Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Utah for an excellent speech. I entirely agree with his call for civility and decorum and respect. No Member of this body should engage in ad hominem attacks directed at any other Member of this body, be they a Republican or be they a Democrat. At the same time, I would note that it is entirely consistent with decorum and with the nature of this body traditionally as the world's greatest deliberative body to speak the truth. Speaking the truth about action is entirely consistent with civility. Indeed, in a quote often falsely attributed to George Orwell, the sentiment has been expressed thusly: ``In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.''

I would make four brief points.

First of all, on Friday I gave an unusual speech--a speech unlike any I have given in this Chamber. It was not a speech I was happy to give. It was a speech to which the senior Senator from Utah has responded. I would note that in the course of that speech I described an explicit promise the majority leader had made to me and to all 53 Republican Senators. Neither the majority leader, nor the Senator from Utah, nor the Senator from Tennessee has disputed that the majority leader, in front of every Republican Senator, made that promise, looking me in the eyes--namely, that there was no deal on the Export-Import Bank, that its proponents could offer it in the regular order and there would be no special preferences whatsoever. We saw on Friday that promise was false.

In particular, on the amendment on the Export-Import Bank, first of all, it was not offered by its proponents, it was called up by the majority leader. Very few of us get our amendments called up by the majority leader because he has priority of recognition, he can edge out any other amendment in this Chamber.

Secondly, the majority leader followed that by filling the tree--a procedural mechanism that he had often decried when the former majority leader employed it to block other amendments.

Third, the majority leader filed cloture on the Export-Import Bank amendment--a tool he has used only once in his entire tenure as majority leader.

Those were extraordinary steps designed to force a vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, and they were directly contrary to the promises the majority leader made to all 53 Republicans and to the press. My saying so may be uncomfortable, but it is a simple fact entirely consistent with decorum, and no Member of this body has disputed that promise was made and that promise was broken.

The senior Senator from Tennessee gave a learned speech on changing the rules of this body through appealing the ruling of the Chair, and I very much agree. When the former majority leader used the nuclear option, it was wrong to violate the rules. But the amendment tree does not come from the rules, the amendment tree comes from the precedents, and precedents are set precisely through appealing the rulings of the Chair by a majority vote.

Indeed, I would note that previously many Members of this body have voted in favor of overruling the ruling of the Chair, including my friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, who has voted 4 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair; my friend the majority whip, who has voted 5 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair; and, indeed, the distinguished majority leader, who has voted 14 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair. I would note beyond that, that as recently as April 2, 2014, there was a third-degree appeal precisely like the one I have filed that was filed by Senator Vitter. The ruling of the Chair was appealed, and a significant number of Republicans voted in favor of that appeal, including the majority leader and including the majority whip.

Many Republicans railed against the filling of the tree when the Democratic leader was the majority leader. If it was an abuse of power then, it remains so today. Indeed, I would note what the current majority leader said at the time: ``The practical effect of [filling the tree] is to disenfranchise the people I and my members represent, and, more significantly, a significant number of the people his members represent whose voices are simply not heard in the Senate.''

Beyond that, let me say on the substance that if you oppose filling the tree to silence the amendments of Members, be they in the majority party or the minority party, you should vote in favor of allowing my amendment to go forward.

I would note that the Senator from Tennessee was incorrect that it would allow unlimited amendments. It would simply add a third branch to the tree and not unlimited amendments.

At the same time, if you are resolved to stand with our friend and ally the Nation of Israel, if you are resolved to stand with American hostages in Iran, and if you are convinced to not lift sanctions on Iran unless and until Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State and that they release four American hostages, then you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on.

Needless to say, if you oppose the Export-Import Bank, you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on.

Finally, if you want other amendments on pressing issues, be they defunding Planned Parenthood, be they stopping sanctuary cities, be they passing Kate's Law, or be they ending the congressional exemption from Obamacare, you should vote in favor of allowing this amendment to be voted on.

A great many Members of this body have given long, eloquent speeches on how this body operates when each Member has a right to offer amendments--and even difficult amendments. We debate and resolve them. That is the heart of this vote, and I would encourage each Member here to vote his conscience or her conscience on both substance and the ability of the Senate to remain the world's greatest deliberative body.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source