee: i'd like to ask the senator 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 just some dream that we're going to wake up from and discover that this is a figment of our subconscious mind that's causing us torment. it's real. you know, sometimes we react as a law-making body to situations in such a way we don't necessarily improve upon the status quo. we identify a problem and we try to act, and 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 -- 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 unbarelily cold -- unbearably cold, something that was unusual for me because i -- i like an office or a home to be relatively cool. but this was unusually cold. it was so cold that we were tempted to wear gloves in the middle of the summer indoors because our office was so cold. it was so cold but sometimes we would open up our windows to our office even though it was really 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 -- our hands would get numb, we could barely write and that's a significant portion of a law clerk's job is to write, write a lot of material. well, we'd walk over to the thermostat thinking that 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'd move it up a litttle. didn't do any good. then we'd 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 washingtonmen washing. 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 untolerablely -- intolerably hot. it was hot all the time. it was so hot that we were sweating. it's 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. but because it was so hot, we frequently found ourselves tempted to open the windows again, letting in really cold air from the outside because we were so hot we had to do something to balance out the temperature. here 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. then a lot and it still didn't do any good. after awhile we called the maintenance people of the building. in fact, we called several of the maintenance people in the believe. thibuilding. finished in 1935. it was undergoing renovation at the time. that renovation went on for many, 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 figure 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, okay, i have dismantled your entire system and i've found the problem. your thermostat was installed backwards. 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's something that congress can learn from this. sometimes congress, out of an abundant, legitimate, well-intentioned desire to achieve something good in society will do something. and sometimes that something is the only thing congress knows what to do at the moment y.? well, because congress legislates. it's what we do. and as i've said before, sometimes when you're holding a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. sometimes when congress acts, even with the best of intentio 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's what happened here. but the proper response to a broken thermostat or a thermostat that's installed backwards is not to continue using the same thermostat. the solution has got to be to fix the thermostat, to replace it. we've got a broken thermostat with this law and it needs to be replaced entirely. i'm also reminded of another story, a story that's somewhat related, it helps us understand some similar points. when i was a teenager, i think i was about 14 years old, one night i was out with my family. i grew up in a large family, seven children. only in utah, that's sort of a medium-sized family but that's a discussion for a different day. we were out somewhere with the family, i think we had just 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. now, 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. and i asked my dad to just keep driving home, drop me off at the house, the rest of the family could continue on and go and get ice cream together and that way i could stay at home, get my homework done and i wouldn't have to be up too late. well, it all worked well. i had all my siblings in the car. that's 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. now, let me 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, one of my greatest heroes in this life. he had many talents. but he was also very absent-minded. and 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 and somehow the oldsmobile ended up on top of my foot turned around backwards. it's a little bit hard to describe. the oldsmobile, with a whole bunch of kids in it, weighs a lot and 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. and so finally i mustered the presence of mind to get out one word -- just one word that i knew i could pronounce, one word that would send the message unequivocally to my father. get the oldsmobile off 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 of 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 wor word -- reverse. sometimes when you're doing something that hurts someone, you just have to reverse, you have to turn off that which has been turned on which is harming people. this law turned on 3 1/2 years ago is harming people. it's going to do a lot more harm if it remains in the "on" position. we need to put this car in 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, by saying, look, at a minimum, let's -- let's halt 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. now, the objections to this are many. some say, well, this can't ever happen. you -- you don't have the political will to do that. you don't have the political muscle to do that. it just can't happen. well, we know one thing for certain -- it's never going to happen if we don't try. we also know that a number of other can't-win battles have been fought and ultimately won. a few months ago, americans were being told we're going to have significant gun control legislation, significant legislation that could eat away in a meaningful way to your privacy and your right to own a gun in this country. we're going to have some form of gun registration system. we were told, this is happening, just accept it, just deal with it; there's nothing you can do about it. well, a few people in congress disagreed with that conclusion. a few people in congress resisted and we stopped it. just a few weeks ago, it was regarded as an indisputable truth that we were going to get involved in some kind of military strike in syria. well, a swelling group of lawmakers from both houses and both political parties started expressing reservations with that idea, and before long, people stopped saying that resisting that effort was impossible. and after awhile, they stopped saying that it was improbable. and after awhile, that movement to resist getting the united states involved in military action in syria became absolutely unstoppable. in one way or another, i believe that the effort to stop obamacare might bear some resemblance to this. it might operate under -- on a somewhat different time frame, but initially people said the effort to stop this law was one that was impossible. now i think we're reaching the point at which it's being described by many as improbable. and in time, as more and more americans join this cause, as more and more americans reach out to their senators and their congressmen, this letter become absolutely -- this effort will become absolutely unstoppable. you see, because the american people love freedom. the american people, who were born to live free. the sons and daughters of america have freedom as their birthright and they don't take particularly well to micromana micromanage -- micromanagement from a large, distant government, one that's 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. large national governments can do certain things well. it can do certain things that 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 things, we often cause far more problems than we resolve. and so in this circumstance, we have to remember the lesson that we learned from the thermostat, the lesson that i learned while working at the supreme court, that sometimes if you have got a broken thermostat, what you do might actually be having the opposite of what you're trying to do. what you're trying to do might actually make matters worse if your thermostat's broken, if it's installed backwards. we also have to remember that sometimes when you get into a position where you're causing harm or you could cause more harm unless you change direction, sometimes you just have to reverse. well, this, i believe, is one of those times. to reframe all of this, we're here, we're here at nearly 2:00 in the morning on an otherwise perfectly good tuesday night. i guess now it's wednesday morning. we're here because we feel strongly about how best to proceed with a funding mechanism passed by the house of representatives. you see, 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 of the federal government funded and operating, to do so while defunding obamacare. once that was passed by the house and once that started making its way over to the united states senate, we here in the senate were faced with several alternatives. i believe that there are two very good alternatives to addressing them. 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's 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. what's not acceptable is for the senate majority leader to do as he is expected by many to do, 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's going to do this, he's not going to have my help doing it, because he's not going to have my help doing it, that means i must vote no on the cloture on the bill. in other words, harry reid is expected to ask his members, is expected to be followed by the 53 other members in his conference for a total of 54 democrats to vote yes when it comes to cloture on this bill, to vote yes, knowing full well that 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 that they are in support of a house-passed resolution as adopted by the house for defunding obamacare. on the contrary, this means that they are in favor of gutting it, of severing, cutting out its most important single provision. if harry reid and the 53 democrats who follow him want to do that, that's their prerogative. i as a republican, i who was elected to combat obamacare, to try to stop it, will not be voting for cloture on the bill for that very reason. now, 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. what's not acceptable is for him to allow one and only one amendment, one gutting the provision, 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 that they need republican help if that's 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'd like to pass it as is. if we can't pass it as is on a single as-is vote, i'd like to see us have an open amendment process. the senate majority leader is proposing neither. so i ask senator cruz how do you see this? how could one possibly see a yes vote on cloture on the bill under the circumstances that i have described as a vote in favor of the house-passed continuing resolution that funds government while defunding obamacare? mr. cruz: it's a very good question from the senator from utah, and i would note there is one way and only one way. if you're trying to confuse and deceive your constituents. there's no intellectually honest way to view it. if you ask any rational person. if a republican votes along with harry reid and 53 senate democrats to allow harry reid and 53 senate democrats to fund obamacare, have they stood and fought for defunding obamacare? of course not. it's not a difficult question. it's not complicated. now, those who want to confuse their constituents want complication. those who have at least initially stated they intend to vote to allow harry reid and the democrats to fund obamacare are at the same time often within hours of those statements telling their constituents i'm leading the fight to defund obamacare. you can't have it both ways. you cannot have it both ways. you are either willing to stand for your principles and not just on an emity showboat. there was an exchange earlier with the senator from illinois where he was saying he wasn't surprised by the house vote. he was certain they would vote because they had voted 40-some odd times to defund obamacare, but there was a big difference. there was a big difference in this friday vote. a big difference why the commentators, why the pundits in d.c. said this wouldn't happen. the other 40-some odd times were symbolic votes. they hefner had a -- never had a chance to pass it into law. it is not difficult to get republicans to vote in symbolic votes. indeed, in this body, i have introduced two amendments this year that at the time there were 45 republicans in this body, all 45 republicans voted against it. we're going to have another vote, if majority leader reid is successful in shutting off debate, on funding obamacare that all 46 republicans will happily vote against, and they will go tell people hey, i voted against them when it didn't matter, but they will leave out the when it didn't matter part. they will leave out the i voted to allow harry reid to do that, but then once the matter was decided, i cast a vote against it to confuse my constituents. and you wonder why americans are cynical about politics. we're cynical about politics because too many leaders in this body, too many democrats and too many republicans, are not listening to the american people. let me read statements from a number of think tank leaders across the country. matthew j.brulett from the commonwealth foundation in pennsylvania, giving more citizens health insurance is not the same as giving them health care. the tragic outcome is that obamacare will harm the very pensians it purports to help -- the very pennsylvanians it purports to help. francis s.deluca -- obamacare is about neither health nor care. it's about forcing americans to buy a service that they may neither need nor want. in the end, it will reduce the availability of health services for citizens while making those available more costly. now, that sounds like a great option. fewer choices and the ones you have are more expensive. no wonder james hoffa, the head of the teamsters, calls obamacare a nightmare. no wonder so many americans are suffering and asking for congress to listen to their pleas to give them the same exemption president barack obama has already given huge corporations and members of congress. connor boyak from the libertas institute in utah. the affordable care act is unfair, invasive and an illegitimate burden upon taxpayers. in an attempt to remedy certain problems, it follows the historical pattern of government intervention and creates even more of them. ellen weaver from the palmetto policy forum in south carolina. south carolinians are already starting to feel the front end of the shockwave as several local employers cut work schedules to part time. and we are left to imagine the ultimate decimation on the budgets of palmetto state families as personal rates skyrocket and people are forced off their current insurance that we were promised we would be able to keep. in fact, just last week, palmetto policy forum's president received a letter telling hershey would be losing her private policy, and this is just the beginning of the promised train wreck. sally pipes from the pacific research institute in california -- unless obamacare is repealed and replaced, america will be on the road to serfdom and will be no offering. we will be headed for a single-payer medicare for all system such as exists in canada. americas will face long waiting lists for care, rationed care and a lack of access to the latest treatments and procedures. where will the best doctors and we as patients go to get first-rate care? now, interestingly enough, miss pipes, the majority leader of the united states senate, harry reid, agrees with her. both sally pipes and majority leader reid say the end result of obamacare is and indeed is designed to be single-payer government socialized health care. the only difference is majority leader reid thinks it's a good idea and sally pipes and the american people think that's a terrible idea because we don't want our care rationed, we don't want government bureaucrats deciding who gets health care when, we don't want waiting periods and we don't want low quality health care, which is what happens at the end of this road if we stay going down it. justin owen, the beacon center of tennessee, says obamacare presents the most dangerous threat to tennesseans' job and health security than anything coming out of washington, and that's saying a lot these days. paul gessing of the rio grande foundation, new mexico. obamacare lox in the worst aspects of american health care. rather than restoring the patient-doctor relationship, it puts the i.r.s. and the federal government alongside insurance companies between patients and their doctors. matt mayer, opportunity, ohio -- obamacare is distorting insurance markets, forcing ohioans to make changes they don't want to make and expanding one of the least effective and most costly government programs in u.s. history. mike stenhaus from the rhode island center for freedom and prosperity. in rhode island, not only will up to 75% of those currently uninsured remain uninsured after obamacare's implemented, but our state has still not determined how to pay for its wasteful exchange after the federal subsidies end. scott moody from the maine heritage policy center observed that the maine heritage policy program has profiled several businesses employing hundreds of mainors who can't afford the increased costs under obamacare. in fact, the in one case the higher obamacare cost will consume from 54% to 134% of the company's profits. this burden could ultimately put this company out of business which would -- not only mean no health insurance to the employees but it would also mean no jobs, either. boy, doesn't that describe the e teamsters was talkingffa of about, employees losing their jobs, employees forced into part-time work and losing their health insurance all at the same time. no wonder the unions are speaking out or remaining silent no longer. how long will it be till til we see democratic senators have the courage of james hoffa to have the courage to remain silent no longer and speak out for the men and women of america who are losing their jobs, forced into part-time work and are losing their health insurance. how long will it be before all 46 republicans do more than give speeches against obamacare but actually stand and fight this fight, stop saying we can't win it and actually stand up and start to win it. paul mara from the sutherland institute in utah, the a.c.a. is a hollywood use know general for its -- hallucinogen for its recipients addressing the needs of the uninsured. a true utah solution will rely on our people, not the federal government. mike thompson from the thomas jefferson institute in virginia. it looks as if those on the low end of the income scale will be harmed as part thymetime employees will see their hours cut and full-time employees moved to part time. small businesses, the engine of job creation are seeing their health care costs rising, forcing them to employ fewer people than they they would otherwise. wayne hoffman of the idaho freedom foundation. obamacare is destroying the quality of health care in idaho. the onslaught of new regulations and the fear of what might come next from washington is not only rising costs, it has prompted countless idaho doctors to give up medicine or join large hospital group medical practices. as a result, the close-knit doctor-patient relationships that have endured in many of our communities have vanished entirely. do do you like your are doctor? do you like continuing to see your doctor? well, with obamacare that relationship is in jeopardy. why do you think so many americans are unhappy with this law? jenny white, the wyoming policy institute, obamacare is closing businesses in the small populated state of wyoming. full time is going to part time and in a state where small business is prevalent, it's hurting an entire state, not just one industry. dave trebair of the kansas policy institute. scholars at kansas policy institute estimate medicaid is exekd to consume 31% of the budget under obamacare and its proposed medicaid expansion. the woodwork effect of obamacare alone is expected to cause over $4 billion in tax increases or spending reductions for other government services in just the first ten years of obamacare. gary palmer of the alabama policy institute. because of the budget control act which the republicans passed in 2011, spending reductions for ther next fiscal year are st in place by law and will require approximately $1.3 trillion in discretionary cuts over the next ken eight years. these cuts can be done either through another round of sequestration which the obama administration will determine what to cut or it will be done by proactively defunding obamacare which according to the congressional budget office estimates, c.b.o., will cost $1.85 trillion over the next 11 years. keep in mind that in 2010 the c.b.o. estimated obamacare would only cost $898 billion for the first ten years. with the u.s. already facing a $16 trillion debt and continuing to run a trillion dollars annual deficit with all the uncertainty surrounding what obamacare will actually cost, defunding obamacare would be an act of fiscal responsibility as intended by the passage of the budget control act. carl graham from the montana policy institute. obamacare has already resulted in the centralization of the health care industry in montana. removing choices and competition especially in the state's rural areas. andy matthew of the nevada policy research institute. at a time when nevada is suffering under the highest unemployment rate in the nation, the so-called affordable care act now threatens to do even more damage to the silver state's job picture. every day i hear from frustrated business owners who would like nothing more than to hire new employees but can't because of the barriers to hiring that this law has created. trent england from the freedom foundation in washington state. washington state's freedom fowtion reports some small businesses are already being told their health insurance rates will double, punishing some of the hardestworking people, hurting job creation and stifling economic growth. robert alt from the buckeye institute for public policy solutions in ohio. so far, obamacare has been a game of drawing strauss. a good deal for the i.r.s., and others have the ability to get exceptions for themselves. congress, a motley group and some unions and friends of the obama administration. the short straws are won by average americans, the overwhelming majority of seniors who are happy with their current planned and our children and grandchildren. the results of this rigged game are an invasion of privacy, increase in health care and insurance costs, loss of freedom, distortion of the free market and a host of changes americans never hoped for. jim sturgeos of the pioneer institute in massachusetts. the a.c.a. will stop the flow of innovation especially in the medical device field which faces hundreds of millions of dollars. the so-called cadillac tax to burden many massachusetts chevy drivers. over half of the citizens in the state by 2018 including union members and hundreds of thousands in the middle class. tim crockett, the center for the american experiment in minnesota. minnesota has one of the finest health care systems in the world. it is unformat the governor has embraced the incursion of federal authority into our state. the a.c.a. is anything but affordable and threatens the delivery of quality care to all but the most financially secure minnesotans. the gross misallocation of resources could be used to improve health care. instead, we are bureaucratizing it. we continue to advocate for portable, patient owned defined contribution plan as an altern to a one-size-fits-all health care. jim vocal of the platte institute in nebraska. as the expense of the middle class, everyday nebraskans, obamacare's implementation will cause hardship on families and the younger generations all across the state. governmental intervention rather than personal choice is not the nebraska way. ashley landis from the south carolina policy council. south carolina business owners are forced to close their doors and sell off family businesses not only because they can't afford the mandate, but because they can't even predict the cost. and neither can anyone else. brent healy from the john k. macgyver institute in wisconsin. before obamacare wisconsin had one of the better health insurance markets in the country that covered the vast majority of our citizens. now under obamacare wisconsinites will see insurance premiums increase on average 51% and in many parts of the badger state we will have only one company to choose from and no consumer choice. in wisconsin, the affordable care act is proving to be not affordable at all and the uncertainty surrounding its implementation is weighing on our employers and holding back our economic recovery. wisconsinites deserve better. j. robert mcclure iii from the james madison institute in florida. in florida, where tourism and seasonal hiring are a way of life, small businesses and large ones are confused and frustrated as to how to move forward. arbitrary delays in enforcement by the federal government of this invasive law have created a climate of paralysis in florida when it comes to job creation and planning. in a state of roughly 19 million people, where the economic climate is poised in every way to take off, no organization, be it in business, education, health care or government, knows how to proceed. the affordable care act has only created stagnation and insecurity in florida. with a hefty price tag to come, paid for on the backs of every taxpayer in the state. state representative genie morrison from the texas conservative coalition, the so-called affordable care act is not even fully implemented and it's already costing jobs, leading to costly increases in insurance premiums and promising billions of dollars in new taxes. texans should not have to shoulder the cost of obamacare which is why we implore our texas delegation to defund this unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable law. and finally, jim waters, the bluegrass institute in kentucky. obamacare will devastate kentucky's already struggling economy. we already have entire areas where expect ant mothers in rural areas must drive two hours to see an obgyn. but there will be nowhere that any kentucky family or small business owner can go to hide from the increased costs and destruction of our personal liberties resulting from this policy of redistribution. now, mr. president, that list of quotes span the country. it wasn't just one region, wasn't just republican states, wasn't just democratic states. those are quotes from think tanks in north carolina, in utah and south carolina, in california, in tennessee and new mexico, in ohio and rhode island, in maine and utah, in virginia and idaho and wyoming and kansas and alabama. in montana, in washington state, in ohio, in massachusetts, in minnesota, in nebraska, in south carolina, in wisconsin, in florida, and in the state of kentucky. let me ask you plnts let -- mr. president, let me ask everyone watching, have the senators from each of those states come out and said they will defund obamacare? have the democratic senators from each of those states said i've listened to my constituents, i've listened to the people who are losing their jobs, who are being pushed into part-time work, who are seeing health insurance premiums skyrocket, who are losing their health insurance, have the democratic senators representing those states said that and have the republican senators representing those states said i will stand together, republicans will be united against cloture on this bill because we are not going to vote to allow harry reid and the democrats to fund obamacare, to gut the house republican bill. and if they haven't, it is a reasonable question to ask why. why our elected officials are not listening to the people. we need to together make d.c. listen. mr. lee: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. lee: you know, i've got two sons and a daughter. my two sons are twins. they're teenagers, they're good boys. they're both 4.0 students and i couldn't be more pleased with them. they work hard. i had an experience with them about a year and a half 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, 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 after turning down the radio, these are terrible lyrics. and i asked them have you ever listened to the words of this song? do we like the message that's 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's not bad if you don't think about it." i immediately thought that was funny, that that was his response. this is teenage reasoning at its very best. it's not just teenage reasoning. it's the way a lot of us think about things. we think about saying certain things aren't that bad if you don't think about them. well, in many respects, that's reflective of what we face in our country today. a $17 trillion debt and growing at a raich approaching a trillion dollars a year -- at a rate approaching a trillion dollars 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 regulations isn't bad if you don't think about it. having between $1.75 and $2 trillion a year in existing regulatory compliance costs isn't 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. you see, a lot of these problems that we face aren't bad but only if you don't think about them. the problem is, in the united states senate, it's our job to think about these problems. it's 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 peop people, a law that will have an effect not consistent with the lofty sounding title of that l law, an effect that will actually result in many, many instances in health care that is both unfair and less affordable. so 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 that we're 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've cried out for help in recent weeks as they have asked congress again and again to defund obamacare, as they've asked congress to keep government funded. they don't want a shutdown. we don't want a shutdown. you know, i don't want a shutdown. i don't think senator cruz wants a shutdown. in fact, i -- i don't think i know any member of congress of either house or of 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 have been thinking about it. they've been thinking about this law and the many problems that it threatens to create for our nation's 300-plus million 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, 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 didn't 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 really slow to respond to the needs of the people. and that national government, based not in washington, d.c., because washington, d.c., did not exist then. what's now washington, d.c., 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. and 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 to them. 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. and instinctively, quite understandably, we established a national government because we knew we would need one. we knew that each of these 13 colonies could not exist independently as a free-standing republic. we knew that 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, like national defense. and 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's 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 that this type of risk of soft tyranny, as some would describe it, is greatest within national governments. that the bigger the nation, the more powerful the government, the fewer the restrictions on that government, the greater the risk that the rights of the people will be undermined, the greater the risk that the people of that great nation will become subjects rather than sovereigns, which, of course, they should always be. and so for that very purpose, we put in place a very limited purpose national government, initially urn the articles of conferreddation. we put together a really, really weak national government. it was so weak, in fact, that it was ineffective, it wasn't able to do the things that our most basic national government needed to be able 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. and 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, you know, 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 that we can be a nation. and yet we also need for those powers to be sufficiently limited that the risk of tyran tyranny, even incremental tyranny or tyranny by degrees will be kept to a minimum. and so our founding fathers wisely came up with a list, a list of powers, powers that we knew that 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 is perhaps the single-most important portion of the constitution -- at least for our purposes here -- a part of the constitution we ought to look to more frequently here, article 1, section 8. article 1, section 8 and its 18 clauses go through the basic powers of congress. congress, of course, has the power to -- to tax and the power to spend within the powers authorized by the -- 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 a uniform set of laws governing naturalization or what we would today call immigration. the power to provide for our national defense, to declare w 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. and then there's my favorite power, the power to grant letters of mark and reprisal, a power that we too often fail to recognize, a power that i wish we would get to debate and discuss longer, more frequently in the united states senate. a letter of mark and reprisal is, of course, effectively a hall pass issued by the united states congress in the name of the united states government that entitles the bearer of that hall pass to be a hig pirate one high seas. regardless of how long i get to serve in the united states senate, i hope one day to be granted a letter of mark and reprisal so i can become a pirate, as i longed to be as a child. you're all invited to join me when i get that letter of mark and reprisal. the point is that the powers of congress are limited. these are powers that james madison, in defending the constitution against people who questioned it, against those who feared that 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. well, he was right and he was persuasive. and 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 united states 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 don't have the power to just make whatever law we think is a good idea. a good idea isn't 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. well during the first hundred, maybe 150 years of our republic as it operated under the constitution, we followed pretty closely this doctrine, the -- 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 or not we should have a national bank. you had debates among and between the political branches of government, meaning congress and the presidency tha, that ofn 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' power to enact. it wasn't 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 or not it's constitutional. within the political branches of government frequently, proposals were stopped on grounds that they were unconstitutional. well, you 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 f.d.r.'s more aggressive attempts to expand the reach, size, scope, the cost of the federal government. it resisted those, saying look, regardless of what the policy merits might be of this federal program or that one, we still have a limited purpose, federal government and not an all-purpose national government, and that limited purpose national government has to find something in the constitution even time it legislates, and 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 the supreme court got scared. it got scared as a result of f.d.r.'s court packing plan. moved into its new building across the street, the shining marble palace that we see just outside of the door to the senate here, moved into that building in 1935. 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, by fundamentally altering the nature of the court's composition. and so for that reason, many theorize the court changed its positions. 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 nlrb versus jones and laughlin steel company. in that case, the supreme court adopted an early version of what has become its modern commerce clause jurisprudence. the supreme court started concluding that where there is an activity that is commercial in nature, 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, local activities like labor, manufacturing, agriculture and mining. now, that's not to say that those things shouldn't ever be regulated by any government anywhere. it's not to say that the supreme court prior to nlrb vs. jones and laughlin steel ever suggested otherwise. but it is to suggest that prior to that case, regulation of local activities like labor, manufacturing, agriculture and mining were considered more appropriate for state and local governments and not for our national government. within the next five years, the supreme court solidified its position on the commerce clause, and in many respects it allowed its power to reach a high water mark. in the 1942 case of wickard vs. fillburn. let's talk about that case for just a minute because i think it bears to what we're talking about here. that case involved a farmer, a farmer by the name of roscoe fillburn. he got himself in trouble with the law. you might be asking yourself well, what did farmer roscoe fillburn do? what did he do to get himself in trouble with the feds? was he a bank robbery? no, he didn't rob a bank. drug dealer? no, didn't do that. murderer, kidnapper? no. do you know what roscoe fillburn did? he committed a grave offense against the united states. he grew too much wheat. yes. scary but true. roscoe fillburn grew more wheat than congress in its infinite wisdom saw fit for any american to grow in any one single year. congress, you see, had by then decided that it needed to regulate nearly every aspect of human existence, if possible, that it even had the wisdom and the foresight necessary to direct the entire economy right down to how much wheat a particular farmer could legally grow. so roscoe fillburn was fined many thousands of dollars for growing too much wheat. that was a lot of money in those days. fortunately, mr. fillburn had a good lawyer. mr. fillburn was determined not to allow his life to be micromanaged by federal officials in washington, d.c. mr. fillburn challenged the enforcement of this law against him, and he did so with this theory. he said look, this statute that i have been accused of violating was enacted pursuant to the commerce clause of the u.s. constitution. article 1, section 8, clause 3. the commerce clause applies to interstate commerce, commerce or trade occurring between the states, not intrastate commerce. commerce within a state. that commerce which is within a particular state is not subject to congress' authority in the commerce clause. and what roscoe fillburn argued through his lawyer was that the wheat that he grew in excess of the national wheat production limit never entered interstate commerce because it never entered commerce at all. you see, roscoe fillburn used that wheat entirely on his farm. he used some of it to feed his animals. he used some of it to feed his own family, and he reserved the balance of that grain to use as seed for the following season. and 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, even that wheat that never left roscoe fillburn's farm was subject to the long arm of congress. it was subject to 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, these supposedly few and defined powers were broad enough somehow to extend to roscoe fillburn's pernicious wheat. the supreme court said in essence that this wheat, because it was grown on roscoe fillburn's farm in excess of the grain production limit imposed by federal law, because it was grown and used on that farm, it was grain that roscoe fillburn would have otherwise purchased but did not have to purchase on the open market, a market that was distinctively interstate, and because he grew it and used it on the farm, he didn't buy it somewhere else. thus roscoe fillburn by growing too much wheat shamefully distorted and undermined the interstate market in wheat. 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. and so the supreme court of the united states upheld the fine that was assessed against roscoe fillburn. the reasoning of the supreme court of the united states employed in wicker v. fillburn is a fascinating study in legal and verbal gymnastics. it's a fascinating study in the idea that everything affects everything else. they basically said that the wheat that roscoe fillburn 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 somehow are just asked to have faith that this can happen. i'm told the climatologists are asked to prove there is an impact the butterflies can affect the weather in south america. i don't know how, but you have to make a lot of inferences before you get there. but as many inferences as have to be made with the butterflies, i think there are even more inferences that have to be drawn with respect to roscoe fillburn'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 it's powerful. that's just the way things are. and yesterday i think we have a certain responsibility to look back through our history and question from time to time the judgments of the supreme court of the united states, especially when those judgments enable the united states 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 vs. fillburn is we have continued to expand federal authority beyond that. we have never fully retreated from that high water mark, and what we have seen was a perpetually expanding national government, one that is capable of imposing an estimated $2 trillion in federal regulatory compliance costs a loan. a federal government that imposes a couple more trillion dollars in taxes a year from the american people, and it manages to spend between $3.5 trillion and $4 trillion every single year. that's a really big government. since wickardv. fillburn, 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' powers 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 versus lopez where in 1995 the supreme court invalidateed the gun-free schools zones act, prohibiting the bare possession of a handgun within the school zone. the supreme court concluded that the possession of a gun was not commercial activity at all, it was not interstate commercial activity, it was not interstate commerce, and you couldn't really get to the point where you could conclude that this was a valid subject of congress, congress' clause authority. the second case was decided in 2000, a case called united states vs. morris in which the supreme court invalidated provisions of the violence against women act, including that those provisions attempted to regulate acts of violence which, however, reprehensible were themselves neither interstate nor commercial. then, of course, in 2012, the supreme court sort of invalidate ed 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 that provision, although enacted pursuant to the commerce clause, could not be defended as a valid exercise of congress' power under the commerce clause, and in that respect, to that extent, they concluded that it was unconstitutional. but then the supreme court went on somehow to conclude that this was a valid exercise of congress' 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, to impose taxes, to create taxes. the supreme court of the united states created out of whole cloth a new tax which it imposed on the american people, a middle-class tax hike which the court has no power to impose. it has no power to levy taxes, and yet the court did it anyway. i get asked all the time when i tell that story how, then, did the court do it? if the court has no power to do it, how did it do it? well, 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 accept and get over and move on from wickard v. filburn because the federal government is big and powerful and we can all live with it. well, we can 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. 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 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 and system where their laws are written by men and women of their own choosing, who serve in increments of two years in the case of members of the house and increments of six years in the case of the united states senators. supreme court justices, of course, are smart men and women, every one of them. they are very intelligent, well-trained individuals. and i'm convinced that each and every one of them loves this country and wants to serve it well. and 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's one of the many reasons we don't trust them with the power to write you that law. one of the 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 in order to save it. 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, 78-2 -- 7-2, that congress had violated the constitution by imposing on the states a mandate to expand their medicare programs without giving them any reasonable alternative. any available alternative. the supreme court again by a 5-4 margin after 7-2, after the justices by a margin of 7-2 had found this was unconstitutional, five of them by a margin of 5-4 saved the provision simply by rewrite the law --, 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 shake spears who originally penned the words he'll cheat without scruple who can without fear. i've also heard it attributed to beverage minimum -- benjamin franklin. i've heard it attributed to both. regardless, there has got to be a legal core larry to that. -- core larry to that. when supreme court justices are able to make law, impose taxes and no one calls them out on it, that's when the people have to live with that. that's when they get away with it. that's when they're 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 that we can't simply ignore. one of the things that i found so offensive, so appalling, so disturbing, so distressing was the fact that in the wake of this decision so many people, 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, rewriting the affordable care act, not just once but twice in order to save it. they praised him. some of them said this showed that he was willing to cross the aisle at the supreme court. well, that's 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 and, in fact, particularly once they've been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, supreme court justices operate in a world in which political -- partisan political affiliation has no meaning. this wasn't reaching across the aisle. some suggested that this was somehow a statesmanlike act by the chief justice, an act that revealed 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's absolute 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's any validity to the theory that that's what the chief justice was trying to bring about, if it was, that would amount to an utter betrayal of his judicial oath, also reveal him to be a really bad political tactics -- tactician. but that's not the chief justice's job. not the job of 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' power under the commerce clause. i believe that's utter nonsense. this didn't do that. in fact, i think it blew a hole a mile wide in the enumerated powers doctrine. what this suggested, yeah, the supreme court is going to pay at least lip service 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, 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 yeah, okay this may not be a valid exercise of congress' powers under the commerce clause but we will rewrite it as a tax. we rewrite it as a tax and thereby uphold it, thereby stand behind it. so we get back to the question, a question that 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 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. now, 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, that was a valid 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 offered 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, 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's a tax, you can't review the statute being challenged until after it's been enforced. which meant that no legal -- no judicial challenge could have been properly brought, could have been countenanced by an article 3 court of the united states until at the earliest sometime in are 2014 after the enforcement of the individual mandate began. so it was really, really odd that the court led by the same chief justice concluded at once 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 it? it gets away with it because we recognize the legitimacy, the validity 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. and so we see that this was a law that was put into 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 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's where we get wack back to where we are now with 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 law -- 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 it is that we're funding, why it is that we're funding it. why it is that we should continue to stand behind a law that's 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. senator cruz, i'd like to ask you, do you know how long the hundred years war lasted? mr. cruz: well, i thank my friend from utah for his remarkable discourse on constitutional law. and ask for the latest -- and as for the latest question you ask, you might think the 100 years war lasted a hundred years, but think again. it was 116 years. things are not always as they seem. mr. lee: can you tell me, senator cruz, where do chinese gooseberries come from? mr. cruz: i yield for this question, and most would say china, but think again. chinese gooseberries actually come from new zealand. the way things are labeled are not always, in fact, what they are. mr. lee: and if the gentleman will yield for another question, question, -- commercial airplanes, as far as i know, all airplanes in the united states have within them something called the black box, a black box that records the events of the cockpit and also records critical operating data from the airplane so that in the event of an accident, the data and the voice recordings can be reviewed to try to figure out what happened. do you know what color the black box is? mr. cruz: senator lee, i do. if we were dealing with the ordinary english language, it would be black. but perhaps airplane manufacturers think like congress because the black box on an airplane is orange. mr. lee: there is something called a panama hat. can you tell me what part of the world the panama hat comes from? mr. cruz: well, i would yield to that question and note that it could possibly be panama. you might think if you call it a panama hat, it might be panama. think again. ecuador. ecuador makes panama hats. uador hats.w that anyone makes mr. lee: the device known as a camel's hairbrush, do you know what it's made of? mr. cruz: i yield for that question, and curiously enough, i do. now, you might think a camel's hairbrush must be made of camel's hair. there are lots of camels. they have hair. surely you can make a brush. i don't know if you can. but a camel's hairbrush is made of squirrel fur. it makes you wonder, the squirrels apparently have a very bad marketing department if they give their fur and it gets credited to the camel. what color is a purple finch? mr. cruz: i will again yield for that question, again to note that a purple finch, like most husbands, i have a color palate of about six colors. i remember once my wife asked me with regard to a tile that we were redoing our bathroom, it was a white tile. she was long distance. she said, "what shade of white?" i'll note that was a question i was utterly incapable of responding to. i wasn't aware there were shades of white and my vocabulary doesn't cover such things. i finally dropped it in a fedex envelope and said, it's a white tile, i know nothing beyond that. again, to your question, what color is a purple finch? i would tend to be wrong if that were the case because a purple finch is crimson red. mr. lee: it's a chain of islands off the coast of spain. it's a chain of islands known as the canary islands. can you tell me, mr. cruz, after what islands were these numbers named? mr. cruz: senator lee, i will yield for purposes of that question as well, and indeed i can tell you that. now, you would think, you call a chain of islands a canary islands, it must be a bird. maybe a bird in a coal mine but some sort of bird. think again. the canary islands are named after a dog. and i would note the canary islands are a chain of islands i have some real connection to because my grandfather, my father's father, was born in the canary islands. and, indeed, he moved to cuba when he was 1. was raised in cuba. my father was born in cuba, was raised in cuba. and, you know, the lesson from all of these is really striking. labels don't always mean what they say. and some might wonder what does this chain of insightful questions from my friend, the junior senator from utah, how does it relate to the issue of obamacare? well, if you look at senator lee's tremendous discourse on the constitution -- and i would note, by the way, there is not another senator in the united states senate that could give that constitutional lecture that my friend, senator lee, did, sharing with this body -- i wish all 100 of us had been here to hear that, because a lot of senators -- all senators would be well served by learning or relearning those basic constitutional principles. mr. lee: but the question is, would any of them be willing to listen or interested in listening it, but most of them would consider it a form of torture? mr. cruz: and i yield for the purposes of that question as well, and they might w. but, yo. but, you know, one of the striking things -- well, you know, under the rules, i'm not allowed to ask senator lee a question. so i can rhetorically pose a question to the body and senator lee can give me his thoughts on the rhetorical question posed to the body. so given the convoluted and odd procedure that governs this body. i'm going to ask this rhetorical question to the body, which is, senator lee explained that the supreme court of the united states upheld obamacare after concluding that it exceeded the commerce clause authority of congress, by concluding that it was a tax. and by calling it a tax, it was able to force it into a different line of jiewrns and le and uphold it under the taxing clause, the taxing power of congress. and i would ask rhetorically to this body, was it an accident that the obamacare statute didn't call the individual mandate a tax? maybe it was a scriber in'se scs error. maybe it was they thought it was a tax, they meant for it to be a tax and maybe it was a clerk just wrote the word. surely that's not consequential. i mean, it must purely have been an accident. and as a related component of that, was it an accident that the president of the united states went on national television and told the people of america while this was under consideration, this is not a t tax. affirmatively said, this is not a tax. now, mind you, the argument that the u.s. department of justice made, the obama administration made to the supreme court, was this is a tax, although the statute didn't say it. and the argument the supreme court ultimately found persuasive was, this is a tax, although the statute said it was a penalty and not a tax. the question i would rhetorically pose is: was it an accident or is there perhaps another reason why elected politicians would not call something a tax? mr. lee: would the gentleman yield for a question? mr. cruz: i would be happy to yield for purposes of a question. mr. lee: hearing that the senator from texas might have started humming the theme to "jeopardy" while stating lots of these things in the form of a question, it does occur to me that it is absolutely certain that there was a reason why this was not called a tax when it was presented to the united states congress. and the reason is, tax hikes are unpopular. tax hikes are especially unpopular when they're directed at the american middle class. tax hikes are especially unpopular when they're directed at the american middle class when they are presented by a president who ran specifically on a campaign of not raising taxes on the american middle class, which, of course, nearly all candidates for president will promise. and in this case, did promise. so, no, it is not by any means an accident that this happened. the fact that language consistent with a hundred years of jurisprudence, language that was used in this law created a penalty. and there is a very clear distinction between a penalty under federal law and a tax under federal law. a tax under federal law is something that is a -- an obligation, a generalized obligation to fund government, whereas a penalty is something that involves both a requirement under federal law and -- and -- and a provision exacting a payment as something that occurs in response to noncompliance with that requirement. and so, no, this was not an accident at all. so i'd -- i'd ask senator cruz whether this -- this aspect of the affordable care act and also the fact that obamacare is called "the patient protection and affordable care act," doesn't it strike you that this in so many ways really is a misnomer in much the same way that the hundred years war didn't last a hundred years and chinese gooseberries come not from china but from new zealand, that the black box is orange, that panama hats come from ecuador, that camel hair brushes are made of squirrel fur? by the way, i don't ever want to try one of those tha, that doest sound pleasant. that the purple finch is actually red and that the canary islands are named after a dog. so, too, the patient protection and affordable care act is a name that doesn't accuratelily y describe the finished product because this is a law that will make health care less affordable rather than more and it's a law that subjects patients to a lot of harm rather than protecting them. so does that mean we should think again about balk i think t obamacare in the same way we need to think again about the answers of these questions. mr. cruz: i think the senator from utah is exactly correct in that. and, indeed, as he quite rightly explained, it was not an accident that congress deliberately did not call the individual mandate in obamacare a tax. nor was it an accident that the president of the united states explicitly said, it is not a tax. because the effort was to represent to the american people that it was something quite different. and, indeed, again asking a question rhetorically to the body -- i know senator lee is aware, i know many other senators are aware of a lot of cases in the supreme court, the commocomencommendeering. and we cannot do a state law-making agency to implement federal law and federal policy. and indeed, the supreme court has explained the reasoning behind th the commondeering notn that the voters should be able to determine, who it is that put this policy in place. and if congress could commandeer the states to enforce federal policy, the people might be mad at their state legislators. and they might be wrong with the wrong people. because it was the federal lawmakers commandeering the states to do that, that would underlying the constitutional structure. so the supreme court has explained that to make the democratic system work, the voters need to be able to understand who's made a decision, what that decision is, and if they don't like it, they need to be able to, as they say colloquially, "throw the bums out." and the affordable care act in congress declining to call it a tax. i might ask, did the supreme court's rewriting the statute to call it a tax for congress, to call it a tax for the president, despite the fact that both had said it was not, did that contravene the accountability principles that undermine the -- that underlie the supreme court's commandeering doctrine, that underlie the constitutional principles? frankly, a republican form of government, where we may know who our elected officials are and what their actions are and that they may be held accoun accountable for those actions so that a democratic republic can function? mr. lee: will the gentleman from texas yield? mr. cruz: i will yield for purposes of a question without yielding the floor. mr. lee: it occurs to me, as i think of this question that i'm about to ask you, that inevitably one constitutional violation facilitates another. it cannot be that you violate one aspect of the constitution in this circumstance, especially when you're tinkering with the lawmaker power, in ways that impact both federalism, the relative power of states and localities on the one hand vis-a-vis the federal government on the other hand and also when you manipulate the power to legislate, the power to impose taxes. any time you disport the operation -- distort the operation of the legislative power, any time you allow the judicial branch to commandeer the legislative machinery from congress, you're also distorting the accountability that you describe, so, in other words, you have in the patient protection and affordable care act a massive intrusion by the federal government into the sovereign authority that is retained by the states and by the people. the bigger the legislative package, the bigger the intrusion, and the greater the potential threat to federalism, the more removed that legislative package is from the people's elected representatives in the house and in the senate, the greater the potential distortion that is at play in the constitutional system. so what we have at the end of the day is a new tax. nobody knows what to blame. when the people are upset that they will be paying this tax, who do they blame? they go to their member of congress. you ask any member of congress who is still here, who was here when this was enacted, any member of congress who voted for the patient protection and affordable care act, and i can pretty well guarantee you they are going to say oh, no, i didn't vote for a middle-class tax hike. i did not vote to impose a new tax on middle-class americans. no, no. i voted for this but i didn't vote for that bause this imposed a penalty and not a tax. i know that because in the wake of the supreme court's ruling in 2012, people who supported this legislation in the house and in the senate and in the white house continued to insist, no, this is not a tax. this is a penalty. this notwithstanding the fact that the supreme court of the united states concluded it could not be upheld as a penalty, that it could be upheld only as an exercise of congress' authority to tax, authority which congress decidedly did not exercise. so the accountability is thrown off severely. this is what prompted me to introduce a piece of legislation senate bill 560. senate bill 560 which stands in rather stark contraction to the patient protection and affordable care act with its 20,000 pages of implementing regulations, senate bill 560, one page. and here's what it says. to paraphrase, section 1501 of the patient protection and affordable care act, the individual mandate provision, is hereby amended as follows. nothing in this provision shall be interpreted as a tax or as a valid exercise of congress' power to tax pursuant to article 1, section 8, clause 1 for the 16th amendment. see, the beauty, the beautiful part of senate bill 560 is that it gives those who voted for obamacare, those in congress who still defend obamacare as something other than attacks on the middle class an opportunity to register that belief, to register that belief by a vote, a vote that would say yes, i don't believe this is a tax and it should not be considered as a tax by the courts and it should not be upheld by the courts as a tax, it should not be construed under any circumstances a tax because we don't regard it as that. nteresting thing, of course, is that that's naturally the way that people who are the law's biggest defenders would like to vote in some respects because they want to tell the american public and they still are telling the american public it's not a tax, it's a penalty, but if, in fact, they actually put their vote in that direction, if they put their money where their mouth is and they pass that into law, well, guess what happens to the supreme court's ruling. what would happen to the supreme court's ruling in that circumstance, senator cruz, if we were to pass senate bill 560 into law. let's assume that somehow magically it passed the house and the senate and president obama signed it, perhaps it united both parties behind this concept that yeah, this is not a tax. what then would become of the supreme court's ruling upholding the patient protection and affordable care act on that basis? mr. cruz: well, that's an excellent question, senator lee. it's an excellent question from senator lee, and the answer's quite simple. if congress acted to make clear that nothing in the affordable care act created a tax, that would remove the entire basis for the supreme court's upholding obamacare, and indeed it would be a relatively simple matter in subsequent litigation for the court to conclude under the matters it's already concludeed that the other bases upholding the act are not present. now, when you have elected officials that go to the people and go to the people as senator lee quite rightly noted and still say it's not a tax, you would think they would happily vote for it except there is a vested interest, and i would note there is a difference between calling this a tax when congress said and said it's not, and the examples is we went through the 100 years war and the purple finch and that those are relatively innocuous misnomers or this is something designed to be actively deceptive. indeed, another one you could add to that litany we went through is you might think if an act was titled quote an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers credit in cases of members of the armed forces, you might think that if that's the title of an act, that it would concern something about the first time home buyers credit, perhaps even members of the armed forces. depending on the content of it, it might even be an act that senator lee and i together would support. and yet, think again. that act is obamacare. this is the 2,000-plus pages of obamacare, a little bit worse for wear, and right on the cover of it, on page 1, december 24, 2009, ordered to be printed and passed. resolved that the bill from the house of representatives titled h.r. 3590 entitled an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers credit in cases of members of the armed forces and certain other federal employees, and for other purposes, do pass the following. and what was the amendment that was done? strike out all after the enacting clause and insert. so everything about the first-time home buyers credit, everything about the armed forces, that all got a raise, titles stayed there, -- that all got erased. the titles stayed there. but it all got erased and suddenly obamacare was born. now, look, that was a creature, that was a fact that came out of the procedural games that had to be played to force obamacare into law on a straight party-line vote, but i would note that this body has not forgotten how to play those games. and indeed, i would ask again rhetorically to the body is the game that the democratic majority of congress played in passing obamacare, saying it was not a tax when in fact it was a tax, when it was not a tax, any different than what right now some members of the republican conference are doing when they say they will vote for cloture in order to give harry reid and the senate democrats the ability to fully fund obamacare and that they will do so because they want to defund obamacare. is that fundamentally any different, presenting one story to tell the voters and a different story in terms of what will happen in this body. when it comes to accountability i wonder if we're seeing much the same games played out again, games that undermine the integrity of this institution, games that undermine the confidence the american people have that our elected representatives listen to us. mr. lee: will the gentleman from texas yield for a question? mr. cruz: i am happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. lee: it is certainly important that we call something by an appropriate name. it was important back then that the congress appropriately name what it was doing. it was appropriate back then for the congress to say we are enforcing the individual mandates through a penalty and not through a tax. in fact, it was so important that but for congress' decision to make this a penalty and not a tax, it would never have passed in the first place. what you call something and what you make of it can mean all the difference between passage and failure of a particular legislative proposal. when you dress something up in different language, something might appear to be more palatable than it actually is. certainly, it could be argued that if there are people among us, if there are republicans among us who support the house-passed continuing resolution, then you must vote for cloture on the bill, cloture on the house-passed resolution. that would not be contract, in my opinion. i would respectfully but strongly disagree with someone who would make that claim. i certainly do not believe it is accurate to say that if you support the house-passed continuing resolution, the one that keeps government funded but defunds obamacare at the same time, i think it would be inaccurate to say that you must vote yes on cloture on the bill in this circumstance. not to say that in every circumstance, you would have to vote no. it seems counterintuitive when you first approach it, say why would you vote no on cloture on a bill that you like? well, there is one circumstance where i can see where you would want to do that. it's a circumstance in which the continuing resolution that you want to support moves over from the house of representatives and there are three alternatives, three alternatives the senate could consider, but the senate chooses only the third. three doors that the majority leader could choose to open. it chooses only the third. the first door is one in which he says okay, we're going to vote on it, we're going to vote on it up or down on its merits as it. we're going to vote on it as it was passed by the house of representatives. behind door two is another option. we're going to allow amendments. we're going to allow individual members, democrats and republicans, to submit amendments as they deem fit. we'll debate and discuss those amendments. we will consider them. we will vote on them. some of them may pass. some of them may not pass, but we will get to amendments. door one is okay. door two is okay. they are both appropriate. it might be okay with either one. i would vote yes on cloture on the bill if we were going to go through either of those first two doors. but door three is the one that the majority leader appears likely to open, and behind door three is a very different alternative, one where the majority leader says i don't want to vote on it as is, but i also don't want to allow an open amendment process. in fact, i'm going to allow only one and only one amendment, and that amendment will gut the resolution passed by the house of the single most important amendment relative to its ability to pass the house, the provision defunding obamacare. door three is unacceptable. door three is unacceptable because it allows the majority leader to gut the house-passed continuing resolution funding government but defunding obamacare. find door three unacceptable, and because i find door three unacceptable, i'm not going to help the majority leader get there. if he wants to get there with himself, and the 53 democrats who follow him in his conference, that's fine, let them do that. if he wants to try to convince some republicans to join him in that effort, to make it easier for him to gut the house-passed continuing resolution, to strip out the language defunding obamacare, then that's the prerogative of anyone who may choose to go along with him. i choose not to do that because i was elected to fight this law, not to facilitate its implementation. i don't want to facilitate its implementation. i, therefore, don't want to facilitate the demise of what i regard as the single-most important part of the house-passed continuing resolution. i will, therefore, vote against cloture on the bill. senator cruz, how do you view the upcoming cloture vote? i'm speaking here not of cloture on the motion to proceed but on cloture on the bill, on the house-passed continuing resolution? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from utah for that question. look, on the motion to proceed, on the decision whether to take up the bill, i think there's widespread agreement we should take up this bill, that there is no more of an important bill we could be debating right now than this. indeed, in my view, there should not be just three senators in this chamber, there should be 100, because the urgency facing this country from obamacare is such that we have nothing better to do. when james hoffa, the president of the teamsters, says that obamacare is a nightmare, frankly, senators shouldn't be asleep while the anything's undergoing a nightmare. the vote that matters is the vote on cloture on the bill that will occur on either friday or saturday of this week. that vote, if 60 senators vote "yes" for cloture, that's a vote to shut off debate. that's a vote to say we will not debate anymore. and what it does, it opens the door, it sets the stage, it allows majority leader harry reid to fully fund obamacare with just 51 democratic votes. that means from the republican side of the aisle that any republican that votes along with harry reid -- and you quite rightly note that leader reid and presumably all of the democrats will vote for cloture on a bill with which most, if not all of them, disagree because they get the joke. there's no mystery to this. when the majority leader has announced, i'm going to shut off all other amendments and i'm going to add one amendment to totally gut the bill and to transform it, to do to this bill what they did to this bill. can you imagine if we were debating cloture? this is actually a very good analogy now that i -- imagine if this bill were coming over, the bill that was turning into obamacare and we had the same procedural arrangement, a cloture vote first at 60 votes and then all amendments to be approved at 51 votes. and imagine if republicans said, you knowi support ano amend the internal revenue code to modify the first-time homebuyer credit in cases of members of the armed forces. so i'm voting yes for cloture. because that's the bill i supported. that's the bill that came over. it's the bill i have right now. imagine that were the scenario. and imagine majority leader harry reid had announced, once we get cloture, i'm going to offer an amendment to strip every word of that bill you say you support, strip it all out and to replace it with 2,000 pages of obamacare? now, i would suggest that any republican who stood up and said, "i'm voting for cloture to give harry reid the ability to strip out the bill that i support," which he said he's going to do and replace it with a bill that i say i oppose -- and not just oppose slightly, that i say i oppose passionate passionately -- i would suggest that would be beyond irrational. indeed, it would be so irrarnl to do that -- it would be so irrational to do that that i would suggest member of the senate is capable of such irrationality. which means if they're saying that, it is for a deliberate purpose. it is because they affirmatively desire that outcome and yet they want to be able to tell their constituents something different. it is fundamentally the same dynamic that leads to the cynicism about washington that our elected leaders don't listen to us. now, i want to note on a different front, serving in an elected office is a tremendous experience, it's a humbling privilege. you get to meet people from all over your state, sometimes from all over the country. you get to meet incredible people. you get to meet people who have done remarkable things. one of the people i've been privileged to meet is my colleague and friend, senator mike lee. we've learned tonight a number of extraordinary things about him, a number of things that border on the superhuman. number one, we've learned that senator mike lee would be willing to purchase a ton of rocks and a barry manilow record simply to bring his wife milk and eggs. now, that's extraordinary matrimonial fidelity. but, number two, we've learned that senator mike lee as a boy could be run over with a buick filled with seven people and not have his foot injured. that, too, is extraordinary and superhuman. and, number three, we've been privileged with a tour deforce constitutional lecture with no notes, with no materials in front of him, that, frankly, was reminiscent to me of a former boss of mine. you know, senator lee is the son of a legend in law. his late father rex lee was the solicitor general of the united states. i did not have the opportunity to meet his late father but have known him by reputation for much of my life because he was revered as one of the finest supreme court advocates to have ever lived. and i think mike was all but weaned on the constitution as a young lad. but the discourse that senator lee just presented to this nation reminded me of my farm former boss, chief justice william rehnquist, who, like senator lee, had a deep love for the constitution, like senator lee, had an encyclopedic knowledge of the constitution and could weave the battles we have had to rein in government power and protect individual liberty into a tapestry, a narrative that explains what it is we're fighting for. and so i will say, as we stand here now at 3:35 in the morning, i feel privileged, i feel fortunate to be standing side-by-side with my friend. and i will say this -- if ever i am threatened by a buick with seven people in it, i want mike lee's foot between me and the buick. mr. lee: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. lee: first of all, by wear of clarification, it was not a buick but oldsmobile. and those were not rocks i was purchasing in my hypothetical, it was instead a half ton of iron ore. i'm not sure it's critical to the merits of the story but i -- i did think that deserved some clarification. i'm not certain that i would, in fact, do that. i want to be very clear. i didn't, in fact, engage in a transaction like that. but it does remind me of how we're often asked to vote here. we tie together program after program, things are funded not on their own merits but on the merits of other programs. when you tie every single piece of government spending together, then all of a sudden it becomes a must-pass piece of legislati legislation. everybody sinks or swims together and it becomes a -- a practice of collusive spending in which congress funds things not because each program deserves to be funded but because nobody wants to have his or her ox gored and that does a problem -- become a problem. i appreciate the senator's comments about my late father. he's been dead for the last 17 years. we miss him. we've missed him every -- every day since then. he -- the journal of the american bar association once referred to him as "huck finn in a morning suit" referring to the address worn by the united states solicitor general. and they regarded him as sort of a huckleberry finn character, not -- not typical that a boy from the rocky mountains, as you used to describe himself, ends up in that position, but he loved that position, throfd vert very much. it's worth noting and inquiring into that i have met the father of the junior senator from tex texas. he's an inspiring speaker. he is a true patriot. even though he was not born or raised in this country, the senator's father has a great love of the united states of america that is unparalleled, certainly unexceeded by almost anyone that i've ever met. and he's one that certainly can understand the angst that the american people feel about laws like obamacare. he's someone that i think can understand that in many respects, the very best kind of jobs program that the united states senate could enact, as my friend, jared stone from danville, california, recently told me, would be legislation defunding obamacare. because, as my friend, are jared stone, pointed out to me, obamacare presents a sort of double whammy for the american people. at once, it both imposes a massive, new tax on the middle class and at the same time kills job opportunities for the middle class. most people who work in real jobs or want to have a good job understand this and that's why the overwhelming majority of americans want the senate to defund obamacare. this is a principle that i think the father of the junior senator from texas understands very we well. the father of the junior senator from texas came here as a young man, initially working a at a restaurant waiting tables, as i recall. this was a young man who had escaped tyranny in various forms. originally the form of tyranny that cuba saw under castro's predecessor, quhenci o beautis beautista. he had quite an experience coming to this country. i was wondering if the junior senator from texas would be willing to share a little bit more about his father's story, the story of rafael cruz, how he came to this country and how the senator's father might look upon obamacare based on his rather unique experience coming to this country. mr. cruz: well, i thank my friend from utah for his very kind comments regarding my father and i will say that he and i -- you know, to paraphrase sir isaac newton, who said, if i have been able to see a little bit further, it is only because i have stood on the shoulder of giants. and i will say one thing, that senator lee and i are both very fortunate as we are blessed to be the sons of fathers whom we admire immensely and who i think for both of us played a big, big part in trying to raise us up to be principled, to fight for liberty and to fight for the constitution. you know, my dad, you think about the journeys to freedom that constitute who we are as the american people. all of us have a story. doesn't matter, in any group you go to, you could get a thousand people in an audience and peach person could come up -- and each person could come up to the microphone and tell their story, their family's story. of someone who risked everything to be here. my dad as a kid was born in cuba. we mentioned earlier that his father had come from the canary islands when he was 1. and as a young man, by dad was 14 when he began getting involved in the cuban revolution. and at the time, bawft was a dictator. bawft was -- bautista was a dictator. he was cruel, corrupt. closely aligned with the mafia. he was oppressive. and the revolution occurred, my dad was a 14-year-old boy. i'm looking at the pages down here now who are older than 14, and i would suggest if you could imagine at the age of 14 finding yourself in a war, finding yourself fighting a war, hoping to liberate your country, being asked to fight against the army, being asked to fight for freedom and the revolution was being fought on behalf of fidel castro, and yoad my father was one of many freedom fighters who fought on behalf of castro. my father didn't know castro. he was a kid. he was not a high-ranking person in the revolution. and i can tell you my dad and the kids who were fighting, none of them knew at the time that fidel castro was a communist. as my father describes it today, he said, look, we were all 14 and 15-year-old boys. we were too dumb to know any better. we were just fighting for freedom. we just wanted to get out from under the boot of batista. for four years, my father fought in the revolution. when he turned 17, my dad went out partying, and he enjoyed -- he was enjoying himself. he was a 17-year-old young revolutionary. he was in a white suit. you know, senator lee, latins love white suits. he was in a white suit. he was partying it up in havana, and he disappeared. and for several days, my grandfather went looking for him. mao, my grandfather -- my grandparents knew their son was involved in the revolution. he hadn't hidden that from his parents. you also knew if your son is involved in the revolution and he disappears, it is a bad, bad thing. well, after searching for him for several days, searching the jails, searching around, they found my dad, and he was in a jail and he had been imprisoned, and he had been tortured. now, i'll confess to this day i don't know a lot about what happened. you know, look, different people have different experiences. my father doesn't talk much about it. you know, to the best of my knowledge in this body, other than our colleague john mccain, whom all of us respect tremendously for his service and sacrifice to this nation, other than senator mccain, i'm not aware of any of our colleagues that have experienced anything like imprisonment and torture, and what my father experienced was a tiny fraction of what john mccain went through in the years he was in that vietnam prison. but in cuba -- when i was growing up, my dad two never really tell me what happened there. and i remember one night when i was a kid, i think i was in high school, maybe junior high or high school, i don't remember, and my dad and i had gone to see the movie rambo. we both liked movies. he had taken me to see rambo. rambo was a fun movie to see as a kid. and it happened that that might, my father -- my parents owned a small business and he had one of his clients over for dinner. in the course of dinner, my father was talking to his client and feeling a little gregarious. he started talking, he said my son ted and i went to see rambo this weekend. you will remember there is a pretty nasty scene where rambo is strapped to a bed frame and subject to electric shock. not a very pleasant scene in the movie. my dad was saying, you know, the cubans weren't nearly so fancy when it came to torture. we watched the movie rambo. they didn't have any fancy bed frames and electric shock or anything. cubans were much more simple in their torture. basically, they would just come in every hour and beat the living daylights out of you. they would just beat you and beat you and beat you. then they would leave and come back in an hour and do it again. and i can tell you my grandmother said that when my dad came out of that jail cell in cuba, that the white suit he was wearing, my grandmother told me you couldn't see a spot of white on it. that every inch of that suit was covered with mud and blood from where he had been beaten. that my father's teeth were dangling from his mouth in shards. today my father is a pastor in dallas, and his front teeth are not his own because when he was a kid, they were kicked out of his mouth in a cuban jail. he got out of that jail, and at that point my grandfather told him, said look, rafael, they know who you are now. in fact, the batista police were following my dad, hoping he would lead them to others in the revolution. that's the only reason he got out is because they thought maybe if we let him go, he will be dumb enough to go to some other people in the revolution and we can track them down, too. my grandfather said listen, they know who you are. at this point they are going to hunt you down and kill you. you can't stay here. so my father applied to three u.s. universities. he applied to the university of miami, he applied to l.s.u., and he applied to the university of texas. and it was pure happenstance the first one to let him in was the university of texas. had it been otherwise, had it been the university of miami, i might today be a constituent of our friend marco rubio. but it so happened it was the university of texas, and that led to my father getting on a plane in 1957 when he was 18. i want to again talk to the pages who are here. some of you may be 18 or near it. i want you to imagine at the age of 18 getting on a plane away from your family, flying thousands of miles away to another country. a country where you don't know anybody, you don't have any family, and you don't speak the language. imagine walking off the plane, my father wore -- he had the suit on his back. he couldn't take anything with him. he was wearing a suit. the one possession he had was a slide rule that was in his pocket, which i see looks of somewhat confusion on the face of the pages. i will note any time that i talk to young people they have utterly no idea what a slide rule is, but that was the one possession he had that he could take from cuba, and he had what my grandmother had done before he left is she sewed $100 into the inside of his underwear because she wanted him to have at least a little bit of money when he landed. in 19457, he shows up in austin. look, his first priority is he needs to find a place to live. he went and found a place to live. and he had to get a job. the job he got was washing dishes. why washing dishes? because you didn't have to speak english. he couldn't speak english. he made 50 cents an hour. you didn't have to talk to anyone. take a hot dish, stick it under hot water, scrub it and move on to the next one. that he could do. you know, my dad worked seven days a week washing dishes and then as a cook to pay his way through the university of texas. and look, times were tight. i got to tell you i can't imagine, i didn't have to go through, i don't believe senator lee had to go through the experience of going to school full time and working full time. my dad worked seven days a week while he was going to school full time as a student. now, it wasn't that he wanted to. it's that he didn't have any other alternative. there wasn't anyone else providing for him. i remember a couple of stories my father told me of their times in college, and, madam president, with your indulgence, i will share those stories because they are stories i think of the american experience, of the shared experience. you know, he used to eat, the great thing about working at a restaurant, they let you eat while you worked. so during the eight hours, he would eat those eight hours. the other 16 hours, he wouldn't eat. it was even better when he got promoted to being a cook because as a cook, you really got a chance to eat. so, for example, one of the thing the restaurant served is fried shrimp. my dad had a policy anyone ordered a dozen shrimp, he would cook 13 and eat one. over the course of the day, a lot of people ordered fried shrimp. he would eat one steadily throughout the day. my dad tried to drink six or seven glasses of milk in a day. there was no percentage in water. i needed the nutrients. when he left, he went 16 hours without eating because he didn't have money for food. there was one little exception. there was a coffee shop he found in town where he went in one day and he splurged. it was one of the few times he actually spent money, he spent money for a cup of coffee. and another gentleman at the coffee shop came in and ordered some toast, and he saw the waitress take out a bag of a fresh loaf of bread, take both of the heels, throw them away and take two other slices of bread, put them in the toaster and start cooking. my father said what are you doing? you are throwing away perfectly good food. he said we can't serve the heels. my father, look, when you're desperate and hungry, you have incentives to do all sorts of things. my father said, listen, do me a favor. save them for me. just save them for me. you can't serve them. i'll eat them. he used to go into that coffee shop and that waitress very kindly would save the heels when she opened it, and she would when he would come in, she would have five or six or seven heels. she would toast them up, she would give him butter. he would order one cup of coffee and he would have five or six heels of toast and drink his coffee. another similar story. he went over to some friends of his. there were a lot of immigrants at the university of texas who were -- didn't have two nickels between them. he went over to some friends of his i think were brothers who invited him over for dinner. and he is sitting down for dinner, and a big pot of black beans. cubans love black beans. and when he is reaching in to get black beans, they say watch out for the nail. watch out for the nail? what on earth are you talking about? and these two brothers explained, said look, we don't have money for food, so what little money we have, we have enough to have beans each night, an we have enough to purchase a little tiny paper-thin steak. the brothers said listen, we initially started, we would cut the steak in half, each eat it. to be honest, we both left hungry, we weren't happy with that. we decided instead of doing that, what we would do is take a nail, drop it in the beans and fish for the nail. whoever got the nail with their beans got the whole steak and the other brother didn't get any steak at all. and they said rafael, since you're our guest, i was kind of waiting for them to say we're going to give you the steak. it's like they were not quite that generous. since you're our guest, we'll give you half the steak. we're going to fish for the nail for the other half. one other story. it was freshman or sophomore year, i'm not sure when, my dad and a couple of other cubans who were students there, they decided they wanted to have a christmas dinner, and the cuban tradition for christmas is to roast a whole pig. indeed, if i may take a digression, when i was dating my wife, heidi, heidi is the love of my life, she is my best friend. she was raised in california. she and her whole family are vegetarian. and i remember heidi brought me back to meet her parents for christmas, and we're sitting there having christmas dinner, and i will note a vegetarian christmas dinner is just like any other christmas dinner, except the entree never comes. everything else is wonderful, but you keep waiting for them to bring out the entree and it's not there. by now in-laws who are wonderful, tremendous people, who were missionaries and are just wonderful people, they were trying to get to know this strange young man that their daughter had brought home. they said okay, well, ted, tell us how does your family celebrate christmas? i said well, we're cuban and the cuban tradition is on christmas eve we roast a whole pig. i must tell you the look of abject horror. if you could imagine a table full of california vegetarians. when i said we roast a whole pig, i don't think if i had said that we consume live kittens it would have more horrified them than that show viscerally carnivorous tale. but my dad decided and a couple of his cuban buddies that they wanted to have a christmas dinner and they wanted to actually celebrate, and so they drove to a farm just outside of austin, they found some farmers in central texas, and they said listen, is there any chance we could somehow just buy a little piglet from you, do something so we could get it and roast it? we'd like to have a christmas eve dinner. and these farmers, i think they decided they wanted to have fun with my dad and with these kids, and they said i'll tell you what. we'll take this little piglet, we're going to let him loose in a corral filled with mud. if you can catch it, you can have him for free. and my dad and his friends chased that pig for close to an hour running around in the mud. they finally caught the pig. the farmer gave it to him, they took it home, roasted it for christmas eve. now, the epilogue to the story about my in-laws is that when heidi and i became engaged, her mother called her and said, "sweetheart, are you prepared to catch the pig?" now, thankfully heidi reassured her that she was quite confident in our marriage there would be no pig catching that she would be carrying out and that has indeed proven true. but, you know, all of those stories, look, there's stories all of us have. all of us have stories about our families. and my father has been my inspiration ever since i was a kid because i think it's a great blessing, it's a tremendous blessing to be the child of someone whose fled oppression, to be the child of someone who came here seeking freedom, because it makes you realize what we have in the united states of america, it is precious, it is wonderful, it is unique. and we cannot possibly risk giving it up. but at the same time, i am amazed at how commonplace my father's story is. every american has a story just like that. now, sometimes it's us. sometimes it's our parents. sometimes it's our great-great-great-great-grand par great-great-great-great-grandpar ents. but i have yet to encounter someone that doesn't have a story like that in their background, often closer than one might think. and i think the most shared characteristic among all of us is, as americans, we are the children of those who risked everything for freedom. you know, sometimes people ask, what differ enunited states americans from, say, europeans, americans from people of other countries. and i think more than anything it is in our d.n.a. to value liberty and opportunity above all else. and it is why, listen, when obamacare was being passed 3 1/2 years ago, i think the proponents believed, in fact they stated that once it's in place, americans would come to love it and would give up their liberty, would give up their freedom in exchange for bread and circuses. and yet 3 1/2 years later, we say obamacare is less popular now than it was then. and that's true, by the way, all over the country. that's true in every region. that's true among republicans, among democrats, among independents, among libertarians. now, there's several reasons for that. one is just simple facts. forget party ideology or affiliation. the simple facts is this thing isn't working. if you just look at it, on its face it is a train wreck, as the democratic senator who was lead author of obamacare has described it. on its face it is a nightmare, james hoffa, the president of the teamsters, has described it. obamacare in practice is killing jobs all over this country. it is causing small businesses to stay small, not to grow, not to create jobs. it is causing americans all over this country to be forced -- forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week. and you know who's being reduced the most? it ain't the rich. it ain't, as the president likes to put it, the millionaires and billionaires. millionaires and billionaires are doing just great. they are richer today than when president obama was elected. i think one of the -- in fact, "the" biggest lie in politics is the lie that republicans are the party of the rich. i think it's a complete and total falsehood. the rich do great with big government. big business does great with big government. why? because big business gets in bed with big government. what have we seen with obamacare? the rich and powerful get special exemptions. big businesses? the president exempts them. members of congress? the president exempts us. it's the little guy that doesn't have an army of lobbyists, don't have special interests. the little guy is the one left out. so who are the people losing their jobs? who are the people being forcibly reduced, their hours, who are the people facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, who are the people having their health insurance dropped? it's people like the disabled retirees whose letters i was reading earlier today. it's people like my father. listen, if obamacare were the w in 1957 when my father was washing dishes, i think it is a virtual certainty that he would have found his hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week if he had been lucky enough to get a job in the first place. he might not have been hired at all. that's happening to people all over the country. and you know what? the people who are losing under obamacare are people like my d dad, teenage kids who don't speak english, who are recent immigrants, who are hispanic, who are african-american, single moms. if you were a single mom working waiting tables. you know, i have a good friend of mine who's now a justice on the texas supreme court whose mom was a single mom who waited tables. and he computed the distance she walked as a waitress to bring him up. and i don't remember the exact measurement but it was some remarkable number of times walking from the earth to the moon and back that she walked so that her kids could have a better life. that single mom is waiting tables, her son is a justice on the texas supreme court. but that's the story of america. but you know what? if obamacare had been in place, that single mom waiting tables? guess what? she's working 29 hours a week. try feeding a family on 29 hours a week. can't do it. cannot be done. so what happens instead, people get their hours forcibly reduced, they either can't earn enough to feed their family so they leave the work force altogether and they go on welfare. not that they want to be. they want to be working. but if congress has passed a law that has given them the only job they can get that's 29 hours a week and that's not enough to feed their family, you look at right now 1-7 americans is on food stamps. what a travesty. and it's not -- look, it's not a travesty from the perspective of the budget. not a travesty from the perspective of the taxpayers. it's a travesty from the perspective of those people on food stamps who'd rather be working, who'd rather be having the dignity of work to provide for their family and to climb the economic ladder. look, my dad started washing dishes but he didn't stay there. after washing dishes, he got as job as a cook. after a cook, he got a job as a teaching assistant. after a teaching assistant, he got hired at i.b.m. as a computer programmer. and then he started his own business. if he didn't get hired washing dishes, he doesn't get the next job as a cook, he doesn't get the next job as a teaching assistant, he doesn't get the next job at i.b.m., he doesn't get the next job starting his own business. so if you look at those single moms who are waiting tables suddenly get their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, if she ends up giving up, going on food stamps, going on welfare, saying, i can't earn enough in the market t to provie for my family, not only does that have devastating effects on her, on her kids, but it also means she won't have a chance to move up the lad he, sh lad laddt have a chance to get the next job. maybe she would be promoted to assistant manager and then manager. and maybe then she would have another opportunity of moving up the ladder. but you know what? if she doesn't get on that first rung, we know with absolute certainty you don't get to the second or third running. third rung. what a travesty. this is a country of unlimited opportunity and obamacare is cutting off that opportunity. it is shutting down that opportunity. those are who are hurt the most under obamacare. there are many reasons why obamacare is problematic. it's problematic because it's the biggest job killer in america. it's a train wreck because it's forcing more and more people to be driven into part-time work 29 hours a week. and by the way the second thing the single mom can do, suppose she doesn't give up, suppose she says, darn it, i want to work to provide for my kids. i'm not going to give up. i'm not going to go on welfare and stop in the workplace. so what does she do? the other option is go find another job. so then she has two jobs at 29 hours a week. now, you know what? her kids now see less of their mom. two jobs at 29 hours a week, by the way, neither one gives her health care so the affordable care act, all the great benefits of that hasn't helped her at a all. but instead of being at one job where she could work and focus on that one job and potentially climb the ladder to different opportunities, she's at two working part-time and part-time jobs are much harder to advance in your career with. she's also dealing with commuting. she's got to get from one job to the other. now, listen, for a single mom for whom time is at a premium, who would like to be at her kids' soccer game if ever she could work the scheduled to that. but if she's got to drive from one place to the other back and forth, there are a lot of soccer games that single mom is never getting to. not to mention the headaches of having two different jobs and two different bosses. if you have boss number one that says i want you to work tuesday morning and boss number two says i want to you work tuesday at my place. how do you balance those? both of them say look, i don't care about your other job, i need you here. what a nightmare. obamacare is a train wreck, it is a nightmare because it's killing jobs, because it's driving up health insurance, because it's causing more and more people to lose their health insurance. but it's also fundamentally wrong for a broader reason -- because it infringes on our liberty. listen, the federal government is telling every american, you must purchase health insurance, the individual mandate, we're going to make you purchase health insurance. and if not, the i.r.s. is going to come and fine you. the federal government is telling catholic churches -- rather catholic charities and catholic hospitals and christian companies like hobby lobby, you must pay for health insurance procedures that violate your religious dictates. now, they may not violate everyone's religious dictates. there may be a lot of people in this country who have no religious qualms about that whatsoever and that's fine. each of us is entitled and, indeed, encouraged to seek out god almighty with all of our heart, mind and soul as best we can. and we will follow different paths. but i guarantee you, if the federal government can tell catholic charities and catholic hospitals, you must violate your religious beliefs or we're going to fine you out of business, the federal government can tell that to hobby lobby, a christian company, they can tell that to you too. whatever your religious beliefs can be. if the federal government can say, violate your religious faith or we're coming after you, that is a dangerous, dangerous rubicon that we have crossed. and, you know, we're a nation that was founded on liberty. always defend liberty. you know, you really can't go wrong with that as a motto. in the interest of that, i'd like to share a few excerpts from one of my favorite books, "atlas shrugged" by iran rand. now, let me encourage any of you who have not read that to go tomorrow, buy it and read it. what's interesting is in the last three years, sales of that book have exploded because we are living in the days of iron rant. so i want to share a few experiments that are all fundamentally about liberty and the liberty that obamacare infringes. "productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live, that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values, that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind. and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in an uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others. that your work is yours to choose and the choice is as wide as your mind. that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human. that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear corroded ape." there's a phrase you don't hear often in modern parlance, "fear corroded ape." "on borrowed motions and borrowed time. and to settle into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion -- decay." my, is that happening across this country as a result of obamacare. people being forced to settle down into jobs that require less than our mind's full capacity. that your work is the process of achieving your values and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live. that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver. and you must drive as far as your mind will take you with achievement as the goal of your road. that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust. that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap. and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up. that your work is the purpose of your life and that you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love can only be travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction. a few other excerpts. what is morality, she asked? judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth and courage to act on it. dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. boy, that's counsel that the united states senate should listen to. that's counsel that i would encourage every democratic senator who feels the urge of party loyalty to stand by their party, to stand by obamacare because it's the natural thing to do. and yet, we sue union leaders, the roofers union, james hoffa and the teamsters say they cannot remain silent any longer. why? because of the suffering obamacare is working on so many working men and women. it's a nightmare, according to james hoffa of the teamsters. i would encourage my friends on the democratic side of the aisle, as difficult as it is, to cross one's party leaders. i say with perhaps a little familiarity the consequences of so doing that it's survivable and that ultimately it is liberating, that if the democratic senators of this body maintain their fidelity, their loyalty, not to the party apparatus, not to the party bosses, but to the men and women who sent them here. to the men and women like the union members of the teamsters who are pleading with members of congress here are suffering obamacare is a nightmare. with that prism in mind, let me reread ayn rand's excerpt here. what is morality, she asked? judgment to distinguish right and wrong. vision to see the truth. and courage to act upon it. dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. and you know at any price, look, at the end of the day, a member of the senate bucks his or her party leadership. to be honest, the prices are all pretty piddly. what a coddled world we live in that we think if someone says a cross word to you at a cocktail party or, god forbid, even worse, leaks a scurrilous lie to some reporter that truly that is a grievous insult. goodness gracious, compared to the suffering people have gone through, compared to the suffering my dad went through being tortured in a cuban prison, that's all mild. to be honest, compared to the single moms who are just wanting to provide for their kids, give them a good home, give them a good example, help them get a good future. the retribution any political party can impose on us for daring to buck the leadership is so mild and inconsequential is not even to be worth mentioning. so let me encourage every democratic senator to try to meet that definition of morality morality -- judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth and the courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good and integrity to stand by the good at any price. and let me encourage my republican colleagues, there may be some republicans that are inclined to vote for cloture on this bill, to give majority leader harry reid and the democrats the ability to fund obamacare on a straight party-line vote. as some of my colleagues have publicly said they are so inclined. it is my sincere hope between now and the vote on friday or saturday that their better angels prevail. you know, listen, the same dynamics that the democrats demt crosses the aisle to vote with us will face swift retribution. but at the end of the day, we have a higher obligation. we have an obligation to the constituents who sent us here. and any republican -- i know there are some republicans who are saying i'm going to support cloture, i'm going to support giving harry reid the ability to fund obamacare. why? because my leadership is telling me to. and i'm a good soldier. i will salute and march into battle in whatever direction leadership instructs. and i will confess republicans are sometimes even more susceptible to such commands to being orderly. and let me commend to every republican, ask yourself that same test that ayn rand laid out to morality, judgment to distinguish what is right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. i can tell you this. if any one of the 46 republicans in this body asks ourselves not what is our party -- what does our party leadership want us to do but asks ours the more important question what do our constituents want us to do, i can tell you this. if i get any gathering of texans, texans aren't conflict conflicted. if i asked a gathering of texans -- and by the way, it doesn't matter what part of texas, east texas, west texas, the panhandle, down in the valley. i was in a gathering down in the voila few weeks ago. rio grand valley in texas is of course part of the state. my friend, senator low, knows the valley well because he was a missionary down in the valley. in fact, he has darned good spanish as a result of living in the valley in texas. in fact, i think that gives texas a reason to claim him unofficially as a third senator. he may not acquiesce to that, but we'll claim him anyway. but i was at a gathering in the voila few weeks ago, 200, 300 people. i would suggest a significant percentage if not a majority of the people in that room were probably democrats. a majority of them were mexican american. and, you know, i try to make a policy of giving the same remarks standing for the same principles, regardless if i'm talking with a group that necessarily will agree with me or won't. the bulk of the remark i gave to that group before taking q & a from the group for some time were focused on defunding obamacare and it was really striking. in that group, that was largely if not predominantly hispanic democrats in the valley in texas. when it came to defunding obamacare to stopping the train wreck that is obamacare, the result was rousing, sustained applause and cheers. why? because if you get out of the partisan prison that is washington, it's not complicate ed. there is a reason the labor unions want out. there is a reason the teamsters who describe that they have been knocking on doors and the loyal foot soldiers for the democratic party are saying this is a nightmare. repeal obamacare. repeal it because it's a nightmare. there is a reason why members of congress, why majority leader reid and democratic senators who support obamacare so much for the american people said good golly, get us out from under it. we certainly don't want to be subject to the same rules the american people are. there is a reason why the i.r.s. employees union is saying even though we're enforcing obamacare, please get us out from under it. the objective facts are this thing isn't working. and so i would urge every republican who is here, before you make a decision how to vote on kleczka on -- on cloture on this bill on friday or saturday -- and i think certainly in the time i have been in the senate, this is the most consequential vote i will cast and any member in this body will cast during the time i have been here, i would ask every republican to ask not simply what does party leadership want you to do. what's the right thing to do for your constituents? if you gathered 100 of your constituents in a room and you asked them how should i vote on this motion -- and let me ask it, let me frame it a little more explicitly. because, you know, politicians are sometimes crafty characters. some politicians say oh, yeah, i could get 100 of my citizens and i could frame it in some abstract procedural way. how will i vote on the cloture to take up the bill to do the whatchamacallit and it would really be supporting the house bill, so what do you think? we can talk fast enough that we can confuse some people in a room for a few minutes. let me suggest any republican senator gathered at random 100 of your constituents, and i'm going to suggest it even broader. not 100 republicans. 100 of your constituents and posed the following question to them. should i as your senator, your republican u.s. senator, vote to allow harry reid and the democrats to fully fund obamacare with no changes, no improvements to address the train wreck that is obamacare? on a purely party-line, partisan vote of only democrats? i will wager all the money in my bank account that every one of the republican senators -- and by the way, you could pick the bluest states for which a republican senator represents that state. i will wager that in that state, if you grab 100 of your constituents, it wouldn't be a 50-50 proposition. i don't even think it would be a 60-40 proposition. your constituents overwhelmingly would say no, don't vote to give harry reid the ability to fund obamacare without fixing this train wreck, without stopping this nightmare. all that it take for us to do the right thing is to listen to the people. it's not complicated. it's not rocket science. listen to the people. ayn rand in "atlas shrugged" also held the nation that once held the greatness by production is now told it is achieved by squalor. she also observed fight for the value of your person, fight for the virtue of your pride, fight for the essence of that which is man for his sovereign rational mind, fight with radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the value of life, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on earth. god has created men and women to be free creatures. it is not benefiting anyone to strip them of their liberty, to make them dependent on government. madam president, i cannot tell you how many times i have said thank the good lord that when my dad was a teenaged immigrant in cuba -- in texas 55 years ago, how grateful i am that some well-meaning liberal didn't come and put his arm around him and say let me take care of you, let me give you a government check, let me make you dependent on government. don't bother washing those dishes, don't bother working. i'm going to take care of your every need. and by the way, don't bother learning english. i respect your culture so much that i'm going to lock you out of the business and professional classes in this country. i'm going to make sure that if you do work, you're almost surely going to be consigned to menial labor because you can't communicate with a significant majority of americans. what a destructive thing to do to someone. you know, if someone had done that to my father and he had listened, i am hard pressed to think of anything that would have been more destructive. and, you know, at the end of the day, these points are not partisan or ideological. they're common sense. they are who we are as americans. ask anybody who do you want for your grandkids? do you want your grandkids dependent on government? do you want your grandkids receiving government support, or do you want them working, working hard? do you want them climb the ladder to economic success, do you want them in a career where they can have a better life than you had and your parents had? i don't know a grandmother in this country that would find that a difficult choice. that's a choice that's basic common sense. it's fundamentally destructive to the human spirit not to be able to work and to stand on your own feet. now, i will say standing here after 14 hours, standing on your own feet, there's sometimes some pain, sometimes some fatigue that is involved. but you know what? there's far more pain involved in rolling over, far more pain in hiding -- far more pain in hiding in the shadows, far more pain in not standing for principle, not standing for the good, not standing for integri integrity. that's what it means to be an american. we do hard things. to all the republicans who say, oh, fighting this fight's going to be really hard. i sure hope you didn't run for the senate because you wanted something easy to do. i sure hope you didn't run for the senate because you wanted to avoid hard challenges. to the democrats who say, "you know, i couldn't buck the party leadership. gosh, it would make the white house mad, make the party leadership mad, it would make our leadership in the senate mad. we've got to be united. team, team, team." we're not a team. we represent the people. you know, the team that each of us is on? it's the american team. it's the team where we have an obligation to the men and women who sent us here. and let me be clear -- to all the men and women who sent us here. i have an obligation not just to republicans in the state of texas, not just to those who voted for me in the state of texas, although i'll tell you i was very pleased there were quite a few voters in the state of texas who voted for president obama and voted for me. now, you listen to washington conventional wisdom, that would be -- they would suggest that is impossible. i was pleased to get a number of texans who did that. but you know what? even those who voted against me and disagree with everything i'm doing, i still have an obligation to represent them and to use my best judgment to try to listen to them and fight for them. and i can tell you this, i am convinced that every one of 26 million texans will be bett better, will have a better future, a better life in an environment where economic growth comes back, where small businesses are thriving, where they're creating jobs and not shrinking. whether there's opportunities, where they're not forcing people into part-time work but there's full-time opportunities, where there are more people like my dad who are teenage immigrants who can't speak english who can get that first job washing dishes because it lets them get the second job and the third job and the fourth job. i believe in the american dream with all my heart and might. that's what's being jeopardized by obamacare is the american dream and that is a travesty that ought to outrage and horrify everyone in the united states senate. for every one on the republican side who says this is hard, we might be blamed. there might be some political blame. let's let it all collapse. boy, i've heard republicans say this, especially the pundits. gosh, to get on tv -- i'll tell you, one of the best ways to get on tv, just advice to run away from every one of the battles. they put you on tv a lot if that's your advice. and what they say is, listen, if republicans stand up and fight this fight, president harry reid might force a shutdown and rups republicans might get blamed and, gosh, that could hurt us politically. bawrk is such obamacare is sch k and nightmare. james hoffa said he couldn't sit silent anymore. but republicans can. never mind harry reid says when it collapses on its own, it will lead us to socialized medicine. why? because it will destroy the private health care system. we're told it will collapse under its own weight and everyone will blame the democrats, we're told. let me be very clear, who cares? who cares? listen, if everyone will blame the democrats, then consider me the person trying to actively save the democrats from that blame. i will gladly celebrate any democrat brave enough to stand up and say, listen, i used to think obamacare was a good idea, i supported it, and i'm persuaded by the facts, i'm persuaded by my constituents. this thing isn't working, people are hurting. when president obama reversed course and listened to bipartisan calls to submit his decision to launch a unilateral military attack on syria the -- to the w o congress, i happily and loudly praised president obama for submitting to the constitutional authority of this body. when he did even further, when he listened to the calls from the american people not to put us in the middle of that sectarian civil war, i again happily and enthusiastically praised president obama for being willing to change his mi mind, to be willing to turn back because he listened to the voice of the american people. that was the right thing to do. for everyone who thinks this is hard, i'd like to turn to some of my favorite remarks from a republican president who i would note i suspect many on the democratic side of the aisle admire as well because he was one of the most progressive republicans. although he was not shy in any way, shape or form. indeed. teddy roosevelt was once giving a speech and he was shot during the speech. and he finished the speech before seeking medical attention. [laughter] now, that -- you know, there was an old episode on "saturday night live" that for the pages you-all have probably never seen this -- but an old episode that was "who is more macho?" you know what, teddy roosevelt, elli ess macho? you get shot? a speech, you stand there and finish the speech? you win. even sean connery is looking at him going, gosh, that guy's tough. let me read the words of teddy roosevelt that he delivered at the sarbonn in paris on able 23, 1910. and these are words that everyone who thinks this fight is too hard, that we shouldn't take a risk, that we shouldn't risk political blame, these are words that every one of us should listen to. it is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. the credit belongs to the man or the woman actually in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again and again. because there is no effort without error and shortcoming. but who does actually strive to do the deeds, who knows great enthusiasm, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement. and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." yeah, you can avoid risk. you can avoid doing the hard thing. you can avoid doing the things that you might get politically blamed. you can stay silent and hope that the other party gets blamed because there will be political benefits for that. but i'm going to suggest to you, that's not doing our job. that's not what we were elected to do. we were elected to stand up and fight to do the hard things for the men and women of this country, because, you know what? it is an extraordinary, it is a breathtaking privilege to serve in this body. i cannot tell you how it brings me virtually to tears to think about the opportunity i have to stand here at a time when our nation is threatened like i've never seen before. and you know what? the tears that i said and now i'm experiencing a little bit, those tears are a very small reflection of the very real tears i've seen from men and women all across texas. from men and women who've looked me in the eyes, who said, "i'm scared for this country, i'm scared for my kids, i'm scared for my grandkids." we're losing america. we're losing the wonderful free enterprise system. we're losing the prosperity. we're losing the growth. will my kids, will my grandkids have a better life than i did? i don't think so. i cannot tell you how many texans have said that. and you know what? when you say that, that's not something you say like reporting the weather. well, it's sunny today and 78 degrees. that's heartbreaking. as americans, oh, it is fundamental in who we are. we believe in a better tomorrow. we believe morning can come to america. and we believe that our kids and grandkids will live in a better challenge. if we continue down this road, if we continue mired in what i call the great stagnation. the last four years our economy has grown on average 0.9% a ye year. if we continue allowing young people to be what economists are starting to dub "the lost generation." i'm sorry to tell young people, that's what economists are calling right now, this generation that is coming of age at a time when there is no economic growth and no real prospect for that changing. what it means as a practical matter is young people are not getting that first job or they're getting jobs, a as observed, that are less than their mind and that they're capable of. that means they don't get their next job, they don't get their next job, they don't develop to their full potential and that stays with young people for decades to come. this body needs to listen to the american people. we need to make d.c. listen. mr. lee: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. lee: my question relates to the nature of our government, to the nature of our system that is a system of laws. one of the reasons why america has been attractive to so many people over the last few centuries, one of the reasons why people have wanted to move here from all over the world is that this has always been a land of opportunity. it's been a place where you can be born into one station in life and die in a much better stati station. we worry that that land of opportunity might cease to be. we worry about the fact that people are being trapped at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, finding it increasingly difficult to move up along that ladder. one of the reasons why this is the case is because the distinction between what is properly within the domain of government and what is properly within the domain of the people is sometimes blurred. in other instances, that which is properly within the domain of the federal government and properly within the domain of the state and local governments in this country is blurred. on other occasions, it's because what's properly within the domain of the legislative bras h is usurped by the executive branch or the judicial branch or a combination of the two. the more our legal system becomes deteriorated, the less faithful it becomes to the blueprint that was created for our government some 226 years ago. the more we struggle in this country. now, earlier i quoted madison, i quoted james madison, referred to something he said in "federalist" number 62. i've got the actual text of the language which i largely paraphrased earlier are and i want to expand on it a little bit more, explaining some of what he was saying. he writes it will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice. if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent that they cannot be understood, if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow. law is defined to be a rule of action, but how can that be a rule which is little known and less fixed? another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the enterprising and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences, a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. this is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many. in another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government, the want of confidence in the public counsels, damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements, what prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce, when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed. what farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government. in a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy. but the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. no government any more than an individual will long be respected without being truly respectable nor be truly respectable without possessing a certain portion of order and stability. we see in this an age-old warning, a warning about what happens when governments do certain things which tend toward voluminous legislation, excessive regulation and deliberate manipulation by those who have access to the power lovers of government, whereby they may commandeer the economic machinery of an entire civilization. commandeer it to their advantage, and thereby secure a position at the top end of the economic spectrum of that society. when people do this, they very frequently use really long, really complex laws. they necessarily rely on extensive regulation, the kind of regulation that can be found in a 2,700-page law passed by members of congress who have not read it. who pass it after being told you have to pass it in order to find out what's in it. who do so only to discover later that this 2,700-page piece of legislation has become 20,000 pages of regulation. as we stand this evening or this morning or whatever you call this time of day, as we move forward together on this path toward standing with the american people, i invite you to join me on a journey back, back to a place in time not unlike our own. it was a turbulent time of deep division within our young republic. george washington recorded the event of march 4, 1797, his last day as president of the united states. washington wrote -- "it was with a heavy heart that i left my room today, thinking not so much of myself as of our country. walking out on -- onto chestnut street in philadelphia, washington continued, i was playing george washington now. neither general nor president. suddenly, i realized i was not alone. people were following me, at first only a few, then a swelling crowd. for a long moment, i stood face to face with them, the young cobbler, the carpenter, the storekeeper, the laborer. all of them stood facing me. they said not a word. i realized that providence was showing me a vision of america, of what it would become. i could feel assured that come what may, whether it be political bickering or any other evil in government, our country rests in good hands, in the hands of its people. now, a similar crowd, you might say, gathers every time people converged at a town hall meeting. it's not necessarily a crowd consisting of carpenters, storekeepers, laborers and cobblers. it might well consist of a crowd including schoolteachers, web designers, business consultants, mothers and fathers and friends. every time i hold town hall meetings, as i look around the crowd and i see groups of people represented, from those groups that i just described, i think about the fact that today, as in washington's time, the hands of our great nation rests in good hands. it rests in the hands of its people. and so hand in hand and acting on the instincts of our better angels and connected in the principle of civil society and in the principles that allow our country to be great, we know that we the people and not we the government will form a more perfect union and help ensure the vision of george washington becomes the destiny of the nation. our discussions tonight have been about keeping the country in the hands of the people and making sure that the government serves the people and not the other way around, making sure that the people are in charge of their own government, that whenever the things that government does become destructive of the ability of the people to achieve happiness, to secure their own lives and their liberty and their pursuit of happiness, it's important that the people restore to themselves the power which is rightfully theirs. throughout the history of the world in many civilizations, people have called that idea radical. they have called it crazy. they have called it insane. here we just call it a very american ideal. here tonight we have been talking a lot about this law. we have been talking a lot about our ability to defund this law, which we believe has become destructive of the people. we have been told by some of our colleagues, some from within our own party, that this effort is futile, that we shouldn't fight it because, as we're told over and over again, we don't have the votes. those things can change, and they do change when the people speak to their elected representatives and they ask their elected representatives to do that which they were sent to our nation's capital to do. there was a man named william morris, a man whose political philosophy i don't share in many respects, but a man who occasionally said things that were very profound, that reflect broader truths. william morris once wrote one man with an idea in his head is in danger of being considered a madman. two men with the same idea in common may be foolish but can hardly be mad. ten men sharing an idea begin to act. 100 draw attention as fanatics. a thousand and society begins to tremble. 100,000 and the cause as victories tangible and real. and why only 100,000? why not 100 million and more? you and i who agree together, it is we who have to answer that question. and so when we find ourselves with an idea in our head, when we find ourselves listening to people, people who might begin with a chorus of one, calling out for congress to do something to protect the american people, we might be inclined to dismiss that one person, that one idea coming from that one person as the product of madness. when two people join together, when ten, 100, 1,000, 10,000 and so forth. with each order of magnitude, we find that the idea acquires more potency, the idea acquires more lasting power, the idea moves more and more people. the idea to defund obamacare is not new. it's been discussed since 2010, since shortly after the law's enactment, since about the time when many people were predicting the republican party might gain control of at least one house of congress. that's really when it began in earnest. we hoped, we expected that once the republican majority took hold, once republicans took control of the house of representatives in january, 2011, in the wake of the 2010 election cycle that defunding of obamacare would be imminent. in fact, as i recall, h.r. 1, the continuing resolution, as i recall that was filed at the beginning of the last congress originally was written to defund obamacare. i'm not quite sure why that didn't move forward, but many expected that that would happen. it didn't happen. we have continued to pass continuing resolution after continuing resolution since january of 2011 to keep the government funded, and we have done so without defunding obamacare. there have been reasons for that. there were many who expected that the supreme court would invalidate obamacare, thus obviating the need for congress to go through the process of defunding it and later repealing it. that didn't happen. there were those who expect thad a republican would be elected president of the united president of the united states in the 2012 election cycle, thereby making it possible for obamacare to be repealed or perhaps at least stalled out with the assistance of the president and with the assistance of an executive order spending many of its major provisions. that, of course, didn't happen. we're now at the point when we're being asked to fund the operations of government potentially for the last time between now and the time when the law's major operative provisions will take effect. this will not be the end of the debate, assuming that this effort either does or doesn't succeed. i have no doubt but that this debate will continue for some time. if we do not succeed in defunding obamacare at this point, it doesn't mean that the cause is lost forever. it may nonetheless mean that it becomes far more difficult to stop this law. once a law like this takes effect, history has suggested that it will be much, much harder to stop, much, much harder to defund, much, much harder to repeal down the road. and so before we take this step, i think it's appropriate that we consider very seriously defunding this law's implementation and enforcement, especially in light of and taking into account the potentially devastating impact that this law have, could have and is already having on our nation's workers, the impact that it's having with regard to wages, to employment opportunities, to access to health care and to the cost of health care. we have to take that very seriously, as the house of representatives has done in passing this continuing resolution. and so, as we take that up, we have to remember that the fate of this nation lies in good hands. it lies in the hands of the american people, the people who were represented well by the house of representatives when it passed the continuing resolution funding the operations of government while defunding obamacare. and so senator cruz, i ask you the question, what can we do as citizens, what can we do as senators to make sure that the hands of our government will, indeed, remain in good hands, in the hands of its people, rather than in the hands of a perpetual oligarchy, albeit an elected oligarchy, a bipartisan political establishment that might limit the freedom of the american people? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from utah for that very fine question. and the answer as to what we can do is do what we must, as americans, what we always have, which is take the responsibility on ourselves, on our shoulders to step forward, to engage edmond burke famously said, the only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. one of the tremendous aspect of the american character is americans have never been willing to sit back and do nothing. now, people all over this country are disillusioned. they're disillusioned because washington doesn't listen to us. they're disillusioned because democratic senators don't listen to the people and republican senators don't listen to the people. i understand that disillusionment. i feel the same way. everywhere i go in texas that sentiment is expressed everywhere. i don't think there's a state in the union where they don't feel that sense. but there are moments, moments in time when we can change things. you think back to earlier this year to another filibuster that occurred on this senate floor with our friend, senator rand paul, when he was standing up to the administration's drone policy. senator paul began that filibuster, if i remember correctly, at 11:47 a.m.. and when he started, virtually every senator in this chamber viewed what he was doing as an odd crusade. they didn't really support it. they didn't even understand it. what matters if the federal government can use a drone to target a u.s. citizen, to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil. what matters that, thought most senators. senator paul began a brave crusade. i would note during that filibuster i was honored to stand side by side with my good friend, senator lee, as we were the first two senators to stand in support of that, and to battle the length of those 13 hours in defense of the constitution. and during the course of that filibuster, we saw what happens when the american people get engaged, because the american people got engaged at an incredible level. and it forced a change. for three consecutive weeks president obama had refused to do what he did that very next day, which is admit in writing that the constitution limits his authority to target united states citizens. earlier that day before the filibuster began it so happened that attorney general eric holder was testifying before the senate judiciary committee. senator lee and i were both there as part of that testimony, and i remember an exchange with the attorney general where three times i asked the attorney general if in his view the constitution allowed the united states government to kill a united states citizen on u.s. soil if that individual did not pose an imminent threat. and three times he responded i don't think it would be appropriate to do so the first time he gave that response, i responded to the attorney general. i said, mr. attorney general, you seem to have misunderstood my question. i was not asking about propriety. after all, he was not there testifying as an etiquette columnist for the local newspaper. i said you are the attorney general of the united states. you are the chief law enforcement officer for the united states of america. does the department of justice have a position on whether the constitution allows the u.s. government to use a drone to target and kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual doesn't pose an imminent threat? against the response was, "i don't think it would be appropriate." after the third time i almost thought the response was i do not understand this constitution to which you're referring. finally he conceded when i say appropriate, i mean constitution, which i find a really curious notion that somehow appropriate and constitutional are coterminus. you want to talk about what the american people can do, we saw during that, had not that filibuster the american people mobilized, president obama would never have admitted in writing what he admitted that next day which is the constitution limits his authority. and that matters. we sawnother emple with the gun debate. following the tragic shooting in newtown, conneic which every one of us was horrified at, the president sadly did not come out and say let us go after violent criminals. and, listen, i think we should come down on violent criminals like a ton of bricks. instead the president, unfortunately, took it as an opportunity to go after the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, instead of targeting violent criminals, those who would prey on innocent. and conventional wisdom in washington was the momentum behind those efforts was unstoppable. indeed, all the talking heads, the same talking heads who during rand's filibuster said this is foolish, this can't work, the american people rose up and spoke, and tphraoufpbs wrong. -- proven wrong. it is interesting, the world of punditry, there are no consequences for being proven wrong. you just keep going back to making those same gosh dern predictions. you keep making the same predictions wrong enough, it will be proved right. the gun debate, everyone said you can't stop t. what happened? the american people got involved by the thousands, the tens of thousands calling their senators, e-mailing their senators, speaking out at town halls saying defend the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. we want the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens protected. and i remember on the floor of this senate when it came for a vote every single proposal of the president's that would have undermined the second amendment was voted down. that astonished observers. they said it was impossible. it was impossible until the american people engaged. as we discussed not too long ago with syria, the president advocated, said he was going to engage in a unilateral military strike within days. it was imminent. it was happening. and there was bipartisan support for leadership of both houses of congress, and all those same pundits, mr. president, if you're noticing a pattern here, there is a pattern here. these same pundits over and over again say whatever president obama says, that's inevitable, can't be stopped, nothing we can do about it, nothing to see here, move on. and first the president, quite rightly, list topbd bipartisan calls to submit that decision to the constitutional authority of congress. and i was quick to praise him for doing so. and second, even more difficult, the president showed the wisdom, the prudence to listen to the voice of the american people, when the american people spoke out whoefrplgly and said -- overwhelmingly and said we don't want to be involved in a sectarian war in syria when we don't have a dog in the fight, when the rebels are in some significant way allying with al qaeda, al nursa, radical terrorists, when there is no national security interest in getting in the way of this and it was overwhelming and the entire ship of state turned on a dime. and what was inevitable stopped. and it stopped because of the american people. so the question, my friend senator lee asked, what can the american people do? do the same thing. let me just tell you now, you've got to do it ten times louder. you've got to do it at an even greater volume because i'm sorry to say members of this body are dug in at a level that they were not dug in on drones, at a level they were not dug in on guns, at a level they were not dug in on syria. the democrats in this body, i'm sorry to say, have not yet shown the willingness to speak out like james hof iffa has, not yet shown the willingness to speak out for their constituents and say obamacare is failing, it is not working. and the republicans in this body, there are quite a few of them that are angry we're having this fight. they believe it is not worthy of the time of this institution. they find themselves offended that the american people would expect us not just to have a symbolic showboat but actually to do something? goodness gracious, this is congress. we don't do something. let's have another symbolic vote, and then we can put out a press release. about an hour ago a member of my staff showed me this this discussion, even though virtually every senator has gone home and gone to sleep, that this discussion, this debate is not just trending number one in the united states, but in one way, shape or form, it is trending number one, number two, number three and number four. i've never seen anything like it. number two, i will confess, is duck dynasty, but i'm going to claim duck dynasty as part of it since not too long ago i took the opportunity to read some words of wisdom from duck dynasty, and i suspect that is not entirely disconnected. i have to admit i've seen things trend number one. i've never seen them trend number one, two, three and four all at the same time. mr. president, given that the senate chamber has been largely empty for most of the night, it is self-evident that that kind of involvement from the american people is not a factor of personalities, not a factor of me or mike or anyone else. and, by the way, everyone that wants to distract from the subject of this debate will try to make it about personalities. if they can get the washington press corps to write stories about personal flights, about back and forth, about civil war, my goodness, how many times have we seen the words civil war in the last week in the press? i'm wondering if reporters have it now on a macro alt c and it types "civil war" for them. who really cares? you know what? if you get out of washington, d.c., i don't know anyone who cares. what americans care about is they want jobs back. they want economic growth back. they want to get back to work. they want their health care not to be taken away because of obamacare. and every effort to talk about anything else is all a deliberate effort to distract from the issue that matters. the reason this is tracking one, two, three, and four, trending, is because for a moment at least some in this body are listening to the american people. and i hope and believe and think that a great many americans want to believe that more of us will do so, that more of us on the republican side of the aisle and more of us on the democratic side of the aisle will forget party, forget the battle and actually listen to the people and fight to fix these problems the question senator lee asked is what can the american people do. i will say nothing gets the attention of elected representatives more than hearing from their constituents in jaw-dropping numbers, in phone calls and e-mails and tweets and facebook posts. now, some members of this body express annoyance that why would their constituents have the temerity to dictate to us of washington what to do? the answer is simple. because our constituents are our boss. we work for them. they have every right to dictate to us. now, i will note, mr. president, on a lighter note, my friend, congressman louie gelmer handed me something that was really quite nice. it is from "the daily news" which ran on in november 1949. it is entitled, "ode to the welfare state." and it reads, mr. truman south paul, minnesota, reminded us at the tail end of the recent session of congress, representative clarence j. brown jammed into the congressional record the following poem, describing its author only as a -- quote -- "prominent democrat from the state of georgia." it is entitled 'democratic dialogue.' father, mustgy to work. no, my luck can i son. we're living now on easy street on dough from washington. we've left it up to uncle sam, so don't get exercised. nobody has to give a damn. we've all been subsidized. but if sam treats us all so well and feed us milk and honey, please, dad did i, tell me what the heck he's going to use for money. don't worry, bub, there is a not a hitch in this here noble plan. he simply soaks the filthy rich and helps the common manage. but, father, won't there come a time when they've run out of cash, when we have left them in the a dime, when things will go to smash? my faith in you is sinking, son, you nosey little brat. you do too damn much thinking, son, to be a democrat." that is from "the daily news," apparently inserted into the congressional record by a member of congress. let's take it a different direction. we talked about liberty, liberty that is at stake here. i want to talk about that same principle because on one level, on the real, on the personal, on the hardworking american families, they're facing a loss of jobs, they are facing small businesses that are not growing, they are a facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, they're facing losing their hundreds. but on another level, we are facing an assault on liberty. before we went through some of ayn rand's "atlas shrugged." i want to go back to read some excerpts from a classic that i would recommend to everyone to read, frederick basiat's "the law." "the law" is a primer in free enterprise. though expansion of government programs may be tempting, designers often have selfish aims and the program almost always thwarts the liberty and prosperity of the people." he warns of the dangers of programs and the way in which government programs deprive the people of their rights. so bastiat observes, "life is a gift from god. from god the gift, which includes all others, this gift is life, physical, intellectual, and moral life. but life cannot maintain itself alone. the creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of presesqui, developing, and perfecting it. in order that we may accomplish this, he has provided with us a collection of marvelous faculties. and he has putes in the midst of a hav variety of natural resour. but the application of our faculties to these natural resources, by that we convert them into products and use them. this process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. life faculties production. in other words, individually, individuality, liberty, property. this is man. and in spite of the cunning and artful political leaders, these three gifts from god precede all human legislation and are superior to it. life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. on the contrary, the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand is what has caused men to make laws in the first place. each of us has a natural right from god to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. these are the three basic requirements of life. and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent on the preservation of the other two. for what are our faculties but the extension of our individuals and what is property but an extension of our faculties. if every perch ha person has tht to defend, even by force, his person, liberty, and faculty, thus the principle of collective rights. its reason for existing is based on individual rights. and the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for that same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups." property and plunder. "man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor, by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. this process is the origin of property. but it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. this process is the origin of plunder. now, since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain, and since labor is pain in itself, it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. history shows this quite clearly. and under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. when, then, does plunder stop? it stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. it is evident then that the proper purpose of slaw to use the power of the collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. all the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder. but generally the law is made by one man or class of men, a and since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. atould be us. this fact combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least effort possible explains the almost universal perversion of law. thus it's easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the inconvincible weapon of injustice. it is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. this is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law and in proportion to the power that he holds." now, i would note throughout the course of this debate, the central theme i've been focusing on is the disconnect between washington and the people, the bipartisan practice right now of democrats and republicans not to listen to the people. let me read again that sentence from bastian written in 1850. not written in repons to -- in repons to the senate in 2013. "this is done for the benefit who makes the law and in proportion to the power he holds." it is almost as if he was writing about congress right now, about the obama administration granting exemptions from obamacare to the friends, to those with political influence, to giant corporations and to members of congress. why d do members of congress get an exemption from obamacare that the american people don't? well, bastiat told us this. "this is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law and in proportion to the power the holds." he goes on to talk about the victims of the plunder. "men naturally rebel against the injustice. thus when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes somehow try to enter by peaceful or revolutionary means into the making of laws. according to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power. either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. now, let note at thi note that t goes directly to the point that senator lee asked a little bit earlier this morning: what can the american people do? we wilwell, the plundered people hardworking american people that are finding theirs jobs go washings their finding economic growth stripped awalkers that are finding themselves forcibly put into part-time work, that are seeing their health insurance jeopardized or taken away can come together and force our elected officials in both parties to listen to the people, make d.c. listen p. that's what bastiat is talking about there. woe to the nation when this prevails among the mass victims of plunder when they in fact seize the power to make laws. until that hangars the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of laws is limited to a few pence. but then participation in the make of law becomes universal and then men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these unjustices general. as soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against the other classes. they do not abolish legal plunder. this objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess. instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder even though it is against their interests. it is as if it were necessary before a rein of justice appears for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution. some for their evilness and some for their lack of understanding." mr. president, it's almost as if that sentence was written about obamacare. i would suggest, mr. president, and when you read that sentence and then you pick up and read the letter from james hoffa from the teamsters saying, we walked on don't, we supported president obama, we've blocked walked, we've supported their agenda and now we have discovered that this law is a nightmare that is hurting millions of americans and their families. that's what james hoffa said. or as bastiat said, "as if it were necessary before a rain of justice arranges for everyone to suffer for their retribution. he continued, enforced fraternity destroys liberty. mr. delamartine once wrote to me, "your doctrine is only half of your program. i go on to fraternity. i answered to him, "the second half of your program will destroy the first. in fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. i cannot understand how fraternity cannot be enforced without liberty being legally destroyed and, thus, justice being trampled under foot. legal plunder has two roots. one of them as i said before is in human greed. and the other is in false fill l.a.n. throw pivment at this point-- --and the other is in false philanthrophy. plunder violates ownership. i do not, as is often done, use this word in any vague, uncertain or met forecal sense. i use it in its scientific acceptance as sproas expressing the idea opposite of property -- wages, land, money, or whatever. when a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it without his consent, without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud, to anyone who discount does not own act of plunder is committed. i say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. when the law itself commits this act, that it is supposed to suppress, i say that plunder is still committed and i add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. in this case of legal plunder, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. the responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law. the legislator and society itsel.therein, lies the politicl danger. the law in chariat, you say there are persons who have no money and you turn to the law but the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. nor are the lactile veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless another citizen or other classes have been forced to send it in. if everyone from the treasury the amount he puts in it is true the amount plunders nobody but this procedure does nothing for the person who has no money. the law can be an instrument of equalization only when it takes from some person and gives to other persons. when the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder. i would note the adage that any legislator who proposes to rob peter to pay paul can always count on the support of paul. going back to behalf of the yacht with this in mind -- going back to bastiat with this in mind, relief in welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit and public works, you will find that they are always based on legal plunder organized in justice. legislators desire to mold mankind. now let us examine the subject of mankind being molded by the legislator. the legislator must consider the climate, air and soil, the resources at his disposal determines his duties. he must consider his locality, a population living on maritime shores, must have laws designed for navigation. if it is an inland settlement, a legislator must make his plans according to nature and fertility of the soil. frederick bastiat in 1815 explained principles of liberty that continue across the ages. principles of liberty that we owe it to every man and woman in america to protect his or her life, liberty and property, and obamacare does violence to the natural rights of every american. it does violence to their opportunity. you know the cruelest joke of all? obamacare has been justified. let us help the least among us. that's a noble goal. we should all care about helping the least off among us. the cruelest irony is the people who are being hurt the most by obamacare are the least off among us. the rich, as the president frequently say, the millionaires and billionaires, they are not hurt by obamacare. they are doing just fine. they are doing better. the richest segment of this country is doing better today than they were when president obama was elected. who's getting hurt? who is losing their jobs? who is not finding jobs? who's getting their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week. who's losing their health insurance? i've read one letter after another from people across texas and across this country, and not a one of these letters have said i'm independently wealthy, cruising on my yacht in the caribbean. and yet, obamacare has crimped my style. that's not what's happening. these are letters i read from the retired couple in bayou vista who saved their life to buy a home and now they're risking losing their home because of obamacare. let me read from another, a constituent in houston, texas, my hometown, on july 11, 2013, wrote, my wife and i are currently both working jobs where there is no provided health care coverage. my wife is a self-employed physician and i'm in sales. we've never gone without health coverage our entire lives. my father was in the military so i had health care until i graduated college and my wife had coverage include her college. we never wanted to go without coverage so any time our coverage had a break, we went ahead and bought catastrophic short term coverage even knowing we would have coverage soon. my wife was in medical school and i had employer coverage and i bought an individual policy for her because it was much less costly than group coverage. when my employee status changed i bought individual policies for both of us. we would not risk going without health insurance. because we were both young and healthy at the time, the policies were very affordable. about $130 a month. purchasing coverage was a no-brainer. while in her residency, we got family coverage through her work. when she finished residency in 2012, neither of us had employer coverage. so it came time for another policy. we looked around at all the options for a family of four, two 30-year-old he adults, two-year-old boy and newborn girl. we found an hdip plan with a $10,000 deductible. we scrimped and saved so that in the event we had a catastrophe we would have the deductible. after that our plan pays 100%. this is the best coverage i've purchased. shopping around for the best deals on medications and inforge doctors of our situation so they code it had properly. when we needed care we opted for urgent care instead of emergency rooms. many of my young healthy friends now have these plans either individually purchased or through their employers. as of january 1, most of these plans will go away for us, as most of my friends are around 30 years old. these plans are actually decreasing the cost of health care as they inspire us to become educated consumers. unlike the president said, i don't get to, quote, keep my plan. i never thought that purchasing insurance -- not purchasing insurance would be an option for my family. i've done a fair amount of research using i.r.s. info, current estimated prices, even my own insurance company's estimates and it looks like for the cheapest plan the estimated cost will be about $1,600 per month, which is $20,000 per year. we don't qualify for subsidies. if i choose not to comply, i will pay a fine which for us amounts to about $2,000 and save the $18,000 balance in a bank account. our fine will max out at about $5,000 so i'll still have $15,000 per year. i will now begin paying cash for my health care and negotiate with doctors and hospitals myself. as i get older i will consider buying insurance when it looks like the cost-benefit ratio is better. no one in my family has ever gone without coverage because health care is the number-one priority on our list. it still is but this individual mandate has caused us to consider going without insurance for the first time. i would gladly pay my fine if i could keep my current insurance, but that's not an option either. here is one of my friends' stories. he is a high school teacher and his wife is a stay at home mom with two kids. his district pays for all of his coverage and none of his spouse's. this year they opted to purchase an individual plan for her because it was more affordable. $150 a month versus $500. beginning january 1, she will be forced into the exchange where her estimated cost will be about $400. they currently cannot afford this and they don't qualify for a subsidy because her employer offers coverage for her even though her income would qualify for a 150% subsidy. they will choose not to have insurance coverage on her. many of the young healthy people i talked to have told me they plan to go without insurance, people who currently purchase individual plans. because the coverage will be too expensive and the fines for most of them is much less than the coverage. mr. president, obamacare was told to the american people, if you like your health coverage, you can keep it. we now know that promise was simply objectively 100% false for americans all over this country, the facts are otherwise. and it's incumbent on us representing our constituents to look to the reality of these facts, look to young people. mr. president, i don't think you could design a plan, designed to harm young people more than obamacare, more than a crying irony that some 70% of young people voted for the president. i recognize that young people didn't necessarily understand the consequences of obamacare and how it's impacting their future of.. if you're a young person coming out of school let's say you've got some student loans, let's say you're hoping for a job for a future. you can't get that first job. or if you're forced into part-time work, you're not going to gain the skills you need to get that second job. or the third job or the fourth job or to build a career to get married or to provide for your family. we read earlier from the "wall street journal" describing how economists now talk about young people as the -- quote -- "lost generation" you know, one of the striking consequences, mr. president, of this is young people are putting off marriage and putting off kids. now, we know that has societal consequences that. has societal consequences that are altogether detrimental. and they're doing it not for matters of individual choice. they're doing it because the economy is so terrible for young people that they have no option. tpho*ef options to provide -- they have no options to provide for a spouse, to provide for kids, so they rationally choose not to begin those families until they can have a job sufficient to provide for their families. this thing isn't working. and every one of us owe it to 0 our constituents to listen to, listen to the young people who are suffering, to listen to the single moms, to listen to the seniors, listen to those with disabilities, listen to hispanics, listen to african-americans who aren't getting jobs, getting forcibly put into part-time work, facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, who are losing their health insurance. we can vote party loyalty. that's easy to do. it's the way washington often works. we can vote and say, you know what? congress is exempted. we have special rules that apply to us. it is not our problem. yes, it hurts hardworking americans, but if there's one thing washington knows how to do is ignore the plight of hardworking americans. or we can show a level of courage that has been rare in this town to step up and say we will risk retribution from our own parties. we will stand up and speak the truth. we will stand up and champion our constituents. elected officials need to listen to the people, mr. president, together we must make d.c. listen. mr. lee: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. lee: senator cruz, you were mentioning the fact that it's time for people to stand up for their own rights and it's time for the people's elected representatives in washington to stand up for them. it reminds me of the fact that sometimes people do take this challenge and sometimes they don't. sometimes people will square their shoulders heading into a challenge, and other times people will simply engage in shoulder shrugging and ignore problems altogether. a few years ago i was traveling through southern utah with my family, and we went to a restaurant. it was sort of a fast-food restaurant that had a salad bar. for some strange reason, instead of ordering a cheeseburger, i ordered a salad. i don't know why. i got the salad bar. i went through the salad bar with my plate, and i was getting all these horribly healthy foods on my plate. lettuce and vegetables. and then i saw at the end of the salad bar something that i didn't expect: a little bonus. there was a little tub of chocolate pudding, and i thought this is fantastic. i can feel like i'm eating a healthy meal because i'm eating a salad, but i get chocolate pudding in my salad. so i put a bunch of that on my salad plate. i sat down a few minutes later, and of course raerpbl eating the salad -- rather than eating the salad i went right for the pudding. there was only one problem. the pudding was disgusting. it was spoiled rotten. it tasted like it had been left out overnight unrefrigerated for three nights in a row, which is not a good thing. so i immediately thought, i've got to find somebody who works here. i've got to tell someone that the pudding is bad so that, you know, they don't have to deal with any other customers eating rotten pudding. i found the nearest employee of the restaurant, and i said to her in a sort of hushed tone of voice, the pudding is bad. you need to do something about it. you need to replace it. it's rancid. it's spoiled rotten. please do something about it. she looked at me with a sort of of blank stare. she couldn't have been older than maybe 17 years old. and she just said, i'm not on salad, and then she walked away. my response to that was i'm not suggesting that you're on salad. i all of a sudden wondered whether i had stumbled or crossed some rift among the employees at this particular fast-food establishment. maybe she didn't like the implication that she was one of the salad bar attendants. maybe that was a bad thing. i don't know. all i know is it was kind of strange because she worked for the same employer that ran the salad bar. i would have thought she would have cared about that. instead she said, "i'm not on salad," shrugged her shoulders and walked away. i wonder if that's sometimes what we have too much of here in washington. i'm not on salad. i'm not on obamacare. i'm not on excessive regulation. i'm not on dealing with the law that's going to result in a lot of americans losing their jobs, having their hours cut, or their wages cut, or losing access to are their health care benefits -- to their health care benefits. well, our problems are acute. our problems are in fact chronic, and we've got to do more than shrug our shoulders. what we need right now is more shoulder-squaring than shoulder-shrugging. we've got to have people who will follow after the add admonn of ronald reagan, who declared more than 30 years ago that it's morning in america again. and as it is now morning in washington again -- it's an appropriate time of day for us to bring this up. to paraphrase the words of ronald reagan, as spoken in his speech at the republican national convention in july 1980, and to apply those same words today, let me just say as follows: "our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear from those in positions of leadership are the same tired proposals for more government tinkering, more meddling, and more control, all of which led us to this state in the first place. can anyone look at the record of this administration and say well-done? can anyone compare the state of our economy when this administration took office with where we are today and say, keep up the good work? can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, let's have more of this? we must have the clarity of vision to see the difference between what is essential and what is merely desirable, and then the courage to use this insight to bring our government back under control and make it acceptable to the people." it's long been said that freedom is the condition in which the government fears the people and tyranny is the condition in which the people fear the government. throughout the duration of our history as a republic, we have enjoyed liberty, we've enjoyed freedom, and we've had a notable absence of tyranny. sure, there have been excesses from time to time. we've kept them under control because under the hand of the government, the government has always been in good hands, in the hands of its people. when the people weigh in from time to time and decide that they've had too much of something, it ends up having a benefit for everyone. everyone benefits when the people speak and are heard. everyone benefits when the people's elected representatives are willing to square their shoulders and 1257bdz u stand ua chacialtion rather than shrug their shoulders and walk away, as it were, saying, i am a note on salary. -- i'm not on salary. today we are all on obamacare. we are all on it in the sense that we can't walk away prosecute it. we're all on it in the sense that we have no choice but to confront the many challenges. there is not widespread agreement as to what we can or should or must or might do. in the absence of consensus on this and understanding the widespread disruption to our economy that this will create once it's fully implemented, some have suggested that a good compromise position might be to delay its impact and the best way to fully delay it is to defund it, defund it for at least a year. the president himself has acknowledged that the law is not ready to be implemented as written. the american people are reluctant to confront the many economic challenges that this law presents. it's, therefore, appropriate that we do this, and it is appropriate that the house of representatives passed a continuing resolution to keep government funded while defunding obamacare. it's for that position that we've been speaking, and it's for that position that we continue to insist that, as we approach the cloture vote this week, that i and senator cruz and a few others will be voting "no" on cloture on the bill, notwithstanding the fact that -- and in fact because of the fact that -- we support the house-passed continuing resolution, house joint resolution 59. we support that and because we support it we cannot support a process that would enable senator reid, the senate majority leader, to strip out, to gut the most important provision within that resoluti resolution, the obamacare defunding legislation, by a simple majority vote without allowing any other votes on any other amendments, without allowing for an open amendment process, without ever allowing for members of this body to have an up-or-down vote on the legislation as a whole. as it was enacted, as is. that's what we're fighting for. now, is this difficult? and absolutely it is and do we have consensus within our own political party. of course we don't. that's one of the reasons why we're standing here today, to persuade our colleagues -- and to persuade more of the american people to join in with us. no one senator can do this alo alone. not one of us certainly by means of our persuasive abilities will be able to do this. but with the american people, we can do a lot of things. it wasn't very long ago, it wasn't even two weeks ago when people were still saying that it with a not be possible to pass a joint resolution -- continuing resolution like house joint resolution 59, the one that keeps government funded while defunding obamacare. and yet when the people weighed in strongly in support of this measure, it became possible. i hope and i expect the same can be true here in the united states senate. and so, senator cruz, i would ask you, what's the best way that the american people, in confronting this challenge and others like it -- but in particular this challenge, confronting obamacare -- how best can they square their shoulders and avoid kind of shoulder shrugging that has resulted in so much expansion of government almost as if by default? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from utah for that very fine question. i want to thank the american people for doing exactly what senator lee just asked already. for over 1.6 million americans signing a national petition to defund obamacare, you want to know why the house of representatives voted overwhelmingly on friday to defund obamacare. the answer is simple: because the american people rose up and demanded it. and at the end of the day, the house of representatives is the people's house. i salute the house conservatives that fought and fought hard to get this done. and i salute house leadership. i salute speaker boehner for listening to the people. now, it's not surprising that the house of representatives would do that first. for one thing, the house is designed to be the people's house. in our constitutional structure, the house has a different role than the senate. the house of representatives is up for election every t. like clockwork, you're in the house, you run, you g elected, you may get a little bit of a breather, enjoy thanksgiving and christmas with your family and then you promptly turn around and start getting ready for the next election two years hence. given that, the house is, by its nature, more responsive to the people, because the risks are higher in the house of not being. the house has shown over and over again, when the elected representatives in the house stop listening to the american people, the american people are really, really goodate, to use the old -- are really, really good, to use the old phrase, of throwing the bumps out. the senate, on the other hand, is shrik like is battleship. it turns slowly. now, part of that is by constitutional design. part of that was the wisdom of the framers. in any given two-year cycle, only a third of this body is up for election. it is one of the things that is interesting. if you look at those republicans who have publicly said they intend to vote for cloture, they intend to vote to give harry reid the power to fund obamaca obamacare, with 51 democratic votes, they intend to give harry reid the power to gut the republican continuing resolution, most of the republicans who have said that are not up for election in 2014. it's amazing how it can focus the mind if you actually have 10 stand before the citizens, and i suppose some of the republicans who are up in 20161 and 2018 might think, well, there'll be time. there'll be time. the voters will forget. the only way to move the battleship of the state -- of the senate is for the american people to make it politically more risky to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing. you know, when we were reading bastiat's "the law," how d he s, you make it more risky to engage in plunder than to engage in hard work. same thing is true in politics. the only way that it has ever worked is a tidalwave of outpouring. it is what we saw in syria. here it has got to be bigger, bigger than any of those. why? because the resistance is more settled in. the democratic side of the aisle, the party loyalty is deeply entrenched. i hope by the end of this week we see some brave democrats who show the courage james who have are i-- james hoffa of the teams showed. we haven't yet. i hope that chaifntle i hope by the end of this week we see a lot more republicans, even republicans who aren't up in 2014, who may have some chance that by the next election cycle the voters will have forgotten -- i am not convinced of that, but it is easy for politicians to convince themselves of that -- that we see republicans saying, listen, this is a conscience vote. this is a vote to do the right thing. i have to say, in my time in the u.s. senate, this is the first time i've seen when republican leadership is actively wimping the caucus to support harry reid and give him the four enact his agenda-- agenda-- give him the four enact his agenda. i've never seen that before. that, i'm quite confident, is not what texans expect of me. and i'm quite confident when each republican goes back to his or her home state, i.t. not what our constituent -- i.t. not what our constituent -- it's not what our constituents expect of us. and i'm also quite confident that if and when we return home and stand in front of our constituents, if we're asked, senator, why did you vote "yes" on cloture to give harry reid the power to fund obamacare, to gut the house continuing resolution, i am quite confident, if the answer was, well, our party leadership asked me to do that, i am speacted to be a good soldier, to salute and march into battle. you know what? none of us were elected by party leadership. that's true on the democrat or republican side. listen, if we see democratic senators showing courage on this issue to break, i have no doubt the democratic leadership will be very, very unhappy with you. i don't want to sugarcoat what the reaction would be. and on the republican side, none of us were elected by our party leadership. we've got a different boss. our boss is the american people. our boss consists of the constituents who elected us. and i'm going to submit, if you strip away all the procedural mumbo-jumbo, all the smoke and mirrors, our constituents would be horrified -- horrified -- to know the games we play. to know that this is all set up to be a giant kabuki dance -- theater -- wherever republican or a lot of republicans vote to give harry reid the authority to gut the house continuing resolution to fund obamacare and they go home and tell their constituents, hey, i was voting in support of the house. boy, with support like that ... it's like taking you areee supporting someone lie handing a gun to someone who will shoot you. we don't have to speculate. ilt not hypothetical that maybe, sort of, kind of possibly if you vote for cloture obamacare will be funded and the house of representatives' continuing resolution will be gutted. we know that because harry reid has announced i -- announced it. so any republican who cast a vote for cloture is saying, yes, i want harry reid to have the power to do that, and then i'll vote against it once it no longer matters, once it's a free, symbolic vote. mr. president, i don't think those kind of games are consistent with the obligation we owe to
VietnamRepublic-ofMontanaUnited-statesNevadaAlabamaValley-wellTexasBrazilFort-belvoirVirginiaSyriaBennington Theater presents 2024 season celebration and fundraiser featuring Wayne Hoffman
reformer.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from reformer.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Kevin-carlonBennington-carlonWayne-hoffmanBennington-theater