Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you and Senator I never thought i'd say there
Speaker 1: was a whole lot of action today in the Senate
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Panama Canal. But that is
Speaker 1: exactly what happened. Is we're learning a lot more about
Speaker 1: the corruption there that should shock a lot of Americans.
Speaker 2: Well, today I chaired a hearing in the Senate Commerce
Speaker 2: Committee on the Panama Canal. And listen, Donald Trump has
Speaker 2: raised this issue. It is a very significant issue. I
Speaker 2: got to say. When he raised it, a lot of
Speaker 2: people in the media, a lot of Democrats dismissed it,
Speaker 2: thought it was crazy talk. But I actually think it
Speaker 2: is a very serious point. We've talked about this before
Speaker 2: on the podcast, but today I chaired a hearing on
Speaker 2: the Panama Canal, and in particular on the conduct that
Speaker 2: Panama has committed potentially in violation of the treaty. So
Speaker 2: the United States built that canal. Over thirty thousand lives
Speaker 2: were lost in the construction of that canal. Over fifteen
Speaker 2: billion dollars in today's dollars were spent by America, by
Speaker 2: American taxpayers, in building that canal. And Jimmy Carter sadly
Speaker 2: gave it away, gave it to Panama. It was indefensible.
Speaker 2: I remember I was a little kid. You were not
Speaker 2: even been a sparkle in your daddy's eyeball when this happened.
Speaker 3: But I remember it well, and I remember being pissed.
Speaker 2: And by the way, this was one of the major
Speaker 2: issues that got Ronald Reagan elected in nineteen eighty because
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter gave this away. Well, Donald Trump has rightly
Speaker 2: raised this, and in particular when Jimmy Carter gave it away.
Speaker 2: Panama agreed to a very specific treaty, a treaty to
Speaker 2: keep the Panama Canal neutral and to charge America fair
Speaker 2: and equitable rates. And the hearing we had today was
Speaker 2: testimony from numerous experts that Panama is in violation of
Speaker 2: that treaty. That number one, that they have seeded enormous
Speaker 2: control to China over the canal, and this is the
Speaker 2: point President Trump has made that is really quite powerful.
Speaker 2: And number two, that they are charging exorbitant rates to
Speaker 2: American shippers, to commercial shippers, and to the US Navy.
Speaker 2: And so that hearing we're going to break down today.
Speaker 2: We also we saw this weekend, President Trump went and
Speaker 2: did a major event pressing his policy for no taxes
Speaker 2: on tips. This is a policy we're going to get enacted.
Speaker 2: I am the author of the legislation in the Senate
Speaker 2: to get this done, and I believe we're going to
Speaker 2: get this done this year.
Speaker 3: We're going to break that down as well.
Speaker 1: I want to take a moment real quick and talk
Speaker 1: to you about January the twenty seventh. You may not
Speaker 1: have realized, but the twenty seventh was International Holocaust Remembrance
Speaker 1: Day Day to remember the great evil of the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: when millions of Jews were slaughtered during the Nazis reign
Speaker 1: of terror. Today, unfortunately, the rise in global anti Semitism
Speaker 1: and the constant attacks on Israel are showing us that
Speaker 1: it's more important than ever to remember the atrocities of
Speaker 1: the Holocaust to ensure that it never happens again. And
Speaker 1: that's why I'm proud to stand with the International Fellowship
Speaker 1: of Christians and Jews. They do incredible work by providing food, shelter,
Speaker 1: and safety to Jews in Israel and around the world,
Speaker 1: including those remaining Holocaust survivors. Your donation today will help
Speaker 1: provide food water, medicine, and not only basic necessities of
Speaker 1: the Jewish community, but also things like bomb shelters and
Speaker 1: armored ambulances that they need in Israel right now. And
Speaker 1: through your gift, you will stand with the Jewish people
Speaker 1: and against this growing anti Semitism and hatred. So to
Speaker 1: give to show your support to the Jewish people, you
Speaker 1: can visit SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ
Speaker 1: dot org. You can also call and give them a
Speaker 1: donation eighty eight for eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight
Speaker 1: eight four eight eight IFCJ eighty eight four eight eight
Speaker 1: four three two five or support IFCJ dot org. All right,
Speaker 1: so Senator, let's go back in history and really dive
Speaker 1: into how all this got started. And you mentioned in
Speaker 1: the intro there America built the Panama Canal and then
Speaker 1: it was given away. So let's talk about the building.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the price, Let's talk about the cost
Speaker 1: and including people that literally gave their lives building this
Speaker 1: incredible thing, why it was built, and then let's get
Speaker 1: to why we gave it away.
Speaker 2: Listen, it was a massive investment from the United States.
Speaker 2: It was an extraordinary endeavor. Teddy Roosevelt had the vision
Speaker 2: to build the Panama Canal. Look, it used to be
Speaker 2: that's traverse from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. You
Speaker 2: had to go all the way south below South America,
Speaker 2: and that took enormous time. It was enormously costly, and
Speaker 2: America said, we can construct a canal through Panama. We
Speaker 2: can cut that journey dramatically shorter. It was a major investment,
Speaker 2: and as I said, over thirty thousand lives were lost
Speaker 2: building that canal. It was not a small investment. Fifteen
Speaker 2: billion dollars. And listen, before we get started, I want
Speaker 2: to just just take a musical moment to reflect, So
Speaker 2: give a listen. That's what we're talking about today.
Speaker 1: So I love that you played the song there, and
Speaker 1: you guys actually talked about possibly playing that today in Congress,
Speaker 1: which made me laugh at the hearing as well.
Speaker 3: Well, that's true, and so let's start. So we opened
Speaker 3: the hearing.
Speaker 2: By the way, the Senate Commerce Committee of which I'm chairman,
Speaker 2: has explicit jurisdiction over the Panama Canal because it is
Speaker 2: enormously important for American commerce, and so that's why we
Speaker 2: started with this major hearing. So give a listen. This
Speaker 2: is my opening statement as we open the hearing. We're
Speaker 2: here today to examine a monument to American ingenuity, the
Speaker 2: Panama Canal. Senator Moreno down there suggested we open the
Speaker 2: hearing by playing Van Halen and Panama. We may not
Speaker 2: do that, but between the American construction of the Panama Canal,
Speaker 2: the French effort to build an Isthmus Canal an America's
Speaker 2: triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across
Speaker 2: Panama cost more than thirty five thousand lives. For the
Speaker 2: final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United
Speaker 2: States spent nearly four hundred million dollars equivalent to more
Speaker 2: than fifteen billion today.
Speaker 3: The Panama Canal.
Speaker 2: Proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and
Speaker 2: warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter
Speaker 2: gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and
Speaker 2: many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost
Speaker 2: sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and
Speaker 2: to the US economy. Not President Trump, when he demanded
Speaker 2: fair treatment for American ships and goods. Many in the
Speaker 2: media scoffed. But the Panama Canal was not just given away.
Speaker 2: President Carter struck a bargain, He made a treaty, and
Speaker 2: President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that
Speaker 2: that treaty is being violated right now. This committee has
Speaker 2: jurisdiction under the Senate rules over the Panama Canal and
Speaker 2: today will examine evidence of potential violations.
Speaker 3: Resident Trump has highlighted two key issues.
Speaker 2: Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage
Speaker 2: through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit.
Speaker 2: Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the
Speaker 2: canal at a slow pace so as to take nearly
Speaker 2: a decade, and Chinese companies control container points ports at
Speaker 2: either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability
Speaker 2: to block the canal without warning, and the ports give
Speaker 2: China ready observation post to take to time that action.
Speaker 2: This situation, I believe poses acute risks to US national security. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans because
Speaker 2: US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of canal transits.
Speaker 2: Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to worships.
Speaker 2: Canal profits regularly exceed three billion dollars. This money comes
Speaker 2: from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of
Speaker 2: higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those
Speaker 2: in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees
Speaker 2: Panama chooses to levy or canal transits, and they have
Speaker 2: pair paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in
Speaker 2: Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government
Speaker 2: relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly one tenth of its
Speaker 2: budget is paid for with canal profit, as those fees
Speaker 2: cascade through the American economy and the federal fisk. The
Speaker 2: Chinese Communist Party advances its global economic contests against the
Speaker 2: United States and takes a militaristic interest in the canal.
Speaker 2: While President Trump is rightly focused on the these key
Speaker 2: issues their additional problems. In the last two years, the
Speaker 2: Canal Authority generated record revenue even while transits were depressed
Speaker 2: by drought conditions, and the only comfort to delayed and
Speaker 2: overcharge ships is that Panama may invest in more fresh.
Speaker 3: Water reserves in the future.
Speaker 2: Even as it takes advantage of the global maritime system,
Speaker 2: Panama has emerged as a bad actor. Panama has for
Speaker 2: years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost Fleet,
Speaker 2: which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil
Speaker 2: profits to fund terror across the world, and Chinese companies
Speaker 2: have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous
Speaker 2: Belton Road initiative has come to Panama. China often engages
Speaker 2: in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion
Speaker 2: in Panama. It also seems to have exploited simple corruption.
Speaker 1: So center you will get these warnings and they're like
Speaker 1: multiple red flags here Iran and China and this bridge,
Speaker 1: and basically the highest bidder can get whatever the hell
Speaker 1: they want, no matter how shady they are from Panama
Speaker 1: and the Panama Canal Am I wrong.
Speaker 3: You're not.
Speaker 2: And there were several striking things in the hearing. Number One,
Speaker 2: we had a series of witnesses from the Federal Maritime Commission,
Speaker 2: and we had an international law professor who testified about
Speaker 2: the neutrality treaty, and they testified about a number of things.
Speaker 2: Number One, there's a treaty that governs this. So this
Speaker 2: is not simply Donald Trump raising an issue. Gosh, we
Speaker 2: want the Panama Canal. Panama made a commitment when Jimmy
Speaker 2: Carter gave this away, and they made a commitment number one,
Speaker 2: that the Panama Canal would remain neutral, that it would
Speaker 2: not allow another foreign power to have control over it,
Speaker 2: to have military access to it. And number two, they
Speaker 2: made a commitment that entreaty that they would charge fair
Speaker 2: and equitable fees. Now, on the first point, we heard
Speaker 2: an enormous amount of testimony that Panama has made a
Speaker 2: massive pivot towards China. Listen, China is engaged in something
Speaker 2: called the Belton Road Initiative where they're investing in ports
Speaker 2: and infrastructure all over the world, and they're spending billions
Speaker 2: and billions of dollars trying to gain power over the
Speaker 2: United States. And the Panama Canal is critical to US
Speaker 2: national security and to our economy. So on both ends
Speaker 2: of the Panama Canal, on the Pacific side and on
Speaker 2: the Atlantic side, China controls. Chinese corporations control massive ports
Speaker 2: that are right there that give them access and give
Speaker 2: them the ability to observe all traffic going through the
Speaker 2: canal and potentially to shut down all traffic going through
Speaker 2: the canal. As I mentioned also in my opening, theyreuilding
Speaker 2: a bridge across the canal. They are spending over a
Speaker 2: decade building that bridge. That bridge gives them the capacity
Speaker 2: to number one, to engage in surveillance of every ship
Speaker 2: going through the canal. But number two, if listen, we
Speaker 2: get to a time in the future where we're in
Speaker 2: serious conflict with China, let's say a military conflict. Let's
Speaker 2: say they invade Taiwan and we are suddenly at risk
Speaker 2: of a shooting war. China has the capacity to shut
Speaker 2: down the Panama Canal, to use that bridge, to use
Speaker 2: the ports on both ends. It ends to say we
Speaker 2: will annow allow no transit through that canal. That would
Speaker 2: be enormously harmful to the United States, and the point
Speaker 2: that was made in the hearing that is directly contrary
Speaker 2: to the Treaty Panama sign. Secondly, Panama makes roughly three
Speaker 2: billion dollars in fees from transit across the Panama Canal.
Speaker 2: Seventy five percent of those transits are American ships, so
Speaker 2: they are either American cargo ships, commercial ships going across,
Speaker 2: or there are American military ships the US Navy going across.
Speaker 2: But either way, Panama is making billions. And the testimony
Speaker 2: we heard in the hearing today is that on both
Speaker 2: of those grounds there is a strong argument that Panama
Speaker 2: is in violation of the treaty. Now, what's interesting, ben
Speaker 2: I asked the international law professor was testifying. I said, Okay,
Speaker 2: if Panama is in violation of the treaty, number one,
Speaker 2: how is that determined? And number two, what is the remedy.
Speaker 2: On the question of how is that determined? The testimony
Speaker 2: we got today is the professor said, well, under the
Speaker 2: terms of the treaty, each party determines unilaterally whether the
Speaker 2: other is in violation, which means the United States has
Speaker 2: the ability to determine President Trump and this administration can
Speaker 2: determine Panama is in violation. That is decisive. And then secondly,
Speaker 2: the remedy. Initially, when I asked the remedy, what the
Speaker 2: professor testified is that the remedy contemplated in the treaty
Speaker 2: was direct military action by the United States to reassert
Speaker 2: its control. I also asked, okay, if they're in violation
Speaker 2: of the treaty, is there a potential to assert that
Speaker 2: the treaty is null and void and the United States
Speaker 2: will reassert control on that question, he went back and forth,
Speaker 2: But I will say that testimony I think gave enormous
Speaker 2: heft to the points President Trump has been making.
Speaker 1: So you look at this and you say, all right,
Speaker 1: what are the options now for President Trump and then
Speaker 1: for Congress because we can't get it back right there,
Speaker 1: I've seen it. I'd be like, we just take this
Speaker 1: thing back. We built it. I don't think it's that simple.
Speaker 1: Is that a fair fair point to make? Starting off?
Speaker 2: You know, it's interesting you and I did a podcast
Speaker 2: early on when President Trump was talking about Canada, Panama,
Speaker 2: and Greenland, and I put them on a spectrum. I said, Canada,
Speaker 2: it ain't going to become the fifty first state. Their
Speaker 2: President Trump is just trolling Canada. He's messing with Trudeau.
Speaker 2: And by the way, his trolling of Trudeau probably cost
Speaker 2: him being Prime minister. I mean, it was perhaps the
Speaker 2: most epic troll in history.
Speaker 3: Greenland, on the other.
Speaker 2: Hand, as we discussed at length on this podcast, I
Speaker 2: think there's a very serious argument that it is in
Speaker 2: the United States's interest to try to acquire Greenland, to
Speaker 2: try to acquire a number one for national security reasons
Speaker 2: because Greenland has a critical geographic location in the Arctic.
Speaker 2: If God forbid, we had a military conflict with Russia
Speaker 2: or China, any ICBMs and any military attack would likely
Speaker 2: come over the Arctic. Greenland is precisely situated to be
Speaker 2: able to intercept and combat that. But also Greenland has
Speaker 2: vast natural resources, in particular rarest minerals and critical minerals,
Speaker 2: and so I think it is very much at our
Speaker 2: interest to pursue Greenland.
Speaker 3: Now, I will.
Speaker 2: Say a little over a week ago, I had a
Speaker 2: long conversation with the Danish ambassador. So Greenland is controlled
Speaker 2: by Denmark, and the Danish ambassador was quite distressed because
Speaker 2: I've been very vocal, including on this podcast, and so
Speaker 2: I got a call from the Danish ambassador, what are
Speaker 2: you saying on Verdict, which is is an interesting did.
Speaker 1: Your response was do go listen to it?
Speaker 3: It's up there.
Speaker 2: I did have a good life. And the Danish ambassador
Speaker 2: is like, why are you attacking us? And I said, listen,
Speaker 2: let me be clear, you're a friend, you're an ally.
Speaker 2: I'm not remotely proposing military action against Denmark or Greenland.
Speaker 2: But friends and allies can have real conversations, and I
Speaker 2: think it is very much in our interest to acquire Greenland.
Speaker 2: And the ambassador said it's not for sale, and I said, well,
Speaker 2: everything's for sale, and we're at least going to have
Speaker 2: a conversation, because I think it is both in our
Speaker 2: interest and your interest to have that conversation, and so
Speaker 2: that we had a very direct, I think of very
Speaker 2: positive conversations, and I expect over the next four years
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is going to press that discussion.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: At the time you and I did that podcast, I
Speaker 2: viewed the Panamac Canal as somewhere in the middle. I
Speaker 2: said at the time, I said, we're not going to
Speaker 2: get it back, but I think the president is negotiating
Speaker 2: over priced, negotiating to lower the prices of transit. Now
Speaker 2: I think that's still true. I think the worst case
Speaker 2: outcome of this discussion is we end up with a
Speaker 2: very significant reduction in the cost the price for American
Speaker 2: ships to transit the Panama Canal, both commercial ships and
Speaker 2: US Navy ships. That's a very good outcome. I also
Speaker 2: think it is very likely we will see a significant
Speaker 2: diminution in China's control and influence over the Panama Canal.
Speaker 2: That is a massive benefit. But I got to say,
Speaker 2: after this hearing today, I've moved. I actually think the
Speaker 2: treaty arguments here are quite serious. And I get Panama
Speaker 2: would be horrified to give up the canal because they
Speaker 2: were given a gigantic gift from Jimmy Carter at the
Speaker 2: expense of the United States of America. But I think
Speaker 2: the arguments that Panama is violating the treaty and has
Speaker 2: forfeited its right to the canal, I think those arguments
Speaker 2: are very serious, and I expect the administration to pursue
Speaker 2: them seriously.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about also the contraband in essence is going
Speaker 1: through there Iran and China really getting a grand deal,
Speaker 1: but also the idea that we don't know what's going
Speaker 1: through there on those ships. How concerned are you about that?
Speaker 1: And could this also bring that into perspective where Panama says, hey,
Speaker 1: we can't do this right now, we're under too much
Speaker 1: of a spotlight.
Speaker 2: Well, look, that is a very real problem. So for example,
Speaker 2: Panama has flagged multiple ships from Iran from their ghost fleet,
Speaker 2: the ghost fleet that they're using to transit oil and
Speaker 2: Iran Iran.
Speaker 1: Have a definition, by the way, I have a ghost
Speaker 1: fleet for people that don't understand what that means.
Speaker 2: So there were in law massive sanctions on Iran selling
Speaker 2: oil under Joe Biden. He essentially refused to enforce those sanctions,
Speaker 2: and so Iran used a ghost fleet to get a
Speaker 2: round down those sanctions.
Speaker 3: It was ships.
Speaker 2: That that were operating under under foreign flags that that
Speaker 2: that were basically hiding from the sanctions regime. By the way,
Speaker 2: I think that's one of the most significant things the
Speaker 2: Trump administration is going to do is reimpose those sanctions
Speaker 2: on Iran and cut off their revenue. Joe Biden, the
Speaker 2: Democrats basically gave one hundred billion dollars to the Ayatola
Speaker 2: who's chanting death to America and death to Israel. And
Speaker 2: I believe that that has ended on January twentieth, and
Speaker 2: it should end. Panama was complicit in that that they
Speaker 2: were part of that endeavor. And by the way, Panama
Speaker 2: also made it made a very deliberate decision to pivot
Speaker 2: towards China. So, for example, several years ago, Panama severed
Speaker 2: diplomatic relationships with Taiwan and instead embraced China and they
Speaker 2: did so at the same time that China was making
Speaker 2: massive investments in the ports on both ends of the canal.
Speaker 2: And understand the way China does this, The Chinese government
Speaker 2: subsidizes those investments so that no American company can outbid them.
Speaker 2: Because the Chinese government is essentially subsidizing them. They're not
Speaker 2: doing it for economic purposes. They're not doing it because
Speaker 2: it makes business sense. They're doing it for strategic purposes
Speaker 2: because China wants to control the Panama Canal. Now I
Speaker 2: get why the Chinese communist government wants to do that,
Speaker 2: but Panama letting them do that is I believe in
Speaker 2: direct violation of the treaty and that that's what the
Speaker 2: hearing was about today.
Speaker 1: Final question on this moving forward? How quick will there
Speaker 1: be movement on this issue?
Speaker 2: Look, I don't know. I think this hearing was important today,
Speaker 2: and I'll tell you what I thought was most significant.
Speaker 2: So I called the hearing, and as a chairman, I
Speaker 2: can call a hearing on any topic I want.
Speaker 3: I didn't know how the day Democrats would react.
Speaker 2: I didn't know if the Democrats would show up the
Speaker 2: hearing and begin screaming and saying Trump is a lunatic
Speaker 2: and how Darry do this. I didn't know what they
Speaker 2: would say. The most interesting thing about the hearing today
Speaker 2: is the Democrats. Almost every Democrat echoed the points that
Speaker 2: you and I have been making that China has far
Speaker 2: too much influence over the Panama Canal and also the
Speaker 2: Panama Canal is charging excessive fees. I'm not sure what
Speaker 2: that means, but it surprised me.
Speaker 3: We did not have.
Speaker 2: I sort of anticipated some long Democrat speeches about how
Speaker 2: Trump is a crazy man. We didn't get any of that,
Speaker 2: and I think that was a very interesting particularly the
Speaker 2: Chinese influence on the Panama Canal. There was very significant
Speaker 2: bipartisan agreement. I think that's a very promising sign.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, then we got to use that bipartisan
Speaker 1: sign to move into topic number two, and that is yep.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was a big proponent of taxes going away
Speaker 1: on tips. Now, this is a very big issue in
Speaker 1: the campaign. He got a lot of traction with a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans that work hard part of their salaries tips.
Speaker 1: Not having taxes on those tips would be huge for
Speaker 1: American workers and also our economy. So this is something
Speaker 1: that has come back up again where Donald Trump's trying
Speaker 1: to pay off on this. The question is what's going
Speaker 1: to happen with Congress on that? And before I get
Speaker 1: to that, I want to tell you about our friends
Speaker 1: over at Patriot Mobile. While we may have won this election,
Speaker 1: the fight to restore our great nation is only beginning,
Speaker 1: and now is the time to take a stand, especially
Speaker 1: when it comes to the dollars you spend. Well, that's
Speaker 1: why I want you to know about Patriot Mobile because
Speaker 1: they are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: offers a way to vote with your wallet without compromising
Speaker 1: on quality or can nvenience. And Patriot Mobile isn't just
Speaker 1: about providing exceptional cell phone service. It's a call to
Speaker 1: action to defend our rights and freedoms. With Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 1: not only do you get outstanding nationwide coverage because they
Speaker 1: operate on all three major networks, so you get the
Speaker 1: coverage you want every day, but you get it without
Speaker 1: the wo agenda of Big Mobile. Patriot Mobile has a
Speaker 1: coverage guarantee. And here's the best part. Every time you
Speaker 1: make a call and every dollar you spend, you support
Speaker 1: the first and the second Amendments the sanctity of life.
Speaker 1: Our veterans, our first responders, and our wounded warriors, and
Speaker 1: switching is never been easier. You keep your same number
Speaker 1: you've got now, keep your same phone, or upgrade to
Speaker 1: a new one right now. Go to Patriotmobile dot com
Speaker 1: slash verdict or call them nine to seven to Patriot
Speaker 1: and get a free month of service with a promo
Speaker 1: code Verdict. Switch to Patriot Mobile today and defend freedom
Speaker 1: with every call and every text you make. That's Patriot
Speaker 1: Mobile dot com slash verdict or call them nine seven
Speaker 1: to Patriot. All right, So, taxes tips, It was clearly
Speaker 1: a big campaign issue. It brought in a lot of voters.
Speaker 1: A lot of people came to Donald Trump and said
Speaker 1: this couldn't have a huge impact. Now it's paying off
Speaker 1: on it. Is there a real chance?
Speaker 2: So yes, and I believe this will happen. This will
Speaker 2: happen by the.
Speaker 3: End of the year.
Speaker 2: So let's rewind. In the middle of the presidential campaign,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was in Las Vegas, Nevada, and he actually
Speaker 2: told us the story. So he came by in the
Speaker 2: middle of the campaign. He had lunch with all the
Speaker 2: Republican senators and he said, listen, I was in Vegas.
Speaker 3: I had a rally that night.
Speaker 2: They said, I was having lunch and he said, there
Speaker 2: was a waitress who came. It was serving me my meal,
Speaker 2: and he said she began like complaining about the enormous
Speaker 2: burden that the Biden administration had put on recording her tips,
Speaker 2: on paying taxes on tips.
Speaker 3: And he said, I pulled out.
Speaker 2: A piece of paper and I got out of pen
Speaker 2: and I just wrote, no taxes on tips.
Speaker 3: They said, it's just.
Speaker 2: An idea that popped in my head. And he said, look,
Speaker 2: some people they focus group things, they do white papers.
Speaker 2: He said, I didn't do any of that. I just
Speaker 2: wrote it down from the conversation I had with the
Speaker 2: waitress over lunch.
Speaker 3: And he said.
Speaker 2: I had that rally later the day and I had
Speaker 2: thousands of people there, and he said, I just threw
Speaker 2: it out there no taxes on tips.
Speaker 3: And he said and they went crazy. They went absolutely crazy.
Speaker 2: And I got to say, there are times when Trump
Speaker 2: I just think has an instinct that is a very good,
Speaker 2: gut instinct, and I think this policy makes enormous sense.
Speaker 3: And so when he announced it.
Speaker 2: He's right. The crowd went crazy. I looked at it
Speaker 2: and I said, this is this is a great idea.
Speaker 2: I immediately went to my team and I said, let's
Speaker 2: draft the legislation to make this happen. So the next week,
Speaker 2: I filed federal legislation of no taxes on tips. Now
Speaker 2: what's interesting, Ben, is when I filed this, it immediately
Speaker 2: became bipartisan. Both senators from Nevada, Jackie Rosen and Catherine
Speaker 2: Court's Master, both of them immediately co sponsored it. One
Speaker 2: of them said to me, she said, look in Nevada,
Speaker 2: twenty five percent of the employees in the entire state
Speaker 2: are tipped workers. And so it was bipartisan. And then
Speaker 2: shortly thereafter, Kamala Harris endorsed it and she said, this
Speaker 2: is a great idea. So it became there was enormous
Speaker 2: bipartisan support. Now, obviously Trump is won, we have a
Speaker 2: Republican Senate at Republican House. I've refiled my legislation. Here's
Speaker 2: what I'm pressing to happen. So Trump just was back
Speaker 2: in Nevada in Las Vegas just made a huge push
Speaker 2: to pass this. I am pressing for Congress to pass
Speaker 2: the legislation right now. It doesn't have to be part
Speaker 2: a budget reconciliation. Now for any tax bill. Under the Constitution,
Speaker 2: the House of Representatives has to originate it. So if
Speaker 2: that's a provision in the Constitution, the Senate cannot start
Speaker 2: a tax bill. A tax bill has to originate with
Speaker 2: the House. So I am merging the Speaker of the House.
Speaker 2: I'm merging the majority leader, take up my legislation no
Speaker 2: taxes on tips.
Speaker 3: Just pass it.
Speaker 2: We have the votes in the House, Republicans can pass it.
Speaker 2: If it passes and goes over to the Senate, I
Speaker 2: believe we can pass it in the Senate, and I
Speaker 2: think we'll get sixty votes, so we don't have to
Speaker 2: wait for reconciliation. Reconciliation is the process that gets around
Speaker 2: the filibuster. Lets us pass something with just fifty votes.
Speaker 2: I don't think we need that for no taxes on tips.
Speaker 2: If the House passes it, what I'm merging John Thune,
Speaker 2: the Senate majority leaders put it on the Senate floor.
Speaker 2: I think we'll get sixty votes, and that means we
Speaker 2: could pass it. It would be a big bipartisan win,
Speaker 2: and we'll put it on President Trump's desk. He can
Speaker 2: sign it into law as a huge victory. And by
Speaker 2: the way, it's a win win man. If we put
Speaker 2: her on the floor and Democrats decide to be partisan.
Speaker 2: They decide, Okay, we're going to oppose it, because we
Speaker 2: just oppose any tax cut, we oppose anything Trump wants.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's not the end of the day.
Speaker 2: If Democrats defeat it in the Senate because we can't
Speaker 2: get to sixty, that's fine. Then we'll stick it in
Speaker 2: budget reconciliation. We can get it done with fifty. But
Speaker 2: it's a win win because every Democrat senator who votes no,
Speaker 2: that is an ugly issue in two years to go
Speaker 2: face the voters and say, hey, I voted against no
Speaker 2: taxes on tips, even though every waiter, every waitress, every bartender,
Speaker 2: every taxi driver, every uber driver, every barber, every hairstylist,
Speaker 2: every nail salon person, everyone who is real lying on
Speaker 2: tips cares a lot about this. So if the Democrats
Speaker 2: all want to vote against it, look, I think this
Speaker 2: policy is an incredible embodiment of the most important political
Speaker 2: transformation of the last decade, which is that Republicans have
Speaker 2: become a blue collar party. We are the party of
Speaker 2: waiters and waitresses and working men and women, and so
Speaker 2: Democrats can decide where they stand. But I think we
Speaker 2: ought to get this passed, and one way or another,
Speaker 2: my prediction is this will get done before the end
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Is this one of those issues where people should call
Speaker 1: their congressmen, their centers. I mean we talk about this. Yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: I mean yes, And what do you say? This is
Speaker 1: good for my state, this is good for my city,
Speaker 1: this is good for hourly workers.
Speaker 2: It's the best argument. Just pass no taxes on tips.
Speaker 2: So look, one of the things to understand when you
Speaker 2: call your congressman, when you call your senator, if you
Speaker 2: make a detailed, subtle argument, that doesn't get through. So
Speaker 2: every member of Congress gets what I get every day,
Speaker 2: which is I get an email. So all right, let
Speaker 2: me find my email from today. Call totals. So one
Speaker 2: twenty eight, twenty five. Today there were one thousand, three
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy two calls to my office. There were
Speaker 2: seven hundred and fifty four to DC. There were six
Speaker 2: hundred and eighteen to Texas. There were four hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty two live calls. So we had interns and staff
Speaker 2: assistants who answered four hundred.
Speaker 3: And eighty two calls.
Speaker 2: Today there were eight hundred ninety calls that went to voicemails.
Speaker 2: Of those calls, one three hundred and twenty two Texans called,
Speaker 2: fifty non Texans called, so overwhelmingly the calls were Texans.
Speaker 2: So let's break it down casework So that's I've got
Speaker 2: an issue with soci security, I've got an issue with
Speaker 2: the VA, I've got an issue with the government. Forty
Speaker 2: five of those calls were caseworking. I've got a whole
Speaker 2: team that works to help text and deal with the
Speaker 2: government every day. Twenty four dealt with the academy, so
Speaker 2: young men and women, high school students that want to
Speaker 2: go to service academy. So twenty four of them. Eight
Speaker 2: concerned the campaign. I don't know what they concerned. Ninety
Speaker 2: one concerned scheduling. So people calling saying, hey, can you
Speaker 2: come and do this event or this other event. Now
Speaker 2: of the breakdown, eighteen called in support of me. Twenty
Speaker 2: eight called in opposition to me. So people called and said,
Speaker 2: I can't stand Cruiz, He's terrible.
Speaker 3: Okay, that gets recorded.
Speaker 2: Ten people called in support a President Trump, Seventy nine
Speaker 2: people called in opposition to President Trump. Now nominations. Seventy
Speaker 2: five people called in support of President Trump's nominees. Seventy
Speaker 2: people called in opposition to President Trump's nominees. Now, it's interesting,
Speaker 2: RFK Junior got a bunch of calls one hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty seven people this is yesterday in support of RFK
Speaker 2: Junior for HHS Secretary. Ninety three people called in opposition
Speaker 2: to RFK Junior, so about two to one, Bobby Kennedy,
Speaker 2: the calls were coming in. Nineteen people called in support
Speaker 2: of Cash Battel for FBI director. Four hundred and thirty
Speaker 2: two people called in opposition to Cash Battel as FBI director.
Speaker 2: And I think there probably were some liberal groups stirring
Speaker 2: up calls because that number is big enough, four hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty.
Speaker 1: I was to say, when you see days like that,
Speaker 1: you got to be thinking somebody went on an email
Speaker 1: campaign or a callboitz campaign and said, yeah, target this
Speaker 1: member today specifically, because if it doesn't match the day before,
Speaker 1: the day after, that's when that's kind of the tel right.
Speaker 3: And that happens.
Speaker 2: There are groups that will focus and say make these calls.
Speaker 2: And I think those calls the four hundred and thirty two,
Speaker 2: that's a big enough number. That's where that probably came from. Now,
Speaker 2: In addition, forty eight people called in support of Tulsea Gabbard,
Speaker 2: twenty two people called in opposition to Telsey Gabbert. On
Speaker 2: legislative issues, thirteen people called in support of border security,
Speaker 2: two people called in opposition to border security, and interestingly enough,
Speaker 2: four hundred and seventy four people called in opposition to
Speaker 2: the omb pause of federally appropriated funds. So, look, that's
Speaker 2: the sort of report. I get that report every day,
Speaker 2: and I read it every day. Now look what we
Speaker 2: get over the course of the year, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 2: of calls. So I can't listen to every voicemail that
Speaker 2: comes in. I could literally spend all day long doing
Speaker 2: nothing but listening to voicemails and not do any hearings,
Speaker 2: not do any legislation, and I still wouldn't have enough time.
Speaker 2: So the way I consume that data is through a
Speaker 2: report like that. I just read you the report that
Speaker 2: came today. Every other member consumes it the same way.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is, if you want Congress to pass
Speaker 2: no taxes on tips, you don't need to present a long, detailed,
Speaker 2: subtle argument as to all of the pros and cons.
Speaker 2: Just pick up the phone and call your member and
Speaker 2: say pass no taxes on tips. If you say that sentence,
Speaker 2: it will get recorded in a report just like that
Speaker 2: to the House member of the senator you're calling. That's
Speaker 2: how the information gets consumed.
Speaker 1: That's encouraging. By the way you said, everybody looks at
Speaker 1: their call list like the same way you.
Speaker 3: Do it, I hope.
Speaker 2: So I don't know that there may be some people
Speaker 2: that don't give a damn.
Speaker 3: I look at it every day.
Speaker 2: I can't promise that all five hundred and thirty five
Speaker 2: members of Congress do, but I certainly look at it
Speaker 2: every day because I work for thirty one million Texans
Speaker 2: and so I want to see what issues people are
Speaker 2: engaged on and what they care about.
Speaker 1: It's incredible. Don't forget call your congressman, call your senator.
Speaker 1: It can make a huge difference, especially during confirmations and
Speaker 1: on issues like taxes on tips. Going away, we do
Speaker 1: the show Monday was a Friday to gain give you
Speaker 1: this exact type of information. So make sure that that
Speaker 1: subscribe button, auto download button and share it on social media.
Speaker 1: A lot of people right now are looking for answers
Speaker 1: with all the changes in Washington, and it makes a
Speaker 1: massive difference when you guys share this podcast on social
Speaker 1: media and also when you write us a five star
Speaker 1: review and the Center and I will see you back
Speaker 1: here Friday morning.