1. Investigation of Chinese-Linked Activist Financier Neville Roy Singham
- Ted Cruz discusses a federal investigation into Neville Roy Singham, a wealthy businessman with alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
- The investigation reportedly involves potential violations of:
- The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
- Federal tax laws
- Singham is accused of funding left-wing organizations, including:
- The People's Forum
- Code Pink
- Cruz argues that money from foreign-linked sources may be supporting:
- Anti-Israel campus protests
- Anti-capitalist activism
- Other progressive political movements
- The discussion highlights concerns about foreign influence campaigns designed to shape U.S. public opinion and technology policy.
- Singham denies working for or taking orders from the Chinese government.
2. White House Discussion on Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Cruz describes attending a meeting in the Oval Office with:
- President Trump
- Senator Marsha Blackburn
- Administration officials and advisors
- The meeting focused on AI regulation and policy.
- Blackburn promoted several AI-related bills, including:
- Child online safety measures (KOSA)
- App-store age verification requirements
- The “No Fakes” Act addressing AI-generated fake voices and images
- Cruz expressed support for parts of the proposals but questioned whether they had enough political support to become law.
- He argued that:
- AI legislation should protect consumers and children.
- Regulations should not unintentionally restrict free speech.
- The U.S. must remain competitive with China in AI development.
- The conversation also addressed concerns over deepfakes and AI-generated political misinformation.
3. Reading and Education Reform Legislation
- Cruz discusses a bipartisan education bill focused on improving reading outcomes among American students.
- He cites statistics showing declining reading proficiency among students nationwide.
- The bill would require states receiving certain federal literacy funds to use reading methods proven effective through research.
- The discussion contrasts:
- Phonics-based instruction ("science of reading")
- Three-cueing methods, which Cruz argues are less effective
- Examples highlighted include:
- Mississippi's dramatic improvement in reading scores after adopting phonics-focused instruction ("Mississippi Miracle")
- Similar gains in Alabama and Louisiana
- The legislation was introduced jointly with Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii.
- Cruz presents the bill as a bipartisan effort to improve literacy and educational outcomes.
- The discussion outlines the legislative process needed for the bill to advance through Congress.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/
Facebook:
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz week in Review.
Here are some of the stories that you may have
missed that we talked about this week. First up, a
Chinese tycoon that is having major influence in America now
being investigated. So what does this mean? We explain it.
Up Next, a big meeting at the White House in
(00:20):
the Oval Office talking about the future of AI. Senator
Cruz was with the President talking about that and he
gives us the details. And finally, major legislation to help
with children in America with reading. Yes, actual standards before
the federal government sends your tax dollars. So is it
biparts enough to actually pass? We break that down as well.
(00:43):
It's the weekend review and it starts right now. Senator
I want to start off this last segment by saying,
I don't ever want our government to be weaponized against
our political adversaries. Not that they't to use the word enemy.
Democrats use the word enemy to describe Republicans, I say adversaries,
but I do want to hold those accountable that are
actually doing corrupt things. And we now know a lot
(01:06):
more about the investigation and the Chinese Communist Party tycoon
Nevil Roy Singham, and it should get a lot more
attention than it is right now. Certainly the media they
are looking the other way.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Well, that's exactly right. And you know, we ended the
last segment by talking about the need for accountability of
the corruption within the Biden administration, that those who broke
the law need to be held to account. And on
this podcast we have talked at great length about the
need to follow the money that these anti American efforts. Look,
(01:39):
if you look at all of the stories in today's pod,
they're interwoven the DSSA. There is clearly a funding stream
funding the antisemitic protests on college campuses, funding the communists
tearing this country apart, funding the DSSA, funding the Black
Lives Matter and ANTIFA riots across the country, funding the
open border riots in LA and elsewhere. The money stream,
(02:02):
and what I've urged the Department of Justice, what I've
urged the FBI from the beginning of this second Trump administration,
follow the money the people who are paying for this.
This is not organic when people carry out these acts
of violence, it's not organic. When you look at the
anti Semitic protests, the tents all match. Follow the money
and then we in a previous podcast couple of weeks ago,
(02:25):
talked about the bombshell story that we've all seen the
rising sentiment against AI that on the left and the right,
suddenly people are saying, gosh, I don't like AI. Shut
down data centers. Kathy Hokeeld just this past couple of
weeks said no data centers in New York, and the
bombshell story that much of that is being paid for
(02:46):
by a communist named Neville Roy Singham who has deep
ties to the Chinese Communist Party. And listen, we're in
a race America and China to see who will develop
AI first. If China wins, it will put China in
a position to dominate the world economically. But also whichever
(03:06):
country wins, the values of that country will dominate AI.
So if China wins, AI will be dominated by Communist
Party control and surveillance and propaganda and espionage. And I
think all of us want AI to instead reflect American values,
to reflect free speech and individual liberty and free enterprise. Well,
(03:32):
a bit of good news, which is the Trump Department
of Justice is doing exactly that. It's following the money
and it's holding people to account. Let me read from
a story in CBS News. Husband of Code Pink founder
being investigated under federal forhid agent and tax laws. Devilroy Singham,
the wealthy husband of the founder of the progressive nonprofit
(03:52):
Code Pink and the benefactor of far left political causes,
is under criminal investigation by a grand jury in the
Southern District of New York. According to multiple sources with
knowledge of the matter, the investigation began by looking into
possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and has
since expanded into a criminal tax probe over whether the
(04:13):
money was unlawfully funneled through nonprofits he controls, and whether
he lied on the tax forms for those nonprofits known
as nine nineties. Singham is a major financial backer of
a New York City based nonprofit called The People's Forum,
a left leaning nonprofit that advocates for causes impacting the
(04:35):
working class and other marginalized groups. He's also the founder
of thought Works, an IT consulting company, and is married
to Jody Evans, co founder of the anti war group
Code Pink. Singham sold thought Works to a private equity
firm in twenty seventeen for seven hundred and eighty five
million dollars. At around the same time, Singham moved his
(04:59):
business off operations to Shanghai, China, and began funding a
vast global network of nonprofits and think tanks to the
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to reports
of The Free Press in The New York Times, Singham
moved the funds through shell companies and other opaque entities,
(05:20):
advancing his brand of leftist politics while pushing pro Beijing messaging.
He injected much of his own money into Code Pink,
funding up to a quarter of its operation, according to reports.
Soon Code Pink softened its stance on China, which had
previously been highly critical of Beijing's human rights policies. Among
(05:44):
other things, the group defended China against widespread reports its
government was committing genocide against a Muslim minority group in
the country's far northwest. So I and numerous other senators
of the Judiciary Committee have urged the Department of Justice
to look at into this. Chuck Grassley wrote a letter
urging DOJ to do that. Here's what Grass's letter said. Quote.
(06:07):
Evidence suggests that the People's Forum and Code Pink have
been funded and influenced by mister Nevill Roy Singham and
the Communist Chinese government, both of which are foreign principles.
The evidence also suggests that the People's Forum and Code
Pink have engaged in covered political activities that directly advance
the Communist Chinese government's political and policy interest and by
(06:29):
the way Nevilroy Singham's response to that is quote, I
categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion that I am a
member of work for, take orders from, or follow instructions
of any political party or government or their representatives. I
am solely guided by my beliefs, which are long held
personal views. So well, there's going to be an investigation
(06:51):
into it. I don't know if this guy is just
a communist who hates American and wants to destroy our nation,
or if he's a communist who hates American wants to
destroy our nation, who is working directly for and may
even be funded by the Chinese Communist government. That's one
of the things that I would imagine the investigation will
examine either way. I am very glad the Department of
Justice is examining the hundreds of millions of dollars he
(07:15):
is using to fund the people that are tearing our
country apart.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Yeah, and that's the key thing there. And if you're
doing something that is illegal and it's coming in with
the Chinese Communist Party, why would anyone not want that
to be investigated if that's what the evidence is showing.
That's the core part here that I think matters for
all Americans.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
You know, it's one of the things that is dangerous
in this world where we're on social media, where you
see things or on x or Facebook or wherever you are,
and suddenly a lot of people seem concerned about something
and that can seem organic, and we are seeing more
and more paid foreign influence operations. And China puts a
lot of money into undermining America. Cutter puts a lot
(07:59):
of money into mining America. Iran puts a lot of
money into undermining America. You know, there was a report
from the Bitcoin Policy Institute that says for the past
five years, nonprofits funded by Nevil Roy Singham have been
putting out papers opposing export controls on advanced semiconductors to China,
putting out newsletters quoting Chinese communist officials blasting America's approach
(08:24):
to technology, and articles characterizing US data centers as fronts
in the quote new Cold War on China. And this
is a deliberate foreign influence effort that is targeting the
American economy, it's targeting AI, it's trying to get America
(08:44):
to stop leading an AI, and it's trying ultimately to
defeat capitalism and destroy our country. These it has the
exact same objectives as the DSA radicals that are taking
over the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Now want to hear the rest of this conversation, you
can go back and listen to the full podcast from
earlier this week. Now onto story number two. That's incredible
you went. So you went from that back to d
C straight to the Oval Monday morning, yeap for a
very interesting meeting on AI at the White House. Talk
about that a little bit.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yeah, So I took Amtrak and came from Manhattan down
to DC on Monday, and then I had a meeting
at the Oval Monday.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
And by the way, that is what we call welcome
back to your real life when you go from the
World Cup Drew Barrymore to Amtrak to d C. I
just that's an interesting step down really quick, and that's
probably got on purpose doing that. But keep going oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, look, look it was. And so the meeting in
the Oval, I was with the President, I was with
Marsha Blackburn, Senator from Tennessee, and I was with Scott
bess at the Treasury Secretary, and Kevin Hasset at the
head of the National Economic Council, and several other members
of the White House staff, and we were talking about AI,
artificial intelligence, and it was a discussion about what to
(10:02):
do about it. And listen, Marcia has a package of
bills that she's pitching, and it's a package of bills.
It's kids safety bills, it's requiring app stores to verify ages.
It's a bill called no Fakes, which which deals with
preventing people from from pirting and competing copying people's voices
(10:25):
and images. And so she was pitching to the President,
you should support my package of bills. And I'm chairman
of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, Transportation, which has
jurisdiction over a ton of stuff, including AI. And so
we're going to have a mark up in the next
couple of weeks on a bunch of AI bills, and
(10:47):
Marsha wants her a bill to be one of them,
and so she laid it out, and I got to
say a lot of discussions, she's pushing the president back
my bill, back my bill, back my bill, and I
stayed quiet for much of the meeting. The meeting was
like hour hour and a half long, and then I
said at the end, I said, listen, if Marcia introduces
the bill, I'll mark it up. I'll put it up
(11:07):
on the committee for a vote. And I said, I
expect all support it. All. To be honest, I'd never
read the bill until she handed it to me, so
I like, she handed me a hundred page bill and
I didn't know what was in it. But I said,
look from what she's described in it, I anticipate I'll
support it. But I also said it was kind of
near the end of the meeting, but I said, because
(11:28):
they had handed the president a truth social post supporting
the bill, and I said, look, someone needs to tell
you this bill has very little, if any chance of passing.
And like Trump was surprised, and I just said, look,
there are different elements of it. Right now. There are
(11:49):
no Democrats backing this bill. It's not clear that every
Republican on the committee will back the bill. Maybe they will,
they might and I said, let are you clear, I'll
mark it up and I expect to vote. So I'm
not the opposition here, but I just want you to
know that at this point there's opposition from Democrats in
the Senate, there's opposition potentially from some Republicans in the Senate,
(12:12):
and there's strong opposition on aspects of the bill from
Republican leadership in the House. And so I just said,
I don't want you to be surprised you lean in
and say let's go pass this bill and then it
doesn't pass. And so Trump said, all right, well, then
I'm not going to support it. I don't want to
support something that doesn't have a path to passage. And
so We're going to mark up a series of bills.
(12:33):
I've told Marsha if she wants me to mark up
her bill, we will. I don't know she will ask
for it or not.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Can you ask a politics question on this? Yeah? How
much of her bill is her pushing because she's running
for governor and really trying to get Tennessee's hands on
a lot of AI and AI infrastructure and AI and
the state. Not blame her for that, but like, is
that part of this hardcore push where you're in the Senate,
You're going I understand both sides of this. My reading
(13:00):
the room wrong.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
So listen, they're different components of it. So let's take
the different elements of the bill. The first bill is COSA,
and COSA is a kid's safety bill. It's a good bill.
I've supported it. I've voted for it in the last Congress.
It passed the Senate ninety three to three. So I'm
all for COSA. I'm a yes, I want it to pass.
Here's the problem. After it passed the Senate ninety three
(13:22):
to three, it went to the House and the House
refused to take it up. Why because because the Speaker
of the House and Steve Scalise, the majority leader, opposed
the bill. And the bill puts what's called a duty
of care on the tech companies that if there's content
that harms kids, they can be sued. And the House
(13:46):
leadership doesn't support that. And so look, frankly, what I
told Marsha a year and a half ago is I said, listen, Mop,
I'll back COSA again. We can pass it again. I'm
fine with that, but it will never become law until
you sit down with Johnson and Scale and work out
an agreement, because if they refuse to take up the bill,
you want to pass it again, we can do it.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
You'll get if they're not going to take it up.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
If the House won't take it up, it's not going
to become in the US Code. And so I said,
what you need to do is sit down and negotiate
a compromise and it won't be everything you want, but
you need to find something the House is willing to
pass that hasn't happened. So that's a real impediment. I'm
going to vote for COSA. I want COSA to pass,
but right now the House is not going to take
(14:32):
it up. There's a second component, which is called the
App Store Accountability App, which is putting liability on an
app store for age verification. Now there are a couple
of problems with that Number One, there are tech companies
like Meta, like Facebook that support it, but Apple and
(14:53):
Google hate it because they're the app stores and they're like, wait,
you're making me liable. So Apple and Google don't like it,
so they're both the tech companies are divided their lobbying
on both sides. And there's a competing bill that is
called the Parents over Platforms bill, which is frankly the
Apple and Google bill, And there are several Republicans on
(15:15):
the committee that support that bill, and so I said, look,
this is just a pissing match between giant tech companies.
I'd like to see age verification. I support age verification,
I'm pushing for it. But every Democrat opposes age verification.
So I said, listen, it's a simple math. If you
lose all the Democrats and if you're losing some Republicans,
(15:37):
I don't see how this passes. Like it's just a math.
Like I'm not opposed to it. I will vote yes,
but how do you get to the votes to pass it.
There is additionally her bill No Fakes now no Fakes.
I'm on the Judiciary Committee. Judiciary Committee has already pased
no Fakes. It was a voice vote. I was fine
with it. No Fakes has a lot of good element
(16:00):
to it. So no fakes is protecting. Say you have
a musician and someone uses AI to create a fake
song for a musician, it makes you liable for that
in politics. By the way, this is coming. It hasn't
really happened yet, but it's coming soon. You're going to
see someone create AI and take a video of a
politician a fake video and be like we should eat
(16:25):
live kittens, and it's going to be you're not going
to be able to tell that it's fake, like it's
going to appear to be. The real problem.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Can have to respond to a ridiculous, absurd video, right.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
And by the way, Amy Klovichar last year had a
video of a hearing where she said a bunch of
things that were derogatory that she would never have said,
but it looked entirely real and she had to respond
to that. That's going to explode a lot. So finding
some protections to say, look, someone can't use your name,
image and likeness and create a counterfeit that no but
(17:00):
he knows is fake. I'm quite supportive of that. When
the judiciary passed this bill, there were several Republicans Mike Lee,
Eric Schmidt, and myself who raised free speech concerns because
the way the language is written it's quite broad. So
for example, Trump send out the meme of a Keem
(17:21):
Jeffries and Chuck Schumer wearing sombrero singing yes, now that
was parody, it wasn't real, and I've retweeted it and
then amplified it, but there is an argument that under
the language to know fakes, that could be banned. Now
there is some language saying bonafide satire is okay, but
(17:46):
there's a lot of gray area. You think of Spencer
Pratt and the hysterical ads he put out with Gavin
Newsom and Karen Bass just like doing horrible things to
people of California. I have a concern that under the
language and no fakes, the tech platforms would take down
(18:06):
those ads because they'd say, you're using Gavin Newsom's image
in a way that he has not approved. And so
my point was, look, I'd love to see this get done,
but I also want to protect free speech. So my
point to the President was, Hey, if you want to
endorse this, great, I've got no problem with it, but
you need to know that I don't see a path
(18:31):
that this actually gets to pass in the Senate take
sixty votes, given that I don't know of a single
Democrat supporting this bill, and there may be Republicans opposing
this bill. The math doesn't work, and so the President
decided not to support it. Listen, I still expect that
(18:51):
we will take up in the next couple of weeks
a series of AI bills. And by the way, we
will do a podcast when we do that markup where
we talk about the AI bills pass. But what I'm
trying to do right now is find all right, let
me use a Kamala Harris phrase the ven diagram, that
is the intersection of what bills could make a positive
(19:13):
impact protecting people from some of the harms of AI yep,
but at the same time that have a real pass
to passage. And so we'll move several bills on that.
But I'm trying to find exactly the right intersection right there.
And so we had that conversation and the President agreed
with me as before.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number
three of the week you may have missed, Senata, I
want to move to this education bill that is so
important that you have been working on. Explain what this
(19:53):
bill is, why it's important right now, and why American
should be paying attention to it.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah. Look, you talked a minute ago about how one
of the reasons why we're having young people, particularly young
people who stay in the education system for a long time,
gets so radicalized, so left wing, so America, hating so capitalism,
hating so communism, embracing is because our education system is broken.
(20:19):
And that's certainly true at the university level, particularly the
so called elite universities, but it is also true in
K through twelve. And one consequence of K through twelve
getting radicalized is that it drives the politics crazy left.
But another consequence is they failed in their basic job
of teaching. And you know, you used to go and
(20:41):
learn the three r's, reading, writing, and arithmetic, And I
mean that used to be like the core of what
you were learning. Yeah, if you look.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
At a novel idea. By the way, what a novel idea?
You go to school to learn to read, writing to arithmetic, Like,
isn't that amazing that someone came up with that curriculum
one day and then we just decided to abandon it right.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Well, and there is a literacy crisis. The numbers of
students coming out of school who can't read, who don't
have the ability to read, is staggering. I'm gonna give
you some of the stats. So in twenty twenty four,
the National Assessment of Educational Progress what's called the NAPE,
the reading assessment, showed that thirty three percent of eighth
(21:22):
graders are reading at a level that is quote below basic.
Thirty three percent. A third of eighth graders can't read
at even the barest minimum of levels. For twelfth graders,
the average reading scores were three points lower than in
twenty nineteen and ten point points lower than in nineteen
(21:45):
ninety two. So it is a staggering crisis. And one
of the big reasons for that it is that you've
had left wing radicals takeover teachers, colleges, education programs that
teachers unions, and they've moved away from what actually works.
(22:06):
They've adopted an approach to reading that is called three quing.
So three quing it is something that uses context and
pictures and sentence structures rather than phonics. Look, when I
learned to read, we learned phonics. We would diagram sentences.
Phonics works, and you know what we now know three
(22:28):
quing does not. It's a disaster and it's produced terrible results.
So a number of states Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have all banned
teaching three qing because the data are terrible. It fails
to teach kids to read. What is amazing, though, is
(22:51):
a number of schools instead have focused on what's called
the science of reading, which is going back to phonics,
going back to the basics of teaching reading. And the
results have been staggering. And there's something called all right,
you're an all miss grad You're gonna like this. There's
something called the Mississippi Miracle.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
So love this already, keep singing this song. I'm ready.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
In twenty thirteen, Mississippi's reading numbers were not good. Mississippi
was forty ninth in the nation on the national assessments
and reading. They began then going in on the science
of reading and vigorously teaching phonics, and Mississippi has risen
from forty nine in the country to a top ten
(23:40):
state in the country in fourth grade reading achievement. By
the way, it wasn't money that did it, it was
actually teaching what works. Alabama, by the way, did the
same thing. They moved from forty ninth to thirty fourth. Louisiana,
Louisiana moved from forty ninth to thirty seconds. And here's
(24:02):
what the New York Times said, you're gonna like this.
The New York Times said, in twenty nineteen, blue states
had better average test scores than red states after adjusting
for democraphics. Now red states are mostly ahead. That's the
New York Times. And so what happened on this legislation
is I introduce legislation this week that takes the existing
(24:23):
federal grants that go to education. There's a pretty big
funding stream from the federal government to states for education
and the reading funds. The legislation I introduced said, if
you want to get those reading funds, you have to
use the reading methods that are demonstrated empirically to work.
(24:43):
You have to have what actually works and what the
data shows work. You can't teach this garbage that results
in kids not learning. You've got to use the empirically
successful methods. And what's interesting, by the way, who's against
this bill?
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Because if you have the data you just mentioned there
showing where this is working, you would think this would
be by partisan.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
So it actually is. So I introduced this bill with
Brian Shotts. Brian Shotts is a Democrat. He's from Hawaii.
Interestingly enough, Brian is widely considered the next Democrat leader
in the Senate. He's widely considered the most likely successor
to Chuck Schumer. And Brian I know, well, he's a
friend of mine. He's on the Commerce Committee with me.
(25:28):
I'm the chairman of the Commerce Committee. He and I
have done a number of bills together. And look, would
you talk with Brian. He's a Democrat, so he can
be left wing on a lot of issues, but one
on one he can be quite reasonable. As you know,
I play hoops every week. Brian's come out several times
and played hoops with me. I mean, he's and I'm
going to say something that's going to surprise you. This
(25:49):
bill was his idea.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Really.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
He came to me. He came to me on the
Senate floor and he said, Ted, have you've seen the
data from Mississippi and the Mississippi Miracle and the incredible
reading scores that are coming out of Mississippi. And by
the way, this doesn't happen often. Democrats don't praise red
states that often. And I said, yeah, I have. It's fantastic.
And he said, what do you think about us joining
(26:15):
together to draft legislation that would require if you're going
to get the federal funds that are going for literacy,
you've got to teach using the reading methods that the
data show actually produced results. And I said, I think
that'd be fantastic. I'm a huge fan of phonics. I
don't like these woke teaching methods that are just a
failure and a disaster. And it's interesting my team. I
(26:38):
went to them and so I said, hey, you know,
shots pitch doing this, and my team was skeptical. They said,
we don't really believe a Democrat's going to go along
with something that is praising what's working in red states
and by the way, implicitly criticizing the woke education policies
in many Blue states. To Brian's credit, Look, I mean
he we introduced it to getather. You asked who opposes it.
(27:02):
I will confess it's early enough now that I don't
want to give you an answer to that. My assumption,
My assumption is the teachers' unions will oppose it. My
assumption is some of the Blue states will oppose it,
and the sort of woke educrats, the people who are
teaching at the education schools who are teaching teachers who
are teaching this nonsense that doesn't work. I assume all
(27:24):
those guys will oppose it. But I'll say this, we
just introduced it. I'm going to try to see if
we could move it forward and maybe we get support
for it. I hope we do.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
By the way, what do you need when you say
moving forward to people understand? And this is one of
the reasons why I love doing the show. When you
say you're hoping you get the support, what is moving
it forward actually look like in the legislature.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
So look, you drop the bill initially. The next step
that we'll work on doing is trying to get other supporters,
trying to get other co sponsors. So I'll reach out
to other Republicans and other Democrats. Brian will reach out
to other Democrats and also Republicans. I'd like to get
a pretty good group of bipartisan co sponsors, and there
are number of Democrats that I've worked with on different
(28:07):
bills who and particularly given that it's Brian and me,
we I think we can get other senators to co
sponsor it. So let's say we get a half dozen
rs and a half dozen d's that starts to be
a bill that's got some real heft to it, because
you look, particularly if you've got some ideological diversity. The
bill would go, uh, go to to committee at first.
(28:30):
I assume this would go to what's called the Help Committee,
which is the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. So
the first step is to get the committee to mark
it up, will work to get more by more sponsors,
to get a bigger coalition behind it, and then I'll
go to the chairman of that committee, that's Bill Cassidy,
and ask him to mark it up, which is for
(28:50):
the committee to take it up and pass it. And
we've got if we've got a good enough coalition behind it,
we've got a real chance at that. Once it gets
out of committee. There are a couple of paths you
can take to pass. One path is to try to
pass it by unanimous consent. Now I've passed a lot
by unanimous consent. If you do the work and build
the coalition, you can get things done that way. But
(29:12):
a single senator can object, So I don't know right
now if this is possible. You may have an Elizabeth
Warren or someone on the far left who objects to this. Uh.
The other way to pass it is to attach it
to another vehicle that is moving another bill that is
being passed, to put it on that And and so
(29:33):
we've got some time to get there. We've got to
build the coalition, we've got to get it out of committee,
we've got to get it teed up where it's at
a position to then try to pass it. And then
when you get out of the Senate, then you try
to pass it in the House. And I'm confident the
President would sign it. So we are early in that process,
but I'm encouraged to see that that that we're able
to get a Democrat and Republican working together saying, look,
(29:55):
we really got to teach our kids to read that.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
It should it should be one hundred to one in
my opinion, teaching kids to read that shit. It might
be a problem and it might be as always, thank
you for listening to Verdict with Center Ted Cruz Ben
Ferguson with you don't forget to deal with my podcast,
and you can listen to my podcast every other day
you're not listening to Verdict or each day when you
listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to have you as
a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and we
(30:20):
will see you back here on Monday morning.
Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz week in Review.
Here are some of the stories that you may have
missed that we talked about this week. First up, a
Chinese tycoon that is having major influence in America now
being investigated. So what does this mean? We explain it.
Up Next, a big meeting at the White House in
(00:20):
the Oval Office talking about the future of AI. Senator
Cruz was with the President talking about that and he
gives us the details. And finally, major legislation to help
with children in America with reading. Yes, actual standards before
the federal government sends your tax dollars. So is it
biparts enough to actually pass? We break that down as well.
(00:43):
It's the weekend review and it starts right now. Senator
I want to start off this last segment by saying,
I don't ever want our government to be weaponized against
our political adversaries. Not that they't to use the word enemy.
Democrats use the word enemy to describe Republicans, I say adversaries,
but I do want to hold those accountable that are
actually doing corrupt things. And we now know a lot
(01:06):
more about the investigation and the Chinese Communist Party tycoon
Nevil Roy Singham, and it should get a lot more
attention than it is right now. Certainly the media they
are looking the other way.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Well, that's exactly right. And you know, we ended the
last segment by talking about the need for accountability of
the corruption within the Biden administration, that those who broke
the law need to be held to account. And on
this podcast we have talked at great length about the
need to follow the money that these anti American efforts. Look,
(01:39):
if you look at all of the stories in today's pod,
they're interwoven the DSSA. There is clearly a funding stream
funding the antisemitic protests on college campuses, funding the communists
tearing this country apart, funding the DSSA, funding the Black
Lives Matter and ANTIFA riots across the country, funding the
open border riots in LA and elsewhere. The money stream,
(02:02):
and what I've urged the Department of Justice, what I've
urged the FBI from the beginning of this second Trump administration,
follow the money the people who are paying for this.
This is not organic when people carry out these acts
of violence, it's not organic. When you look at the
anti Semitic protests, the tents all match. Follow the money
and then we in a previous podcast couple of weeks ago,
(02:25):
talked about the bombshell story that we've all seen the
rising sentiment against AI that on the left and the right,
suddenly people are saying, gosh, I don't like AI. Shut
down data centers. Kathy Hokeeld just this past couple of
weeks said no data centers in New York, and the
bombshell story that much of that is being paid for
(02:46):
by a communist named Neville Roy Singham who has deep
ties to the Chinese Communist Party. And listen, we're in
a race America and China to see who will develop
AI first. If China wins, it will put China in
a position to dominate the world economically. But also whichever
(03:06):
country wins, the values of that country will dominate AI.
So if China wins, AI will be dominated by Communist
Party control and surveillance and propaganda and espionage. And I
think all of us want AI to instead reflect American values,
to reflect free speech and individual liberty and free enterprise. Well,
(03:32):
a bit of good news, which is the Trump Department
of Justice is doing exactly that. It's following the money
and it's holding people to account. Let me read from
a story in CBS News. Husband of Code Pink founder
being investigated under federal forhid agent and tax laws. Devilroy Singham,
the wealthy husband of the founder of the progressive nonprofit
(03:52):
Code Pink and the benefactor of far left political causes,
is under criminal investigation by a grand jury in the
Southern District of New York. According to multiple sources with
knowledge of the matter, the investigation began by looking into
possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and has
since expanded into a criminal tax probe over whether the
(04:13):
money was unlawfully funneled through nonprofits he controls, and whether
he lied on the tax forms for those nonprofits known
as nine nineties. Singham is a major financial backer of
a New York City based nonprofit called The People's Forum,
a left leaning nonprofit that advocates for causes impacting the
(04:35):
working class and other marginalized groups. He's also the founder
of thought Works, an IT consulting company, and is married
to Jody Evans, co founder of the anti war group
Code Pink. Singham sold thought Works to a private equity
firm in twenty seventeen for seven hundred and eighty five
million dollars. At around the same time, Singham moved his
(04:59):
business off operations to Shanghai, China, and began funding a
vast global network of nonprofits and think tanks to the
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to reports
of The Free Press in The New York Times, Singham
moved the funds through shell companies and other opaque entities,
(05:20):
advancing his brand of leftist politics while pushing pro Beijing messaging.
He injected much of his own money into Code Pink,
funding up to a quarter of its operation, according to reports.
Soon Code Pink softened its stance on China, which had
previously been highly critical of Beijing's human rights policies. Among
(05:44):
other things, the group defended China against widespread reports its
government was committing genocide against a Muslim minority group in
the country's far northwest. So I and numerous other senators
of the Judiciary Committee have urged the Department of Justice
to look at into this. Chuck Grassley wrote a letter
urging DOJ to do that. Here's what Grass's letter said. Quote.
(06:07):
Evidence suggests that the People's Forum and Code Pink have
been funded and influenced by mister Nevill Roy Singham and
the Communist Chinese government, both of which are foreign principles.
The evidence also suggests that the People's Forum and Code
Pink have engaged in covered political activities that directly advance
the Communist Chinese government's political and policy interest and by
(06:29):
the way Nevilroy Singham's response to that is quote, I
categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion that I am a
member of work for, take orders from, or follow instructions
of any political party or government or their representatives. I
am solely guided by my beliefs, which are long held
personal views. So well, there's going to be an investigation
(06:51):
into it. I don't know if this guy is just
a communist who hates American and wants to destroy our nation,
or if he's a communist who hates American wants to
destroy our nation, who is working directly for and may
even be funded by the Chinese Communist government. That's one
of the things that I would imagine the investigation will
examine either way. I am very glad the Department of
Justice is examining the hundreds of millions of dollars he
(07:15):
is using to fund the people that are tearing our
country apart.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Yeah, and that's the key thing there. And if you're
doing something that is illegal and it's coming in with
the Chinese Communist Party, why would anyone not want that
to be investigated if that's what the evidence is showing.
That's the core part here that I think matters for
all Americans.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
You know, it's one of the things that is dangerous
in this world where we're on social media, where you
see things or on x or Facebook or wherever you are,
and suddenly a lot of people seem concerned about something
and that can seem organic, and we are seeing more
and more paid foreign influence operations. And China puts a
lot of money into undermining America. Cutter puts a lot
(07:59):
of money into mining America. Iran puts a lot of
money into undermining America. You know, there was a report
from the Bitcoin Policy Institute that says for the past
five years, nonprofits funded by Nevil Roy Singham have been
putting out papers opposing export controls on advanced semiconductors to China,
putting out newsletters quoting Chinese communist officials blasting America's approach
(08:24):
to technology, and articles characterizing US data centers as fronts
in the quote new Cold War on China. And this
is a deliberate foreign influence effort that is targeting the
American economy, it's targeting AI, it's trying to get America
(08:44):
to stop leading an AI, and it's trying ultimately to
defeat capitalism and destroy our country. These it has the
exact same objectives as the DSA radicals that are taking
over the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Now want to hear the rest of this conversation, you
can go back and listen to the full podcast from
earlier this week. Now onto story number two. That's incredible
you went. So you went from that back to d
C straight to the Oval Monday morning, yeap for a
very interesting meeting on AI at the White House. Talk
about that a little bit.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yeah, So I took Amtrak and came from Manhattan down
to DC on Monday, and then I had a meeting
at the Oval Monday.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
And by the way, that is what we call welcome
back to your real life when you go from the
World Cup Drew Barrymore to Amtrak to d C. I
just that's an interesting step down really quick, and that's
probably got on purpose doing that. But keep going oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, look, look it was. And so the meeting in
the Oval, I was with the President, I was with
Marsha Blackburn, Senator from Tennessee, and I was with Scott
bess at the Treasury Secretary, and Kevin Hasset at the
head of the National Economic Council, and several other members
of the White House staff, and we were talking about AI,
artificial intelligence, and it was a discussion about what to
(10:02):
do about it. And listen, Marcia has a package of
bills that she's pitching, and it's a package of bills.
It's kids safety bills, it's requiring app stores to verify ages.
It's a bill called no Fakes, which which deals with
preventing people from from pirting and competing copying people's voices
(10:25):
and images. And so she was pitching to the President,
you should support my package of bills. And I'm chairman
of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, Transportation, which has
jurisdiction over a ton of stuff, including AI. And so
we're going to have a mark up in the next
couple of weeks on a bunch of AI bills, and
(10:47):
Marsha wants her a bill to be one of them,
and so she laid it out, and I got to
say a lot of discussions, she's pushing the president back
my bill, back my bill, back my bill, and I
stayed quiet for much of the meeting. The meeting was
like hour hour and a half long, and then I
said at the end, I said, listen, if Marcia introduces
the bill, I'll mark it up. I'll put it up
(11:07):
on the committee for a vote. And I said, I
expect all support it. All. To be honest, I'd never
read the bill until she handed it to me, so
I like, she handed me a hundred page bill and
I didn't know what was in it. But I said,
look from what she's described in it, I anticipate I'll
support it. But I also said it was kind of
near the end of the meeting, but I said, because
(11:28):
they had handed the president a truth social post supporting
the bill, and I said, look, someone needs to tell
you this bill has very little, if any chance of passing.
And like Trump was surprised, and I just said, look,
there are different elements of it. Right now. There are
(11:49):
no Democrats backing this bill. It's not clear that every
Republican on the committee will back the bill. Maybe they will,
they might and I said, let are you clear, I'll
mark it up and I expect to vote. So I'm
not the opposition here, but I just want you to
know that at this point there's opposition from Democrats in
the Senate, there's opposition potentially from some Republicans in the Senate,
(12:12):
and there's strong opposition on aspects of the bill from
Republican leadership in the House. And so I just said,
I don't want you to be surprised you lean in
and say let's go pass this bill and then it
doesn't pass. And so Trump said, all right, well, then
I'm not going to support it. I don't want to
support something that doesn't have a path to passage. And
so We're going to mark up a series of bills.
(12:33):
I've told Marsha if she wants me to mark up
her bill, we will. I don't know she will ask
for it or not.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Can you ask a politics question on this? Yeah? How
much of her bill is her pushing because she's running
for governor and really trying to get Tennessee's hands on
a lot of AI and AI infrastructure and AI and
the state. Not blame her for that, but like, is
that part of this hardcore push where you're in the Senate,
You're going I understand both sides of this. My reading
(13:00):
the room wrong.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
So listen, they're different components of it. So let's take
the different elements of the bill. The first bill is COSA,
and COSA is a kid's safety bill. It's a good bill.
I've supported it. I've voted for it in the last Congress.
It passed the Senate ninety three to three. So I'm
all for COSA. I'm a yes, I want it to pass.
Here's the problem. After it passed the Senate ninety three
(13:22):
to three, it went to the House and the House
refused to take it up. Why because because the Speaker
of the House and Steve Scalise, the majority leader, opposed
the bill. And the bill puts what's called a duty
of care on the tech companies that if there's content
that harms kids, they can be sued. And the House
(13:46):
leadership doesn't support that. And so look, frankly, what I
told Marsha a year and a half ago is I said, listen, Mop,
I'll back COSA again. We can pass it again. I'm
fine with that, but it will never become law until
you sit down with Johnson and Scale and work out
an agreement, because if they refuse to take up the bill,
you want to pass it again, we can do it.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
You'll get if they're not going to take it up.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
If the House won't take it up, it's not going
to become in the US Code. And so I said,
what you need to do is sit down and negotiate
a compromise and it won't be everything you want, but
you need to find something the House is willing to
pass that hasn't happened. So that's a real impediment. I'm
going to vote for COSA. I want COSA to pass,
but right now the House is not going to take
(14:32):
it up. There's a second component, which is called the
App Store Accountability App, which is putting liability on an
app store for age verification. Now there are a couple
of problems with that Number One, there are tech companies
like Meta, like Facebook that support it, but Apple and
(14:53):
Google hate it because they're the app stores and they're like, wait,
you're making me liable. So Apple and Google don't like it,
so they're both the tech companies are divided their lobbying
on both sides. And there's a competing bill that is
called the Parents over Platforms bill, which is frankly the
Apple and Google bill, And there are several Republicans on
(15:15):
the committee that support that bill, and so I said, look,
this is just a pissing match between giant tech companies.
I'd like to see age verification. I support age verification,
I'm pushing for it. But every Democrat opposes age verification.
So I said, listen, it's a simple math. If you
lose all the Democrats and if you're losing some Republicans,
(15:37):
I don't see how this passes. Like it's just a math.
Like I'm not opposed to it. I will vote yes,
but how do you get to the votes to pass it.
There is additionally her bill No Fakes now no Fakes.
I'm on the Judiciary Committee. Judiciary Committee has already pased
no Fakes. It was a voice vote. I was fine
with it. No Fakes has a lot of good element
(16:00):
to it. So no fakes is protecting. Say you have
a musician and someone uses AI to create a fake
song for a musician, it makes you liable for that
in politics. By the way, this is coming. It hasn't
really happened yet, but it's coming soon. You're going to
see someone create AI and take a video of a
politician a fake video and be like we should eat
(16:25):
live kittens, and it's going to be you're not going
to be able to tell that it's fake, like it's
going to appear to be. The real problem.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Can have to respond to a ridiculous, absurd video, right.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
And by the way, Amy Klovichar last year had a
video of a hearing where she said a bunch of
things that were derogatory that she would never have said,
but it looked entirely real and she had to respond
to that. That's going to explode a lot. So finding
some protections to say, look, someone can't use your name,
image and likeness and create a counterfeit that no but
(17:00):
he knows is fake. I'm quite supportive of that. When
the judiciary passed this bill, there were several Republicans Mike Lee,
Eric Schmidt, and myself who raised free speech concerns because
the way the language is written it's quite broad. So
for example, Trump send out the meme of a Keem
(17:21):
Jeffries and Chuck Schumer wearing sombrero singing yes, now that
was parody, it wasn't real, and I've retweeted it and
then amplified it, but there is an argument that under
the language to know fakes, that could be banned. Now
there is some language saying bonafide satire is okay, but
(17:46):
there's a lot of gray area. You think of Spencer
Pratt and the hysterical ads he put out with Gavin
Newsom and Karen Bass just like doing horrible things to
people of California. I have a concern that under the
language and no fakes, the tech platforms would take down
(18:06):
those ads because they'd say, you're using Gavin Newsom's image
in a way that he has not approved. And so
my point was, look, I'd love to see this get done,
but I also want to protect free speech. So my
point to the President was, Hey, if you want to
endorse this, great, I've got no problem with it, but
you need to know that I don't see a path
(18:31):
that this actually gets to pass in the Senate take
sixty votes, given that I don't know of a single
Democrat supporting this bill, and there may be Republicans opposing
this bill. The math doesn't work, and so the President
decided not to support it. Listen, I still expect that
(18:51):
we will take up in the next couple of weeks
a series of AI bills. And by the way, we
will do a podcast when we do that markup where
we talk about the AI bills pass. But what I'm
trying to do right now is find all right, let
me use a Kamala Harris phrase the ven diagram, that
is the intersection of what bills could make a positive
(19:13):
impact protecting people from some of the harms of AI yep,
but at the same time that have a real pass
to passage. And so we'll move several bills on that.
But I'm trying to find exactly the right intersection right there.
And so we had that conversation and the President agreed
with me as before.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number
three of the week you may have missed, Senata, I
want to move to this education bill that is so
important that you have been working on. Explain what this
(19:53):
bill is, why it's important right now, and why American
should be paying attention to it.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah. Look, you talked a minute ago about how one
of the reasons why we're having young people, particularly young
people who stay in the education system for a long time,
gets so radicalized, so left wing, so America, hating so capitalism,
hating so communism, embracing is because our education system is broken.
(20:19):
And that's certainly true at the university level, particularly the
so called elite universities, but it is also true in
K through twelve. And one consequence of K through twelve
getting radicalized is that it drives the politics crazy left.
But another consequence is they failed in their basic job
of teaching. And you know, you used to go and
(20:41):
learn the three r's, reading, writing, and arithmetic, And I
mean that used to be like the core of what
you were learning. Yeah, if you look.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
At a novel idea. By the way, what a novel idea?
You go to school to learn to read, writing to arithmetic, Like,
isn't that amazing that someone came up with that curriculum
one day and then we just decided to abandon it right.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Well, and there is a literacy crisis. The numbers of
students coming out of school who can't read, who don't
have the ability to read, is staggering. I'm gonna give
you some of the stats. So in twenty twenty four,
the National Assessment of Educational Progress what's called the NAPE,
the reading assessment, showed that thirty three percent of eighth
(21:22):
graders are reading at a level that is quote below basic.
Thirty three percent. A third of eighth graders can't read
at even the barest minimum of levels. For twelfth graders,
the average reading scores were three points lower than in
twenty nineteen and ten point points lower than in nineteen
(21:45):
ninety two. So it is a staggering crisis. And one
of the big reasons for that it is that you've
had left wing radicals takeover teachers, colleges, education programs that
teachers unions, and they've moved away from what actually works.
(22:06):
They've adopted an approach to reading that is called three quing.
So three quing it is something that uses context and
pictures and sentence structures rather than phonics. Look, when I
learned to read, we learned phonics. We would diagram sentences.
Phonics works, and you know what we now know three
(22:28):
quing does not. It's a disaster and it's produced terrible results.
So a number of states Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have all banned
teaching three qing because the data are terrible. It fails
to teach kids to read. What is amazing, though, is
(22:51):
a number of schools instead have focused on what's called
the science of reading, which is going back to phonics,
going back to the basics of teaching reading. And the
results have been staggering. And there's something called all right,
you're an all miss grad You're gonna like this. There's
something called the Mississippi Miracle.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
So love this already, keep singing this song. I'm ready.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
In twenty thirteen, Mississippi's reading numbers were not good. Mississippi
was forty ninth in the nation on the national assessments
and reading. They began then going in on the science
of reading and vigorously teaching phonics, and Mississippi has risen
from forty nine in the country to a top ten
(23:40):
state in the country in fourth grade reading achievement. By
the way, it wasn't money that did it, it was
actually teaching what works. Alabama, by the way, did the
same thing. They moved from forty ninth to thirty fourth. Louisiana,
Louisiana moved from forty ninth to thirty seconds. And here's
(24:02):
what the New York Times said, you're gonna like this.
The New York Times said, in twenty nineteen, blue states
had better average test scores than red states after adjusting
for democraphics. Now red states are mostly ahead. That's the
New York Times. And so what happened on this legislation
is I introduce legislation this week that takes the existing
(24:23):
federal grants that go to education. There's a pretty big
funding stream from the federal government to states for education
and the reading funds. The legislation I introduced said, if
you want to get those reading funds, you have to
use the reading methods that are demonstrated empirically to work.
(24:43):
You have to have what actually works and what the
data shows work. You can't teach this garbage that results
in kids not learning. You've got to use the empirically
successful methods. And what's interesting, by the way, who's against
this bill?
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Because if you have the data you just mentioned there
showing where this is working, you would think this would
be by partisan.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
So it actually is. So I introduced this bill with
Brian Shotts. Brian Shotts is a Democrat. He's from Hawaii.
Interestingly enough, Brian is widely considered the next Democrat leader
in the Senate. He's widely considered the most likely successor
to Chuck Schumer. And Brian I know, well, he's a
friend of mine. He's on the Commerce Committee with me.
(25:28):
I'm the chairman of the Commerce Committee. He and I
have done a number of bills together. And look, would
you talk with Brian. He's a Democrat, so he can
be left wing on a lot of issues, but one
on one he can be quite reasonable. As you know,
I play hoops every week. Brian's come out several times
and played hoops with me. I mean, he's and I'm
going to say something that's going to surprise you. This
(25:49):
bill was his idea.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Really.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
He came to me. He came to me on the
Senate floor and he said, Ted, have you've seen the
data from Mississippi and the Mississippi Miracle and the incredible
reading scores that are coming out of Mississippi. And by
the way, this doesn't happen often. Democrats don't praise red
states that often. And I said, yeah, I have. It's fantastic.
And he said, what do you think about us joining
(26:15):
together to draft legislation that would require if you're going
to get the federal funds that are going for literacy,
you've got to teach using the reading methods that the
data show actually produced results. And I said, I think
that'd be fantastic. I'm a huge fan of phonics. I
don't like these woke teaching methods that are just a
failure and a disaster. And it's interesting my team. I
(26:38):
went to them and so I said, hey, you know,
shots pitch doing this, and my team was skeptical. They said,
we don't really believe a Democrat's going to go along
with something that is praising what's working in red states
and by the way, implicitly criticizing the woke education policies
in many Blue states. To Brian's credit, Look, I mean
he we introduced it to getather. You asked who opposes it.
(27:02):
I will confess it's early enough now that I don't
want to give you an answer to that. My assumption,
My assumption is the teachers' unions will oppose it. My
assumption is some of the Blue states will oppose it,
and the sort of woke educrats, the people who are
teaching at the education schools who are teaching teachers who
are teaching this nonsense that doesn't work. I assume all
(27:24):
those guys will oppose it. But I'll say this, we
just introduced it. I'm going to try to see if
we could move it forward and maybe we get support
for it. I hope we do.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
By the way, what do you need when you say
moving forward to people understand? And this is one of
the reasons why I love doing the show. When you
say you're hoping you get the support, what is moving
it forward actually look like in the legislature.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
So look, you drop the bill initially. The next step
that we'll work on doing is trying to get other supporters,
trying to get other co sponsors. So I'll reach out
to other Republicans and other Democrats. Brian will reach out
to other Democrats and also Republicans. I'd like to get
a pretty good group of bipartisan co sponsors, and there
are number of Democrats that I've worked with on different
(28:07):
bills who and particularly given that it's Brian and me,
we I think we can get other senators to co
sponsor it. So let's say we get a half dozen
rs and a half dozen d's that starts to be
a bill that's got some real heft to it, because
you look, particularly if you've got some ideological diversity. The
bill would go, uh, go to to committee at first.
(28:30):
I assume this would go to what's called the Help Committee,
which is the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. So
the first step is to get the committee to mark
it up, will work to get more by more sponsors,
to get a bigger coalition behind it, and then I'll
go to the chairman of that committee, that's Bill Cassidy,
and ask him to mark it up, which is for
(28:50):
the committee to take it up and pass it. And
we've got if we've got a good enough coalition behind it,
we've got a real chance at that. Once it gets
out of committee. There are a couple of paths you
can take to pass. One path is to try to
pass it by unanimous consent. Now I've passed a lot
by unanimous consent. If you do the work and build
the coalition, you can get things done that way. But
(29:12):
a single senator can object, So I don't know right
now if this is possible. You may have an Elizabeth
Warren or someone on the far left who objects to this. Uh.
The other way to pass it is to attach it
to another vehicle that is moving another bill that is
being passed, to put it on that And and so
(29:33):
we've got some time to get there. We've got to
build the coalition, we've got to get it out of committee,
we've got to get it teed up where it's at
a position to then try to pass it. And then
when you get out of the Senate, then you try
to pass it in the House. And I'm confident the
President would sign it. So we are early in that process,
but I'm encouraged to see that that that we're able
to get a Democrat and Republican working together saying, look,
(29:55):
we really got to teach our kids to read that.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
It should it should be one hundred to one in
my opinion, teaching kids to read that shit. It might
be a problem and it might be as always, thank
you for listening to Verdict with Center Ted Cruz Ben
Ferguson with you don't forget to deal with my podcast,
and you can listen to my podcast every other day
you're not listening to Verdict or each day when you
listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to have you as
a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and we
(30:20):
will see you back here on Monday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.