Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. My third brief question is, For those in this body who have campaigned at home, who have told their constituents they are opposed to ObamaCare, on January 1 the exchanges go up and running, the subsidies begin. And the history of the modern entitlement state is that anytime a subsidy has been put in place, it has proven to be politically virtually impossible to undo. Indeed, no major entitlement that has been implemented in modern times has ever been undone. For those who say they oppose ObamaCare, what is the alternative to defunding ObamaCare with a continuing resolution? Let me ask it a separate way. If we do not defund it, am I correct that come January 1, Republicans will essentially be surrendering that in all likelihood ObamaCare will be a permanent feature of the economy, hurting the economy, hurting jobs, hurting low-income workers, hurting our health care system? And if that is correct, has any reasonable alternative been proffered by anyone on this side of the Senate to stop that harm other than what you and Senator Rubio and I and others are trying to do?

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield for an additional question at that point?

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.

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?

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, the amendment I would have called up had not the majority party objected is an amendment that would have corrected one of the most egregious aspects of the Gang of 8 bill; namely, it is a penalty that is imposed on U.S. employers for hiring U.S. citizens and for hiring legal permanent residents. It is a striking result of the Gang of 8 bill as it intersects with the ObamaCare legislation. Let me explain how it operates. Right now, for any company with 50 or more employees, if that company does not provide a sufficiently high- dollar health insurance policy for low-income workers, that company faces a fine of $3,000 per worker. Moreover, that fine is not deductible in the company's taxes, which means that as an effective matter to the company, the penalty is in the order of $5,000 per employee when you factor in the tax consequences. That is the present status quo under ObamaCare. That is the penalty that is visited upon U.S. employers for hiring U.S. citizens and for hiring legal immigrants. What does the Gang of 8 bill do to change that? Well, the Gang of 8 bill takes some 11 million people who are here illegally and it grants them what is called RPI status--registered provisional immigrant status. I have many concerns about legalization prior to securing the border, but this concern is altogether separate from that, and it is the simple reality that anyone granted RPI status--anyone granted legalization under the Gang of 8 bill--is exempted from ObamaCare, which means that the employers who would be hiring them do not face the ObamaCare tax of $5,000 per employee, whether U.S. citizen or legal immigrant. What does this mean in reality? Let's take an example, a simple hypothetical. Madam President, I would ask you to envision a small business: Joe's Burger Shack. Joe's Burger Shack is owned by a small business owner. It is a series of small fast food restaurants in any given State. It could be my home State of Texas or any State across the Union. Let's assume that Joe's Burger Shack has 100 employees and that at Joe's Burger Shack, with 100 employees, business is doing relatively well, people are eating more hamburgers, and Joe decides he wants to hire 5 more people. If Joe and Joe's Burger Shack decide they want to hire five more people, if Joe chooses to hire five U.S. citizens or if he chooses to hire five legal permanent residents--five legal immigrants--Joe faces a penalty of $25,000 for doing so--$5,000 apiece right off his bottom line to the IRS. In contrast, if Joe decides instead to hire five RPIs, who came here illegally among those 11 million who are here illegally but granted RPI legalization under the Gang of 8 bill, Joe pays a penalty of zero dollars. Let me ask a simple, commonsense question. In this instance, who is Joe, the small business owner, going to hire? This bill creates an enormous incentive to hire those here illegally, and at the same time it does it by creating a statutory penalty for hiring U.S. citizens and for hiring legal immigrants. That makes no sense. Let me give a second example. Suppose Joe is facing harder times. Because of ObamaCare penalties, Joe makes the decision that a great many fast food restaurants have made--to forcibly reduce workers' hours. ObamaCare kicks in when a worker works 30 hours a week, so a great many small businesses--and in particular fast food restaurants-- have been forced to forcibly reduce their employees' hours to 29 hours a week or less. Now, imagine that of Joe's 100 employees, 25 of them are RPIs--are formerly illegal immigrants who have received legalization under the Gang of 8--and 75 are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Well, if Joe wants to reduce the hours of 25 of his employees both below the 30-hour threshold because times are hard and he cannot afford the burden ObamaCare is putting on his business, if Joe forcibly reduces the hours of 25 U.S. citizen employees or 25 legal immigrant employees to below 30 hours a week, Joe saves potentially $125,000 a year in tax penalties, $5,000 apiece times 25 employees. In contrast, if Joe says instead, I want to reduce the hours forcibly of those who are here illegally who have received legalization through the Gang of 8, Joe saves zero dollars in tax penalties because he is not paying a tax penalty regardless of whether those here illegally are working 30 or 40 hours or more. The question I would pose to the Presiding Officer is, whose hours will Joe reduce? This statute puts an enormous incentive, an incentive from Congress, for Joe to forcibly reduce the hours of U.S. citizens and of legal immigrants. Let me give a third and even more stringent example. Imagine if Joe is facing great financial burden, as a lot of small businesses are, as a lot of small businesses are struggling. Imagine if Joe instead made the decision to fire all 100 workers, all 100 workers who happened to be U.S citizens or permanent legal residents and instead hire only those who are here illegally or have been legalized under the Gang of 8. The consequences, simply doing the math at $5,000 an employee, mean Joe could save $500,000 a year in tax penalties. Actually the way ObamaCare works, it is a complicated formula where there is an alternative avenue where Joe could well be paying $2,000 per employee minus 30, which would get down, when you factor in the tax savings, to about $200,000. But any way you measure it under ObamaCare's complicated tax penalty formula, Joe could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars by firing his U.S. employees--U.S. citizen employees or his legal resident employees and instead hiring those who are here illegally. That does not make any sense. That is not an incentive anyone rationally would set up. That is what this Gang of 8 bill does. You know, to share how real this incentive is, this penalty for hiring U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, I wish to read a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Allen Tharp, who is chairman and CEO of Old England, Lion and Rose Restaurant, Ltd. in San Antonio. He wrote a letter that reads as follows: My name is Allen Tharp. Since 1985, I have been the sole owner and CEO of Allen Tharp LLC, as well as the Lion and Rose restaurant chain, and a partner in the Golden Chick restaurants. Our corporate restaurants provide well over 1,000 jobs to fellow Texans, and our franchise restaurants provide many more. I've been following the current debate over immigration reform very closely and want you to be aware that this bill, coupled with the new ObamaCare legislation, makes it much more affordable for a business like mine to employ Registered Provisional Immigrants than American workers. I do not believe that was the intention of either legislation, but it is the irrefutable effect of both. ObamaCare, as documented in numerous news stories, already creates an incentive for businesses to cut hours in order to avoid triggering the 50 full-time employee threshold that requires businesses to pay a fine if they do not provide government-approved health insurance. Because of this law, I have been forced to cut back every single hourly employee in each of my companies to no more than 28 hours per week. Cutting schedules from 40 to 28 hours per week has caused some hardship on many employees. However, our choice is to either provide part-time work or no work at all because our business cannot afford to comply with the severe consequences that would be imposed on us under this law if we continue to provide full-time employment to all these employees. If the current immigration bill before the Senate, however, is made law, a business could hire Registered Provisional Immigrants instead of U.S. citizens and avoid triggering ObamaCare regulations and fines. Hiring RPIs over American workers, from a purely economic point of view, would be the best thing for my business. I personally do not believe this is the right thing to do. But surely some of my competitors would. ObamaCare and the immigration bill is forcing employers to make extremely difficult choices. I do not want to be in the position of choosing to grow my business or choosing to pay my fellow Americans. I want to do both. ObamaCare and the immigration bill will prevent me from doing so. This is a real CEO, facing the real incentives of running a business under ObamaCare and looking at what would happen if this Gang of 8 bill passed into law. What are the potential counterarguments to this concern? Well, in the way of Washington, we do not actually have to predict, because the proponents of this bill have followed a long tried and true path in Washington; namely, they have gone to an ostensibly neutral reporter at a mainstream publication and urged them to ``fact check'' the claim the Gang of 8 bill with ObamaCare would put a penalty on hiring U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. And to fact check, the reporter compliantly gave the answers to the responses that are given by the Gang of 8. But I would suggest that those responses are, on their face, singularly unpersuasive. The first response the Washington Post Fact Checker put up was a claim that Cruz is creating a mountain out of a mole hill because ``the impact on employers is almost too miniscule to be noticed.'' That is a quote from our friends at the Washington Post in their so-called ``fact check.'' The basis of this is they said, well, gosh, there are a lot of companies that do not have 50 employees. The number of companies with more than 50 employees is really small or, as they put it, ``almost too miniscule to be noticed.'' I am going to suggest the claim that companies with more than 50 employees comprise a share of the economy that is ``miniscule'' is facially absurd. Indeed, if you look at the data, 71 percent of all U.S. employees work in a business with more than 50 employees. So, according to the Washington Post, it is an objective fact that the employers for 71 percent of U.S. employees are ``almost too miniscule to be noticed.'' To put that in raw numbers, that is 80 million employees. I would suggest 80 million employees is, on any measure, not miniscule. The second basis of the so-called fact check, the second response from the bill's proponents was that, well, under current law it is illegal for a potential employer to ask about a person's immigration status. I would note this is a particularly facile response that almost surely came from a lawyer. As a lawyer myself, I will say it is precisely the sort of response that causes people to love lawyers as they do, oh, so much in today's society. Because, yes, it is true there is a provision in statute that says: You cannot ask about a person's immigration status and base employment decisions on that. But the statute also requires you to check their immigration status before you hire them. Moreover, there is no provision for employees volunteering this information. If this bill passes, if there is a massive incentive to hire RPIs over U.S. citizens, the simple reality is there will be massive economic incentives for employers to do so. Let me note this point is utterly irrelevant when it comes to reducing employee hours. Because even if you engage in the ``Alice in Wonderland'' world where employers do not know if an individual is an RPI or a U.S. citizen, once they are hired, as a matter of legal requirement, they do know that. If they are then subsequently making a decision on whose hours to reduce, the overwhelming economic incentive would be to reduce the hours of the U.S. citizen or the legal immigrant rather than those who are currently here illegally. I want to ask the Presiding Officer, this penalty on hiring U.S. citizens and on legal immigrants, who is this going to hurt the most? Well, it is not going to hurt companies that are doing nuclear science research. It is not going to hurt companies that are designing satellites. It is going to hurt the workers who are working in the sorts of jobs where they face competition from those who are here illegally. It is going to hurt workers, for example, in the fast-food industry. It is going to hurt workers who are working in landscaping, in construction. Who is it going to hurt the most? If you look right now, today, under the Obama economy, who is being hurt the most by the Obama economy? Those who are the most vulnerable among us. Hispanics today have a 9.1- percent unemployment rate. Hispanic U.S. citizens, Hispanic legal immigrants will be directly harmed by this outcome. African Americans have a 13.5-percent unemployment rate right now under the Obama economy. It has gone up under President Obama. African-American workers will be hurt by this statutory penalty on hiring U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. Teenagers face an unemployment rate of 24.5 percent. Teenagers, in particular, if you look at jobs, for example, in the fast-food industry, are so often the first or second job a young teenager gets as he or she begins to climb the economic ladder. If Congress passes a bill that puts a major economic penalty on hiring a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, he or she may never get that job. I wish to read a letter from another constituent who is president of Painless Performance, a high-end car parts manufacturer in Fort Worth, TX. The letter reads as follows: My name is Adrian Murray. I am an immigrant. My parents moved to America from Ireland 55 years ago to seek opportunity and a better life. At the time, new immigrants had to have a sponsor and proof of future employment. I still have the letters written to the INS on their behalf. My parents later became naturalized citizens and raised me to respect America, her customs and her laws. That was back in the day when being an American citizen was prized. To stand before a judge with hand raised, pledging allegiance and fidelity to America was the dream of millions around the world. We devalue American citizenship by making it a cheap tool for political gain. My parents taught me to respect America's exceptionalism and therefore honor the institutions of this nation. Because of their example, I have built a successful business with 52 employees. Many of those in my plant are legal immigrants from Vietnam. They, too, came here the right way and endured much hardship to earn their citizen status. What am I to tell them, that their sacrifice was meaningless, that they should have just snuck in, that their citizenship has no value, that the joke is on them? Well, I would never exercise the option of replacing them with cheaper ObamaCare-exempted workers. Would they not be justified in questioning the motives and validity of a government which would even consider giving an employer that option? What has this nation come to? It is getting harder and harder to recognize America. A nation which once proudly held fast to the virtues of liberty and freedom is now seriously contemplating a law which amounts to nothing more than thinly disguised human trafficking. Once the world's greatest deliberative body, the Senate is set to vote this bill into law without bothering even to read it. This cannot be. This must not stand. It is not too late. At the outset of my remarks, I asked unanimous consent to call up my amendment to fix this problem, and the Democrats in this body objected. My amendment would address this problem by providing that ObamaCare shall be defunded until there are no longer any registered provisional immigrants in line. This is the one way to correct this problem, to correct the statutory penalty on U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, if this bill were to pass. As we have just seen, the majority party has chosen to object to bringing up that amendment. Indeed, so far, we have not had an open debate on amendments on this bill. I would note that a number of proponents of this bill claimed they were going to fix this. Here are a few of the comments sponsors of this bill have made concerning the amnesty tax loophole. From my friend, the senior Senator of Arizona, Mr. John McCain: I think that is an issue, and I think that it needs to be addressed. Also from Senator McCain: We cannot give people who are not citizens the same benefits; that is the fundamental principle . . . we are trying to work around it so that an American citizen is competitive for a job. A quote from a senior Democratic aide: We are willing to work through these issues as the bill works its way through the Senate. I am sorry to tell you, those promises have not materialized. We haven't worked through these issues. I cannot help but think, with an issue such as this, of the very real impacts it has on so many families. At least in my family that impact would not have been hypothetical. Fifty-five years ago my father came from Cuba as a legal immigrant. He was 18, and he couldn't speak English. When he arrived in Austin, TX, penniless, he took a job similar to so many other immigrants before him, washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour. I will say the food service industry has provided such an opening portal for millions of Americans and for millions of immigrants from throughout the world. Yet if the Gang of 8 bill had been law in 1957, along with ObamaCare--my father who couldn't speak English, who was very glad to make 50 cents an hour so he could take that money and pay his way through the University of Texas, go on, get a higher paying job, start a business, and work toward the American dream--my father very well might have been fired because of the Gang of 8 bill, because the impact of this legislation would have been to cost his employer $5,000 for hiring him, a legal immigrant. I have to tell you, my father's skills at age 18, I wouldn't characterize him as a high-skilled dishwasher. He told me he got that job because he couldn't speak English, and one didn't have to speak English to wash dishes. You had to be able to take a dish and stick it under the hot water. This incentive would have been a massive incentive on his employer to say: Raphael, I am sorry, you are out of a job because we are going to hire someone who didn't follow the rules, didn't come here legally, came here illegally, because Congress penalizes us $5,000 for you, but it puts zero penalty on that individual who is here illegally. I cannot think of a more irrational, a more indefensible system than a statutory authority for hiring U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. If this bill passes, a number of things will happen. If this bill passes, African-American unemployment, Hispanic unemployment will almost surely go up. It will be the Senate's fault because this bill will penalize hiring African Americans, U.S. citizens or legal immigrants and, instead, will incentivize hiring those who are here illegally. If this bill passes, Hispanic unemployment will almost surely go up because this bill penalizes hiring Hispanics who are U.S. citizens or Hispanics who are legal immigrants who followed the rules. If this bill passes, youth unemployment will almost certainly go up because it is young people in particular who are just beginning the journey up the economic ladder who will be most impacted by Congress deciding to put a $5,000 penalty on hiring that U.S. citizen, hiring that legal immigrant and, instead, give a preference for hiring those here illegally. If this bill passes, union households' unemployment will very likely go up because it is working-class households that are facing the most direct competition. If that happens, it will be the fault of the Senate. If this bill passes, unemployment among legal immigrants will almost certainly go up. What this bill says, if you hire an illegal immigrant, the IRS is going to impose a $5,000 penalty on you, the employer. If you don't hire that legal immigrant, if you reduce that legal immigrant's hours, if you hire instead someone who is here illegally, that penalty will go away. I would suggest that is utterly and completely indefensible. Nobody in this body wants to see African-American unemployment go up. Nobody wants to see Hispanic unemployment go up, youth unemployment go up, union household unemployment go up, legal immigrant unemployment go up. Yet every one of those will happen if this Gang of 8 bill passes without fixing this problem. If that happens, all 100 Members of the Senate will be accountable to our constituents for explaining why we voted to put a Federal penalty on hiring U.S. citizens and hiring legal immigrants. In my view, it makes no sense, and it is indefensible. I very much hope this body will choose to pass my amendment and fix this gray defect in the Gang of 8 legislation. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate temporarily set aside all pending amendments so that I may offer my amendment No. 1580.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. As my friend from New York knows well, the amendments are interspersed through a very complicated bill. Analyzing where waivers have been given and what the intersection is of new provisions with old provisions is not a simple endeavor. Indeed, in this particular body, it is not unbeknownst to this body to slide something in text. My point is very simple: What is the rush? Why are we proceeding gangbusters? The only explanation that makes sense is that it seems there are many Senators in this body--perhaps on both sides of this aisle--who very much want a fig leaf. They want something they can claim they are supporting border security when, in fact, this bill does not do that. I suggest that if we contrast this amendment to the amendment I introduced, we can see the difference between a bill that actually would protect border security versus something that is merely meant to tell gullible constituents that we have done something. The first and most important difference is that this amendment provides legalization first and then border security maybe at some time in the future. We have seen this before. In 1986 it was the same promise Congress made. We got the legalization, we got the amnesty, and we never, ever got border security. In contrast, the amendment I introduced reflects the will of the American people to have border security first and only then the possibility of legalization. Secondly, this amendment does not require operational control of the border. Current law requires that. This amendment weakens current law on operational control. My amendment would require that the problem actually be solved. Thirdly, this amendment does not require a biometric entry-exit system. It weakens current law. Current law requires that; this amendment takes that out. Instead, it requires essentially a photo ID. For anyone who perhaps has known a teenager, they know that the difficulty of securing a fake ID with a picture on it is not very high. Any flea market in the land will allow it. Fourth, this bill weakens the requirements of statutes on secure fencing, and it weakens the current law on border security. Fifth, this amendment is not offset. My amendment was offset. So there is brandnew spending in this amendment with no offset. Sixth, this amendment has no real enforcement. The amendment I introduced said: If the changes within it on border security were not implemented within 3 years, 20 percent of the salary of political appointees at DHS would be reduced, 20 percent of the budget would be reduced, and it would be block granted to the State to fix the problem. Fundamentally, this is about political cover. It is not about solving the problem. I suggest the approach is one with which we are all familiar. It is the approach that perhaps in childhood we knew well. It is an approach that says: I will gladly secure the border next Tuesday for legalization today. Now, if we were naive and had not been through 1986 together and had not seen Congress play this same show game with the American people, perhaps we would fall for it, but I don't think the American people are that gullible. Everyone wants to fix our broken immigration system, but at the same time we should not replicate mistakes of the past. This amendment and the underlying Gang of 8 bill grant immediate legalization. The border security changes will never be implemented, and the border will not be secured. That is not a solution of which the American people can be proud. I urge this body to reject the amendment, to vote against cloture, and reject the underlying bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Assuming that the time does not come out of my own, I have no objection.

Mr. CRUZ. I would happily yield except we have 5 minutes left.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, we are about to vote to end debate--a debate that never really began on an amendment that is 1,200 pages and was filed on Friday afternoon after many Senators left town. We are now voting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday as many Senators are stepping off the airplane. This is the 1,200-page amendment. We have seen this play before. It is reminiscent of ObamaCare--yet another bill we were told we have to pass to find out what is in it. Unfortunately, it seems there are some Republicans eager to go along with the Democrats in the mad rush to pass this bill. In the 2007 immigration debate, close to 50 amendments were considered. In this debate, only nine amendments have been debated. I introduced seven substantive amendments to improve this bill. Not a single one of those amendments has been considered on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Louisiana. I was handed that list about an hour and a half ago today. I looked at the titles on the list but I have not had the time to study the specifics. I don't know if I have any substantive objections to those specified amendments.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concern about President Obama's decision to arm the rebels in Syria. That decision was signaled last week by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. According to Mr. Rhodes the United States will start supplying arms to selected rebel groups. I fully understand the seriousness of the situation in Syria. Bashar al-Asad is a brutal dictator. Syria has been on the State Department's state sponsor of terrorism list since 1979. For 2 years this brutal civil war has raged, leaving at least 93,000 dead--100 reportedly through chemical weapons attack. The humanitarian situation in Syria is a calamity. Millions of people have been displaced. Iran and Russia stand to gain a major strategic victory if Asad remains in power, and we have to be concerned about the danger this war poses to our allies Israel and Jordan. All Americans would like to see secular, democracy-minded forces in Syria come to power, but President Obama's failed policy over the last 2 years has left us with no good options at this time. In the beginning of the uprising, there was a moment when the peaceful protesters could have used the vocal energetic support of the United States. Instead, the Obama administration stood by for months apparently in the hopes they could make Asad see reason. Before long, military hostilities broke out, but President Obama chose not to act, hoping instead to lead from behind. In the course of the war, Asad has benefited from weapons from Iran, Russia, and fighters from Hezbollah. Our repeated entreaties to the Russians to help us resolve this crisis have fallen on deaf ears--most recently this week when President Obama tried to reach a diplomatic solution with President Putin, to have him once again refuse to be the good-faith partner the administration seems to think he could be. Meanwhile, the most effective, organized Syrian rebels are affiliated with al-Qaida. There are two main al-Qaida entities active in Syria: Jabhat al-Nusra and the resurgent al-Qaida in Iraq. While recent plans to merge them have foundered, they are both powerful and well armed. In recent weeks a training video has been posted on an al-Qaida Web site showing young rebel recruits in Syria singing not only about overthrowing Asad, but how ``the World Trade Center was turned into rubble.'' To commemorate the 65th anniversary of the founding of Israel on June 6, al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video calling for Syrians to unite, bring down the Asad government, and to create a radical Islamic state. On June 9, Zawahiri posted a letter on Al-Jazeera announcing that Jabhat al-Nusra would be acting on his direct orders. As many as seven of the nine rebel groups that have been identified may have ties to al- Qaida. Yet these murky connections make them all the more difficult to properly vet. As is normally the case when al-Qaida moves in, more and more stories are spreading about the desecration of churches, kidnappings, rapes, and beheadings. These forces are engaged in a deadly struggle with the Asad regime, and President Obama has chosen this moment to signal that it is now suddenly in our vital national security interests to intervene in Syria. It seems far more likely a recipe for disaster. We are told the United States will provide only small arms and ammunition and only to the more secular democracy-minded rebels, and that they will not fall into the hands of those who attacked us on September 11--not to mention more recently in Fort Hood, Benghazi, and Boston--although there are no details as to how the President plans to differentiate between good and bad actors. Even if we could clearly identify the good rebels, so to speak, we would be backing the weakest of the factions in Syria, and the support the Obama administration has proposed will not be sufficient to bring down Asad and put them in power. Once committed to this path, we risk either being forced to incrementally increase our support or face the humiliation of losing to either al-Qaida groups or Asad or both, which would delight both Iran and Russia. We could also see the factions of the opposition use our weapons to turn on each other and see Asad triumph in the chaos. It is far from clear we could get the weapons to the so-called good rebels, even if we could figure out who they were. President Obama has just announced another $300 million in humanitarian aid for Syria, but only about half of the aid already pledged has been delivered. The other hasn't been delivered because of logistical issues and the challenges of keeping these resources out of the hands of bad actors. How on Earth can we expect to deliver guns if we cannot even get MREs into the country? Regardless, let me suggest a simple rule: Don't give weapons to people who hate us. Don't give weapons to people who want to kill us. U.S. foreign policy should be directed at one central purpose: protecting the vital national security interests of the United States. Arming potential al-Qaida rebels is not furthering those interests, but there is something that is: preventing Syria's large stockpile of chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. We know Asad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al-Qaida affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region but also to the United States. Right now we need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. We might work in concert with our allies, but this needs to be an operation driven by the mission, not by a coalition. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right, but our British allies, for example, are actively bolstering the units that could be used for chemical weapons removal. President Obama needs to assure us that the dangerous, arbitrary cuts to our defense budget caused by sequester have not eroded our ability to execute this vital mission. News reports suggest that what planning has gone on involves outsourcing parts of this work to the rebel groups. This makes no sense. Moreover, it is deeply disturbing that President Obama has chosen not to communicate his decision directly to Congress or the American people and, I would note, communicating not through a junior staffer or a spokesperson. He, himself, needs to communicate to the American people. According to a Pew poll taken over the weekend, 70 percent of Americans oppose arming the Syrian rebels--quite sensibly. In a case where his policy is so at odds with the will of the people, it is beholden on the President to make his case and persuade us this proposed intervention is necessary. But just yesterday in his long speech on national security at the Brandenburg Gate, President Obama did not even mention his planned intervention in Syria. He told us he is a ``citizen of the world,'' but he is also President of the United States, and he owes the American people an explanation. President Obama needs to explain why arming the Syrian rebels is now worth our intervention when it wasn't 2 years ago. He needs to explain how he has established which rebels are the appropriate recipients of this support. He needs to explain how this limited support will make a material difference in Syria, and he needs to assure us that his team is proactively planning to protect our national security by keeping Syria's chemical weapons out of the hands of either Hezbollah or al- Qaida. But we don't know any of these specifics. We are apparently just supposed to trust the President to manage Syria policy more effectively than he has over the last 2 years and more effectively than he has managed events in Iran, Libya, and Egypt. During the Green Revolution in 2009, the Obama administration stood by and allowed the Supreme Leader of Iran to brutally suppress his people as they protested in the streets. Four years later, we have witnessed the installation of the Supreme Leader's most recent selection for President of Iran. Some of the mainstream media refer to him as a ``moderate,'' but he is a man who has referred to Israel as ``the great Zionist Satan,'' and who vows to continue Iran's nuclear program. That is some moderate. During the uprising in Tahrir Square in Cairo, President Obama cheered on the demonstrators but refused to take a leading role in helping Egypt make the difficult transition to democracy, thereby opening the door to a Muslim Brotherhood regime that is now taking systematic steps to hollow out that country's fragile constitution while turning a blind eye to the persecution of Christians and the discrimination against women. Just like the rebels in Syria, President Obama is also working to arm the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. During the revolution in Libya, President Obama decided removing Muammar Kaddafi was a vital national security issue, and he participated in NATO's mission to overturn him. But his strategy of leading from behind meant Kaddhafi's weapons stockpiles went unsecured and had been transferred to militants from Lebanon to Mali. The new government in Libya, however well intentioned, proved incapable of managing the security threat from terrorist militias in the country, and tragically 9 months ago four U.S. personnel were brutally murdered in a terrorist attack. We have yet to track down and punish any of the terrorists who killed our personnel in that attack in Benghazi. With this track record of incoherent and indecisive action resulting in setback after setback to the United States, we are supposed to just trust President Obama to do a better job managing the situation in Syria? It seems to me if we are determined to confront Iran's nuclear program, we would do so better in Iran. Even if Hezbollah is defeated in Syria, there is little prospect that this would halt Iran's nuclear program. I am also concerned about our ability to successfully negotiate what seems to have become a Sunni-Shiite civil war in Syria. It seems to me we have no business in the middle of such a civil war. From what we know of the President's policy, it seems we are backing into an intractable crisis where there are no good actors but plenty of bad outcomes for America. Let me close with two simple observations: No. 1, don't arm al-Qaida. Don't arm those who hate us, and don't arm those who want to kill us. That is basic common sense. No. 2, when it comes to matters of vital national security, the President of the United States needs to come to the American people. We, the people, hold sovereignty in this country, and it is not acceptable for the President to simply send out staffers to pass on his decision. He needs to come before Congress and the American people and explain those decisions. All of us have deep concerns about arming the rebels in Syria, and I hope the administration will reconsider its policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, central to any debate over immigration is the need to secure our borders. The American people are overwhelmingly unified on that proposition. We must secure our borders. Unfortunately, the bill before this body--the Gang of 8 immigration bill--does not secure our borders. Right now our borders are anything but secure. In fiscal year 2012 there were 364,768 apprehensions along the southwest border. Forty-nine percent of those apprehensions were in Texas. The Border Patrol reported in 2012 463 deaths, 549 assaults, and 1,312 rescues. And this is just a tiny fraction of those actually harmed crossing the border illegally. In fiscal year 2012 there were 2,297,662 pounds of marijuana and nearly 6,000 pounds of cocaine seized at the southwest border. The trafficking we are seeing is not just human life, but it is also drugs that are destroying the lives of countless young people and Americans across our country. From April 2006 to March of 2013 over 9 million pounds of marijuana, cocaine, meth, and heroin has been seized just in Texas, $182 million in currency has been seized, over 4,000 weapons have been seized. Madam President, 392 cartel members have been arrested in Texas since 2007, 33 cartel-related homicides in Texas just since 2009, and 78 instances where shots were fired at law enforcement officers in Texas. The insecurity of our borders is causing human tragedies in our country, many of which are occurring in my home State of Texas. A brutal example can be found in the situation faced by my constituents in Brooks County, TX, a county in South Texas 60 miles southwest of Corpus Christi, 90 miles from Laredo. Seemingly far removed and peaceful, Brooks County is the site of an extreme problem: hundreds of thousands of people coming here illegally, many of them from countries other than Mexico, attempting to cross the harsh terrain on foot, cutting across private property to avoid detection by the understaffed Border Patrol. According to news sources, 400 to 500 illegal immigrants cross Brooks County on foot every single night--400 to 500 a night. The Washington Post recently wrote a piece about Brooks County and described the situation as follows: There has been a surge in illegal migrants, mostly from Central America, trying to sneak around the checkpoint by cutting through the desolate ranches and labyrinths of mesquite brush that parallel the highway. They arrive in South Texas by riding the freight trains up through southern Mexico and along the gulf coast. Smugglers float them across the Rio Grande to safe houses and border cities such as Brownsville and McAllen, then drive them north toward Houston and San Antonio along U.S. Route 281. Several miles before the Falfurrias Border Patrol checkpoint, the smugglers pull over, and that's where the migrants start walking. Because they are either paid in advance or based solely on how many people they successfully deliver, smugglers often leave illegal immigrants in places such as the sometimes 30-mile overland hike, which is undertaken at a brutally fast pace, and sadly the harsh land and climate lead to the death of many. The Washington Post interviewed one of my constituents, Mr. Presnall Cage, on that point. He said: ``I don't want the bodies here anymore,'' said Presnall Cage, whose family's 43,000-acre property is directly west of the highway checkpoint. ``A more secure border would mean fewer deaths,'' he said. The system we have is not humane. It is cruel, and it results in terrible human tragedies. The Washington Post went on to describe the situation Mr. Cage faces. Some of the migrants find their way to Cage's ranch house, as three groups of people had done the week before. ``I feel so sorry for them,'' he said. ``They have no idea what they're getting into.'' Cage has placed dozens of water faucets around his property. But a sinking feeling sets in whenever he sees a pair of sneakers laid across a path or a shirt tied to a branch near the road, typical last-ditch distress signals. When winter arrives and quail hunters come to his ranch with dogs, more bodies show up. Last year 16 bodies were found on Cage's ranch. Sixteen men, women, and children lost their lives because of our broken immigration system. Sadly, the 16 found on Mr. Cage's ranch represent only a small fraction of the 129 bodies found in just Brooks County last year. The county spent $159,000 last year to recover and bury those who went unclaimed. They are buried at the Sacred Heart Burial Park. They are spread across three sections of the cemetery. In those three sections, the graves do not have names. The remains of a human being lie marked only by simple aluminum markers carrying serial numbers or sterile descriptions: ``Unknown Female,'' ``Bones,'' or ``Skull.'' No one who cares about our humanity would want to maintain a system where the border isn't secure, where vulnerable women and children entrust themselves to corrupt coyotes and drug dealers and are left to die in the desert. This is a system that produces human tragedy, and the most heartbreaking aspect of this Gang of 8 bill is that it will perpetuate this tragedy. It will not fix the problem. It will not secure the borders. Linda Vickers, who is a constituent from Brooks County, wrote me about the situation she faces: In all the years I have lived here (since 1996) I have never seen or been confronted by so many illegal immigrants. Since May of last year the numbers have continued to rise. . . . But I have never seen it like this! Nor, have I ever felt this unsafe in my own home and on my own ranch as I do right now. I have had so many gang members (MS-13, Pistoleros, etc.) around my house that I now feel it is not ``if'' I will be assaulted, but ``when.'' Linda Vickers' husband is a veterinarian, Dr. Mike Vickers. Like many other ranchers in Brooks County, Mike speaks Spanish and he worked for Mexican ranchers for years as a vet until the travel became too dangerous. Dr. Vickers gave the following statement of his own: I live on a Brooks County ranch with my wife, Linda. In 2012, 129 bodies of deceased illegal aliens were found in our County on private ranch land. Most of these bodies were found within 15 minutes of our front door in any given direction! We believe these bodies represent only 20-25% of the actual number of illegal immigrants dying in this area. . . . In one week of last July, I personally rescued 15 people (most were Central Americans) that were lost and close to dying from dehydration and heat exhaustion. . . . This same week I found a deceased person that had been laid across a dirt road in order to be found. He was a 31 year old man from El Salvador. A system that perpetuates these human tragedies is cruel. It is the opposite of humane. Yet the bill before this Senate, the Gang of 8 bill, encourages illegal immigration now and more in the future if it is passed. Apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley are projected to be higher in fiscal year 2013 than in any year since 2000, and the number of apprehensions to date, after only 8 months, is already more than the total apprehensions in fiscal years 2002 to 2004 and 2007 to 2011. This is a chart of the apprehensions of what Homeland Security refers to as OTMs--those who are other than Mexican--because a significant number of people coming into this country illegally are not from Mexico but are from other nations. The black line represents apprehensions of OTMs along the southwest border, and the white line represents apprehensions in Texas. You see two clear spots--one in the mid-2000s, coming up right upon the consideration of the last major amnesty bill, and we saw apprehensions spike dramatically as people were incentivized by that offer of amnesty to risk their lives coming here illegally, and we see again a second spike happening right now. DHS statistics show apprehensions on the southwest border are up 13 percent versus the same time last year--from 170,223 in 2012 to 192,298. The Gang of 8 bill encourages illegal immigration in many ways, one of which is by prohibiting immigration law enforcement from detaining or deporting any apprehended illegal immigrant if they ``appear to be eligible for instant legalization'' and requiring that they be allowed to apply for amnesty. In other words, what this bill does is it handcuffs law enforcement from enforcing our immigration laws. We should not be surprised that when you handcuff law enforcement, the result is more and more breaking the law. The Gang of 8 bill allows illegal aliens who have been previously removed to, in the Secretary's discretion, be eligible for legalization even if they have illegally reentered the country yet again. And neither the Gang of 8 bill nor many of the alternative border security proposals that have been introduced do enough to meaningfully secure our borders. The last time this body passed major immigration reform was 1986. In 1986 the Federal Government made a promise to the American people. The Federal Government said: We will grant amnesty to some 3 million people who are here illegally. In exchange, we will secure the borders. We will stop illegal immigration. We will fix the problem. The American people accepted that offer. What happened in 1986 was that the amnesty happened, 3 million people received it, and yet the border security never happened. I was struck last week when the senior Senator from New York stood at his desk and said: When this bill passes, illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. It was an echo from the debate in 1986. In 1986 that same promise was made to the American people: Just grant amnesty and illegal immigration will be a thing of the past. Do you know what we have learned? If legalization comes first, border security never happens. One of the major questions before this body is, Which should come first, legalization or border security? I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, want border security first before any legalization. Yet the Gang of 8 bill and the alternatives before this body don't require even a single additional Border Patrol agent prior to legalization. The Gang of 8 bill does not require that a single foot of fencing be built along the border prior to legalization. The Gang of 8 bill does not require a biometric exit-entry system prior to legalization. Unlike the Gang of 8 bill, the amendment I have called up does provide real border security. It does what we have been telling the American people, but it actually follows through on it. Prior to legalization, my amendment would do a number of things. No. 1, it would triple the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border. Today there are a little over 18,000 Border Patrol agents on the border, but our border is not secure. This bill triples that. This bill quadruples the number of cameras, sensors, helicopters, fixed-wing assets, technology, and infrastructure on the border. This bill requires that we complete all 700 miles of the fencing required by law in the Secure Fence Act. This bill requires real-time sharing of information among Federal law enforcement agencies. This bill requires that we complete and fully implement the US-VISIT system, including biometric exist- entry. And this bill requires that we establish operational control over 100 percent of the southern border. Proponents of the Gang of 8 bill suggest that we don't need additional border patrol. I have to say that it is interesting seeing Senators who represent States that are very, very far away from the border standing up with complete confidence and sharing what we need to do to secure the border. I can tell you, every time I have been to the border in my home State of Texas, the No. 1 answer that has been given from people on the ground--how do we fix this? How do we secure the border? How do we make it so you are not at risk from Mexican drug cartels and from the constant human tragedy of illegal immigration? The No. 1 answer you get over and over from law enforcement on the ground is this: More boots on the ground. Let me put things in perspective in terms of what exactly we are talking about with boots on the ground. We need to have sufficient resources to secure the border. And let's take as a comparison the border versus New York City. In New York City, there are 34,500 NYPD officers. The area those 34,000 officers are policing is 468 square miles. That is a density of about 73 officers per square mile. By contrast, the border has 18,516 Border Patrol agents, but instead of policing 468 square miles, they are policing approximately 200,000 square miles. That is a density of 0.1 agents per square mile. Let's look at it in a different way to get a sense of the differential there is right now. In New York City, 34,500 NYPD officers, as represented by this chart, are policing about 470 square miles--that little dot. By comparison, roughly half this number of Border Patrol agents are policing a square that large. And that is why law enforcement on the border says that whenever you spot those who are coming here illegally--even if you spot them, even if you find them, there is a delay in getting Border Patrol agents there to apprehend them, and by the time they are there, many of them have escaped and fled into the interior. Why focus on inputs? One of the reasons to focus on inputs is that this administration in particular has demonstrated both a willingness to disregard the law and less than complete fidelity to truth. Proponents of the Gang of 8 say there are provisions in this statute that require that DHS fix the problem. I would like to point out a couple of provisions of current law. If you look right now at current law, current Federal law requires: Ports of entry shall use equipment and software to allow the biometric comparison and authentication of all travel documents. That was enacted in law in 2002. Has it happened? No. It is one of the things in the civics classes we teach our kids: Congress passes a law, the President signs it, and suddenly it occurs. It doesn't occur if the Executive doesn't implement it. And the statement of the head of the travel entry programs at CBP in 2011 was: The operational costs of a biometric program at this time would be inordinately expensive and the benefits not commensurate with the costs. Despite the fact that the statute, the words on the paper say we have to have a biometric system, we do not, and the Obama administration made it perfectly clear they do not intend to change that. Look at another provision of current law. Current law provides the DHS Secretary shall--not may, not might--``shall provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing'' over 700 specified miles. How much of that has happened? Madam President, 36.6 miles of double- layered fence is currently standing. The statute says there shall be 700. DHS has built only 36. Words on a paper don't secure the border. A third example of current law right now that the Obama administration is disregarding, current law provides DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano must ``achieve and maintain operational control'' over the entire border. What does Janet Napolitano say? She says: ``Look, operational control, it's an archaic term.'' DHS doesn't even measure it anymore, much less require it. Why? Because when they were measuring it they found it wasn't being achieved, the border wasn't secure. So rather than enforce it, they just erased the metric that demonstrated they are not fixing the problem. There are two fundamental questions this body needs to consider when it comes to border security. No. 1, do we have real border security? Do we fix the problem, stop providing empty promises? The Gang of 8 bill has empty promises that will do nothing to secure the border. I think the American people are tired of empty promises. The amendment I have offered will put real teeth in border security: triple the number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border; quadruple the cameras, sensors, drones, helicopters, and other technology and infrastructure as appropriate; ensure that we fix the problem. No. 2, there is a fundamental question: Which comes first, legalization or border security? The Gang of 8 bill says let's have legalization first and then border security is a promise that will happen in the future. We have been down that road. That was the exact same path we took in 1986. In 1986 Congress told the American people we will grant legalization now, and on Tuesday I will pay you the cost of a hamburger. In the future, we will secure the border. Three decades later it still has not happened. The only way to make it happen is to require border security first, to put the incentives on the Federal Government. Talk is cheap. We need to fix the problem. In closing, I ask you, Madam President, and I ask the American people to focus on the cost, the human tragedy of our current system. In 1986 there were 3 million people here illegally. They were granted amnesty and the Federal Government promised the problem would be solved. Three decades later the border is still not secure, and there are 11 million people here illegally. If this body passes the Gang of 8 bill, it will grant immediate legalization and it still will not secure the border. In another 10 or 20 years we will be back here, but it will not be 3 million or 11 million; it will be 20 million or 30 million people here illegally. If that happens, there are going to be a lot more graves like this, a lot more little boys, little girls, a lot more men and women who will never achieve the potential they could because of our system. It is a perverse system that encourages good people who just want a better life--they want a better life for their kids--and with our system, because we do not enforce the law, they risk their lives, they entrust themselves to human traffickers who assault them, who sexually violate them, who leave them to die in the desert. The American people are overwhelmingly unified that, No. 1, we need to secure the border. And, No. 2, any bill that this body passes should have border security first and then legalization, not the other way around. There is an old saying that is popular in Texas: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. In 1986, Congress asked the American people: Trust us with legalization first and border security later. We learned it never happened. You know what. I don't think the American people are ready to be fooled a second time. I hope this body will adopt the amendment I have introduced to provide real border security and to ensure that border security occurs first, before legalization. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 1320 which is at the desk.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, on Friday, the people of Iran head to the polls to make a false choice. Ostensibly participating in a democratic process to select a new President, they are really affirming their existing extremist theocracy. They will be forced to select not the candidate of their choice but the candidates that have been chosen for them by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei--candidates guaranteed to continue the Supreme Leader's policies of political and religious oppression in pursuit of nuclear capability at all costs. In the United States we are now engaged in a national dialog about how we can best preserve our God-given rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. We are taking a serious look at the role of government in our lives and revisiting the balance government is striking between security and privacy. But even as we debate these vital issues at home, we should remember those who are denied their liberty in Iran. Today, in Iran, the economic picture is grim. Forty percent of Iranian citizens now live below the poverty line, almost double the rate in 2005. The rial has lost 50 percent of its value. The official rate of inflation is 32.2 percent. The real rate is considerably higher. The national rate of unemployment is 11.2 percent, and it is as high as 20 percent in certain regions. Basic freedoms--political, religious, speech, the Internet--are under systematic attack by the regime. Sadly, persecution and oppression are the norm in Iran. Iran's political opposition has been effectively silenced. Key 2009 opposition leaders, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have been imprisoned without charge in their own homes for 2 years with locked doors and windows. The list of Presidential candidates has been hand-selected by the Supreme Leader, not by the Iranian people. American-Iranian Pastor Saeed Abedini is right now serving an 8-year sentence in Iran's brutal Evin prison for simply professing his faith. In January, I was proud to sign a letter, along with 11 other Senators, to Secretary Clinton advocating for Pastor Abedini's release and to Secretary Kerry on February 12, thanking him for his statement in support of Pastor Abedini. There has been a crackdown on Christians in the lead-up to this election, including the closing of the Central Assemblies of God Church in Tehran and the detention of Pastor Robert Asserian. Iranian Pastor Behnam Irani may face the death penalty for organizing a 300-strong congregation of the Church of Iran. Iran's 100,000-plus Evangelical Christians are suffering brutal oppression right now. In an imitation of China, Iran is attempting to create a sort of internal Internet that will block access to international news and social media. Since the 2009 uprising, the Supreme Leader has instituted four new entities to restrict Internet freedom: The Supreme Council on Cyberspace, the Committee Charged with Determining Offensive Content, the Cyber Police, and the Cyber Army. Iran has continued to aggressively expand its influence in the region and beyond. Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terrorism and is increasing its activity. Iran has been so hostile toward the nation of Israel that Prime Minister Netanyahu recently expressed fears of ``another Holocaust'' from Tehran, regardless of any election that may take place. Iran's proxy army, Hezbollah, is supporting Asad's murderous attacks on his own people in Syria. Today, the United Nations estimated that 93,000 people have been slaughtered in Syria since the uprising began in 2011. Iran's fingerprints are on those murders. Iran is not only expanding its own influence in the region through closer ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, but it is also expanding its influence in Latin America. Most troubling, Iran is proceeding undeterred in its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. In my judgment, there is no greater threat to the national security of the United States than the prospect of a nuclear Iran, and we need to be unequivocal and speak with absolute clarity that the United States will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Unfortunately, the message from the United States has at times seemed muddled. On the one hand, Secretary of State John Kerry has asked Congress to relax sanctions around the Iranian Presidential elections so his diplomatic efforts have a ``window'' to work. On the other hand, the Obama administration recently announced new sanctions on Iran's currency and a new initiative to get communications devices to the Iranian people. But both efforts, however well intentioned, came too late to have any real impact on this election. Today, the Senate is taking encouraging action. I am pleased the Senate hopes to pass a resolution, S. Res. 154, reaffirming our call for free and fair elections, a resolution I fully support. The resolution also condemns the widespread human rights violations of the Government of Iran, calls on the Government of Iran to respect its peoples' freedom of expression and association, and expresses our ongoing support to the people of Iran for their calls for a democratic government that upholds freedom, civil liberties, and the rule of law. The Iranian people may well be confused about where the United States stands, especially after we stood silently by when they took to the streets 4 years ago during the Green Revolution. But it was not always this way. Twenty-six years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the wall that divided the eastern and western halves of the city. No more important words have been spoken by a leader in modern times. Today, I ask all Americans to join me in likewise urging the regime in Iran to tear down the walls of political and religious persecution, to relieve the pain of the unnecessary economic hardship, and to renounce the isolation caused by Tehran's aggressive and belligerent policies. To those right now imprisoned and being persecuted in Iran, I would repeat the words of encouragement President Reagan gave when he knew the tyranny represented by the Berlin Wall would not stand. As President Reagan observed: ``For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth; it cannot withstand freedom.'' That is the very same message we should convey to the people of Iran as they suffer under tyrannical theocracy. To the Supreme Leader I would say: Stop oppressing your people. Stop persecuting Christians. Stop pursuing nuclear weapons capability. Stop stifling freedom of speech and allow real and free elections. Free the Iranian people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Of course we shouldn't halt the issuance of treasuries, and of course we shouldn't forswear 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 paying that down. What is important to emphasize is that there is a qualitative difference in what has happened in the last 4\1/2\ years. We have always had some degree of debt in this country, but one of the challenges is that at times $1 million, $1 billion, and $1 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 5 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. The nations of Europe are collapsing because their elected officials were not able to be responsible. They spent money they did not have, and they built up so much debt they could not repay. Eventually, there comes a point where every decision to address the debt is an ugly one. There comes a point where the debt hole is so deep--as some of the nations in Europe are discovering--that the answers are either drastic cuts to spending or massive tax increases or massively inflating the currency. Every one of those outcomes is ugly, which is one of the reasons we have seen rioting in the streets of Europe. Thankfully the United States is not yet in as deep a hole as some of the nations of Europe, and that is why we need leadership now to stop the out-of-control spending by addressing the deep structural problems. If we keep spending money we 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. We need Republicans and Democrats to come together to say: Let's live within our means. That is not a terribly conservative principle. That is a principle that has been common sense in this country for centuries, and it is one, sadly, we have gotten away from in the last 4\1/2\ years.