Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Oregon and my friend from Alaska for their leadership.

As do they, I support extending the Helium Program. This is a good and important program that is critical to industry, it is critical to jobs, and it is critical to our high-tech community. I salute both the Senate and the House for a positive bill that generates revenue for the Federal Treasury and that gets the Government, in time, out of the helium business. I think that is a good and positive step.

I would note the House of Representatives passed a bill that continued this program but that devoted the revenue that came from this to deficit reduction. At a time when our national debt is approaching $17 trillion, I think devoting that revenue to deficit reduction is a good and appropriate place to direct that revenue.

When the bill came to the Senate--this bill is projected to generate approximately $500 million in new revenue for the Federal Government over 10 years. When it came to the Senate, roughly $400 million in new spending was added to the bill that came out of that $500 million that was generated.

In my view, given the fiscal and economic challenges in this country, that revenue would be better spent paying down our deficit, reducing our national debt, than it would be on new spending. Indeed, over the course of this week, I have had numerous conversations with my colleagues where I have urged them that if new spending were to be added, for them to endeavor to find other areas of Federal spending that could be reduced, that could be cut to make up for that, so we could devote the full $500 million to reducing the deficit. I think that would be the most fiscally responsible approach to be taken.

For that reason, I have had concerns about proceeding on this bill with unanimous consent, proceeding on this bill authorizing an additional $500 million in new spending without debate, without a vote. Earlier this week, I had lodged internally an objection to do so.

I am pleased to note that in conversations with Senator Murkowski and Senator Wyden, we have reached an agreement where this matter will not proceed by unanimous consent but, rather, will proceed with a rollcall vote to be scheduled this afternoon, where each Senator will cast his or her vote.

With that agreement, I am happy to withdraw any objection and allow us to go forward.

I would note it is important for economic growth and for the high-tech industry to maintain this program, but at the same time I hope going forward, when new spending is authorized, all of us will work to cut spending to compensate so we can devote the maximum resources possible to paying down our deficit and paying down our debt.

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

Do I understand the Senator does not oppose the bill as passed in the House that would have authorized this program to go forward, but the concern is new revenue has been generated that is being spent for other programs?

Mr. CRUZ. That is correct. In terms of a technical offset, the spending is offset by the revenue. I am not arguing that it fails to offset in the typical language of the Senate; rather, my concern is that is $500 million in new revenue that could be directed to deficit reduction. Given the magnitude of our national debt, if we have $500 million in new revenue from selling helium, sending it to the private sector, I would far rather see that $500 million used to pay down our deficit.

What I have urged my colleagues to do is, if there are new spending programs that are of particular concern to the citizens of their States, to find other aspects of the Federal budget that could be cut to offset it so that entire $500 million could go to deficit reduction rather than to funding the new spending.

Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator yield for a question--I am going to ask a question and respond to Senator Sessions' point in one second.

There are differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. The House bill does not get the government out of the helium business permanently. The Senate bill gets the government out of the helium business permanently; A, it does it in a way that is fully offset and, B, not only is it offset under our proposal, passed unanimously in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, $51 million would actually be used to lower the deficit. There is a full offset, A; get the government out of the helium business permanently, and $51 million would be returned to be used for deficit reduction.

What I wish to do, by way of moving things along--and Senator Cruz has been very gracious in terms of the handling of this and saw me on short notice. I am very appreciative.

I wish to propound the unanimous consent request at this time. I am asking the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, a question, if this is acceptable, and then we will go right back to my colleagues.

I wish to ask the Senator from Texas if we would now move to ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of the House bill and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the substitute amendment at the desk, which I have been discussing and I have talked about, be agreed to.

We would then have 15 minutes of debate equally divided between yourself and myself or our designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill would be amended and be read a third time and the Senate would proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that motions to reconsider would be considered made and laid upon the table, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

I ask the Senator from Texas would this unanimous consent request be acceptable?

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source