Speaker 1: We're joined now from Capitol Hill to continue this conversation
Speaker 1: by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
Speaker 2: Senator, it's good to see you.
Speaker 1: We thank you for coming back here as we conduct
Speaker 1: the conversation here overfunding and our view of the situation
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. President Zelenski is of course coming to town
Speaker 1: this week following the UN General Assembly where Anne Marie
Speaker 1: is right now. He's going to go to the White
Speaker 1: House and apparently meet at least with Senate leadership and
Speaker 1: Speaker McCarthy. Senator Cruz, do you plan to meet with
Speaker 1: President Zelensky and what would you tell him?
Speaker 3: I will, he will be sitting down with senators and
Speaker 3: I'll be visiting with him.
Speaker 2: Listen.
Speaker 3: I think it is in the United States's interest for
Speaker 3: Russia to lose this war, for Putin to lose this war.
Speaker 3: But I also think the Biden administration has screwed this
Speaker 3: up almost from the get go. The Ukraine War did
Speaker 3: not have to happen, and the reason it happened is
Speaker 3: because Joe Biden formally waives sanctions on Russia on Putin
Speaker 3: for the nord Stream two pipeline. Those were so bipartisan
Speaker 3: sanctions that I had authored that I had written in
Speaker 3: the law and that had prevented a war, and Biden
Speaker 3: started as presidency by effectively surrendering on those sanctions to Putin.
Speaker 3: It's what caused the invasion. And I got to say now,
Speaker 3: the way the Biden administration is conducting this war is
Speaker 3: utterly incoherent. Right now, Joe Biden is asking for twenty
Speaker 3: four billion dollars to go to Ukraine to fight the war,
Speaker 3: but simultaneously they're announcing that they sent sixteen billion dollars
Speaker 3: to Iran. Iran is using that money to make drones,
Speaker 3: and those drones are going to Russia and the Russians
Speaker 3: are using them to kill Ukrainians.
Speaker 2: And so.
Speaker 3: It's funding both sides of the war.
Speaker 4: It's not sixteen billion dollars, it's six billion dollars, and
Speaker 4: it's Ranian funds. It's Iranian funds that we're in South Korea,
Speaker 4: which ran made that money when they got waivers from
Speaker 4: the Trump administration to sell oil and gas. We saw
Speaker 4: similar versions of these kind of funds being used, whether
Speaker 4: it was in India, whether it was in Japan under
Speaker 4: the Trump administration. But I'm confused about how sanctions with
Speaker 4: Putin caused a war with Ukraine. At the same time,
Speaker 4: it's Republicans in the House who are concerned about sending
Speaker 4: more aid to Ukraine. How do you really thread the
Speaker 4: needle there between the two if you don't agree with
Speaker 4: the Biden administration is doing, do you agree with your
Speaker 4: House Republicans?
Speaker 3: So let me break down what you said, because there
Speaker 3: were a number of things you said that were incorrect.
Speaker 3: Number one, you're right that what they announced this week
Speaker 3: was six billion dollars in a hostage exchange for five hostages.
Speaker 3: But that follows two weeks after they released ten billion
Speaker 3: dollars that came from Iraq to Iran. So in total,
Speaker 3: it's sixteen billion dollars than the last couple of weeks
Speaker 3: they have flowed into the Ayatolas coffers. And what this
Speaker 3: is a part of is essentially the Biden's administration to
Speaker 3: re enter an Iran nuclear deal. I think this is
Speaker 3: a down payment on that nuclear deal. And let's be clear,
Speaker 3: I don't care if this was Iran's money or not.
Speaker 3: The Iatola Kameini is the leading state sponsor of terrorism
Speaker 3: in the world. Is responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans,
Speaker 3: hundreds of our allies, and he routinely leads mobs enchanting
Speaker 3: death to America and death to Israel. And it is
Speaker 3: a bizarre political obsession of the Biden White House to
Speaker 3: want to send him tens of billions of dollars. It
Speaker 3: is a one hundred percent certainty this money that they're
Speaker 3: sending to Iran will be used to fund terrorism, to
Speaker 3: kill Americans.
Speaker 2: Americans will die.
Speaker 3: Not only that by paying ransom, they're effectively sending a
Speaker 3: bounty of three billion dollars a person on Americans. We
Speaker 3: will see future American hostages from Iran and from other
Speaker 3: nations because of this deal. But when it comes to Ukraine,
Speaker 3: it's also utterly incoherent because this money is going to
Speaker 3: drones that Iran is producing, and Iran is the number
Speaker 3: one weapons supplier to Russia. So the Biden administration is
Speaker 3: funding the drones that are being used to killing soldiers.
Speaker 4: And use for humanitarian aid. Cenator, I'm going to give
Speaker 4: it over to Joe. But the fund being they're just
Speaker 4: not you are wrong and over the court talking points.
Speaker 3: Well, but they're factually incorrect. You're repeating talking to Let
Speaker 3: me ask you about that.
Speaker 1: Because the secretary, the Secretary of State senator said that
Speaker 1: that this is in fact money that's been put in
Speaker 1: accounts that are only allowed for humanitarian aid. And you
Speaker 1: talked about a secret nuclear deal. You said that with
Speaker 1: the Iranian regime that the Biden administration is not put
Speaker 1: in front of Congress.
Speaker 2: Are you just.
Speaker 1: Connecting the dots here in this narrative or do you
Speaker 1: have evidence of a nuclear deal? To what extent? Do
Speaker 1: you know specifics about this? How come we haven't heard
Speaker 1: from Israe about this? How come just Senator Ted.
Speaker 3: Cruz, Well, the Biden administration is quietly trumpeting this Iran
Speaker 3: nuclear deal, which has been their number one foreign policy
Speaker 3: objective from the day they arrived.
Speaker 2: By the way, the.
Speaker 3: Israelis are very concerned about it, but they faced two
Speaker 3: and a half years of the Biden administration putting unrelenting
Speaker 3: pressure on Israel, actively undermining Israel at every single stage,
Speaker 3: so much so that Joe Biden refuses to meet with
Speaker 3: Israeli's Prime Minister Benjamin NETTNYA, who he's made clear that
Speaker 3: the elected Prime Minister of Israel is not welcome in
Speaker 3: the Biden White House, and that has been deeply, deeply harmful.
Speaker 1: Well, President, I want to ask you about where this
Speaker 1: is going here, Sorry, Anne Marie. When it comes to
Speaker 1: the matter of a shutdown, Senator, it's looking like this
Speaker 1: is inevitable at this point, and it may well hinge
Speaker 1: on funding over Ukraine. Is it worth shutting the government
Speaker 1: down on this point, as some members of the Freedom
Speaker 1: Caucus said to make a point.
Speaker 3: So listen, I don't think we should have a shutdown,
Speaker 3: but I agree with you that I think it is
Speaker 3: very likely. And I think the reason it is likely
Speaker 3: is I think Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer both believe
Speaker 3: politically it is in their best interest to have a
Speaker 3: shutdown because they believe that in a shutdown that the
Speaker 3: press will eagerly blame it on Republicans, and I think
Speaker 3: Biden and Schumer think they get a political benefit from it,
Speaker 3: and so I think their incentive is to try to
Speaker 3: force a shutdown by the way, Schumer did that previously
Speaker 3: as well, and I think we're likely headed to the
Speaker 3: same thing.
Speaker 4: Senator, Are you following the F thirty five that went missing,
Speaker 4: because we do have a new statement out from the
Speaker 4: Acting Commandment of the Marine Corps, General Eric Smith. He's
Speaker 4: directing the Mean Core Aviation Units to conduct a two
Speaker 4: day pause in operations.
Speaker 2: Senator, do you know anything about this?
Speaker 4: How do you mishandle or not know where an F
Speaker 4: thirty five jet is? This could cost about seventy to
Speaker 4: one hundred and twenty million dollars per a jet.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, I would say it's deeply concerning. At this point,
Speaker 3: I do not have the details. I have not yet
Speaker 3: received a classified briefing on what we know happened. But
Speaker 3: when it comes to the F thirty five, the F
Speaker 3: thirty five is an incredibly sophisticated and effective airframe, and
Speaker 3: they're manufactured in the great State of Texas in Fort Worth's,
Speaker 3: and they are an incredible part of our readiness and
Speaker 3: our ability to defend ourselves. And so this is deeply concerning,
Speaker 3: and I'm looking forward to that classified briefing, but I
Speaker 3: have not yet had the opportunity to have it.
Speaker 1: Speaking of classified briefings, I'd love to ask you about AI,
Speaker 1: Senator Cruise. It's something that you've been talking about a
Speaker 1: little bit differently than your colleagues on both sides of
Speaker 1: the aisle. For that matter, we saw the Titans of Tech,
Speaker 1: as they say do in all senators briefing, at least
Speaker 1: those of you who chose to attend just about a
Speaker 1: week ago here and there does appear to be a
Speaker 1: bipartisan effort to regulate AI. You've suggested it's too early
Speaker 1: for regulations, and I wonder, if you're encouraging growth in
Speaker 1: this very fast moving technology, how.
Speaker 2: You at the same time keep that.
Speaker 1: Out of the hands of China and others who might
Speaker 1: use it for obviously wrong means.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it is critical, as your question suggests,
Speaker 3: that America lead on artificial intelligence, that we not lose
Speaker 3: the race for AI to China, to other nations that
Speaker 3: are not our friends. And I got to say it
Speaker 3: is a bizarre move in Washington, really driven by Chuck
Speaker 3: Schumer and the Democrats, but you're right, they're a handful
Speaker 3: of Republicans who've been suggesting openness to this. I think
Speaker 3: it is a bizarre suggestion to have the federal government
Speaker 3: step in with a heavy handed regulatory regime. Look, the
Speaker 3: benefits of productivity and job creation from AI are enormous.
Speaker 3: They have the ability to help drive our economy forward.
Speaker 3: And if we follow through on the Democrats idea to
Speaker 3: have the federal government essentially give prior approval to new
Speaker 3: inventions to new innovations in AI. It will ensure that
Speaker 3: we have all of the innovation of the DMV. It
Speaker 3: would I think we would be running a risk of
Speaker 3: seeding American leadership and artificial intelligence. Now that's not to
Speaker 3: say there are not risks and risks that we should
Speaker 3: take seriously. But I got to tell you in Congress
Speaker 3: there aren't five members of Congress that could even tell
Speaker 3: you what AI is, and they don't have the understanding
Speaker 3: to understand the risks, and so I think it would
Speaker 3: be really foolish to damage job creation simply because of
Speaker 3: fear of threats and threats that any new technology poses.
Speaker 4: Sentator you were, of course in that briefing between a
Speaker 4: number of these tech executives. Elon Musk came out of
Speaker 4: that and what he said to reporters was that there
Speaker 4: is a risk though that AI could really be the
Speaker 4: death of civilization. Do you think that was just too
Speaker 4: dark and far fetch.
Speaker 3: Well, listen, I can tell you eight years ago, in
Speaker 3: twenty fifteen, I chaired the very first Congressional hearing ever
Speaker 3: on artificial intelligence. I think it is enormously consequential and
Speaker 3: actually one of the questions I asked at that hearing
Speaker 3: eight years ago of the witnesses, I said, do any
Speaker 3: of you know on what date does sky net go active?
Speaker 3: And as you guys know, sky Net is, of course
Speaker 3: the artificial intelligence in the Terminator movies that wages a
Speaker 3: war against humanity. I don't know if our computers someday
Speaker 3: wage war against us, but I do think we need
Speaker 3: to distinguish science fiction from actual science. And we need
Speaker 3: to take risks seriously. Their risks of fraud, their risks
Speaker 3: of crime, their risk of terrorism.
Speaker 2: All of those are real.
Speaker 3: But the answer is not to put the federal government
Speaker 3: in the place of stopping all new technological innovation, because
Speaker 3: you know what, our enemies are not going to stop.
Speaker 3: China is not going to stop, and so I think
Speaker 3: it is much better for America to lead rather than
Speaker 3: seed leadership to other countries.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you this.
Speaker 1: I never thought, by the way, I'd be spending time
Speaker 1: talking to Senator Cruise about Terminator films.
Speaker 2: But I'll ask you later which one is your favorite? Senator.
Speaker 1: I'm curious to talk about dress.
Speaker 3: Like the original two good, but t one's the best?
Speaker 2: All right, we got it. Thank you for Thank you
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the as I as
Speaker 1: I speak to a tileist Ted Cruz right now, and
Speaker 1: I realize that you're not in the chamber. This this
Speaker 1: new relaxed dress code in the Senate chamber. I spoke
Speaker 1: with then Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania John Fetterman when he
Speaker 1: was running for office about his own dress code following
Speaker 1: the bridge collapse in his state that year.
Speaker 2: He showed up in Schwartz. It was snowing outside.
Speaker 1: Here's what he said, I just have to ask, if
Speaker 1: you end up serving in the Senate, will you wear
Speaker 1: shorts to work?
Speaker 5: Jeez, I don't. I don't anticipate that. That's more of
Speaker 5: a getting ahead of getting ahead of ourselves here. I
Speaker 5: I just as soon as I found out what happened,
Speaker 5: I immediately rushed to the scene and I I went
Speaker 5: the way I was dressed, and that's how I showed up.
Speaker 5: Obviously wasn't trying to make fashion sense or history there,
Speaker 5: but that was just how things worked out.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: I guess fashion history has been made for the full body.
Speaker 2: Senator, what's your thought on this?
Speaker 1: You can tell me if it's the end of an
Speaker 1: era or you're going to start wearing cargo shorts.
Speaker 2: To work well.
Speaker 3: Listen, every senator will have to decide how he or
Speaker 3: she dresses. I can tell you in the eleven years
Speaker 3: I've been in the Senate, I've only been on the
Speaker 3: Senate floor in a suit and tie, and as far
Speaker 3: as I'm concerned, I will continue to only wear a
Speaker 3: suit and tie on the Senate floor. I think virtually
Speaker 3: every senator is going to follow that, or for women,
Speaker 3: the professional dress equivalent, but it's up to each senator
Speaker 3: to make that decision.
Speaker 4: Has this gotten a lot of talking points amongst you
Speaker 4: and your college or is everyone okay with what Senator
Speaker 4: Schumer has done.
Speaker 3: I actually think there are a lot of strong opinions,
Speaker 3: but I'm going to refrain from expressing them publicly, but
Speaker 3: I will say behind closed doors, lots of people have
Speaker 3: a prey energized opinion on this topic.
Speaker 4: I feel like we've stumped you with what I thought
Speaker 4: would be a very easy question. Texas Senator, thank you
Speaker 4: so much for joining us. Ted Cruz