Objections to Budget Conference
- Motion to instruct relative to the debt limit; and
- Motion to instruct relative to taxes/revenue;
That there be two hours of debate equally divided between the two Leaders, or their designees, prior to votes in relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
Senator Lee requested to modify Senator Kaine's request to go to a conference without having the debt limit raised within that conference. Senator Kaine objected to Senator Lee's request to modify given that no Senator offered an amendment of that nature during consideration of the Budget Resolution. Finally, Senator Lee objected to Senator Kaine's original request. Senators Lee and Cruz engaged in a colloquy following the consent requests. The unofficial transcript is below.
12:36:41 NSP} (MR. KAINE) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. KAINE: MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE SENATE
PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR NUMBER 33, H. CON.
RES. 25, THAT THE AMENDMENT WHICH IS AND HAS BEEN AT THE DESK,
THE TEXT OF S. CON. RES. 8, THE BUDGET RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE
SENATE ON MARCH 23 BE INSERTED IN LIEU THEREOF, THAT H. CON.
RES. AS AMENDED BE AGREED TO, THAT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE
LAID ON THE TABLE, THAT THE SENATE INSIST ON ITS AMENDMENT AND
REQUEST A CONFERENCE WITH THE HOUSE ON THE DISAGREEING VOTES OF
THE TWO HOUSES AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT CONFEREES
ON THE PART OF THE SENATE, THAT FOLLOWING THE AUTHORIZATION TWO
MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES BE IN ORDER FROM EACH SIDE, A
MOTION TO INSTRUCT RELATIVE TO THE DEBT LIMIT AND A MOTION TO
INSTRUCT RELATIVE TO TAXES AND REVENUE, THAT THERE BE TWO HOURS
DWAIFT EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO LEADERS OR THEIR
DESIGNEES PRIOR TO VOTES, IN RELATION TO THE MOTIONS AND
FURTHER THAT NO AMENDMENTS BE IN ORDER IN EITHER OF THE MOTIONS
PRIOR TO THE VOTES ALL THE ABOVE OCCURRING WITH NO INTERVENING
ACTION OR DEBATE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST?
THE SENATOR FROM UTAH.
MR. LEE: RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN
BRIEFLY WHAT THE OVERALL SITUATION. WE'RE NOT OBJECTING TO
BUDGET, WE'RE NOT OBJECTING TO CONFERENCE. WE JUST WANT THE
DEBT LIMIT LEFT OUT. IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE WHAT WARRANTS ITS
OWN DEBATE. IT'S A SIMPLE REQUEST. NO BACK-ROOM DEALS ON THE
DEBT LIMIT. I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON ONE PARTICULAR ARGUMENT WE'VE
HEARD FROM THE OTHER SIDE. CRITICS ARGUE THAT CONFERENCE
COMMITTEES ARE TRANSPARENT AND THEY DON'T INVOLVE BACK-ROOM
DEALS. IF THIS WERE EVER THE CASE, TODAY IT IS NOT. THE PURPOSE
OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEES IS TO RECONCILE DIFFERENCES IN SIMILAR
BILLS PASSED BY THE HOUSE AND BY THE SENATE. IT'S NOT THE ONLY
WAY BUT IT IS ONE WAY. IN THEORY, CONFERENCE COMMITTEES ARE AN
OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY MEANS OF RESOLVING BICAMERAL
DIFFERENCES. BUT IN RECENT YEARS, THE CONFERENCE PROCESS, LIKE
SO MUCH ELSE IN THIS TOWN AND IN THIS CHAMBER, HAS BECOME
CONSTRUCTED -- CORRUPTED. TODAY CONFERENCE COMMITTEES ARE
ANOTHER MECHANISM TO EXCLUDE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. SECRET, CLOSED DOORS, THEY USUALLY DON'T
EVEN BEGIN UNTIL THE DEAL IS ALREADY COMPLETED AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER. SPEAKER BOEHNER HIMSELF SAID RECENTLY WE DON'T
TYPICALLY GO TO CONFERENCE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THEY'RE WELL ON
THEIR WAY. A RECENT EXAMPLE WAS THE CONFERENCE LAST YEAR ON THE
HIGHWAY BILL. THE SENATE PASSED ITS BILL IN MARCH, THE HOUSE
PASSED ITS VERSION IN APRIL. MAY 8, THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
MET FOR ABOUT TWO AND A HALF HOURS ON C-SPAN BUT NO AMENDMENTS,
NO SUBSTANTIVE LEGISLATING. MEMBERS MOSTLY GAVE OPENING
STATEMENTS. BUT THAT WAS JUST THE FIRST MEETING AFTER ALL.
PLENTY OF TIME TO GET TO THE REAL WORK. BUT THEN AT THE END OF
IT ALL, THE CHAIR OF THE CONFERENCE THANKED EVERYONE FOR COMING
AND THEN SAID SOMETHING PECULIAR. WE WILL BE BACK HERE IF
NECESSARY. MAYBE WE CAN DO THIS, YOU KNOW, OUT OF THIS ROOM
HERE. BUT WE MAY BE ABLE TO AGREE AND GET SIGNATURES ON A
CONFERENCE REPORT. BUT IF NECESSARY, WE WILL BE BACK HERE IN
20-SOME DAYS. STRANGE THING THAT THE CONFERENCE, WHICH HASN'T
DONE ANYTHING YET, WOULD ONLY MEET AGAIN IF NECESSARY. HOW ELSE
COULD THEY DO THEIR WORK IF THEY DIDN'T MEET AGAIN?
BUT THEN WITHOUT MEETING AGAIN, THE CONFERENCE FILED ITS
670-PAGE REPORT IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 28 AS IF BY
MAGIC WITHOUT ANY DEBATE OR AMENDMENTS OR VOTES, ALL THE
DIFFERENCES SIMPLY GOT IRONED OUT. THE HIGHWAY BILL SUDDENLY
INCLUDED PROVISIONS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGHWAYS. THE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE HAD ADDED TO THE HIGHWAY BILL THE FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM AND THE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM. YOU MIGHT CALL
IT THE MIRACULOUS DECEPTION. AND SO THURSDAY MORNING THEY
PRESENTED TO CONGRESS THEIR MASSIVE BILL INTENTIONALLY WAITING
UNTIL ONLY HOURS BEFORE THE ENTIRE HIGHWAY PROGRAM WAS SET TO
EXPIRE. IT WAS A CLAMBG CLIFF DEAL -- CLASSIC CLIFF DEAL,
IMMUNE FROM AMENDMENT, INCLUDED UNRELATED PROVISIONS AIR
DROPPED INTO THE BILL PRESENTED AS A TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT
PROPOSITION UP AGAINST A MANUFACTURED DEADLINE CRISIS. FACED
WITH THIS SITUATION, THE HOUSE AND SENATE PASSED THE REPORT
WITHOUT READING IT AND PATTED EACH OTHER ON THE BACK FOR THEIR
BIPARTISANSHIP. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, IS HOW WASHINGTON TOO
OFTEN WORKS AND IT'S WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HOLD WASHINGTON IN
SUCH LOW ESTEEM. PEOPLE DON'T CRUST TRUST THE GOVERNMENT
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T TRUST THEM. IF MY
COLLEAGUES REALLY WANT A BACK-ROOM DEAL ON THE BUDGET, WE'LL
GIVE THEM THEIR CHANCE TO HAVE IT. WE JUST ASK THAT THEY LEAVE
THE DEBT CEILING OUT OF IT. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, MY COLLEAGUES
AND I ARE NOT OBJECTING BECAUSE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW
WASHINGTON WORKS AS SOMEONE SUGGESTED. WE ARE OBJECTING BECAUSE
WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW WASHINGTON WORKS IN THIS REGARD AND WE MEAN
TO CHANGE IT. SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA MODIFY HIS 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.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AS
MODIFIED?
MR. KAINE: MADAM PRESIDENT, GIVEN THAT --.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. KAINE: GIVEN THAT NO MEMBER OF THIS BODY MADE AN AMENDMENT
TO REQUEST SUCH A PROVISION AND OFFERED IT FOR A VOTE, EITHER
DURING THE BUDGET COMMITTEE DELIBERATION OR ON THE FLOOR OF
THIS BODY WHEN WE WERE DEBATING THE BUDGET, I CONSIDER THE
REQUEST BASICALLY AN EFFORT TO MODIFY THE BUDGET AFTER IF VOTE
IS DONE AND THEREFORE I REJECT THE REQUEST AND I ASK -- REQUEST
AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ADDITIONALLY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: DOES THE SENATOR OBJECT TO THE REQUEST
AS MODIFIED?
MR. KAINE: I OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION IS HEARD. IS THERE OBJECTION
TO THE ORIGINAL REQUEST?
MR. LEE: MADAM PRESIDENT, IN THAT CASE, I OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION IS HEARD. THE SENATOR FROM
VIRGINIA.
MR. KAINE: I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON MY COLLEAGUE'S
CHARACTERIZATION THAT MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WANT A BACK-ROOM
DEAL BECAUSE IN THAT CHARACTERIZATION MY COLLEAGUE NEGLECTED TO
MAKE CLEAR TO CERTAINLY PEOPLE IN THIS GALLERY WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN THERE'S A CONFERENCE REPORT. SINCE MARCH 23, WE HAVE BEEN
TRYING TO TAKE A BUDGET PASSED BY THIS BODY IN ACCORD WITH THE
BUDGET ACT OF 1974 INTO A CONFERENCE WITH THE HOUSE BUDGET
PASSED THE SAME WEEK AND THAT IS THE WAY IN A BICAMERAL
LEGISLATURE WHERE YOU RESOLVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO
HOUSES. YOU PUT THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE AND YOU ASK PEOPLE TO SIT DOWN AND DEBATE AND LISTEN
AND DIALOGUE AND HOPEFULLY FIND A COMPROMISE. THERE IS NO
GUARANTEE IN ANY CONFERENCE THAT A COMPROMISE WILL BE FOUND.
ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT MEMBERS OF THIS BODY INSTEAD OF
EXERCISING A PREROGATIVE TO BLOCK DEBATE AND COMPROMISE, ALLOW
A CONFERENCE TO GO FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN TALK AND LISTEN AND
SEE WHETHER WE CAN FIND COMPROMISE FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION.
THE SENATOR HAS INDICATED THEY ARE BLOCKING THAT BECAUSE THEY
WANT TO STOP BACK-ROOM DEALS. THE SENATOR HAS NEGLECTED TO
EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A CONFERENCE. WHEN THERE IS
A CONFERENCE, IF THERE IS A DEAL, IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO
FIND GOOD FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF THE NATION BETWEEN A
REPUBLICAN HOUSE MAJORITY AND A DEMOCRATIC SENATE MAJORITY,
THEN THE CONFERENCE REPORT GETS SUBMITTED BACK TO THE BODIES,
WE HAVE DEBATE IN THIS CHAMBER WHERE EVERY SENATOR, JUST AS
THEY DID DURING THE BUDGET CAN STAND AND EXPLAIN WHETHER
THEY'RE FOR IT OR AGAINST IT AND EVERY SENATOR HAS THE ABILITY
TO VOTE YES OR NO TO THE CONFERENCE REPORT. IF THE SENATOR
WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CONFERENCE AND SEE IF IT WORKS AND IF HE
DOESN'T LIKE IT VOTE AGAINST THE BUDGET, OR THE BUDGET
COMPROMISE, HE'S ABLE TO DO IT. IF ANY SENATOR ALLOWS A
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO GO FORWARD AND WHEN IT COMES BACK
BELIEVES IT REPRESENTS SOME KIND OF A BACK-ROOM DEAL, AT THAT
POINT THEY CAN SAY THAT ON THE FLOOR. BUT TO RESTRICT A BUDGET
FROM EVEN GOING TO CONFERENCE SO THAT WE CAN FIND COMPROMISE
BEFORE YOU KNOW WHETHER COMPROMISE WILL BE FOUND, BEFORE YOU
KNOW WHAT THE COMPROMISE MIGHT BE, AND TO
IT A BACK-ROOM DEAL WHEN YOU'RE BLOCKING ANYBODY FROM EVEN
ENTERING THE ROOM AND TRYING TO FIND COMPROMISE, I THINK IS AN
UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROCEDURES OF THIS BODY. I'VE
STATED BEFORE ON THE FLOOR AS I'VE MADE THE MOTION, THIS IS THE
13th MOTION WE HAVE MADE SINCE MARCH 23 TO BEGIN A BUDGET
CONFERENCE SO WE CAN FIND COMPROMISE. WHEN OUR FRAMERS
ESTABLISHED A BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE, THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE
DOING, BUT THEY GAVE US A CHALLENGE.
AND THE CHALLENGE WAS THIS: IN A BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE THAT
REQUIRES PASSAGE IN BOTH HOUSES, IF THE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISM
IS TO BE ALIVE, THEN COMPROMISE IS THE BLOOD OF THE ORGANISM.
BECAUSE PASSAGE IN ONE HOUSE IS NOT ENOUGH. THERE HAS TO BE
PASSAGE IN BOTH HOUSES FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF ITEMS,
INCLUDING A BUDGET. BLOCKING A PROCESS OF COMPROMISE FROM
BEGINNING IS TAKING THE BLOOD OUT OF THE LIVING ORGANISM OF
THIS CONGRESS AND OF THIS GOVERNMENT. AND EFFORTS TO BLOCK
COMPROMISE HARM THIS INSTITUTION, THEY'RE HARMING THE
INSTITUTION EVERY DAY IN THE MINDS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, BE
THEY DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT, WHEREVER THEY LIVE.
I'VE MADE THE MOTION, THE MOTION HAS BEEN OBJECTED TO, I CAN
ASSURE FOLKS THIS MOTION WILL CONTINUE TO BE MADE BECAUSE WE'VE
PASSED A BUDGET IN THIS BODY UNDER REGULAR ORDER, WE NEED TO
GET INTO A COMPROMISE, INTO A CONFERENCE WITH THE HOUSE, SO
THAT WE CAN DO WHAT'S EXPECTED OF US. LISTEN, DIALOGUE,
EXERCISE EFFORTS TO FIND COMPROMISE. WITHOUT COMPROMISE, THERE
IS NO CONGRESS. I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. LEE: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM UTAH.
MR. LEE: MADAM PRESIDENT, TO RESPOND TO MY DISTINGUISHED
COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND FROM VIRGINIA, IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER YES, WE ARE A BICAMERAL CONGRESS.
YES, IN ORDER TO PASS LEGISLATION YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING
THAT PASSES THE HOUSE AND PASSES THE SENATE AND IS SIGNED INTO
LAW BY THE PRESIDENT. BUT THE FACT IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. YES, IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT ONE
WAY THAT WE RECONCILE COMPETING VERSIONS OF LEGISLATION PASSED
IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE RESPECTIVELY IS THROUGH A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE. IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY, IT IS ONE WAY. IT'S ALSO
TRUE THAT UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5, CLAWS 2 -- CLAUSE 2 OF
THE CONSTITUTION, EACH BODY OF CONGRESS HAS ITS ABILITY TO
WRITE ITS OWN RULES FOR OPERATION. THE WAY THE RULES FOR ARE
WRITTEN IN OUR CURRENT POSTURE IN ORDER TO GET TO A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE, IT REQUIRES UNANIMOUS CONSENT. ALL OF US HAVE TO
AGREE IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE THAT PARTICULAR ROUTE. BUT WE
DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT ROUTE. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS UNDER THE
RULES OF THE SENATE WOULD ALLOW US TO RECONCILE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE HOUSE-PASSED BUDGET AND SENATE-PASSED BUDGET
WITHOUT GOING TO CONFERENCE. WE COULD, FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE UP THE
HOUSE-PASSED BUDGET RIGHT NOW. WE COULD DEBATE THAT AND ADDRESS
THAT. THAT'S A WAY OF ADDRESSING THAT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE US
TO GOING TO CONFERENCE. BUT GOING TO CONFERENCE RIGHT NOW UNDER
THE RULES OF THE SENATE AS THEY APPLY TO THIS SET OF FACTS DOES
REQUIRE UNANIMOUS CON SCENE. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF US WHO ARE
NOT WILLING TO GRANT THAT CONSENT IF, IN FACT, THE INTENT IS,
THE POSSIBILITY REMAINS THAT THEY USE THAT AS A BACKROOM EFFORT
TO RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT, A BACKROOM EFFORT THAT WOULD NOT
REQUIRE UTILIZATION OF THE SENATE'S TRADITIONAL RULES,
INCLUDING THE 60-VOTE THRESHOLD THAT OFTEN APPLIES. SO YOU'RE
ASKING US TO AGREE WITH SOMETHING WITH WHICH WE FUNDAMENTALLY
DISAGREE. NOW, MY FRIEND FROM VIRGINIA HAS ALSO MADE THE
ARGUMENT THAT IT IS SOMEHOW UNREASONABLE OF US TO MAKE THIS
OBJECTION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT NONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS
WERE BROUGHT UP IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUDGET. I ACTUAL THINK
THE ARGUMENT -- I ACTUALLY THINK THE ARGUMENT GOES EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE WAY. BECAUSE THE DEBT LIMIT WAS NOT PART OF THE
DELIBERATIONS IN THIS BODY ON THE BUDGET AND BECAUSE THE DEBT
LIMIT WAS NOT PART OF THE DELIBERATIONS OR THE FINAL TEXT IN
THE OTHER BODY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUDGET, THERE'S NO NEED
FOR THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE DEBT LIMIT. THERE
CERTAINLY IS NO NEED TO CIRCUMVENT THE OTHERWISE APPLICABLE
RULES OF THE SENATE THAT WOULD GOVERN THIS IN THIS POSTURE, IN
THIS CONTEXT. NOW, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT
TO ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY WITH MY COLLEAGUE, THE JUNIOR SENATOR
FROM TEXAS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. LEE: AND I'D ASK MY COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS, WHO HAS ON
OCCASION EXPRESSED SIMILAR CONCERNS TO THOSE THAT I HAVE JUST
EXPRESSED WITH THIS KIND OF POSTURE, SO I WOULD ASK MY FRIEND
FROM TEXAS, IS IT, IN FACT, YOUR INTENT, IS IT YOUR OBJECTIVE
TO BE OBSTRUCTIONIST, ARE YOU TRYING TO OBSTRUCT HERE OR ARE
YOU, IN FACT -- ARE YOU BEING UNREASONABLE IN RAISING THESE
OBJECTIONS?
MR. CRUZ: I THANK MY GOOD FRIEND FROM UTAH AND -- AND I WOULD
NOTE THAT -- THAT EACH OF US -- A NUMBER OF SENATORS HAVE
RAISED THIS OBJECTION, HAVE FOCUSED ON ONE THING AND ONE THING
ONLY, WHICH IS WHETHER THE SENATE CAN RAISE THE DEBT CEILING
WITH JUST 50 VOTES OR INSTEAD WHETHER THE SENATE CAN DO SO WITH
60 VOTES. THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE. WE ARE PERFECTLY PREPARED TO
GO TO CONFERENCE ON THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW, TODAY. THAT IS A RED
HERRING. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS PROCEDURAL FIGHT IS ABOUT. EVERY
TIME THAT THIS MOTION HAS BEEN ASKED FOR BY THE MAJORITY, THE
MINORITY HAS RISEN UP TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY.
BECAUSE ORDINARILY TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING, IT WOULD TAKE 60
VOTES. AND IF IT TAKES 60 VOTES, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE 54
DEMOCRATS ARE NOT ABLE TO DO SO ON A STRAIGHT PARTY-LINE VOTE,
FREEZING OUT THE REPUBLICANS. RIGHT NOW THE DEMOCRATS HAVE
STATED THEY BELIEVE THE DEBT CEILING SHOULD BE RAISED WITH NO
PRECONDITIONS, NO NEGOTIATIONS, NO STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO OUR
OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING THAT IS BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY. AND
WHAT THE MINORITY SENATORS HAVE SAID IS THAT AT A MINIMUM, IF
WE ARE GOING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING, IT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO
A 60-VOTE THRESHOLD SO THAT WE HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT FIXING
THE DEEP FISCAL AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES IN THIS COUNTRY. AND IT
IS, INDEED, THE MAJORITY WHO -- I WILL GIVE CREDIT FOR CANDOR
-- DOES NOT WISH TO SAY, NO, WE -- WE WILL TAKE THE DEBT
CEILING OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE IT IS, I BELIEVE, THE DEMOCRATS'
INTENTION, IF THIS BUDGET PROCESS GOES TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE,
TO USE RECONCILIATION AS A BACKDOOR PROCEDURAL TRICK TO RAISE
THE DEBT CEILING ON 50 VOTES. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY.
BUT I THINK MUCH OF THIS DEBATE IS CLOUDED IN SMOKE AND
MIRRORS. MUCH OF THIS DEBATE IS CLOUDED IN OBFUSCATION. THIS IS
A SIMPLE QUESTION -- SHOULD THE DEBT CEILING BE ABLE TO BE
RAISED WITH ONLY 50 VOTES OR SHOULD IT REQUIRE 60 VOTES, WHICH
WILL NECESSITATE SOME COMPROMISE, SOME DISCUSSION?
AND ON THAT QUESTION, I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE WITH MY FRIEND FROM UTAH, ARE WITH THE MEMBERS OF
THE MINORITY WHO BELIEVE THAT IF THE DEBT OF THIS COUNTRY'S
GOING TO GO HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER, WE NEED LEADERSHIP IN
THIS BODY TO FIX THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN SIMPLY PUTTING MORE
AND MORE DEBT ON OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS.
MR. LEE: AND IF I MIGHT ASK, MADAM PRESIDENT, OF MY -- MY
FRIEND FROM TEXAS, WHY WOULDN'T ONE WANT THE USUAL RULES OF THE SENATE TO APPLY?
THAT IS, WHY WOULD ONE WANT TO BLOCK OR PREVENT THE 60-VOTE
THRESHOLD FROM APPLYING WITH A DEBT CEILING INCREASE, JUST AS
THE 60-VOTE THRESHOLD APPLIES TO SO MUCH OF THE MOST IMPORTANT,
THE MOST CONTENTIOUS AND THE MOST CLOSELY WATCHED LEGISLATION
THAT MOVES THROUGH THIS BODY?
MR. CRUZ: WELL, THE 60-VOTE THRESHOLD, AS MY FRIEND FROM UTAH
KNOWS WELL, WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THIS INSTITUTION THAT HAS
BEEN CALLED THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY, AND TO
ENSURE THAT THE MINORITY HAS A ROLE IN THE DISCUSSIONS. AND ON
THIS ISSUE, I THINK THAT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. THERE ARE
FEW, IF ANY, ISSUES WE WILL ADDRESS THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT
THAN THE QUESTION OF THE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT THAT IS THREATENING
THE FUTURE OF OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS. THE NATURAL REASON WHY
THE MAJORITY WOULD WANT TO GET AROUND THE 60-VOTE THRESHOLD IS
WITHOUT A 60-VOTE THRESHOLD, THE MAJORITY DOESN'T NEED TO
LISTEN TO THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN
VERY, VERY EXPLICIT. THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE WANTS THE DEBT
CEILING RAISED WITH NO NEGOTIATIONS, NO DISCUSSIONS, NO
CONDITIONS, NO NOTHING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. AND IN THE LAST 4
1/2 YEARS, OUR NATIONAL DEBT HAS GONE FROM $10 TRILLION TO
NEARLY $17 TRILLION. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS FUNDAMENTALLY
IRRESPONSIBLE, AND THE MAJORITY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP
DOING IT WITHOUT MAKING ANY PRUDENT DECISIONS TO STOP THE
OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING, STOP THE OUT-OF-CONTROL DEBT, FIX THE
PROBLEM. AND THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO IT IS TO USE A PROCEDURAL
TRICYCLE SHUT DOWN THE MINORITY?
-- PROCEDURAL TRICK TO SHUT DOWN THE MINORITY. I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR OBLIGATIONS TO THE CONSTITUENTS WHO
ELECTED US AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S CONSTITUENT -- IT'S
CONSISTENT WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL 100 SENATORS TO TAKE
SERIOUSLY THE OBLIGATION OF PROTECTING THE FISCAL AND ECONOMIC
STRENGTH OF THIS NATION FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS.
MR. LEE: THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS IS A SEASONED CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLAR, A GRADUATE OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AND OF HARVARD LAW
SCHOOL. HE WENT ON TO CLERK FOR JUDGE MICHAEL LUDICK ON THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, NOW
GENERAL COUNSEL TO BOEING. HE LATER CLERKED FOR THE LATE CHIEF
JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT. HAVING ARGUED A TOTAL OF NINE CASES BEFORE THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT, THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS IS A SEASONED
LITIGATOR IN ADDITION TO BEING A SCHOLAR OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND SO I WOULD -- I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S OCCURRED TO ME
SOMETIMES AS A -- AS A LAWYER MYSELF, THAT THERE ARE SOMETIMES
SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN BEING A SENATOR AND BEING A LAWYER.
THEY'RE -- THEY'RE NOT PERFECT BUT WE ARE RETAINED FOR A
LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME, IN SIX-YEAR INCREMENTS GENERALLY, TO
REPRESENT A GROUP OF PEOPLE. AND IT'S OUR JOB TO DO WHAT WE CAN
TO ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF THOSE PEOPLE. IN MY CASE, THERE ARE 3
MILLION PEOPLE FROM MY STATE, THE STATE OF UTAH, THEY CAN'T ALL
FIT INSIDE THIS CHAMBER SO I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO'S ELECTED
TO REPRESENT THEM IN THEIR ABSENCE. SO I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUE
FROM TEXAS, NUMBER ONE, HOW DO THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS FEEL ABOUT
THE IDEA OF RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT YET AGAIN?
IN PARTICULAR, HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT THE IDEA OF RAISING THE
DEBT LIMIT YET AGAIN WITHOUT ANY KIND OF PERMANENT STRUCTURAL
SPENDING REFORM PUT IN PLACE AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THAT
ACTION?
AND FINALLY, HOW WOULD THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS FEEL IF, AS THEIR
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, REPRESENTING THOSE PEOPLE HERE IN -- IN
THIS BODY, YOU SURRENDERED ONE OF YOUR BIGGEST BARGAINING
CHIPS, YOU ABANDONED ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE DON'T RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT TOO CASUALLY, TOO
CAVALIERLY WITHOUT PUTTING IN PLACE THE ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS?
MR. CRUZ: I THANK THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM UTAH FOR HIS OVERLY
GENEROUS COMMENTS AND -- AND VERY KIND CHARACTERIZATIONS. AND,
INDEED, I THINK THE ANALOGY HE DREW IS REALLY QUITE APT. EVERY
LAWYER IN REPRESENTING -- QUITE APT IN THAT EVERY LAWYER IN
REPRESENTING A CLIENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ZEALOUSLY REPRESENT
THAT CLIENT. THAT OWES A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THAT CLIENT. AND I
WOULD SUGGEST THAT ALL 100 OF US OWE THAT SAME FIDUCIARY DUTY
TO THE MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR STATES WHO ENTRUSTED US WITH THE
OBLIGATION OF COMING HERE AND FIGHTING FOR THEM BECAUSE THE 3
MILLION CITIZENS OF UTAH COULD NOT ALL BE ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE FIGHTING, THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM UTAH STEPS IN THEIR
SHOES TO FIGHT ON THEIR BEHALF. AND I -- AND I FEEL CONFIDENT
THAT -- THAT THE CITIZENS OF UTAH, LIKE THE CITIZENS FROM
TEXAS, WOULD BE HORRIFIED AT THE NOTION THAT THIS BODY WOULD
CONTINUE RAISING THE DEBT CEILING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO FIX THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. YOU KNOW,
THIS SENATE FLOOR HAS A LONG AND STORIED HISTORY. THERE HAVE
BEEN GREAT MEN AND WOMEN, GREAT LEADERS OF THIS COUNTRY WHO
HAVE WALKED ON THIS FLOOR, AND YET EACH GENERATION GOING BACK
FOR CENTURIES HAS MANAGED TO AVOID SADDLING THE NEXT GENERATION
WITH CRUSHING DEBTS. YOU KNOW, I AM REMINDED OF THE SENATOR
FROM UTAH'S VERY DISTINGUISHED LATE FATHER, REX LEE, WHO WAS
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO WAS WIDELY
CONSIDERED ONE OF THE FINEST U.S. SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES TO
HAVE EVER LIVED. HE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TOOK THE OBLIGATION
OF ZEALOUSLY REPRESENTING HIS CLIENT DEEPLY AND NEAR AND DEAR
TO HIS HEART. YOUR FATHER'S GENERATION, MY FATHER'S GENERATION
DID NOT LEAVE US WITH CRUSHING DEBTS, DID NOT LEAVE US WITH
DEBTS FROM WHICH WE COULD NEVER ESCAPE. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN
THE LAST 4 1/2 YEARS IS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT. IT'S
QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST 2
1/2 CENTURIES IN THIS COUNTRY. NO OTHER GENERATION HAS SAID TO
THEIR KIDS, TO THEIR GRANDKIDS AND TO THEIR GRANDKIDS'
GRANDKIDS, WE ARE GOING TO RACK UP SO MUCH DEBT THAT YOU'RE
NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO ESCAPE. MY WIFE AND I ARE BLESSED,
WE'VE GOT TWO LITTLE GIRLS AT HOME, 5 AND 2. THE IDEA THAT
CAROLINE AND CATHERINE ARE GOING TO SPEND THEIR ADULT DAYS
WORKING TO PAY THE TAXES, TO PAY OFF THE DEBT THAT WE ARE
SPENDING RECKLESSLY RIGHT NOW I THINK IS PROFOUNDLY IMMORAL, IT
IS PROFOUNDLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MANY
THOUSANDS OF TEXANS, MEN AND WOMEN ACROSS THE STATE, HAVE SAID
THE EXACT SAME THING. STOP BANKRUPTING THE COUNTRY. STOP
BANKRUPTING OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS. THAT'S THE FIDUCIARY DUTY
WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR, TO DEFEND, IS TO STAND FOR THE 300
MILLION AMERICANS FOR WHOM THIS BODY, CONGRESS, HAS BEEN
RACKING UP A MASSIVE CREDIT CARD DEBT THAT THREATENS TO IMPERIL
THE SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE FUTURE GENERATIONS IN
AMERICA.
MR. LEE: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE STOP ALTOGETHER THE
PRACTICE OF ISSUING U.S. TREASURIES TO FINANCE THE OPERATIONS
OF GOVERNMENT? ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE GO WITHOUT A BUDGET OR THAT WE
SIMPLY HALT THE ISSUANCE OF
ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOMETHING MORE LONG TERM?
MR. CRUZ: OF COURSE WE SHOULDN'T HALT THE ISSUANCE OF
TREASURIES, AND OF COURSE WE SHOULDN'T FORESWEAR ANY AND ALL
DEBT. THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN
INCUR DEBT. AND THERE HAS BEEN A LONG HISTORY OF INCURRING
DEBT, PARTICULARLY TO MEET EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. IN
WARTIME, WE HAVE HAD A HISTORY OF INCURRING DEBT AND THEN OF
PAYING THAT DOWN. WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT THERE
IS A QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST FOUR
AND A HALF YEARS. WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD SOME DEGREE OF DEBT IN
THIS COUNTRY, BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS THAT AT TIMES A
MILLION AND A BILLION AND A TRILLION CAN SEEM LIKE THE SAME
NUMBER. THEY ALL END IN ILLIONS, THEY ALL SOUND BIG, AND YET
THE DIFFERENCE OF $10 TRILLION WHERE THE NATIONAL DEBT WAS FIVE
YEARS AGO AND JUST SHY OF $17 TRILLION WHERE WE ARE NOW IS
FUNDAMENTAL, IT IS STRUCTURAL. OUR NATIONAL DEBT EXCEEDS THE
SIZE OF OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY. YOU KNOW, WE LOOK OVER AT EUROPE,
WE LOOK AT GREECE, WE LOOK AT THE NATIONS OF EUROPE THAT ARE
COLLAPSING BECAUSE THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS WERE NOT ABLE TO BE
RESPONSIBLE, THEY SPENT MONEY THEY DIDN'T HAVE, THEY BUILT UP
SO MUCH DEBT THEY COULDN'T REPAY, AND THERE COMES A POINT WHERE
EVERY DECISION TO ADDRESS THE DEBT IS AN UGLY ONE. WHERE THE
DEBT HOLE IS SO DEEP AS SOME OF THE NATIONS IN EUROPE ARE
DISCOVERING THAT THE ANSWERS ARE EITHER ADDRESS PARTICULAR CUTS
TO SPENDING OR MASSIVE TAX INCREASES OR MASSIVELY INFLATING THE
CURRENCY, AND ANY ONE OF THOSE OUTCOMES IS UGLY, WHICH IS ONE
OF THE REASONS WE ARE SEEN -- WE HAVE SEEN RIOTING IN THE
STREETS OF EUROPE. NOW, THANKFULLY THE UNITED STATES IS NOT YET
IN AS DEEP A HOLE AS SOME OF THE NATIONS OF EUROPE, AND THAT'S
WHY WE NEED LEADERSHIP NOW, TO STOP THE OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING
BY ADDRESSING THE DEEP STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS. IF YOU KEEP
SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE, IF ANY OF US RAN OUR FAMILIES,
OUR HOUSEHOLDS, OUR BUSINESSES THE WAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS RUN, WE WOULD BE BANKRUPT. WE WOULD BE SLEEPING UNDER A
BRIDGE. WHAT IT TAKES, I BELIEVE, IS RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP AND
I HOPE BIPARTISAN RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP, REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS COMING TOGETHER TO SAY LET'S LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A TERRIBLY CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE. THAT IS
A PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN COMMON SENSE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR
CENTURIES, AND IT'S ONE SADLY WE HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM IN THE
LAST FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
MR. LEE: HERE WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A PROCEDURAL STRATEGY.
WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT AN OUTCOME HERE. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE FULL UTILIZATION OF THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF EACH AND
EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY. WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE OUR
CONSENT, EFFECTIVELY TO VOTE FOR A PROCEDURE THAT PEOPLE ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE CAPITOL HAVE NOW ADMITTED COULD AND MAY WELL
BE UTILIZED AS A MECHANISM FOR RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT IN A WAY
THAT CIRCUMVENTS THE 60-VOTE THRESHOLD OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S TROUBLING. IF WE ANALOGIZE
THAT YET AGAIN TO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVE TO
REPRESENT SOMEONE ELSE, THAT CAN BE TROUBLING. SO I -- I ASK
THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS, LET'S SUPPOSE WHEN YOU WERE
REPRESENTING CLIENTS IN COURT, LET'S SAY IN THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT, WHEN YOU WERE IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER,
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AS THE PETITIONER, MEANING THE
PERSON FILING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, YOU ARE
SEEKING REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
REVIEW IS GRANTED. AFTER REVIEW IS GRANTED, A BRIEFING SCHEDULE
KICKS IN AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE FIRST BRIEF.
THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE AS A PETITIONER. THE OTHER SIDE HAS
THEN ABOUT A MONTH TO FILE ITS BRIEF. AND THEN YOU GET
SOMETHING THAT THE OTHER SIDE DOESN'T GET TO FOLLOW. YOU GET A
REPLY BRIEF. PROCEDURALLY UNDER THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT'S YOUR RIGHT, THAT'S YOUR CLIENT'S
RIGHT. ONCE YOU HAVE GOT A CASE UP IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME
COURT AND YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE, WHAT
WOULD YOU SAY TO A CLIENT IF YOU CAME TO THEM AND SAID, YOU
KNOW, MY OPPOSING COUNSEL HAS JUST ASKED ME TO WAIVE MY RIGHT
TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S MY RIGHT TO DO THAT,
THE CLIENT HAS ASKED ME TO DO IT. WHAT WOULD THE CLIENT THINK
IF YOU ACTUALLY SAID I'M NOT GOING TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF EVEN
THOUGH PROCEDURALLY I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT?
MR. CRUZ: MY FRIEND FROM UTAH ASKS A TERRIFIC QUESTION, AND
IT'S A QUESTION -- YOU KNOW, PROCEDURAL RULES, WHETHER IN A
ROOM OR IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, AND ULTIMATELY THE 60-VOTE THRESHOLD IS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS NOT OF THE SENATORS.
WE ARE NOT HERE ON OUR OWN STEAD. WE ARE INSTEAD HERE
REPRESENTING THE CONSTITUENTS WHO SENT US HERE. WHAT THE
MAJORITY IS ASKING US TO DO BY ASKING FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
ALLOW THIS TO GO TO CONFERENCE AND TO SET IT UP FOR THEM TO
RAISE THE DEBT CEILING WITH 50 VOTES IS THE MAJORITY IS ASKING
FOR THE 46 REPUBLICANS ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE TO GIVE AWAY
OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK, TO SAY WE WILL CEDE TO THE MAJORITY THE
ABILITY TO DO WHATEVER IT WISHES ON THE DEBT CEILING AND GIVING
AWAY OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK, WHAT WE'RE REALLY GIVING AWAY IS NOT
ANYTHING THAT BELONGS TO US. IT IS THE RIGHT OF 26 MILLION
TEXANS TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD. AND FOR US TO AGREE WITH THE
MAJORITY, YES, WE WILL HAND YOU THE ABILITY TO MAKE THIS
DECISION ON THE DEBT CEILING WITHOUT EVER AGAIN CONSULTING THIS
SIDE OF THE AISLE. WOULD BE VERY MUCH LIKE THE SITUATION YOU
ASKED ABOUT. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE SENATOR FROM UTAH WOULD
ANSWER A CONSTITUENT IN UTAH WHO SAID SENATOR LEE, WHY DID YOU
GIVE AWAY MY VOICE?
WHY DID YOU SIMPLY HAND TO THE DEMOCRATS THE ABILITY TO DECIDE
HOW MUCH DEBT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE TO RAISE IT AND WHY
DID YOU ESSENTIALLY GIVE AWAY MY SEAT AT THE TABLE, BECAUSE
IT'S NOT YOUR SEAT, IT'S NOT MY SEAT. IT IS THE SEAT OF THE
MILLIONS OF CONSTITUENTS IN UTAH AND TEXAS AND EACH OF OUR HOME
STATES WHO SENT US HERE. AND THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD WILLINGLY
GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO SPEAK IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
OBLIGATION WE OWE THE MEN AND WOMEN OF UTAH AND THE MEN AND
WOMEN OF TEXAS.
MR. LEE: I WOULD SUSPECT THAT IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, A LAWYER
GIVING UP THAT PROCEDURAL RIGHT WOULD BE COMMITTING
MALPRACTICE. NOW, PERHAPS A LAWYER IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE COULD
SAY TO THE CLIENT, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO DO THIS BECAUSE
OPPOSING COUNSEL HAS ASKED IT OF ME AND I WANT TO GET ALONG
WITH HER, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I MAXIMIZE OUR CHANCES OF
SETTLING THIS LITIGATION, PERHAPS BEFORE THE LITIGATION HAS
BEEN COMPLETELY RESOLVED. BUT IF THAT WERE THE ARGUMENT THAT
OPPOSING COUNSEL WAS MAKING TO ME, I SUSPECT I WOULD TELL THE
CLIENT IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO TRY TO SETTLE
THE LITIGATION RATHER THAN WAIT UNTIL THE COURT RESOLVES IT,
THEN BY DOING THAT, BY GIVING UP THAT PROCEDURAL RIGHT TO FILE
THE REPLY BRIEF, I WOULD BE FORFEITING A LOT OF BARGAINING
POWER THAT I WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE. AND SO, TOO, HERE. WE WOULD
BE FORFEITING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF BARGAINING POWER RELATIVE
TO THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, RELATIVE TO THE DEBT LIMIT
DISCUSSION, A DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE UNDER FULL
SUNLIGHT AND NOT UNDER COVER OF DARKNESS. IT NEEDS TO TAKE
PLACE IN THE TWO CHAMBERS AND NOT IN SOME BACK ROOM DEAL.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHY THESE PROCEDURAL
RIGHTS ARE SO IMPORTANT. YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THE RULES OF THE
SENATE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DO. YOU CAN WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES
OF THE SENATE AND THERE ARE SOME WHO DO, SOME EVEN IN THIS
BODY, BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE RULES ARE WHAT THEY ARE. WE HAVE
THE POWER TO MAKE THOSE RULES UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5 OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND WE HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THOSE RULES UNDER
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THOSE RULES BEING
WHAT THEY ARE, THOSE RULES BEING IN PLACE AS THEY ARE TODAY,
THOSE RULES HAVING THE APPLICATION THAT THEY DO AS OF THIS VERY
MOMENT, YOU CAN'T ASK SOMEONE LIKE ME OR MY FRIEND FROM TEXAS
TO GIVE OUR CONSENT TO SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS FUNDAMENTALLY
WRONG AND THAT WE THINK WILL SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH THE
BARGAINING POWER THAT WE HAVE IN UNDERTAKING THAT POLICY
APPROACH THAT WE THINK IS MOST NECESSARY TODAY. NOW, ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN ASKED BY SOME OF OUR FRIENDS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AND A FEW OF OUR FRIENDS WHO ARE EVEN
ON OUR SAME SIDE OF THE AISLE AS YOU AND I IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE
A REPUBLICAN, I'M A REPUBLICAN. WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS JUST TRUST
THAT THE REPUBLICANS WHO CONTROL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WILL ADEQUATELY SECURE YOUR INTEREST?
WHY DON'T YOU THEREFORE FEEL COMFORTABLE EFFECTIVELY FORFEITING
YOUR RIGHT TO A 60-VOTE THRESHOLD ON THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE?
MR. CRUZ: WELL, I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK,
BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POINTS THAT ARE RELEVANT. NUMBER ONE,
THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE HISTORY OF THE DEBT CEILING BEING
RAISED THROUGH RECONCILIATION, AND INDEED IT HAS BEEN DONE IN
1986, IN 1990, IN 1993 AND IN 1997. SO THE DANGER THAT WE ARE
ACTING TO PREVENT IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL DANGER. IT IS A DANGER
THAT HAS PROVEN ACCURATE. THOSE WHO SAY WE'LL SIMPLY TRUST THE
HOUSE, THE HOUSE, THEY WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THEIR
CONSTITUENTS, AND EACH OF THE 435 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE THEIR BEST JUDGMENT TO REPRESENT THEIR
CONSTITUENTS. WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE TO DO -- AND I WOULD NOTE A
NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF HOUSE LEADERSHIP HAVE PUBLICLY ON THE
RECORD SUGGESTED THAT THEY MIGHT WELL BE AMENABLE TO RAISING
THE DEBT CEILING THROUGH RECONCILIATION, SO GIVEN THEIR PUBLIC
STATEMENTS, THE SCENARIO WE ARE RAISING IS A POSSIBILITY THAT
THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP HAS SUGGESTED MAY WELL BE ON THE TABLE.
BUT MORE FUNDAMENTALLY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE HOUSE CHOOSES TO
DO, THE SENATOR FROM UTAH HAS AN OBLIGATION TO THREE MILLION
CITIZENS OF UTAH TO REPRESENT THEIR VIEWS, AND I DON'T BELIEVE
IT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM TO GIVE UP HIS VERY ELOQUENT
VOICE, FOR ME TO GIVE UP MY VOICE, FOR ANY OF US TO GIVE UP THE
VOICE OF THE CITIZENS WE'RE REPRESENTING. YOU KNOW, I'M
REMINDED OF MEETING AN INDIVIDUAL AT A GATHERING OF REPUBLICAN
WOMEN BACK IN TEXAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO, AND THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS
A VETERAN WHO HAD FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR II. HE WAS THERE AND WAS
INTRODUCED TO EVERYONE AND THEN RECEIVED A STANDING OVATION. A
STORY WAS TOLD ABOUT HOW HE HAD BEEN INJURED IN WORLD WAR II,
GRIEVOUSLY INJURED, AND HE WAS IN A HOSPITAL, AND TWO DOCTORS
WERE DEBATING ABOUT WHERE TO AMPUTATE HIS LEG, WHETHER TO
AMPUTATE THE LEG ABOVE THE KNEE OR BELOW THE KNEE. THIS SOLDIER
WAS UNCONSCIOUS, AND HE AWAKENED IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS
CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO DOCTORS ABOUT WHERE TO AMPUTATE HIS
LEG. AND THIS SOLDIER BEGAN TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT DEBATE, AND
UNSURPRISINGLY, HE HAD A VERY STRONG VIEW THAT HE WOULD VERY
MUCH PREFER THEY NOT AMPUTATE THE LEG, AND HE EXPRESSED THAT
VIEW VOCIFEROUSLY TO THE DOCTORS WHO WERE HAVING THAT DEBATE.
AND AS HE EXPRESSED HIS VIEW, HE ENDED UP PREVAILING IN THAT
ARGUMENT AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO AMPUTATE HIS LEG BELOW OR ABOVE
THE KNEE, AND TO THIS DAY, HE WALKS WITH A LIMP, HE DOESN'T
WALK AS WELL AS HE MIGHT IF HE HAD NOT BEEN INJURED, BUT HE WAS
ABLE TO SAVE THAT LEG BECAUSE HE HAD A VOICE IN THAT DEBATE,
BECAUSE HE SPOKE UP AND HIS INTERESTS CONCERNING HIS LEG WERE
ACUTELY DIFFERENT FROM THE TWO DOCTORS WHO WERE DEBATING IT
WITHOUT HIS VOICE. NOW, I THINK HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THAT DEBATE BECAUSE IT AFFECTED HIM, IT AFFECTED
HIS FUTURE, IT AFFECTED HIS LIFE, AND JUST SO I THINK THE THREE
MILLION CITIZENS OF UTAH HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS DEBATE AND NOT SIMPLY TO BE TOLD TRUST THE OTHER BODY OF
CONGRESS, THEY HAVE AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION, BUT YOU, MY
FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM UTAH, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO YOUR
CONSTITUENTS TO MAKE SURE THEIR VOICE IS PART OF THIS DEBATE.
MR. LEE: INDEED, WE EACH HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO UTILIZE OUR OWN
VOICE AND TO MAKE OUR OWN JUDGMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE BEST
COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE IN ANY DEBATE, IN ANY DISCUSSION. THE
PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE SIGNIFICANT. THERE IS NOT ONE OF
US IN THIS BODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO MINIMIZE THEM. THERE IS NOT
ONE OF US IN THIS BODY THAT ISN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THESE
PROBLEMS. EACH OF US MIGHT TAKE, MIGHT ADVOCATE, MIGHT FIRMLY
BELIEVE IN A DIFFERENT COURSE OF ACTION, BUT IT'S PRECISELY
BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY OF OPINION IN THIS NATION THAT THIS
NATION IS GREAT. IT'S PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE VIEWPOINT OF
DIVERSITY THAT WE HAVE IN THIS BODY THAT THIS BODY HAS BEEN
CALLED THE WORLD'S GREATEST LEGISLATIVE BODY, DELIBERATIVE
LEGISLATIVE BODY. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT REMAINS. IN
ORDER FOR THAT TO BE THE CASE, IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE WHO HAVE A GOOD-FAITH GENUINE DISAGREEMENT WITH
AN ISSUE AS TO WHICH A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE,
THAT THEY COME FORWARD AND THEY OBJECT. ON THAT BASIS, I OBJECT
AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS LONG AS IT REMAINS NECESSARY TO
ENSURE THAT THE DEBATE THAT WE HAVE SURROUNDING THE DEBT LIMIT
OCCURS UNDER THE REGULAR ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.