Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. The issue before this body is not complicated. There are a lot of procedural ambiguities that make it difficult to penetrate, and yet it is one very simple issue. The issue before this body is whether the Senate can raise the debt limit of the United States with simply using a 50-vote threshold or whether it should go through the regular order before raising any debt limit, subject to a 60-vote threshold.
What is the difference? The difference is simple: If the debt limit can be raised using 50 votes, then the majority party--the Democrats--do not need to speak to the Republicans, do not need to sit down at the table and work with the Republicans, do not need to listen to any opposing views.
Indeed, the President of the United States has been very candid. He has been unequivocal. President Obama has said he believes we should raise the debt limit, with no preconditions, with no negotiations, with no changes whatsoever.
If you think it is OK that in 4 1/2 years our Nation's debt has gone from $10 trillion to nearly $17 trillion, if you think it is OK that our Nation's debt is now larger than the size of the entire economy, if you think it is OK that our children and grandchildren are being be bankrupted--in 4 1/2 years the national debt has grown over 60 percent--and if you think it is OK that the Senate Democrats want to continue borrowing trillions more while doing nothing--nada--zilch--to address the spending problems, to rein in out-of-control spending, then you should welcome this motion.
Over and over again the majority has asked to go to conference on the budget. Why? Because going to conference on the budget allows a procedural back door to enable them to raise the debt ceiling using only 50 votes.
How do we know that is what this is about? We know that is what this is about because my friend the Senator from Washington could go to conference on the budget right now. This instant we could go to conference on the budget--right now--except, when I ask--as I am going to in a moment--for unanimous consent not to use it as a procedural back door to raise the debt ceiling, my friend the Senator from Washington is going to object. And I know this because we have done this kabuki dance more than once and we continue doing it back and forth. But it makes clear that is what this fight is all about.
Of course the Senate budget didn't address the debt ceiling; the House budget didn't address the debt ceiling; we didn't have a debate on the floor of this Senate about the debt ceiling; we didn't have a vote on the floor of the Senate about the debt ceiling; and yet the reason the majority is so adamant that they want to go to conference is because it presents them with an avenue to use 50 votes--the votes of only the Democrats in this body--to raise the debt ceiling to dig us further in debt and to do nothing--nothing--to fix the problem.
I would suggest that is irresponsible. That is not what Americans want. That is not what Democrats, Republicans, or Independents outside of the Washington beltway want.
We fundamentally know it is wrong to stick our kids and grandkids with $17 trillion in debt. It is even more wrong to keep on doing it and making it worse and worse and not rolling up our sleeves to fix it.
One of the great frustrations of this body is that for some time now the American people have been unequivocal: Their top priority is jobs and the economy, and is turning around what is going on. Yet this body doesn't talk about that. It doesn't talk about generating jobs, getting the economy growing, and stopping our out-of-control debt. Instead, we debate every other priority under the Sun--whether it is restricting Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms or whether it is a national energy tax through the President's climate change proposal.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator yield for a question?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, I would note the comment from my friend from Washington suggesting a motion to instruct the conferees. What she of course knows is that is a typical Washington maneuver, because the motion to instruct is nonbinding and it is subject to 50 votes. So if we had a motion to instruct the conferees not to raise the debt ceiling, every Democrat in this body would vote against it. It would be defeated. And even if it were passed, it would be nonbinding on the conferees.
No one should be confused. What the Democrats want is to raise the debt ceiling. And they want to do it using 50 votes, ignoring the views of the minority, and doing nothing to fix the problem.
Accordingly, I object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator yield for a question?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. If I may ask my friend two questions on the two topics he addressed, the first being the debt ceiling, the second being immigration. On the debt ceiling, the question I will ask is, Does my friend from Colorado believe Congress should continue raising the debt ceiling in perpetuity, with no changes and no preconditions, and should the Senate be able to do so with just 50 votes?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield for an additional question at that point?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. I like and agree with his analogy about cutting up a credit card. Indeed, if my friend from Colorado supports anything resembling Congress cutting up the credit card, that will truly be a dramatic position, a position on which he and I could find common cause.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. If I can ask the question. I ask, the natural results of what my
friend from Colorado just said are that I assume, then, that he would readily support Pat Toomey's Default Prevention Act? What Pat Toomey's Default Prevention Act does is it ensures what the Senator said--money that we borrowed we will keep paying. It says that in the event the credit limit is not raised, the United States will always, always, always pay its debt. We will never, ever, ever default on the debt, and we will take that completely off the table. Then the debt limit fight would only be about, as my friend from Colorado put it, cutting up the credit card for future spending.
Would my friend from Colorado support the Default Prevention Act of Pat Toomey, making it impossible--taking default off the table permanently?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source