Speaker 1: Welcome it a verdict it Ted Cruz weekend Review. Ben
Speaker 1: Ferguson here, and these are the big stories that you
Speaker 1: may have missed that we talked about this past week.
Speaker 1: Number one, it's a political issue and the question now
Speaker 1: is how does it move forward as Democrats move to
Speaker 1: take Donald Trump off the ballot, taking away the rights
Speaker 1: of the citizens of Maine and Colorado from choosing who
Speaker 1: they want to be president. So how do we move
Speaker 1: forward with this? And what will the Supreme Court do?
Speaker 1: We dive into that. Also, Al Sharpton comes to protect
Speaker 1: and defend Harvard's president, who is no kind of step
Speaker 1: down but still making over a million dollars a year
Speaker 1: from the university.
Speaker 2: How did that happen?
Speaker 1: We'll give you the real details about this fake firing
Speaker 1: at Harvard. And finally, a big win for the country
Speaker 1: when it comes to security at the southern border and
Speaker 1: commerce with a bipartisan piece of legislation that center Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz let on. It is a weekend review and it
Speaker 1: starts right now. All right, So let's move into the
Speaker 1: politics and the timing of this year. We're very close
Speaker 1: now to getting into the primaries. We're talking about Iowa,
Speaker 1: New Hampshire and South Carolina Center. You know this map
Speaker 1: and this calendar, and how important it is when you
Speaker 1: ran for president. And this could linger on with this
Speaker 1: over Donald Trump's head, with state after state trying to
Speaker 1: kick him off the ballot. How long could we have
Speaker 1: to wait until the Supreme Court gets involved? And then
Speaker 1: how long would we have to wait for the ruling
Speaker 1: for this to come down? Are we weeks or months?
Speaker 1: How long could this? How does this play out the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court? Well, the appeal is already pending at the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So last week, last Wednesday, the Colorado Republican
Speaker 1: Party asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado Supreme
Speaker 1: Court's decision so that the initial appeal papers have been filed.
Speaker 1: In the interim, Trump's name is on the ballot and
Speaker 1: in Colorado, and that was under the terms of the
Speaker 1: Colorado Supreme Court decision, which is they stayed their own
Speaker 1: decision pending appeal. They recognized the massive consequences of it.
Speaker 1: So the primary in Colorado is on March fifth, and
Speaker 1: so right now Trump's name is on the March fifth ballot.
Speaker 1: With the appeal filed, the Court could act exceptionally quickly
Speaker 1: the Court could act in a matter of days or weeks,
Speaker 1: and there are times for emergency appeals that the court
Speaker 1: schedules are very expedited, briefing schedule, schedules, oral arguments, and
Speaker 1: issued a decision.
Speaker 3: I hope they do that. Look, there's a chance they
Speaker 3: take their time and let it play out because the
Speaker 3: Colorado Supreme Court decision is stayed, and so they could say, well, look,
Speaker 3: he's going to be on the ballot, so there's no
Speaker 3: urgency or exigency. And by the way, in Maine, there's
Speaker 3: a good chance the main courts overturn the main Secretary
Speaker 3: of State's decision. If that happens, then there is no
Speaker 3: immediate threat to the voters being denied the ability to
Speaker 3: elect the candidate of their choice. I hope the Court
Speaker 3: doesn't slow down or doesn't take their time doing it.
Speaker 3: I hope they resolve this quickly. I think it's important
Speaker 3: to have clarity nationally. But the court has the ability.
Speaker 3: There are times where it has briefed and heard argument
Speaker 3: and issued decisions within a matter of days, so it
Speaker 3: has the ability to move very quickly. During Bush versus Gore,
Speaker 3: during those thirty six days when we had multiple recounts
Speaker 3: in Florida, as your recall, I was part of the
Speaker 3: legal team that was litigating Bush versus Gore. I was
Speaker 3: down in Tallahassee representing George W. Bush. In those thirty
Speaker 3: six days, we went to the US Supreme Court twice
Speaker 3: and within that period, briefed out the case, had oral argument,
Speaker 3: and had decisions two different times from the US Supreme
Speaker 3: Court within those thirty six days. So when the court
Speaker 3: wants to, it can move exceptionally fast. I would note
Speaker 3: also that between the two look in terms of the
Speaker 3: general election, the odds are not great that Colorado is
Speaker 3: going to be a swing state. Joe Biden won Colorado
Speaker 3: by about fourteen points last time, and so it's Colorado
Speaker 3: is not anticipated to be a swing state in November. Maine,
Speaker 3: interestingly enough, is so Maine has an unusual way of
Speaker 3: allocating its electoral votes. Maine has a total of four
Speaker 3: electoral votes, and two of them go to the winner
Speaker 3: of the state, and then one goes to the winner
Speaker 3: of one congressional district and another goes to the winner
Speaker 3: of another congressional district. So Maine has two congressional districts.
Speaker 3: What's interesting about that is even though Maine has been
Speaker 3: a reliably Democrat state in presidential elections for some time,
Speaker 3: one of the two congressional districts in Maine quite regularly
Speaker 3: will vote for Republicans. And so Trump one one electoral
Speaker 3: vote out of Maine. He added one of the districts
Speaker 3: he won, the other three he lost, and that could
Speaker 3: easily happen again. And listen, if this election was quite close,
Speaker 3: it could literally come down to that single electoral vote
Speaker 3: in Maine deciding the outcome. And so the decision in
Speaker 3: Maine is quite consequential. It's also consequential going forward. Do
Speaker 3: other states, in particular swing states, make the same determination.
Speaker 3: Do you see bigger states a Pennsylvania, a Michigana, Wisconsin.
Speaker 3: Do you see states like that that are very much
Speaker 3: in play that very much could go either way? Do
Speaker 3: you see them engage and try to follow this pattern?
Speaker 3: And if these left wing partisans were to succeed in
Speaker 3: removing Trump from the ballot, I think the risk would
Speaker 3: be very high that you would see other bigger and
Speaker 3: more consequential swing states following that pattern. Now, I don't
Speaker 3: think that's going to hapen. And because they're not going
Speaker 3: to succeed and By the way, there's an obvious escalation
Speaker 3: at some point. If the Left weaponizes the legal system
Speaker 3: to such an extent that they try to remove the
Speaker 3: Republican nominee from the general election ballot, you are likely
Speaker 3: to see red states reciprocate and try to remove the
Speaker 3: Democrat nominee from the ballot. That this can be a
Speaker 3: mutually assured destruction, which is one of the reasons I
Speaker 3: don't think there's any chance the Supreme Court allows this
Speaker 3: Colorado decision to go into effect because it undermines the
Speaker 3: ability of the voters to choose who they want as president,
Speaker 3: and that is as foundational to democracy in our country
Speaker 3: as anything there is.
Speaker 1: Finally, on this, there's the political ramifications of this. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of conservative voters now that are very upset.
Speaker 1: I've heard from more people that are not necessarily big
Speaker 1: fans of Donald Trump that are now, like, the hell
Speaker 1: with this, I'm gonna stand behind Donald Trump because this
Speaker 1: is just so egregious. Do you think the Democrats over
Speaker 1: played their hand here politically and the backfire could be
Speaker 1: catastrophic to them, Or by the time we get to
Speaker 1: election day, will a lot of this just be forgotten?
Speaker 3: Well, I think politically this benefits Trump in the primary.
Speaker 3: Rewind go back to our early podcasts last year when
Speaker 3: the first Trump indictment, when the Alvin Bragg indictment came down,
Speaker 3: You and I went on air, and right after that indictment,
Speaker 3: I went on this podcast and I told the podcast viewers,
Speaker 3: I said, Donald Trump will go up ten points in
Speaker 3: the polls as a result of this. That was a
Speaker 3: prediction I made immediately after the indictment came down. A
Speaker 3: week later, Donald Trump was up ten points in the polls,
Speaker 3: and by the way, he's never come down since. If
Speaker 3: you look at a year ago, the poll numbers had
Speaker 3: a much more competitive race between Trump and Des Santas
Speaker 3: a year ago, and then the first indictment came, and
Speaker 3: then the second, and then the third, and then the fourth,
Speaker 3: and Trump's numbers went up and up and up, and
Speaker 3: everyone else's numbers went down. And I think one of
Speaker 3: the effects is in a Republican primary, people rallied around Trump.
Speaker 3: Look when the Colorado Supreme Court decision came down, all
Speaker 3: of Trump's opponents immediately denounced it, which you had to
Speaker 3: do it. It was a lawless abuse of power. I
Speaker 3: also think the Democrats are quite fond of that. Every
Speaker 3: single Democrat in elected office wants Trump to be the nominee.
Speaker 3: But at the same time, so they are happy with
Speaker 3: helping Trump in the primary because that's the outcome they
Speaker 3: want in the general. Assuming this Colorado decision is overturned,
Speaker 3: assuming the main decision is overturned, it could backfire. You
Speaker 3: could see some independent swing voters get ticked off. In
Speaker 3: a state like Maine that has independence, that might have
Speaker 3: some some lasting legacy, in a state like Colorado that
Speaker 3: has some independence that might have some impact as well.
Speaker 3: I have not seen any evidence that this abuse of
Speaker 3: power is hurting Democrats in a general election. It may
Speaker 3: be the case, but one of the challenges is that
Speaker 3: the media is so utterly corrupt that they're by and
Speaker 3: large not reporting on it. But I would I would
Speaker 3: tell listeners a verdict. Anytime you're you're talking with leftists
Speaker 3: who are arguing and they're trotting out language like we
Speaker 3: must save democracy, you know, it's a great opportunity to say, oh,
Speaker 3: save democracy, you mean like Colorado, like Maine, like like
Speaker 3: preventing the voters from actually voting for the candidate they
Speaker 3: want to vote for. Explain to me how exactly it's
Speaker 3: saving democracy to stop the voters from voting for the
Speaker 3: candidate they want to vote for. And I don't know
Speaker 3: of a leftist who can argue against that other than
Speaker 3: to just jabber, you know, Trump is evil, Trump is evil.
Speaker 3: Trump is evil, rather than actually engage in reason and
Speaker 3: logic and so so I'm not convinced this abuse of
Speaker 3: power will have a massive ish impact on turnout in November,
Speaker 3: but I do think it helps Trump in the primaries.
Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two and
Speaker 1: al Sharpton coming out. As you know, Barack Obama, as
Speaker 1: you mentioned earlier, behind the scenes, was working hard to
Speaker 1: protect her. Sharpton condemned Gay's critics as racists for questioning
Speaker 1: the integrity of a black woman, a woman that no
Speaker 1: pun intended in black and white. Her words show that
Speaker 1: she lifted other people's words and used them as her own,
Speaker 1: saying this quote, present Day's resignation is about more than
Speaker 1: a person or a single incident.
Speaker 2: And he's right. It wasn't a single incident.
Speaker 1: It's now we've been told more than fifty instance of plagiarism.
Speaker 1: He goes on to say, this is an attack on
Speaker 1: every black woman in this country who puts a crack
Speaker 1: in the glass ceiling. Is it really that sender or
Speaker 1: is it just the fact that she cheated? And even
Speaker 1: they at Harvard couldn't get over that.
Speaker 3: Well, it was ultimately this was hurting Harvard. Harvard was
Speaker 3: becoming a laughing stock when when and look, if you
Speaker 3: look at at at her academic record, she had published
Speaker 3: very little for a professor. You expect the president of
Speaker 3: Harvard to be a serious scholar, to be a world
Speaker 3: class scholar, and and clotting Gay's entire career, what was
Speaker 3: built pushing the ideology of DEI was she was an
Speaker 3: African American studies professor. She had published relatively little. What
Speaker 3: she did publish, there now serious questions about the academic
Speaker 3: integrity of it. And and there is no person on
Speaker 3: planet Earth what it stands for.
Speaker 1: Again, just because there's maybe people that are new, yes,
Speaker 1: don't exactly know what DEI stands for.
Speaker 2: And this is something that the woke left is obsessed with.
Speaker 3: Diversity, equity, and conclusion, and it is the premise of
Speaker 3: their anti racism. It is the premise of critical race theory.
Speaker 3: It is the premise of the cultural Marxist on the left,
Speaker 3: who advocate that we should affirmatively discriminate and discriminate against
Speaker 3: so called oppressors and in favor of so called victims.
Speaker 3: It's why the radical left is just fine with Jewish
Speaker 3: people being demonized, being threatened, because to the cultural Marxist
Speaker 3: Jewish people are oppressors. It's why cultural Marxists are okay
Speaker 3: with whatever Hamas terrorists do because they are the victims
Speaker 3: and that same reasoning. Look, I'll give you an example
Speaker 3: Ibram X Kendy, who's one of the godfathers of critical
Speaker 3: race theory, who has pushed this so called anti racism,
Speaker 3: which we've talked about at length in this podcast. It
Speaker 3: has an Orwellian name because what he means by anti
Speaker 3: racism is aggressively just discriminating against the so called oppressors
Speaker 3: on behalf of the so called victims. Here's what he
Speaker 3: had to say about Claudine Gay resigning.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 3: Racist mobs won't stop until they topple all black people
Speaker 3: from positions of power and influence who are not reinforcing
Speaker 3: the structure of racism. What these racist mobs are doing
Speaker 3: should be obvious to any reporter who cares about truth
Speaker 3: or justice as opposed to conflicts and clicks. That is
Speaker 3: going to be their talking point. If you dare stand
Speaker 3: against their radical ideology, you are by definition a racist.
Speaker 3: And and and they that they still see nothing that
Speaker 3: she did or said that was wrong.
Speaker 1: I want to I want to play for everybody to
Speaker 1: remind them of exactly where all this started and to
Speaker 1: put it back into context of the demise of this
Speaker 1: Harvard president. Is not for what she said that was
Speaker 1: anti Israel, anti Semitic. It was the plagiarism. And do
Speaker 1: not be duped by the mainstream media acting like she's
Speaker 1: being held accountable for these words. These words that she
Speaker 1: said before Congress to representive Stephanic are words that Harvard
Speaker 1: was willing to stand by her no matter what. Here
Speaker 1: is that flashback to December the fifth, and what was said.
Speaker 4: We're student calling for the mass murder of African Americans
Speaker 4: is not protected free speech at Harvard. Correct our commitment.
Speaker 4: It's a yes or no question. Is that corrected? Is
Speaker 4: that okay for students to call for the mass murder
Speaker 4: of African Americans? At Harvard. Is that protected free speech
Speaker 4: our commitment to free school. It's a yes or no question.
Speaker 4: Let me ask you this. You are president of Harvard,
Speaker 4: so I assume you're familiar with the term into fada.
Speaker 5: Correct. I've heard that term, yes.
Speaker 4: And you understand that the use of the term into
Speaker 4: fada in the context of the Israeli Arab conflict is
Speaker 4: indeed call for violent arm resistance against the state of Israel,
Speaker 4: including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews.
Speaker 5: Are you aware of.
Speaker 6: That that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me?
Speaker 4: And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting,
Speaker 4: quote there is only one solution into fada, revolution and
Speaker 4: quote globalize the intofada.
Speaker 5: Is that correct?
Speaker 6: I've heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus.
Speaker 4: Yes, So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this
Speaker 4: call for intefada is to commit genocide against the Jewish
Speaker 4: people in Israel and globally.
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 6: I will say again that type of hateful speech is
Speaker 6: personally abhorrent to me.
Speaker 4: Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary
Speaker 4: to Harvard's code of conduct or is it allowed at Harvard,
Speaker 4: it is.
Speaker 5: At odds with the values of Harvard.
Speaker 4: Say that it is against the code of conduct at Harvard.
Speaker 6: We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views
Speaker 6: that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It's when that speech crosses
Speaker 6: into conduct that violates our policies against bullying?
Speaker 4: Does that speech not cost that barrier? Does that speech
Speaker 4: not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination
Speaker 4: of Israel? When you testify that you understand that is
Speaker 4: the definition of intofada? Is that speech according to the
Speaker 4: code of conduct or not.
Speaker 6: We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a
Speaker 6: wide berth to free expression, even of views that are objectionable.
Speaker 5: You and I both know that's not the case.
Speaker 4: You are aware that Harvard ranked dead last when it
Speaker 4: came to free speech?
Speaker 5: Are you not aware of that report?
Speaker 6: As I observed earlier, I reject that characterization.
Speaker 5: It's the data shows it's true.
Speaker 4: And isn't it true that Harvard previously rescinded multiple offers
Speaker 4: of admissions for applicants and accepted freshmen for sharing offensive memes,
Speaker 4: racist statements, sometimes as young as sixteen years old. Did
Speaker 4: Harvard not rescind those offers?
Speaker 6: Of admission that long predates my time as present.
Speaker 4: But you understand that Harvard made that decision to resin
Speaker 4: those offers of admission.
Speaker 6: I have no reason to contradict the facts as you
Speaker 6: present them, correct, because it's a fact.
Speaker 4: You're also aware that a Winthrop House faculty dean was
Speaker 4: let go over who he chose to legally represent. Correct,
Speaker 4: that was while you were dean. That is an incorrect characterization.
Speaker 4: Avoid transfer. What's the characterization?
Speaker 6: I'm not going to get into details about a personnel matter.
Speaker 4: Well, let me ask you this, Will admissions offers be
Speaker 4: rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or
Speaker 4: applicants who say from the river to the sea or
Speaker 4: into Fada advocating for the murder of Jews?
Speaker 6: As I've said, that type of hateful, reckless, offensive space
Speaker 6: each is personally abhorrent to.
Speaker 4: Me, and today that no action will be taken. What
Speaker 4: action will be taken?
Speaker 6: When speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including
Speaker 6: policies against bullying, harassment, or intimidation. We take action, and
Speaker 6: we have robust disciplinary processes that allow us to hold
Speaker 6: individuals accountable.
Speaker 4: What action has been taken against students who are harassing
Speaker 4: and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard's campus.
Speaker 5: I can assure you we have robust what actions have
Speaker 5: been taken. I'm not asking estions underway.
Speaker 4: I'm asking what actions have been taken against and students.
Speaker 6: Given students' rights to privacy and our obligations under FURPA,
Speaker 6: I will not say more about any specific cases other
Speaker 6: than to reiterate that processes are ongoing.
Speaker 5: Do you know what the number one hate crime in
Speaker 5: America is?
Speaker 6: I know that over the last couple of month months
Speaker 6: there has been an alarming rise of anti Semitism, which
Speaker 6: I understand is the critical topic that we are here
Speaker 6: to discuss.
Speaker 4: That's correct, It is anti Jewish hate crimes, and Harvard
Speaker 4: ranks the lowest when it comes to protecting Jewish students.
Speaker 4: This is why I've called for your resignation and your
Speaker 4: testimony today. Not being able to answer with moral clarity
Speaker 4: speaks volumes.
Speaker 2: I yield back, Senator, you hear that.
Speaker 1: And the part that I think galls me the most
Speaker 1: is the fact that she's still employed. She's still going
Speaker 1: to be paid about a million dollars a year.
Speaker 2: She's just had a title change, that's.
Speaker 3: It well, and Harvard doesn't intend to change its conduct.
Speaker 3: They certainly have made no expression that they intend to
Speaker 3: do differently. That they were forced after over a billion
Speaker 3: dollars in commitments to contributions were called out, after academically
Speaker 3: their president became a laughing stock, after you began to
Speaker 3: have students who I would note had to anonymously call
Speaker 3: for her to resign because they were afraid of retaliation,
Speaker 3: after you had ed editorials in the New York Times
Speaker 3: and the Washington Post, bastions of the left, both calling
Speaker 3: not from the papers but from people submitting op eds
Speaker 3: calling for her resignation. After all of that, it became intolerable.
Speaker 3: And yet they dug in, and they dug in and
Speaker 3: they dug in. And it's really quite ironic. You look
Speaker 3: at her testimony, and she is defending free speech. And
Speaker 3: it would be one thing if she was saying, you know,
Speaker 3: Harvard's a place where anyone can say anything, and we
Speaker 3: protect free speech for everyone. That's laughably false. They protect
Speaker 3: free speech for anti semites and leftists. And at the
Speaker 3: same time, so there's an organization called Fire and Fire
Speaker 3: is actively involved in fighting to defend free speech and
Speaker 3: examining censorship and suppression of free speech on campus, and
Speaker 3: they do an elaborate survey every year at an analysis of
Speaker 3: universities across the country. So Harvard is consistently ranked one
Speaker 3: of the worst in the country. In twenty twenty, Harvard
Speaker 3: ranked number forty six out of fifty five schools in
Speaker 3: terms of protecting free speech. In twenty twenty one, it
Speaker 3: ranked one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty four schools. In twenty twenty two, it ranked one
Speaker 3: hundred and seventy out of two hundred and three schools,
Speaker 3: and this past year, in two thousand and three, Harvard
Speaker 3: was dead last, and out of a possible score from
Speaker 3: zero to one hundred, Harvard's score was actually a negative
Speaker 3: ten point six ' nine, so it was dead last.
Speaker 3: It was six standard deviations below the average and more
Speaker 3: than two standard deviations below the second to last school
Speaker 3: in the rankings, and the second to last school was
Speaker 3: the University of Pennsylvania, pen And so when she is
Speaker 3: is saying, well, anti semites are allowed and apparently encouraged
Speaker 3: because of free speech, that is a policy that is
Speaker 3: applied very selectively, and Harvard's expressed no willingness, no desire
Speaker 3: to correct that, and I think it is imperative that
Speaker 3: this become a moment to try to address and try
Speaker 3: to fix the profound ideological corruption. By the way, if
Speaker 3: you look at the Harvard Corporation Board, every single one
Speaker 3: of its board members is a hardcore partisan, ideological democrat.
Speaker 3: There is no one right of center allowed anywhere near
Speaker 3: that board. And you see it in the policies why
Speaker 3: they universally circled the wagons around Claudine Gay and it
Speaker 3: was only when dragged, kicking and screaming that they allowed
Speaker 3: her to resign as before.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 1: on this topic, you can go back and down the
Speaker 1: podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number
Speaker 1: three of the week you may have missed. I want
Speaker 1: to move to something else that is obviously important and significant.
Speaker 1: We've talked about it, and it's a big win on
Speaker 1: the border to secure the enactment of a streamline permitting
Speaker 1: process for new and expanded bridges across the Rio Grand
Speaker 1: in Brownsville, Laredo and Eagle Pass, Texas. It is something
Speaker 1: that you were a part of and led on it's
Speaker 1: now actually become law. You were down in Laredo, and
Speaker 1: I want to play for people part of what you
Speaker 1: had to say at this very, very big moment.
Speaker 7: We're here today to celebrate bipartisan legislation that was signed
Speaker 7: in the law in December of last year that will
Speaker 7: expedite building new bridges and expanding bridges between Texas and Mexico.
Speaker 7: We're here at the World Trade Bridge, the largest land
Speaker 7: port in the United States. Every year, Texas and Mexico
Speaker 7: have roughly eight hundred billion in trade and commerce that
Speaker 7: comes across this border. That's jobs in Texas, that's jobs
Speaker 7: in Mexico. That's the lifeblood of South Texas.
Speaker 1: This is obviously significant, not just from the standpoint of
Speaker 1: security that you talked about and orderly commerce coming across
Speaker 1: the border in a safer manner, but it's also a
Speaker 1: really big deal from the fact that, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: it was bipartisan talk about how significant this is going
Speaker 1: to be for this country and for Texas well.
Speaker 3: The audio you just played was from a press conference
Speaker 3: that I did in Laredo yesterday morning, and it was
Speaker 3: right at the World Trade Bridge, right on the southern border,
Speaker 3: and I did that alongside Henry Quayar, the Democrat congressman
Speaker 3: who represents Laredo, and Henry and I worked hand in
Speaker 3: hand in this and it was a huge victory. The
Speaker 3: Texas Business Association that was down there with us and
Speaker 3: there was a large group of people celebrating this legislative
Speaker 3: victory that we had just two weeks ago described the
Speaker 3: legislation that I introduced and passed as the biggest positive
Speaker 3: step for jobs and commerce in Texas since the US
Speaker 3: Mexico Canada agreement was negotiated. It is literally billions of
Speaker 3: dollars of additional trade in commerce and tens of thousands
Speaker 3: of jobs and real quickly what happened. So, there are
Speaker 3: four bridge projects that have been proposed in South Texas
Speaker 3: to in Laredo, one in Brownsville won an eagle pass,
Speaker 3: and the Biden administration had put bureaucratic barriers they were
Speaker 3: delaying every one of these bridge projects. The World Trade
Speaker 3: Bridge that I was at yesterday morning, that bridge right
Speaker 3: now is eight lanes. They have proposed to expand it
Speaker 3: to eighteen lanes, to more than double the size of it,
Speaker 3: which enables commerce to move much more rapidly. That benefits farmers,
Speaker 3: that benefits ranchers, that benefits manufacturers, that benefits small businesses.
Speaker 3: That benefits consumers by lowering prices at the grocery store.
Speaker 3: It also benefits national security by making it easier to
Speaker 3: bring manufacturing back from China, either back to the United
Speaker 3: States or near shoring it, bringing it back to Mexico
Speaker 3: where we could have trade and commerce with Mexico rather
Speaker 3: than China. So all of those are good outcomes. And
Speaker 3: what happened. So in order to build a bridge, ordinarily
Speaker 3: you have to do what is called Federal Environmental NEPA review.
Speaker 3: It's to go through a process of reviewing the environmental
Speaker 3: impact of a bridge. That's true for any bridge. If
Speaker 3: you're building a bridge across an international border, there's an
Speaker 3: additional legal requirement. You need a permit from the President
Speaker 3: of the United States. Now, the way this used to
Speaker 3: be done is the President would grant that permit contingent
Speaker 3: on the completion of the NEPA review. And what that
Speaker 3: did is accelerated the process, enabled it to move through quickly.
Speaker 3: When Joe Biden became president, he announced they were reversing
Speaker 3: that policy and Biden was going to grant zero presidential
Speaker 3: permits for cross border bridges unless and until the NIPA
Speaker 3: environmental review was fully completed. The effect of that was
Speaker 3: to add two, three, four five years to these bridge projects,
Speaker 3: to delay them all. It also made it harder for
Speaker 3: them to get funding because the banks were reluctant to
Speaker 3: commit capital until the presidential permit had been granted. So
Speaker 3: there was a chicken and egg problem, and the Biden
Speaker 3: administration dug in. And so what I did is is
Speaker 3: Number One, unified the congressional delegation in South Texas, and
Speaker 3: so I brought together a coalition of myself and John
Speaker 3: Cornon the other Texas Senator, along with Henry Quayar, a Democrat,
Speaker 3: Monica Delacruz, a Republican, Vicente Gonzalez, a Democrat, and Tony Gonzales,
Speaker 3: a Republican, all of the South Texas Congressional Delegation. We
Speaker 3: jointly pressed the Biden State Department reverse this idiotic policy.
Speaker 3: This is hurting Texas and hurting America. The Biden administration
Speaker 3: dug in. They refused to change, and so I authored
Speaker 3: legislation mandating that they expedite the process. Got bipartisan support
Speaker 3: the Senate passed it out of the Senate and then
Speaker 3: passed it out of the House, and Joe Biden signed
Speaker 3: it into law on December twenty second. It was actually
Speaker 3: my birthday that he signed the law, and so it
Speaker 3: was a pretty great birthday gift because it's a huge
Speaker 3: victory for jobs in the state of Texas, and it's
Speaker 3: an example of you know, I got to say, it's
Speaker 3: also an example of the bizarre hypocrisy. I mean, let
Speaker 3: me ask you seriously, Ben, explain to me the mind
Speaker 3: of a whack job liberal that you want totally open
Speaker 3: borders and ten million people invading this country illegally, including
Speaker 3: human traffickers and drug traffickers on the one hand, but
Speaker 3: on the other hand, you want to put bureaucratic roadblocks
Speaker 3: in the way of legal trade and commerce from farmers
Speaker 3: and businesses, while you're allowing illegal immigrants to flow with
Speaker 3: no restraint.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it makes so sense, especially when every year Texas
Speaker 1: and Mexico, as you mentioned, have roughly eight hundred billion
Speaker 1: in trade and commerce that come across this border. And
Speaker 1: this does it in a more early fashion, but also
Speaker 1: with the issue of national security involved in it, keeping
Speaker 1: it orly with safety and security, especially with all the
Speaker 1: drug trafficking FETNO and everything else coming across the border,
Speaker 1: it makes no sense.
Speaker 3: Look, that's exactly right, and we ended up building the
Speaker 3: bipartisan coalition to pass this into law. And so the
Speaker 3: way the law works is December twenty second is when
Speaker 3: Joe Biden signed it into law. On that date, which
Speaker 3: was the date he signed it, the legislation starts a
Speaker 3: shot clock of sixty days, and the State Department has
Speaker 3: a sixty day time limit to submit its recommendations to
Speaker 3: the White House as to whether he should grant the
Speaker 3: permit for these four bridges. After that sixty day period,
Speaker 3: a second shot clock starts and the president it has
Speaker 3: sixty days to make it a termination on the permit.
Speaker 3: If the President does nothing after that second sixty days,
Speaker 3: the permit is deemed automatically granted by operation of law.
Speaker 3: What that means is because it was signed on December
Speaker 3: twenty second, that by April twentieth, we will have these
Speaker 3: presidential permits which will expedite these bridges going forward. That
Speaker 3: is an enormous victory despite the Biden administration putting roadblocks
Speaker 3: in the way every step of the way.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening. To Verdict with center
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again, Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.