Sen. Cramer on why he and other Republicans aren’t supporting the border deal

Read the Full Transcript

• Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND):

  Good to be with you. Thank you for the opportunity.

• Amna Nawaz:

  I want to ask you. About a week or so ago, you were asked about the negotiations in this bill in an interview.

  And you had this to say. You said: "If we don't try to do something when we have the moment to do something, all of those swing voters in swing states for whom the border is the number one priority have every right to look at us and go, you blew your opportunity."

  So you will vote to block this bill. In your own words, are you blowing your opportunity for some kind of border bill?

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Well, a couple of things.

  First of all, a week ago, we didn't have text of the bill. So this is something I have stressed from the beginning. This process has been bad from the beginning. It's been too secretive, too closed, not transparent through a committee process like it should be.

  But all of that said, James Lankford did a masterful job, and there's nobody who could do it better, in negotiating what ends up being a bill that's got some — obviously, anything that's between two sides that are narrowly divided, some things we like and some things we don't and some things the other side likes and things the other side doesn't.

  All of that said, now we have the text, we have the opportunity to look at the text. But as I think Leader McConnell said so well in your piece there, in Lisa's piece, is that this bill is not going to become law, because the speaker of the House says it's dead on arrival.

  Ironically, the House is trying to impeach the secretary of homeland security, which would be dead on arrival over here. But if dead on arrival is the standard, there's not a lot of point in spending a lot of political — a lot more political capital, when there are other priorities, even in this own — this bill, that have to get funded like support for Israel and support for Ukraine.

  So, it's a combination of politics, moving parts, changing narratives, for sure. But the biggest issue is the process. And that's what bothers me, is that four months of negotiating in good faith, but largely in secret, leading to final text, and then Chuck Schumer wants to put it on the floor right away.

  Let's move — let's proceed to the measure immediately, before everybody's had a chance to read the text, to compare it to either H.R.2 or current law.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Well, Senator, if I may, if I may…

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Sure.

• Amna Nawaz:

  … you have mentioned the process is what bothers you.

  I mean, yes, there were the lead negotiators, a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, in the room.

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Yes.

• Amna Nawaz:

  My understanding is, you and other Republican senators have been briefed along the way. You had some of the details along the way, so it wasn't entirely secretive.

  But I do want to put to you what the president of the Border Patrol Council said.

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Yes.

• Amna Nawaz:

  He basically said that: "This is better than the status quo, that nobody can argue it's not better than what we currently have. Why wouldn't I support it?" is what he says.

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Yes.

• Amna Nawaz:

  So why not…

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  So..

• Amna Nawaz:

  Sorry. Go ahead.

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Yes. No, I agree it's an important point, because in a world of divided government, incremental change in the right direction is still better than no change in the right direction.

  I think the substance of this bill, where there are some problems, is that there is an awful lot of generosity for legal counsel, for example, for illegal aliens, open-ended dollar amounts that could be problematic. Sanctuary cities, I mean, here, we're going to reward the pull factor that tracks people in the first place to run this risk.

  So it's not a layup one way or the other. I would agree with Brandon Judd that it's an increment in the right direction, but does it keep us from doing more good things in another format? I don't give up on this. I would love, frankly, to move forward with the bill and then start working on it and amending it.

  But that political will is not there right now. The pragmatic approach is — in my view, would be to take it out and deal with Ukraine and Israel and the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East in general. We have got lots of demands on our own military that we have to meet, and then maybe take the border piece and work on it a little bit, along with the National Border Patrol Council.

  I mean, according to them — and I met with them today, as a lot of members did — this is much better than H.R.2. There are no resources in H.R.2 to do the very things that H.R.2 says — that the House says they want to get done.

  So I think there's still room to perfect this and at least make it better, even with our Democratic friends. And I think we should continue that. But I do think it's time to move forward with…

  (Crosstalk)

• Amna Nawaz:

  Let me ask you, if I may. Let me ask you, if I may, about this bill, because we know former President Donald Trump has had an outsized influence, both publicly and privately.

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Sure.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Without that influence, would this have moved forward?

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  You know, I don't think it changes a lot of stuff in the House, quite honestly.

  But, again..

  (Crosstalk)

• Amna Nawaz:

  But what about for you? Would it change it for you?

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  It doesn't change it for me one way or the other. I have been quite supportive, to your point, including as recently as last week, of the process moving forward, of rewarding that, trying to get some tweaks to it if we can, all while Donald Trump was saying no, no, no.

  So it's not so much for me. But I do think, in the House, he does have an awful lot of influence, understandably, by the way. It's not irrelevant what the former president who demonstrated he could provide border security, contrasting with the current president, who's now going to be his opponent, who's done nothing except to let 10 million people illegally into the country and wave them on through.

  I mean, this is pretty clear-cut when you look at the two men that are running for president and who does the better job. I'm just saying that, as senators, we have to make up our own mind with the facts on the ground. And I think that the National Border Patrol Council makes a very, very good point and has been very, by the way, involved with the committee that was working on this, the ad hoc committee that was working on this, which is why you see the types of resources and the support that they have for the bill.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Yes.

  Senator, let me ask you also about the Ukraine funding piece of this, as we know, is tied to the border funding. It was back in December there was a closed-door meeting, in which I know it was reported, and you said, you were quite strident with the administration leaders and military leaders there saying that they should push Democrats, convince Democrats that Ukraine was a vital national security issue, and therefore Democrats should give on immigration concessions.

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  Yes.

• Amna Nawaz:

  So, if Ukraine was vital enough back then, why is it not vital enough now to agree to this?

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  So, because we can — I think we're prepared to move forward, hopefully, with Ukraine support apart from this.

  Remember, the reason that we have the border piece into this supplemental is because people who didn't want to support Ukraine insisted on it. And I love that. I love the fact that we had an opportunity to secure our border as well as Ukraine's.

  Both are really important, either together or separately. And I remain committed to that. And I think the administration waited way too long and moved way too slowly to support Ukraine, or maybe they would have won this war by now. It's still in our national best interest to provide them the lethal aid that they need.

  I'd like to see us strip the — some of the humanitarian aid and the direct government support for funding their government and rather focus on helping them win the war. That's what's in America's best interest. That's what's in the West's best interest.

• Amna Nawaz:

  That is Republican Senator Kevin Cramer from North Dakota joining us tonight.

  Senator, thank you. Good to see you.

• Sen. Kevin Cramer:

  My pleasure.