February 7, 2024 • 39 mins
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you.
And the big news is the Senate bill, this border
disaster bill, has failed. Senator. I want to get your
reaction this. You fought incredibly hard to stop this bill,
which had a lot of things in it that people
I don't even think realize. Going down to the wire,
(00:22):
it would basically codify, It would have cut of fied
open borders. It would have sent another sixty billion to Ukraine,
but only twenty billion to secure the southern border. It
would have given taxpayer for the lawyers to illegals, and
it would have cost the American taxpayers one point four
billion to resettle illegals in the US, including travel and accommodations.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Look, the bill was a terrible bill. Now the good
news is the bill is dead. It is dead as
a door knob. It is going to fail. You and
I are recording this. It's eleven o'clock at night Tuesday night. Tomorrow, Wednesday,
the Senate will vote on what's called cloture on the
motion to proceed. That's the initial vote to take up
this bill that's going to fail. It needs sixty votes
(01:07):
to proceed. It's not going to get it. You are
going to see every Republican or almost every Republican vote.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
I don't know what the final vote will be. There
might be a couple of Republicans who vote yes, but
we're going to see the overwhelming majority of our conference vote.
Speaker 5 (01:21):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
That's a very good thing. That is the result of
what has been an epic battle within the Republican Conference
in the Senate for months. The reason the bill is
going to fail tomorrow is because the bill is a
bad bill. It does not fix the problem of our
open borders. It does not fix the problem of the
(01:45):
chaos of the southern border and the invasion that Joe
Biden has caused, and in significant ways it makes it worse.
We should discuss as a policy matter, why this bill
was bad, and in secondly, as a matter of politics,
why the bill was even worse, why the bill was
(02:06):
a massive political blunder, a total cluster by Senate Republican
leadership that is going to do enormous damage. Both are true,
but we ought to start on the policy front.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Let's talk about the policy aspect of this, because there
is a lot of people that are very angry that
this even got this close to being a possibility, and
it was only because of leaders like you that were
willing to stand up and say absolutely not time and
time again while they were trying to cram this down
our throats and also doing it with this, Hey, we're
going to tie Ukraine funding in here, and if you
(02:40):
don't give us that, as Joe Biden has said, there's
a good chance your boys are going to be fighting
a war with Russia. And oh, by the way, we're
going to throw a little money in there for Israel.
At the same time, we should have nothing to do
with a border security bill.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Well what happened here. Now, another reason border security was
tied to this is because Republicans quite rightly demanded it
be tied on this, and in particular Joe Biden and
the White House and Chuck Schumer. They desperately want funding
for Ukraine, and so does Mitch McConnell, so does Republican
Senate leadership. And what the Republican Conference said, we united
(03:13):
the Senate and said, no, we're not going to fund
Ukraine unless you secure the border. We're not going to
pay any more to secure the border in Ukraine until
we secure our own border. That was the right thing
to say, and I was vocal in leading the effort
to say, we're going to demand that we secure the
border and do it now. We're going to use this
(03:34):
leverage because the White House and the Democrats desperately want
Ukraine funding, and so we're perfectly fine to say, fine,
we'll give you a Ukraine funding if, and this is
a big if, you actually secure the border. This bill
didn't do it. What did this bill do well? Number one,
it codified Joe Biden's open border. So the cause of
(03:56):
the open borders, the biggest cause is catch and release.
The first week in office that Biden was president, he
reinstated catch and release, a disastrous policy. It is catch
and release is contrary to law. It's contrary to federal
immigration law. Joe Biden is defying law by doing it.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Well.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
This bill would put it into law catch and release.
When you catch people, you let them go. Not only that,
this bill normalized five thousand illegal aliens a day. Five
thousand illegal aliens a day works out to one point
eight million a year.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
And explain what you mean by normalized, because this is
one of the things that happened the last really twenty
four to forty eight hours. That went viral, and I'm
not sure people understand how you could claim you were
going to have a secure border while also saying five
thousand can come in here, and then another five, and
another five and another five.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Explain that, well, The way it was written is it
said that if if five thousand illegal aliens a day
are crossing the border, then, as the proponents of the
bill would say, the border is shut down and they
could no longer accept asylum applications. That was their pitch,
(05:09):
and they pitched this as an emergency provision. As a
practical matter. If this passed, we would see five thousand
a day for all time, for all perpetuity, we'd see
five thousand a day. Five thousand a day, as I said,
is one point eight million a year. One point eight
million a year means over the three years of the
Biden presidency so far, we'd have nearly six million illegal aliens.
(05:32):
We have, in fact, had nine point six million illegal aliens.
So what Republicans were saying idiotically is we're for two
thirds of the Biden open borders, and it's not even
five thousand a day. It's more than that. So there
were a bunch of exemptions. So, for example, the five
thousand a day did not count unaccompanied kids, which means
(05:57):
there's a huge incentive for a massive flow of unaccompanied children.
These are little boys and little girls that get brutalized
by human traffickers coming in. Also, the so called shutdown
authority when you cross five thousand a day was for
a limited duration. In the first year it could be
a maximum of two hundred and seventy days, and the
(06:18):
second year could be for a maximum of two hundred
and twenty five days, and the third year it could
be a maximum of one hundred and eighty days. So
that means it's five thousand a day for half the year,
and then for the other half the year you can
go back to ten thousand a day, which is what
we had in December, and it didn't have anything to
limit it. And then insanely enough, it gave the president
(06:41):
discretion to reopen the border at any time quote if
it is in the national interest to temporarily suspend the
border emergency authority. In other words, it said to Biden,
we're being so tough. We're gonna say once you get
to five thousand a day, you got to shut it down. Well,
unless you think you don't and then you don't have to.
That made no sense. Not only that, what else did
(07:03):
it do. It gave immediate work permits to people coming
here illegally. That is insane.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
It gave And by the way, they've been pushing hard
for that over the last several weeks and they're talking
points is and we've seen this in places like Denver, Colorado.
We've seen this in New York City, We've seen this
in sanctuary cities time and time again. Now over the
last several months, we're like, well, look, we wouldn't have
this crisis that we have right now if you guys
would just let them.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Hurry up and work already.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
And that was part of this, put a gun to
the head of this country saying, well, everybody, thats ier illegally.
If you'll just let them work and just let them
stay and just let them maybe vote by twenty thirty,
then then we can finally secure the border. But then
when you read the bill ags you just described it,
there was no secure in the border here at all.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
It did not secure the border. Not only that it
gave billions, It gave two point three billion, and that
would go to sanctuary cities. It gave one point four
billion dollars that would go to nonprofit organizations that are
providing shelter dailygal aliens and that are helping funnel this invasion.
(08:13):
So it literally spends billions. You know, you mentioned the
twenty billion dollar fund amount. That twenty billion is not
to secure the border. That's not actually that's not money
for building a wall, that's not money for border patrol agents.
That's money to pay off sanctuary cities and to pay
off the nonprofits, the NGOs that are producing this invasion.
(08:35):
And so on the face of it, this bill made
things worse because it didn't solve the problem. And so
as a policy matter, it was putting into federal law,
federal statute Biden's open borders. That was a spectacularly bad idea.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I want to talk to you real quick about what's
happening with or economy. And you may be looking at
what's happening. You may be looking at our national debt
exceeding thirty four trillion, and you may be also noticing
the push for central bank digital currencies. That means that
our financial freedom is at stake. And that's why I
want you to know about Freedom Gold USA. If you
(09:18):
have fifty thousand dollars or more in retirement savings, you
may be at risk in times of economic uncertainty. Securing
your family's financial future is essential, and Freedom Gold USA
is here to empower you to protect your hard earned assets.
You can act now by calling them one eight hundred
and sixty five y five eight eight four three, or
(09:39):
you can visit them at freedom GOOLDUSA dot com slash verdict.
The team at freedom Gold USA is ready to help
you preserve your wealth and provide stability in uncertain times.
Plus there's also something else that's really cool. You can
also see if you qualify for up to ten thousand
dollars in free silver.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
That's that's right.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
You can learn how to add gold and silver to
your IRA or have it shipped to your home, Safeguard
your wealth for physical gold and silver, and take control
of your financial future today. So call them one eight
hundred sixty five five eight eight four three or visit
them online at freedomgoldussay dot com slash verdict to see
if you qualify for up to ten thousand dollars in
(10:23):
free silver. One eight hundred sixty five five eight eight
four three or Freedomgoldusa dot com slash verdict cenater I.
The part that after you just described the initial things
that were so wrong in this bill, that so many
listening are going to want to ask you is then
why did Republicans actually even work on this? Why did
(10:43):
they agree to some of this? Why were they selling
us out? Because without the Republicans working on this, if
they would have just walked away, we would have never
gotten this close.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Yeah, because it was political malpractice. And that's the second
piece of it. I mentioned the policy was terrible, but
the policy was terrible because the politics were terrible. Now
why were the politics terrible? You know, we had in
our lunches and so understand what goes on behind the
scenes at the Senate. Every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, all
the Senate Republicans we have lunch together and that's where
(11:15):
we have discussions. And I'll tell you, for the last
several months we have had knocked down, drag out battles
in their Senate Republican lunches over this issue.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Can you set the stage like when you're eating wines?
Is this like cafeteria food box lunch? Are you in
coat and tie? Is it more casual. How's the room seated?
Do you have a seat that you see it that
you're seated in every time? And is anyone from outside
of just being a center in that room? Are they
coming and going? How does it work?
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
So the lunches are in the United States Capital, so
in the Capitol building itself on the second floor, which
is the same floor that the Senate floor is on,
so it's kind of the middle floor of the Capitol.
And on two days a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays,
we have lunch in a room that's called the LBJO
And it's called the LBJ Room because there's a portrait
of LBJ on the wall. And look, this is the capital,
(12:05):
so it is ornate, it is gilded, there's you know,
beautiful painting and you know, gold leaf, and I mean
it's it's gorgeous. It's the United States Capital, so it's
a it's an amazing building. The LBJ Room is is
relatively small. So there are a whole series of round
tables in the LBJ Room and it's pretty packed and
all forty nine Republicans are typically there having dinner, and
(12:28):
they're usually a half dozen staff members. So it's basically
senators and maybe a half dozen staff members for leadership.
They're in the room, but it's almost exclusively senators in
the room. And and the lunch is typically it's it's
the food is prepared at the Capitol. It's actually pretty
good food. It's surprising, you know. It varied, like today
we had had fried chicken and had had had some
(12:52):
shrimp and beef thing and some broccoli, so it was,
you know, it's kind of a it's nicer than a
school calf. It's not gourmet food, but it was you know,
it's the food is surprisingly decent. And we're sitting there.
And then so two days a week we're in the
LBJ room and then on Wednesdays we're in what's called
(13:13):
the Mansfield Room. The man's Field Room is bigger, and
so the majority gets the Mansfield Room on Tuesday and Thursdays.
Because we're in the minority, we're in the smaller room,
the LBJ room on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
So the Democrats are meeting at the same time you
guys are for lunch as well. Okay, and then do
you have assigned seating? Do you sit there? Is it
by rank and file or do you just sit with
your friends.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
No, So they're like, they're you know, I don't know,
five or six round tables that are in there, and
you go in and just sit wherever, and so it varies.
I mean people sometimes end up sitting next to some
of the same people, but it varies quite a bit.
You just kind of grab an open seat and you
sit wherever, so there's no assigned seats. And then on Wednesdays,
the Mansfield Room is a bigger room and the table
(13:54):
instead of being set up in a series of round tables,
it's one big table that is a rectang and we
all sit around it, and that's called the Steering Lunch.
Steering is run by the Steering Committee. Mike Lee is
the chairman of the Steering Committee. I'm on the Executive
committee of the Steering Committee. The Wednesday lunch is actually
driven by conservatives. So the Steering the Executive Committee are
(14:15):
the most conservative senators and the Wednesday lunch is designed
to discuss policy. And so the way it works, the
Tuesday lunch is the Leadership lunch, and so Mitch McConnell
and Republican Leadership runs the Tuesday lunch. The Wednesday lunch
is the Steering Lunch, and Mike Lee and the Steering
Executive Committee of which I'm a member, runs that, and
(14:36):
that typically is very policy focused. And then the Thursday
Lunch is hosted by a different senator every week. And
what you do when it's your turn to host the
Thursday lunch is you fly in food from your home state.
So I often bring in barbecue from Texas. I'm going
to be doing it soon. I'm gonna fly in tex
mex instead, just because we've done barbecue the last several times.
(14:57):
I figured textmax would be good. And when a senator
hosts it, that has less of a structure that the
Thursday Lunch. You just kind of go around and recognize
each person in the order they came in the room,
and they stand up and they can say whatever they want,
and it's usually a little more relaxed. It's less substantive,
and people will tell a story, they'll raise a policy point,
(15:20):
they'll kind of say whatever they want. So that's how
the three lunches are.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
So you have these lunches and then go into what
these lunches and how they change. When you were dealing
with this immigration, as you said, it was drag out.
Is this where it's a grand debate? Is it you
talk and someone else can you interrupt? Is there kind
of a decorum of the room. How does that work?
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Yeah, so there's a speaking order, and so it just
varies who wants to be recognized. And so, you know,
we had at lunch today, Oh, I don't know. We
probably had twenty twenty five senators speak and you get
up and you talk and you say whatever you want
and there's a difference of opinion. But it was like today,
it became clear this bill is dead. Like everyone was agreeing,
(16:01):
the votes aren't there, We're not going to do it. It
doesn't make any sense. But I'll tell you the case
I made. I made and I've done this repeatedly for
several months. I made the case on the merits this
bill was terrible and it was bad policy because it
would not secure the border. But I also made the
case the politics was spectacularly bad. And here's why the
politics was spectacularly bad. Number one, the chances of this
(16:24):
becoming law were zero. Why because the House of Representatives
made absolutely clear they wouldn't pass it. The Speaker of
the House said, this bill is dead on arrival. In fact,
the top four in leadership in the House said there's
no chance the House would pass this bill. And so
I've spent the past couple of weeks standing up and
looking at my colleagues who were pushing this bill and
(16:45):
arguing for it. And their argument was, well, look, this
has some good changes to immigration law, and I'll con
see there were some good elements there. They say, well,
we toughened up asylum law. I'm like, well, it doesn't
matter if you codify catch and release and you put
in place normalizing two million people a year coming illegally. Like, okay, fine,
(17:05):
you get some minor tweaks in law, but who cares.
It doesn't solve the problem. Sure, But they would say, well,
if we don't do it now, we can never make
the law better, and that they were arguing before and
these improvements in the law, when Trump is president, he
can use it to secure the border. And I said, look,
that's wrong, because aid Trump doesn't need it to secure
(17:25):
the border. We had secured the border before without a
law passing. But b even if that were true, that
won't happen unless this actually passes into law. And given
that the House of Representatives had told us, it ain't
gonna happen. I repeatedly looked at the advocates for this bill.
I looked at Mitch McConnell. I said, how do you
pass the House of Representatives? The Speaker of the House
(17:47):
has said it's not going to and if it's dead
on arrival, what the hell are we doing? And if
it's not going to pass, this is where the political
piece kicks in. I said, if it's not going to pass,
what's the purpose? And I'll tell you what the purpose is.
Chuck Schumer is thrilled today. He is very very happy
(18:07):
because the political purpose of this was to give Democrats camouflage,
to give them a defense.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
To give himn out right where they're not taking heat.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
So every single Democrat running for office in America, every
Democrat Senate candidate, every Democrat House candidate, they're all already
saying word for word the same thing, which is they're
standing up and saying, number one, nothing happens on the border,
which is what they want, so that the open borders continue.
That's the policy outcome they wanted. But number two, every
(18:38):
Democrat can now say, gosh, we wanted to secure the border.
We were ready to secure the border, but the mean
old Republicans wouldn't let us, and so it's their fault
we have this border crisis. And I get why Chuck
Schumer wants that as a political talking point, but why
the hell would Republican leadership in the Senate. And as
(18:59):
I pointed out to them, I said today, I said, look,
you guys have given the largest in kind contribution to
the Democrat Senate Committee in the history of the country
because you've given them an out and provided a defense,
and you've done nothing, zero to fix the problem.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
So explain to me what your strategy would have been differently,
knowing now how this played out, and who around you
agreed with you, and why was it so hard to
get other Republicans to come to your rationale before this
disaster happened.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
So our strategy was simple, and it started off as
the right strategy. We said, we're not going to pass
Ukraine funding unless you actually secure the border. That was
the right strategy. What was critical is actually secure the
border and the way to do that. The House actually
passed a bill and it's called HR two and it
is very tough border security legislation. It is mandatory, it
(19:55):
stops catch and release at mandates attention, at mandates deportation.
It building the wall, it ties the President's hands, and
it was designed to do everything possible legally to force
Biden to stop these open borders. The House passed HR
two was the right way to go. I've introduced HR
(20:16):
two in the Senate. I am the lead Senate author
for HR two. My position was very simple, you want
to know how you get this done. Attach HR two
to Ukraine funding, by the way, I would vote for
Ukraine funding and HR two. Why Because securing the border
is a massive national security priority for America, a massive
public safety priority, a massive priority for saving our nation.
(20:39):
That would be a good deal. You know what happened
when the bill came over, Chuck Schumer said at the
outset said HR two's off the table. We refused to
do it. Absolutely not. Why because HR two would actually
secure the border, and Chuck Schumer doesn't want to secure
the border. And so Schumer immediately rejected HR two because
(20:59):
it was effect and he would only agree to something
that was massively ineffective and that ensured this, this southern
border invasion continues.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
So then how did leadership get this so wrong?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Because the American people, and the polling specifically on the
border crisis was overwhelmingly in the side of conservatives and
what we've been calling for, what we've been advocating for,
and for genuinely securing the border. In fact, it played
even more into the Hans the Republican Party after you
(21:35):
had this fight between Texas and cutting the razor wire
and the border and the myiarchists and what's happening with
the Biden administration, and the polling shows that the American
people are not with Joe Biden on this issue. How
could they not see that? How could Mitch McConnell not
see that?
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Because Mitch McConnell, what he cares about is Ukraine funding.
He has said repeatedly it is the most important thing
in the country to fund the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
And so does he believe that there something behind the
scenes politically?
Speaker 3 (22:07):
I think he believes it. I have no reason to
doubt his sincerity in saying that. But he is passionate
about it. And when it comes to the border, Look,
would he like to secure the border shore? Would he
vote for something to secure the border shore? But but
it's not a driving priority for him. If it doesn't happen. Well, okay,
that's unfortunate, but it's not. It wasn't his objective in
(22:29):
this whole thing. And so here's the fundamental challenge. And listen,
this bill was negotiated by James Langford, Republican from Oklahoma,
by Chris Murphy, an extremely liberal left wing Democrat from Connecticut,
and by Kirsten Cinema, a liberal to somewhat moderate Democrat
(22:49):
slash independent from Arizona, and Lankford. Langford's a really good
guy and Langford has been just just gone through a
buzzsaw on this and basically what happened is leadership pushed
him out on a limb and then saw the limb
off behind him, and he's been getting pounded. But here
was the problem for Langford, and Langford was just followed
(23:12):
orders and did what leadership asked him to do. And
here was the problem. There were two mandates that were
non negotiable. Chuck Schumer's mandate effectively was we will not
secure the border. We won't agree to anything that is
effective securing the border. That was Chuck Schumer's non negotiable.
Mitch McConnell's mandate, his non negotiable was we must must
(23:33):
get a deal because what he cares about is Ukraine funding.
So Langford was essentially told do whatever you can to
get a deal from Schumer, but no is not an answer.
You must agree to what Schumer wants. And so Langford
spent hundreds thousands of hours negotiating with Chris Murphy, which
I do not envy the guy. That was not fun,
(23:56):
but he was operating from a position that mcconne wouldn't
let it say no. McConnell's instructions were get a deal.
So when you ask James, well, why are these terms
so bad? Why aren't there better, he says, well, that's
all the Democrats would agree to. Yeah, like, it's real simple.
If you want the Ukraine funding past HR two, and
you got to be prepared to walk away. Now. I
(24:17):
don't know what they would have done if that happened,
but we will never know because McConnell's immediate response when
Schumer said no, no, no, we won't do HR two is well, okay,
well then we'll do whatever you want. And it's even
worse than that. This was an incredibly misguided strategy. But
I want you to listen to McConnell at a press
conference today after our lunch to give a listen.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Good later Connald's ear the pleader McConnell.
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Cleaterer McConnell, You know, Senator Schumer says that he worked
extensively with you on this package. What do you say
to your colleagues who said that you misfrite your conference
in helping to craft this quarter of price.
Speaker 5 (24:56):
I followed the instructions of our conference who were insisting
that we tackled this in October. I mean it's actually
our side that wanted to tackle the border issue. We
started it obviously with a Democratic president and a Democratic senator.
Our negotiators had to deal with them, and James Langford
(25:20):
under those situations, did a remarkable job to pick off
the Border Council, which supported President Trump. Certainly underscores that
it was a quality product that that particular union felt
would make progress towards making things better. But as I
said earlier, things had changed over the last four months,
(25:44):
and it's been made perfectly clear by the Speaker that
he wouldn't take it up even if we sent it
to him. And so I think that's probably why most
of our members think we ought to have opposition tomorrow
we'll see and then move on with the rest of
the supplement.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
I mean, that's a great story center, but doesn't seem
to necessarily add up with reality, does it?
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Well? And I want to underscore. So you're seeing half
of what was the biggest fight at lunch today, and
so I wanted you to listen to that because that's
what Mitch said at lunch. And I have a policy
at the lunches, which is I don't repeat what other
senators say at the lunch. I think they're owed some
expectation of privacy that we can have candid and really
(26:29):
frank discussion. So I don't repeat what others say, but
I repeat what I say because if I said it,
I have a right to repeat it and say it elsewhere.
Given that Mitch went out and just said it to
the reporters, I can tell you that's what he said
in the room as well. And when he said it,
I stood up and I said, by the way, and
you listen to the words he just said. That press conference,
he said, well, gosh, it was the Republican conference that
(26:50):
wanted to tackle this issue. Notice tackle this issue. Yeah, No,
we didn't want to quote tackle this issue. We wanted
to solve this issue, fix the border. Notice, he said, well, gosh,
it's Democrats, so obviously we weren't going to succeed in
solving the border, so we just had to tackle the
issue and do what the Democrats want. That's his view.
(27:12):
But when he made that argument and you just listened
to it, I stood up immediately after him and I said,
I got to say, if Republican senators go out and
repeat what Mitch just said, it would be spectacularly harmful
and it would be a massive political favor to Chuck
(27:33):
Schumer and every Democrat running. And let me explain to
you why, because what Mitch argued. Notice he said there, hey,
you know, James did a fantastic job and this bill
was a great work product. It was a terrific bill.
And Mitch was like saying, well, just say, well, the
House wouldn't pass it. I said, let me be clear.
If a bunch of Republicans go out and say this
is a terrific bill, but the House wouldn't pass it,
(27:53):
every Democrat John Tester this week has already said, look,
I was ready to secure the border, but these crazy
right wingers wouldn't pass it. And their story they want
to tell is these knuckle dragging Trumpers don't actually want
to secure the border, because we had a great bill
to secure the border, and they're so crazy they want
(28:15):
so their argument is that Republicans want the issue, we
want a campaign on the border rather than actually fix it.
And I'll tell you I yelled at my colleagues last
week when they were making this argument, and I said, listen,
for me, I've lived this border. There is nobody in
this body who wants to solve this more than I do,
because it is a travesty that is hammering and destroying
(28:36):
Texas every day. But I said, listen, if a bunch
of Republicans go out and tell the story, this was
a great bill that would secure the border. But you know,
Trump is so crazy, we couldn't do it. But the
Speaker of the House and the House Republicans, they're so crazy,
we couldn't do it, and so it's their fault. But
we had a fabulous bill. I said, listen, you are
(28:57):
literally repeating Schumer's talking point for every Senate Democrat incumbent.
If you want John Tester to win, go say what
you just said to the reporters. If you want Shared
Brown to win. If you want every Democrat running to win,
go say that. And I said, look what you ought
to say, And I said, listen, you don't have to
throw James Langford under the bus. He's a good man.
(29:19):
But the reason this bill sucks is because the Democrats
are radical zealas who don't want to secure the border,
and so they wouldn't agree to a bill other than
a bill that sucks. And that's not a complicated message.
You don't have to say, you know, Langford is a
horrible human being. You just have to say he was
given an impossible task because it depended on the Democrats agreeing.
(29:44):
And the Democrats want open borders. As long as they
want open borders, they won't agree to legislation that stops
open borders. But the infuriating thing is Mitch walked right
out and said it to the press. So he's perfectly
happy to say, hey, great bill, just crazy Republicans won't
pass it. And that's exactly what Schumer is saying as well.
The two of them, This wasn't a Langford Murphy bill.
(30:09):
This was a Schumer McConnell bill. This was the two
of them. And why was it? Because both of them
desperately want to fund the Ukraine war and on immigration.
They just wanted to throw whatever fig leaf was necessary
on the table to give to give an excuse to
try to get Ukraine funding passed.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
There's a lot of people that are gonna be listening.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
They're gonna say, all right, well, yes, this seems like
this is a victory that we didn't have this bill
become all but there also seems to be a lot
of frustration of Okay, what's next. I mean, Senator, we
can't secure the border. That is their leverage on everything.
Biden sitting there saying, okay, fine, We'll just keep having
(30:51):
record number of legal immigrants come across the southern border.
You look at the numbers, there were breaking record after record.
I go back to the basics that Biden said in
his press conference quote the only reason the border is
not secure, Donald Trump, we know that's a lie.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
Notice notice, by the way, that's Mitch McConnell's talking point too.
If Joe Biden Mitch McConnell are saying the same thing,
why is the Republican Senate leader repeating Biden and Schumer's
talking point? That is a lie.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
I want to tell you about Patriot Mobile real quick.
For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
conservative wireless provider.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
And when I say only, I mean it.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
If you are sick and tired of giving your money
to organizations that actually hate your values, that hate your
family values, hate your Christian values, hate the First Amendment
rights and Second Amendment rights, hate our Constitution, then it
is time for you to switch to Patriot Mobile. They
offer you dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the same exact
coverage that you get right now because they use the
(31:52):
same towers. But what you're getting rid of is the
propaganda of the left and funding the left. Big Mobile
gives big donations to demic credit causes candidates, including Plan Parenthood.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
And that is why I have switched to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
When I look at my phone in the top left corner,
it says Patriot and I know that I'm sending a
message that I support free speech, religious freedom, and the
sanctity of life. And every time I pay my bill,
I also know I'm making a difference because they take
five percent of my bill at no extra cost to you,
and they give it back to conservative causes.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
So try Patriot Mobile. Make the switch.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It's easy to get one hundred percent US based customer
service team, and you get to keep your same phone
number and upgrade your phone as well. If you want
to their number nine seven to two Patriot. That's nine
seven to two Patriot, nine seven to two Patriot. Use
the promo code Verdict you'll get free activation as well,
or online at Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot
(32:51):
Mobile dot com slash vertict. Not only is it a lie,
Donald Trump's not the president right now, and you look
at the numbers to also back up why it's a lie.
In twenty twenty illegal border encounters for four hundred thousand,
twenty twenty one, it jumped to one million, seven hundred
and thirty five thousand. Then in twenty twenty two under Biden,
get it jumped to two million, three hundred and seventy
(33:12):
nine thousand, twenty twenty three two million, four hundred and
seventy six thousand, and yet he wants to say the
only reason the border is not secure is because of
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
It's a lie. They're the facts to back it up.
But what's next now, because.
Speaker 3 (33:24):
Well, and let me explain more why it's a lie.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Listen.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
What Biden is saying, what Schumer is saying, is that
we had a fabulous bipartisan agreement that would have solved
this problem. But then crazy Donald Trump and they're telling,
decided he didn't want to solve this problem, and he
threw a fit and said, don't pass anything because I
want a campaign on this. And then their narrative continues
to be and all the Republicans are sheep and they
(33:49):
just obeyed Donald Trump. And the reason this failed is
because because Trump ordered Republicans to oppose this. That is
Joe Biden's story. It is also Chuck Schumer's story. It
is also the story of every single Senate Democrat. I'm
reading the clips and it's word for word every Senate Democrat.
And you know what, it's also Mitch McConnell's story. And
(34:09):
it's the story of several other Republicans who are going
out and they're saying, oh, you're just following Trump's orders. Well, listen,
I talked to Trump frequently, but I can tell you
I haven't had a single conversation with Trump about this
issue at all. I've been leading the fight against this
issue from the beginning. We haven't talked about this supplemental bill,
but it was obvious on the merits. I looked to
the merits and said, does this bill solve the problem?
(34:31):
And it doesn't, but it is incredibly harmful when Republican senators,
many of them just they don't like Trump and they're
frustrated now and so they're lashing out. But they're lashing
out in a way that helps Democrats.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
So where do we go from here? I mean, there's
also another defeat. People are frustrating the House side and
impeaching my orchis that failed? Granted it could come up
for another vote, but as of now, it seems like
that's a failure. We have an open border. That seems
like another failure. Is this now just going to be
a wide open border till election Day? And that's what
this next election is going to be about. Hey, you
(35:10):
vote for Republicans and you'll get a secure border only
if we have the House, Senate in the White House.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Look, in all likelihood, yes, Joe Biden caused this open border.
Joe Biden could secure it tomorrow. He did it unilaterally.
He didn't pass any new legislation, He didn't change the
law to cause this crisis. He simply defied the law.
He made three decisions that caused this crisis. He stopped
building the border wall. He reinstated the disastrous policy of
(35:37):
catch and release, and he ended the incredibly successful policy
the agreement remained in Mexico. That's what caused this crisis.
Biden could change that tomorrow. He doesn't want to. He's
not going to now. Actually to fix this, we don't
necessarily need a Republican president, Republican House, and Republican Senate.
We just need a Republican president. If Trump were president again,
(35:59):
we would secure the border again. Why because he would
vigorously enforce the law. Biden is defying the law. Winning
the White House as the key to securing the border. Now,
with a Republican Senate in house, we can do more,
We can be more effected. But you ask, what's next, Well, listen,
what's next. Tomorrow We're going to vote on this supplemental
(36:21):
with the bad border provisions that's going to fail. What
we're anticipating will happen next is Schumer is going to
go back to the supplemental that has Ukraine and has
Israel and has Taiwan and does nothing on the border.
That's what he tried initially that we blocked in the fall,
and I don't know what will happen. I'm going to
(36:41):
oppose it because what I said before, I still believe
I'm not going to vote for this bill until we
actually secure our border. When I said it, unlike Republican leadership,
I wasn't just reading talking points. I actually believe that
securing the border is the existential national security threat facing
the United States right now now, and we should use
(37:01):
the leverage that the Democrats desperately want on Ukraine to
try to get it done. So I think our view
should be, if you want Ukraine funding, attach it to
HR two and you'll get your funding. But Schumer's going
to take up Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan. He's probably going to
begin tomorrow, and I don't know what will happen, but
(37:22):
I think there is a very real possibility that a
significant number of Republicans vote for that, that they care
so much about the Ukraine funding, they're going to say,
we try it on the border, we failed, Now let's
fund Ukraine. If they get nine votes, which I think
is probably pretty likely, they'll get sixty, which is what
it takes to pass the Senate and so I think
(37:42):
there's a reasonable prospect that a supplemental bill that funds
Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan will pass out of the Senate.
But then I think it's very likely to fail in
the House. I don't think the House will take it up.
And that means that McConnell and Schumer and Biden still
have a problem if they want Ukraine funding. Passing a
clean funding bill out of the Senate is not going
(38:04):
to get the job done. And so what I would
urge the House to do is take the Ukraine funding bill,
attach HR two to it, and send it back to
the Senate and keep fighting. Use the leverage we have
to say, hey, you can have this funding if you
want secure the border first, because that matters more, and
use that leverage. Look, that will not come from McConnell
(38:27):
and Senate Republican leadership, but I'm hopeful the Speaker and
House Republicans will hold the line. And I hope that's
what's next.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
It's going to be very interesting to see where this
all ends up. Center.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
I appreciate you kind of takeing us behind closed doors
and explaining how the sausage is made here, because even
with this victory of it not going to become a
bill become law. There's still a lot of real, real
genuine frustration from Conservatives and it may be that it
is the election year issue. Don't forget we do this
(38:58):
show Monday when day in Fridays, make sure you hit
that subscribe auto download button.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Also help this
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Show reach other people by sharing it on your social media,
whether you're on X on Facebook, on Instagram, you can
hit the share button and share this episode so others
will know exactly what's going on with the border security issue,
as well as Ukraine funding and the Center and I
will see you back here on Friday.
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you.
And the big news is the Senate bill, this border
disaster bill, has failed. Senator. I want to get your
reaction this. You fought incredibly hard to stop this bill,
which had a lot of things in it that people
I don't even think realize. Going down to the wire,
(00:22):
it would basically codify, It would have cut of fied
open borders. It would have sent another sixty billion to Ukraine,
but only twenty billion to secure the southern border. It
would have given taxpayer for the lawyers to illegals, and
it would have cost the American taxpayers one point four
billion to resettle illegals in the US, including travel and accommodations.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Look, the bill was a terrible bill. Now the good
news is the bill is dead. It is dead as
a door knob. It is going to fail. You and
I are recording this. It's eleven o'clock at night Tuesday night. Tomorrow, Wednesday,
the Senate will vote on what's called cloture on the
motion to proceed. That's the initial vote to take up
this bill that's going to fail. It needs sixty votes
(01:07):
to proceed. It's not going to get it. You are
going to see every Republican or almost every Republican vote.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
I don't know what the final vote will be. There
might be a couple of Republicans who vote yes, but
we're going to see the overwhelming majority of our conference vote.
Speaker 5 (01:21):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
That's a very good thing. That is the result of
what has been an epic battle within the Republican Conference
in the Senate for months. The reason the bill is
going to fail tomorrow is because the bill is a
bad bill. It does not fix the problem of our
open borders. It does not fix the problem of the
(01:45):
chaos of the southern border and the invasion that Joe
Biden has caused, and in significant ways it makes it worse.
We should discuss as a policy matter, why this bill
was bad, and in secondly, as a matter of politics,
why the bill was even worse, why the bill was
(02:06):
a massive political blunder, a total cluster by Senate Republican
leadership that is going to do enormous damage. Both are true,
but we ought to start on the policy front.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Let's talk about the policy aspect of this, because there
is a lot of people that are very angry that
this even got this close to being a possibility, and
it was only because of leaders like you that were
willing to stand up and say absolutely not time and
time again while they were trying to cram this down
our throats and also doing it with this, Hey, we're
going to tie Ukraine funding in here, and if you
(02:40):
don't give us that, as Joe Biden has said, there's
a good chance your boys are going to be fighting
a war with Russia. And oh, by the way, we're
going to throw a little money in there for Israel.
At the same time, we should have nothing to do
with a border security bill.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Well what happened here. Now, another reason border security was
tied to this is because Republicans quite rightly demanded it
be tied on this, and in particular Joe Biden and
the White House and Chuck Schumer. They desperately want funding
for Ukraine, and so does Mitch McConnell, so does Republican
Senate leadership. And what the Republican Conference said, we united
(03:13):
the Senate and said, no, we're not going to fund
Ukraine unless you secure the border. We're not going to
pay any more to secure the border in Ukraine until
we secure our own border. That was the right thing
to say, and I was vocal in leading the effort
to say, we're going to demand that we secure the
border and do it now. We're going to use this
(03:34):
leverage because the White House and the Democrats desperately want
Ukraine funding, and so we're perfectly fine to say, fine,
we'll give you a Ukraine funding if, and this is
a big if, you actually secure the border. This bill
didn't do it. What did this bill do well? Number one,
it codified Joe Biden's open border. So the cause of
(03:56):
the open borders, the biggest cause is catch and release.
The first week in office that Biden was president, he
reinstated catch and release, a disastrous policy. It is catch
and release is contrary to law. It's contrary to federal
immigration law. Joe Biden is defying law by doing it.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Well.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
This bill would put it into law catch and release.
When you catch people, you let them go. Not only that,
this bill normalized five thousand illegal aliens a day. Five
thousand illegal aliens a day works out to one point
eight million a year.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
And explain what you mean by normalized, because this is
one of the things that happened the last really twenty
four to forty eight hours. That went viral, and I'm
not sure people understand how you could claim you were
going to have a secure border while also saying five
thousand can come in here, and then another five, and
another five and another five.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Explain that, well, The way it was written is it
said that if if five thousand illegal aliens a day
are crossing the border, then, as the proponents of the
bill would say, the border is shut down and they
could no longer accept asylum applications. That was their pitch,
(05:09):
and they pitched this as an emergency provision. As a
practical matter. If this passed, we would see five thousand
a day for all time, for all perpetuity, we'd see
five thousand a day. Five thousand a day, as I said,
is one point eight million a year. One point eight
million a year means over the three years of the
Biden presidency so far, we'd have nearly six million illegal aliens.
(05:32):
We have, in fact, had nine point six million illegal aliens.
So what Republicans were saying idiotically is we're for two
thirds of the Biden open borders, and it's not even
five thousand a day. It's more than that. So there
were a bunch of exemptions. So, for example, the five
thousand a day did not count unaccompanied kids, which means
(05:57):
there's a huge incentive for a massive flow of unaccompanied children.
These are little boys and little girls that get brutalized
by human traffickers coming in. Also, the so called shutdown
authority when you cross five thousand a day was for
a limited duration. In the first year it could be
a maximum of two hundred and seventy days, and the
(06:18):
second year could be for a maximum of two hundred
and twenty five days, and the third year it could
be a maximum of one hundred and eighty days. So
that means it's five thousand a day for half the year,
and then for the other half the year you can
go back to ten thousand a day, which is what
we had in December, and it didn't have anything to
limit it. And then insanely enough, it gave the president
(06:41):
discretion to reopen the border at any time quote if
it is in the national interest to temporarily suspend the
border emergency authority. In other words, it said to Biden,
we're being so tough. We're gonna say once you get
to five thousand a day, you got to shut it down. Well,
unless you think you don't and then you don't have to.
That made no sense. Not only that, what else did
(07:03):
it do. It gave immediate work permits to people coming
here illegally. That is insane.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
It gave And by the way, they've been pushing hard
for that over the last several weeks and they're talking
points is and we've seen this in places like Denver, Colorado.
We've seen this in New York City, We've seen this
in sanctuary cities time and time again. Now over the
last several months, we're like, well, look, we wouldn't have
this crisis that we have right now if you guys
would just let them.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Hurry up and work already.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
And that was part of this, put a gun to
the head of this country saying, well, everybody, thats ier illegally.
If you'll just let them work and just let them
stay and just let them maybe vote by twenty thirty,
then then we can finally secure the border. But then
when you read the bill ags you just described it,
there was no secure in the border here at all.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
It did not secure the border. Not only that it
gave billions, It gave two point three billion, and that
would go to sanctuary cities. It gave one point four
billion dollars that would go to nonprofit organizations that are
providing shelter dailygal aliens and that are helping funnel this invasion.
(08:13):
So it literally spends billions. You know, you mentioned the
twenty billion dollar fund amount. That twenty billion is not
to secure the border. That's not actually that's not money
for building a wall, that's not money for border patrol agents.
That's money to pay off sanctuary cities and to pay
off the nonprofits, the NGOs that are producing this invasion.
(08:35):
And so on the face of it, this bill made
things worse because it didn't solve the problem. And so
as a policy matter, it was putting into federal law,
federal statute Biden's open borders. That was a spectacularly bad idea.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I want to talk to you real quick about what's
happening with or economy. And you may be looking at
what's happening. You may be looking at our national debt
exceeding thirty four trillion, and you may be also noticing
the push for central bank digital currencies. That means that
our financial freedom is at stake. And that's why I
want you to know about Freedom Gold USA. If you
(09:18):
have fifty thousand dollars or more in retirement savings, you
may be at risk in times of economic uncertainty. Securing
your family's financial future is essential, and Freedom Gold USA
is here to empower you to protect your hard earned assets.
You can act now by calling them one eight hundred
and sixty five y five eight eight four three, or
(09:39):
you can visit them at freedom GOOLDUSA dot com slash verdict.
The team at freedom Gold USA is ready to help
you preserve your wealth and provide stability in uncertain times.
Plus there's also something else that's really cool. You can
also see if you qualify for up to ten thousand
dollars in free silver.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
That's that's right.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
You can learn how to add gold and silver to
your IRA or have it shipped to your home, Safeguard
your wealth for physical gold and silver, and take control
of your financial future today. So call them one eight
hundred sixty five five eight eight four three or visit
them online at freedomgoldussay dot com slash verdict to see
if you qualify for up to ten thousand dollars in
(10:23):
free silver. One eight hundred sixty five five eight eight
four three or Freedomgoldusa dot com slash verdict cenater I.
The part that after you just described the initial things
that were so wrong in this bill, that so many
listening are going to want to ask you is then
why did Republicans actually even work on this? Why did
(10:43):
they agree to some of this? Why were they selling
us out? Because without the Republicans working on this, if
they would have just walked away, we would have never
gotten this close.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Yeah, because it was political malpractice. And that's the second
piece of it. I mentioned the policy was terrible, but
the policy was terrible because the politics were terrible. Now
why were the politics terrible? You know, we had in
our lunches and so understand what goes on behind the
scenes at the Senate. Every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, all
the Senate Republicans we have lunch together and that's where
(11:15):
we have discussions. And I'll tell you, for the last
several months we have had knocked down, drag out battles
in their Senate Republican lunches over this issue.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Can you set the stage like when you're eating wines?
Is this like cafeteria food box lunch? Are you in
coat and tie? Is it more casual. How's the room seated?
Do you have a seat that you see it that
you're seated in every time? And is anyone from outside
of just being a center in that room? Are they
coming and going? How does it work?
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
So the lunches are in the United States Capital, so
in the Capitol building itself on the second floor, which
is the same floor that the Senate floor is on,
so it's kind of the middle floor of the Capitol.
And on two days a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays,
we have lunch in a room that's called the LBJO
And it's called the LBJ Room because there's a portrait
of LBJ on the wall. And look, this is the capital,
(12:05):
so it is ornate, it is gilded, there's you know,
beautiful painting and you know, gold leaf, and I mean
it's it's gorgeous. It's the United States Capital, so it's
a it's an amazing building. The LBJ Room is is
relatively small. So there are a whole series of round
tables in the LBJ Room and it's pretty packed and
all forty nine Republicans are typically there having dinner, and
(12:28):
they're usually a half dozen staff members. So it's basically
senators and maybe a half dozen staff members for leadership.
They're in the room, but it's almost exclusively senators in
the room. And and the lunch is typically it's it's
the food is prepared at the Capitol. It's actually pretty
good food. It's surprising, you know. It varied, like today
we had had fried chicken and had had had some
(12:52):
shrimp and beef thing and some broccoli, so it was,
you know, it's kind of a it's nicer than a
school calf. It's not gourmet food, but it was you know,
it's the food is surprisingly decent. And we're sitting there.
And then so two days a week we're in the
LBJ room and then on Wednesdays we're in what's called
(13:13):
the Mansfield Room. The man's Field Room is bigger, and
so the majority gets the Mansfield Room on Tuesday and Thursdays.
Because we're in the minority, we're in the smaller room,
the LBJ room on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
So the Democrats are meeting at the same time you
guys are for lunch as well. Okay, and then do
you have assigned seating? Do you sit there? Is it
by rank and file or do you just sit with
your friends.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
No, So they're like, they're you know, I don't know,
five or six round tables that are in there, and
you go in and just sit wherever, and so it varies.
I mean people sometimes end up sitting next to some
of the same people, but it varies quite a bit.
You just kind of grab an open seat and you
sit wherever, so there's no assigned seats. And then on Wednesdays,
the Mansfield Room is a bigger room and the table
(13:54):
instead of being set up in a series of round tables,
it's one big table that is a rectang and we
all sit around it, and that's called the Steering Lunch.
Steering is run by the Steering Committee. Mike Lee is
the chairman of the Steering Committee. I'm on the Executive
committee of the Steering Committee. The Wednesday lunch is actually
driven by conservatives. So the Steering the Executive Committee are
(14:15):
the most conservative senators and the Wednesday lunch is designed
to discuss policy. And so the way it works, the
Tuesday lunch is the Leadership lunch, and so Mitch McConnell
and Republican Leadership runs the Tuesday lunch. The Wednesday lunch
is the Steering Lunch, and Mike Lee and the Steering
Executive Committee of which I'm a member, runs that, and
(14:36):
that typically is very policy focused. And then the Thursday
Lunch is hosted by a different senator every week. And
what you do when it's your turn to host the
Thursday lunch is you fly in food from your home state.
So I often bring in barbecue from Texas. I'm going
to be doing it soon. I'm gonna fly in tex
mex instead, just because we've done barbecue the last several times.
(14:57):
I figured textmax would be good. And when a senator
hosts it, that has less of a structure that the
Thursday Lunch. You just kind of go around and recognize
each person in the order they came in the room,
and they stand up and they can say whatever they want,
and it's usually a little more relaxed. It's less substantive,
and people will tell a story, they'll raise a policy point,
(15:20):
they'll kind of say whatever they want. So that's how
the three lunches are.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
So you have these lunches and then go into what
these lunches and how they change. When you were dealing
with this immigration, as you said, it was drag out.
Is this where it's a grand debate? Is it you
talk and someone else can you interrupt? Is there kind
of a decorum of the room. How does that work?
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Yeah, so there's a speaking order, and so it just
varies who wants to be recognized. And so, you know,
we had at lunch today, Oh, I don't know. We
probably had twenty twenty five senators speak and you get
up and you talk and you say whatever you want
and there's a difference of opinion. But it was like today,
it became clear this bill is dead. Like everyone was agreeing,
(16:01):
the votes aren't there, We're not going to do it. It
doesn't make any sense. But I'll tell you the case
I made. I made and I've done this repeatedly for
several months. I made the case on the merits this
bill was terrible and it was bad policy because it
would not secure the border. But I also made the
case the politics was spectacularly bad. And here's why the
politics was spectacularly bad. Number one, the chances of this
(16:24):
becoming law were zero. Why because the House of Representatives
made absolutely clear they wouldn't pass it. The Speaker of
the House said, this bill is dead on arrival. In fact,
the top four in leadership in the House said there's
no chance the House would pass this bill. And so
I've spent the past couple of weeks standing up and
looking at my colleagues who were pushing this bill and
(16:45):
arguing for it. And their argument was, well, look, this
has some good changes to immigration law, and I'll con
see there were some good elements there. They say, well,
we toughened up asylum law. I'm like, well, it doesn't
matter if you codify catch and release and you put
in place normalizing two million people a year coming illegally. Like, okay, fine,
(17:05):
you get some minor tweaks in law, but who cares.
It doesn't solve the problem. Sure, But they would say, well,
if we don't do it now, we can never make
the law better, and that they were arguing before and
these improvements in the law, when Trump is president, he
can use it to secure the border. And I said, look,
that's wrong, because aid Trump doesn't need it to secure
(17:25):
the border. We had secured the border before without a
law passing. But b even if that were true, that
won't happen unless this actually passes into law. And given
that the House of Representatives had told us, it ain't
gonna happen. I repeatedly looked at the advocates for this bill.
I looked at Mitch McConnell. I said, how do you
pass the House of Representatives? The Speaker of the House
(17:47):
has said it's not going to and if it's dead
on arrival, what the hell are we doing? And if
it's not going to pass, this is where the political
piece kicks in. I said, if it's not going to pass,
what's the purpose? And I'll tell you what the purpose is.
Chuck Schumer is thrilled today. He is very very happy
(18:07):
because the political purpose of this was to give Democrats camouflage,
to give them a defense.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
To give himn out right where they're not taking heat.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
So every single Democrat running for office in America, every
Democrat Senate candidate, every Democrat House candidate, they're all already
saying word for word the same thing, which is they're
standing up and saying, number one, nothing happens on the border,
which is what they want, so that the open borders continue.
That's the policy outcome they wanted. But number two, every
(18:38):
Democrat can now say, gosh, we wanted to secure the border.
We were ready to secure the border, but the mean
old Republicans wouldn't let us, and so it's their fault
we have this border crisis. And I get why Chuck
Schumer wants that as a political talking point, but why
the hell would Republican leadership in the Senate. And as
(18:59):
I pointed out to them, I said today, I said, look,
you guys have given the largest in kind contribution to
the Democrat Senate Committee in the history of the country
because you've given them an out and provided a defense,
and you've done nothing, zero to fix the problem.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
So explain to me what your strategy would have been differently,
knowing now how this played out, and who around you
agreed with you, and why was it so hard to
get other Republicans to come to your rationale before this
disaster happened.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
So our strategy was simple, and it started off as
the right strategy. We said, we're not going to pass
Ukraine funding unless you actually secure the border. That was
the right strategy. What was critical is actually secure the
border and the way to do that. The House actually
passed a bill and it's called HR two and it
is very tough border security legislation. It is mandatory, it
(19:55):
stops catch and release at mandates attention, at mandates deportation.
It building the wall, it ties the President's hands, and
it was designed to do everything possible legally to force
Biden to stop these open borders. The House passed HR
two was the right way to go. I've introduced HR
(20:16):
two in the Senate. I am the lead Senate author
for HR two. My position was very simple, you want
to know how you get this done. Attach HR two
to Ukraine funding, by the way, I would vote for
Ukraine funding and HR two. Why Because securing the border
is a massive national security priority for America, a massive
public safety priority, a massive priority for saving our nation.
(20:39):
That would be a good deal. You know what happened
when the bill came over, Chuck Schumer said at the
outset said HR two's off the table. We refused to
do it. Absolutely not. Why because HR two would actually
secure the border, and Chuck Schumer doesn't want to secure
the border. And so Schumer immediately rejected HR two because
(20:59):
it was effect and he would only agree to something
that was massively ineffective and that ensured this, this southern
border invasion continues.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
So then how did leadership get this so wrong?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Because the American people, and the polling specifically on the
border crisis was overwhelmingly in the side of conservatives and
what we've been calling for, what we've been advocating for,
and for genuinely securing the border. In fact, it played
even more into the Hans the Republican Party after you
(21:35):
had this fight between Texas and cutting the razor wire
and the border and the myiarchists and what's happening with
the Biden administration, and the polling shows that the American
people are not with Joe Biden on this issue. How
could they not see that? How could Mitch McConnell not
see that?
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Because Mitch McConnell, what he cares about is Ukraine funding.
He has said repeatedly it is the most important thing
in the country to fund the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
And so does he believe that there something behind the
scenes politically?
Speaker 3 (22:07):
I think he believes it. I have no reason to
doubt his sincerity in saying that. But he is passionate
about it. And when it comes to the border, Look,
would he like to secure the border shore? Would he
vote for something to secure the border shore? But but
it's not a driving priority for him. If it doesn't happen. Well, okay,
that's unfortunate, but it's not. It wasn't his objective in
(22:29):
this whole thing. And so here's the fundamental challenge. And listen,
this bill was negotiated by James Langford, Republican from Oklahoma,
by Chris Murphy, an extremely liberal left wing Democrat from Connecticut,
and by Kirsten Cinema, a liberal to somewhat moderate Democrat
(22:49):
slash independent from Arizona, and Lankford. Langford's a really good
guy and Langford has been just just gone through a
buzzsaw on this and basically what happened is leadership pushed
him out on a limb and then saw the limb
off behind him, and he's been getting pounded. But here
was the problem for Langford, and Langford was just followed
(23:12):
orders and did what leadership asked him to do. And
here was the problem. There were two mandates that were
non negotiable. Chuck Schumer's mandate effectively was we will not
secure the border. We won't agree to anything that is
effective securing the border. That was Chuck Schumer's non negotiable.
Mitch McConnell's mandate, his non negotiable was we must must
(23:33):
get a deal because what he cares about is Ukraine funding.
So Langford was essentially told do whatever you can to
get a deal from Schumer, but no is not an answer.
You must agree to what Schumer wants. And so Langford
spent hundreds thousands of hours negotiating with Chris Murphy, which
I do not envy the guy. That was not fun,
(23:56):
but he was operating from a position that mcconne wouldn't
let it say no. McConnell's instructions were get a deal.
So when you ask James, well, why are these terms
so bad? Why aren't there better, he says, well, that's
all the Democrats would agree to. Yeah, like, it's real simple.
If you want the Ukraine funding past HR two, and
you got to be prepared to walk away. Now. I
(24:17):
don't know what they would have done if that happened,
but we will never know because McConnell's immediate response when
Schumer said no, no, no, we won't do HR two is well, okay,
well then we'll do whatever you want. And it's even
worse than that. This was an incredibly misguided strategy. But
I want you to listen to McConnell at a press
conference today after our lunch to give a listen.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Good later Connald's ear the pleader McConnell.
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Cleaterer McConnell, You know, Senator Schumer says that he worked
extensively with you on this package. What do you say
to your colleagues who said that you misfrite your conference
in helping to craft this quarter of price.
Speaker 5 (24:56):
I followed the instructions of our conference who were insisting
that we tackled this in October. I mean it's actually
our side that wanted to tackle the border issue. We
started it obviously with a Democratic president and a Democratic senator.
Our negotiators had to deal with them, and James Langford
(25:20):
under those situations, did a remarkable job to pick off
the Border Council, which supported President Trump. Certainly underscores that
it was a quality product that that particular union felt
would make progress towards making things better. But as I
said earlier, things had changed over the last four months,
(25:44):
and it's been made perfectly clear by the Speaker that
he wouldn't take it up even if we sent it
to him. And so I think that's probably why most
of our members think we ought to have opposition tomorrow
we'll see and then move on with the rest of
the supplement.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
I mean, that's a great story center, but doesn't seem
to necessarily add up with reality, does it?
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Well? And I want to underscore. So you're seeing half
of what was the biggest fight at lunch today, and
so I wanted you to listen to that because that's
what Mitch said at lunch. And I have a policy
at the lunches, which is I don't repeat what other
senators say at the lunch. I think they're owed some
expectation of privacy that we can have candid and really
(26:29):
frank discussion. So I don't repeat what others say, but
I repeat what I say because if I said it,
I have a right to repeat it and say it elsewhere.
Given that Mitch went out and just said it to
the reporters, I can tell you that's what he said
in the room as well. And when he said it,
I stood up and I said, by the way, and
you listen to the words he just said. That press conference,
he said, well, gosh, it was the Republican conference that
(26:50):
wanted to tackle this issue. Notice tackle this issue. Yeah, No,
we didn't want to quote tackle this issue. We wanted
to solve this issue, fix the border. Notice, he said, well, gosh,
it's Democrats, so obviously we weren't going to succeed in
solving the border, so we just had to tackle the
issue and do what the Democrats want. That's his view.
(27:12):
But when he made that argument and you just listened
to it, I stood up immediately after him and I said,
I got to say, if Republican senators go out and
repeat what Mitch just said, it would be spectacularly harmful
and it would be a massive political favor to Chuck
(27:33):
Schumer and every Democrat running. And let me explain to
you why, because what Mitch argued. Notice he said there, hey,
you know, James did a fantastic job and this bill
was a great work product. It was a terrific bill.
And Mitch was like saying, well, just say, well, the
House wouldn't pass it. I said, let me be clear.
If a bunch of Republicans go out and say this
is a terrific bill, but the House wouldn't pass it,
(27:53):
every Democrat John Tester this week has already said, look,
I was ready to secure the border, but these crazy
right wingers wouldn't pass it. And their story they want
to tell is these knuckle dragging Trumpers don't actually want
to secure the border, because we had a great bill
to secure the border, and they're so crazy they want
(28:15):
so their argument is that Republicans want the issue, we
want a campaign on the border rather than actually fix it.
And I'll tell you I yelled at my colleagues last
week when they were making this argument, and I said, listen,
for me, I've lived this border. There is nobody in
this body who wants to solve this more than I do,
because it is a travesty that is hammering and destroying
(28:36):
Texas every day. But I said, listen, if a bunch
of Republicans go out and tell the story, this was
a great bill that would secure the border. But you know,
Trump is so crazy, we couldn't do it. But the
Speaker of the House and the House Republicans, they're so crazy,
we couldn't do it, and so it's their fault. But
we had a fabulous bill. I said, listen, you are
(28:57):
literally repeating Schumer's talking point for every Senate Democrat incumbent.
If you want John Tester to win, go say what
you just said to the reporters. If you want Shared
Brown to win. If you want every Democrat running to win,
go say that. And I said, look what you ought
to say, And I said, listen, you don't have to
throw James Langford under the bus. He's a good man.
(29:19):
But the reason this bill sucks is because the Democrats
are radical zealas who don't want to secure the border,
and so they wouldn't agree to a bill other than
a bill that sucks. And that's not a complicated message.
You don't have to say, you know, Langford is a
horrible human being. You just have to say he was
given an impossible task because it depended on the Democrats agreeing.
(29:44):
And the Democrats want open borders. As long as they
want open borders, they won't agree to legislation that stops
open borders. But the infuriating thing is Mitch walked right
out and said it to the press. So he's perfectly
happy to say, hey, great bill, just crazy Republicans won't
pass it. And that's exactly what Schumer is saying as well.
The two of them, This wasn't a Langford Murphy bill.
(30:09):
This was a Schumer McConnell bill. This was the two
of them. And why was it? Because both of them
desperately want to fund the Ukraine war and on immigration.
They just wanted to throw whatever fig leaf was necessary
on the table to give to give an excuse to
try to get Ukraine funding passed.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
There's a lot of people that are gonna be listening.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
They're gonna say, all right, well, yes, this seems like
this is a victory that we didn't have this bill
become all but there also seems to be a lot
of frustration of Okay, what's next. I mean, Senator, we
can't secure the border. That is their leverage on everything.
Biden sitting there saying, okay, fine, We'll just keep having
(30:51):
record number of legal immigrants come across the southern border.
You look at the numbers, there were breaking record after record.
I go back to the basics that Biden said in
his press conference quote the only reason the border is
not secure, Donald Trump, we know that's a lie.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
Notice notice, by the way, that's Mitch McConnell's talking point too.
If Joe Biden Mitch McConnell are saying the same thing,
why is the Republican Senate leader repeating Biden and Schumer's
talking point? That is a lie.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
I want to tell you about Patriot Mobile real quick.
For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
conservative wireless provider.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
And when I say only, I mean it.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
If you are sick and tired of giving your money
to organizations that actually hate your values, that hate your
family values, hate your Christian values, hate the First Amendment
rights and Second Amendment rights, hate our Constitution, then it
is time for you to switch to Patriot Mobile. They
offer you dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the same exact
coverage that you get right now because they use the
(31:52):
same towers. But what you're getting rid of is the
propaganda of the left and funding the left. Big Mobile
gives big donations to demic credit causes candidates, including Plan Parenthood.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
And that is why I have switched to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
When I look at my phone in the top left corner,
it says Patriot and I know that I'm sending a
message that I support free speech, religious freedom, and the
sanctity of life. And every time I pay my bill,
I also know I'm making a difference because they take
five percent of my bill at no extra cost to you,
and they give it back to conservative causes.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
So try Patriot Mobile. Make the switch.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It's easy to get one hundred percent US based customer
service team, and you get to keep your same phone
number and upgrade your phone as well. If you want
to their number nine seven to two Patriot. That's nine
seven to two Patriot, nine seven to two Patriot. Use
the promo code Verdict you'll get free activation as well,
or online at Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot
(32:51):
Mobile dot com slash vertict. Not only is it a lie,
Donald Trump's not the president right now, and you look
at the numbers to also back up why it's a lie.
In twenty twenty illegal border encounters for four hundred thousand,
twenty twenty one, it jumped to one million, seven hundred
and thirty five thousand. Then in twenty twenty two under Biden,
get it jumped to two million, three hundred and seventy
(33:12):
nine thousand, twenty twenty three two million, four hundred and
seventy six thousand, and yet he wants to say the
only reason the border is not secure is because of
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
It's a lie. They're the facts to back it up.
But what's next now, because.
Speaker 3 (33:24):
Well, and let me explain more why it's a lie.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Listen.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
What Biden is saying, what Schumer is saying, is that
we had a fabulous bipartisan agreement that would have solved
this problem. But then crazy Donald Trump and they're telling,
decided he didn't want to solve this problem, and he
threw a fit and said, don't pass anything because I
want a campaign on this. And then their narrative continues
to be and all the Republicans are sheep and they
(33:49):
just obeyed Donald Trump. And the reason this failed is
because because Trump ordered Republicans to oppose this. That is
Joe Biden's story. It is also Chuck Schumer's story. It
is also the story of every single Senate Democrat. I'm
reading the clips and it's word for word every Senate Democrat.
And you know what, it's also Mitch McConnell's story. And
(34:09):
it's the story of several other Republicans who are going
out and they're saying, oh, you're just following Trump's orders. Well, listen,
I talked to Trump frequently, but I can tell you
I haven't had a single conversation with Trump about this
issue at all. I've been leading the fight against this
issue from the beginning. We haven't talked about this supplemental bill,
but it was obvious on the merits. I looked to
the merits and said, does this bill solve the problem?
(34:31):
And it doesn't, but it is incredibly harmful when Republican senators,
many of them just they don't like Trump and they're
frustrated now and so they're lashing out. But they're lashing
out in a way that helps Democrats.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
So where do we go from here? I mean, there's
also another defeat. People are frustrating the House side and
impeaching my orchis that failed? Granted it could come up
for another vote, but as of now, it seems like
that's a failure. We have an open border. That seems
like another failure. Is this now just going to be
a wide open border till election Day? And that's what
this next election is going to be about. Hey, you
(35:10):
vote for Republicans and you'll get a secure border only
if we have the House, Senate in the White House.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Look, in all likelihood, yes, Joe Biden caused this open border.
Joe Biden could secure it tomorrow. He did it unilaterally.
He didn't pass any new legislation, He didn't change the
law to cause this crisis. He simply defied the law.
He made three decisions that caused this crisis. He stopped
building the border wall. He reinstated the disastrous policy of
(35:37):
catch and release, and he ended the incredibly successful policy
the agreement remained in Mexico. That's what caused this crisis.
Biden could change that tomorrow. He doesn't want to. He's
not going to now. Actually to fix this, we don't
necessarily need a Republican president, Republican House, and Republican Senate.
We just need a Republican president. If Trump were president again,
(35:59):
we would secure the border again. Why because he would
vigorously enforce the law. Biden is defying the law. Winning
the White House as the key to securing the border. Now,
with a Republican Senate in house, we can do more,
We can be more effected. But you ask, what's next, Well, listen,
what's next. Tomorrow We're going to vote on this supplemental
(36:21):
with the bad border provisions that's going to fail. What
we're anticipating will happen next is Schumer is going to
go back to the supplemental that has Ukraine and has
Israel and has Taiwan and does nothing on the border.
That's what he tried initially that we blocked in the fall,
and I don't know what will happen. I'm going to
(36:41):
oppose it because what I said before, I still believe
I'm not going to vote for this bill until we
actually secure our border. When I said it, unlike Republican leadership,
I wasn't just reading talking points. I actually believe that
securing the border is the existential national security threat facing
the United States right now now, and we should use
(37:01):
the leverage that the Democrats desperately want on Ukraine to
try to get it done. So I think our view
should be, if you want Ukraine funding, attach it to
HR two and you'll get your funding. But Schumer's going
to take up Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan. He's probably going to
begin tomorrow, and I don't know what will happen, but
(37:22):
I think there is a very real possibility that a
significant number of Republicans vote for that, that they care
so much about the Ukraine funding, they're going to say,
we try it on the border, we failed, Now let's
fund Ukraine. If they get nine votes, which I think
is probably pretty likely, they'll get sixty, which is what
it takes to pass the Senate and so I think
(37:42):
there's a reasonable prospect that a supplemental bill that funds
Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan will pass out of the Senate.
But then I think it's very likely to fail in
the House. I don't think the House will take it up.
And that means that McConnell and Schumer and Biden still
have a problem if they want Ukraine funding. Passing a
clean funding bill out of the Senate is not going
(38:04):
to get the job done. And so what I would
urge the House to do is take the Ukraine funding bill,
attach HR two to it, and send it back to
the Senate and keep fighting. Use the leverage we have
to say, hey, you can have this funding if you
want secure the border first, because that matters more, and
use that leverage. Look, that will not come from McConnell
(38:27):
and Senate Republican leadership, but I'm hopeful the Speaker and
House Republicans will hold the line. And I hope that's
what's next.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
It's going to be very interesting to see where this
all ends up. Center.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
I appreciate you kind of takeing us behind closed doors
and explaining how the sausage is made here, because even
with this victory of it not going to become a
bill become law. There's still a lot of real, real
genuine frustration from Conservatives and it may be that it
is the election year issue. Don't forget we do this
(38:58):
show Monday when day in Fridays, make sure you hit
that subscribe auto download button.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Also help this
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Show reach other people by sharing it on your social media,
whether you're on X on Facebook, on Instagram, you can
hit the share button and share this episode so others
will know exactly what's going on with the border security issue,
as well as Ukraine funding and the Center and I
will see you back here on Friday.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.