January 29, 2025 • 37 mins
Why the Panama Canal-A Brief History and Why it is So Important to the US plus Trump's Event, Pressing No Taxes on Tips
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you and Senator I never thought i'd say there
was a whole lot of action today in the Senate
when it comes to the Panama Canal. But that is
exactly what happened. Is we're learning a lot more about
the corruption there that should shock a lot of Americans.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Well, today I chaired a hearing in the Senate Commerce
Committee on the Panama Canal. And listen, Donald Trump has
raised this issue. It is a very significant issue. I
got to say. When he raised it, a lot of
people in the media, a lot of Democrats dismissed it,
thought it was crazy talk. But I actually think it
is a very serious point. We've talked about this before
(00:40):
on the podcast, but today I chaired a hearing on
the Panama Canal, and in particular on the conduct that
Panama has committed potentially in violation of the treaty. So
the United States built that canal. Over thirty thousand lives
were lost in the construction of that canal. Over fifteen
(01:05):
billion dollars in today's dollars were spent by America, by
American taxpayers, in building that canal. And Jimmy Carter sadly
gave it away, gave it to Panama. It was indefensible.
I remember I was a little kid. You were not
even been a sparkle in your daddy's eyeball when this happened.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
But I remember it well, and I remember being pissed.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And by the way, this was one of the major
issues that got Ronald Reagan elected in nineteen eighty because
Jimmy Carter gave this away. Well, Donald Trump has rightly
raised this, and in particular when Jimmy Carter gave it away.
Panama agreed to a very specific treaty, a treaty to
keep the Panama Canal neutral and to charge America fair
(01:52):
and equitable rates. And the hearing we had today was
testimony from numerous experts that Panama is in violation of
that treaty. That number one, that they have seeded enormous
control to China over the canal, and this is the
point President Trump has made that is really quite powerful.
(02:12):
And number two, that they are charging exorbitant rates to
American shippers, to commercial shippers, and to the US Navy.
And so that hearing we're going to break down today.
We also we saw this weekend, President Trump went and
did a major event pressing his policy for no taxes
on tips. This is a policy we're going to get enacted.
(02:33):
I am the author of the legislation in the Senate
to get this done, and I believe we're going to
get this done this year.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
We're going to break that down as well.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
I want to take a moment real quick and talk
to you about January the twenty seventh. You may not
have realized, but the twenty seventh was International Holocaust Remembrance
Day Day to remember the great evil of the Holocaust,
when millions of Jews were slaughtered during the Nazis reign
of terror. Today, unfortunately, the rise in global anti Semitism
(03:03):
and the constant attacks on Israel are showing us that
it's more important than ever to remember the atrocities of
the Holocaust to ensure that it never happens again. And
that's why I'm proud to stand with the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. They do incredible work by providing food, shelter,
and safety to Jews in Israel and around the world,
(03:24):
including those remaining Holocaust survivors. Your donation today will help
provide food water, medicine, and not only basic necessities of
the Jewish community, but also things like bomb shelters and
armored ambulances that they need in Israel right now. And
through your gift, you will stand with the Jewish people
and against this growing anti Semitism and hatred. So to
(03:47):
give to show your support to the Jewish people, you
can visit SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ
dot org. You can also call and give them a
donation eighty eight for eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight
eight four eight eight IFCJ eighty eight four eight eight
(04:11):
four three two five or support IFCJ dot org. All right,
so Senator, let's go back in history and really dive
into how all this got started. And you mentioned in
the intro there America built the Panama Canal and then
it was given away. So let's talk about the building.
(04:32):
Let's talk about the price, Let's talk about the cost
and including people that literally gave their lives building this
incredible thing, why it was built, and then let's get
to why we gave it away.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Listen, it was a massive investment from the United States.
It was an extraordinary endeavor. Teddy Roosevelt had the vision
to build the Panama Canal. Look, it used to be
that's traverse from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. You
had to go all the way south below South America,
and that took enormous time. It was enormously costly, and
(05:05):
America said, we can construct a canal through Panama. We
can cut that journey dramatically shorter. It was a major investment,
and as I said, over thirty thousand lives were lost
building that canal. It was not a small investment. Fifteen
billion dollars. And listen, before we get started, I want
(05:28):
to just just take a musical moment to reflect, So
give a listen. That's what we're talking about today.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
So I love that you played the song there, and
you guys actually talked about possibly playing that today in Congress,
which made me laugh at the hearing as well.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Well, that's true, and so let's start. So we opened
the hearing.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
By the way, the Senate Commerce Committee of which I'm chairman,
has explicit jurisdiction over the Panama Canal because it is
enormously important for American commerce, and so that's why we
started with this major hearing. So give a listen. This
is my opening statement as we open the hearing. We're
here today to examine a monument to American ingenuity, the
(06:23):
Panama Canal. Senator Moreno down there suggested we open the
hearing by playing Van Halen and Panama. We may not
do that, but between the American construction of the Panama Canal,
the French effort to build an Isthmus Canal an America's
triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across
(06:48):
Panama cost more than thirty five thousand lives. For the
final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United
States spent nearly four hundred million dollars equivalent to more
than fifteen billion today.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
The Panama Canal.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and
warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter
gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and
many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost
sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and
(07:29):
to the US economy. Not President Trump, when he demanded
fair treatment for American ships and goods. Many in the
media scoffed. But the Panama Canal was not just given away.
President Carter struck a bargain, He made a treaty, and
(07:49):
President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that
that treaty is being violated right now. This committee has
jurisdiction under the Senate rules over the Panama Canal and
today will examine evidence of potential violations.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Resident Trump has highlighted two key issues.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage
through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit.
Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the
canal at a slow pace so as to take nearly
a decade, and Chinese companies control container points ports at
(08:29):
either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability
to block the canal without warning, and the ports give
China ready observation post to take to time that action.
This situation, I believe poses acute risks to US national security. Meanwhile,
(08:50):
the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans because
US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of canal transits.
Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to worships.
Canal profits regularly exceed three billion dollars. This money comes
(09:10):
from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of
higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those
in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees
Panama chooses to levy or canal transits, and they have
pair paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in
(09:31):
Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government
relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly one tenth of its
budget is paid for with canal profit, as those fees
cascade through the American economy and the federal fisk. The
Chinese Communist Party advances its global economic contests against the
(09:52):
United States and takes a militaristic interest in the canal.
While President Trump is rightly focused on the these key
issues their additional problems. In the last two years, the
Canal Authority generated record revenue even while transits were depressed
by drought conditions, and the only comfort to delayed and
overcharge ships is that Panama may invest in more fresh.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Water reserves in the future.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Even as it takes advantage of the global maritime system,
Panama has emerged as a bad actor. Panama has for
years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost Fleet,
which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil
profits to fund terror across the world, and Chinese companies
(10:39):
have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous
Belton Road initiative has come to Panama. China often engages
in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion
in Panama. It also seems to have exploited simple corruption.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
So center you will get these warnings and they're like
multiple red flags here Iran and China and this bridge,
and basically the highest bidder can get whatever the hell
they want, no matter how shady they are from Panama
and the Panama Canal Am I wrong.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
You're not.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
And there were several striking things in the hearing. Number One,
we had a series of witnesses from the Federal Maritime Commission,
and we had an international law professor who testified about
the neutrality treaty, and they testified about a number of things.
Number One, there's a treaty that governs this. So this
is not simply Donald Trump raising an issue. Gosh, we
(11:40):
want the Panama Canal. Panama made a commitment when Jimmy
Carter gave this away, and they made a commitment number one,
that the Panama Canal would remain neutral, that it would
not allow another foreign power to have control over it,
to have military access to it. And number two, they
made a commitment that entreaty that they would charge fair
(12:04):
and equitable fees. Now, on the first point, we heard
an enormous amount of testimony that Panama has made a
massive pivot towards China. Listen, China is engaged in something
called the Belton Road Initiative where they're investing in ports
and infrastructure all over the world, and they're spending billions
(12:24):
and billions of dollars trying to gain power over the
United States. And the Panama Canal is critical to US
national security and to our economy. So on both ends
of the Panama Canal, on the Pacific side and on
the Atlantic side, China controls. Chinese corporations control massive ports
(12:44):
that are right there that give them access and give
them the ability to observe all traffic going through the
canal and potentially to shut down all traffic going through
the canal. As I mentioned also in my opening, theyreuilding
a bridge across the canal. They are spending over a
decade building that bridge. That bridge gives them the capacity
(13:08):
to number one, to engage in surveillance of every ship
going through the canal. But number two, if listen, we
get to a time in the future where we're in
serious conflict with China, let's say a military conflict. Let's
say they invade Taiwan and we are suddenly at risk
of a shooting war. China has the capacity to shut
(13:32):
down the Panama Canal, to use that bridge, to use
the ports on both ends. It ends to say we
will annow allow no transit through that canal. That would
be enormously harmful to the United States, and the point
that was made in the hearing that is directly contrary
to the Treaty Panama sign. Secondly, Panama makes roughly three
(13:57):
billion dollars in fees from transit across the Panama Canal.
Seventy five percent of those transits are American ships, so
they are either American cargo ships, commercial ships going across,
or there are American military ships the US Navy going across.
But either way, Panama is making billions. And the testimony
(14:22):
we heard in the hearing today is that on both
of those grounds there is a strong argument that Panama
is in violation of the treaty. Now, what's interesting, ben
I asked the international law professor was testifying. I said, Okay,
if Panama is in violation of the treaty, number one,
(14:45):
how is that determined? And number two, what is the remedy.
On the question of how is that determined? The testimony
we got today is the professor said, well, under the
terms of the treaty, each party determines unilaterally whether the
other is in violation, which means the United States has
the ability to determine President Trump and this administration can
(15:08):
determine Panama is in violation. That is decisive. And then secondly,
the remedy. Initially, when I asked the remedy, what the
professor testified is that the remedy contemplated in the treaty
was direct military action by the United States to reassert
its control. I also asked, okay, if they're in violation
(15:32):
of the treaty, is there a potential to assert that
the treaty is null and void and the United States
will reassert control on that question, he went back and forth,
But I will say that testimony I think gave enormous
heft to the points President Trump has been making.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
So you look at this and you say, all right,
what are the options now for President Trump and then
for Congress because we can't get it back right there,
I've seen it. I'd be like, we just take this
thing back. We built it. I don't think it's that simple.
Is that a fair fair point to make? Starting off?
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You know, it's interesting you and I did a podcast
early on when President Trump was talking about Canada, Panama,
and Greenland, and I put them on a spectrum. I said, Canada,
it ain't going to become the fifty first state. Their
President Trump is just trolling Canada. He's messing with Trudeau.
(16:31):
And by the way, his trolling of Trudeau probably cost
him being Prime minister. I mean, it was perhaps the
most epic troll in history.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Greenland, on the other.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Hand, as we discussed at length on this podcast, I
think there's a very serious argument that it is in
the United States's interest to try to acquire Greenland, to
try to acquire a number one for national security reasons
because Greenland has a critical geographic location in the Arctic.
If God forbid, we had a military conflict with Russia
(17:07):
or China, any ICBMs and any military attack would likely
come over the Arctic. Greenland is precisely situated to be
able to intercept and combat that. But also Greenland has
vast natural resources, in particular rarest minerals and critical minerals,
and so I think it is very much at our
(17:28):
interest to pursue Greenland.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Now, I will.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Say a little over a week ago, I had a
long conversation with the Danish ambassador. So Greenland is controlled
by Denmark, and the Danish ambassador was quite distressed because
I've been very vocal, including on this podcast, and so
I got a call from the Danish ambassador, what are
you saying on Verdict, which is is an interesting did.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Your response was do go listen to it?
Speaker 3 (17:56):
It's up there.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
I did have a good life. And the Danish ambassador
is like, why are you attacking us? And I said, listen,
let me be clear, you're a friend, you're an ally.
I'm not remotely proposing military action against Denmark or Greenland.
But friends and allies can have real conversations, and I
(18:19):
think it is very much in our interest to acquire Greenland.
And the ambassador said it's not for sale, and I said, well,
everything's for sale, and we're at least going to have
a conversation, because I think it is both in our
interest and your interest to have that conversation, and so
that we had a very direct, I think of very
positive conversations, and I expect over the next four years
(18:41):
the Trump administration is going to press that discussion.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Now.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
At the time you and I did that podcast, I
viewed the Panamac Canal as somewhere in the middle. I
said at the time, I said, we're not going to
get it back, but I think the president is negotiating
over priced, negotiating to lower the prices of transit. Now
I think that's still true. I think the worst case
(19:06):
outcome of this discussion is we end up with a
very significant reduction in the cost the price for American
ships to transit the Panama Canal, both commercial ships and
US Navy ships. That's a very good outcome. I also
think it is very likely we will see a significant
diminution in China's control and influence over the Panama Canal.
(19:30):
That is a massive benefit. But I got to say,
after this hearing today, I've moved. I actually think the
treaty arguments here are quite serious. And I get Panama
would be horrified to give up the canal because they
were given a gigantic gift from Jimmy Carter at the
(19:52):
expense of the United States of America. But I think
the arguments that Panama is violating the treaty and has
forfeited its right to the canal, I think those arguments
are very serious, and I expect the administration to pursue
them seriously.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Let's talk about also the contraband in essence is going
through there Iran and China really getting a grand deal,
but also the idea that we don't know what's going
through there on those ships. How concerned are you about that?
And could this also bring that into perspective where Panama says, hey,
we can't do this right now, we're under too much
of a spotlight.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Well, look, that is a very real problem. So for example,
Panama has flagged multiple ships from Iran from their ghost fleet,
the ghost fleet that they're using to transit oil and
Iran Iran.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Have a definition, by the way, I have a ghost
fleet for people that don't understand what that means.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
So there were in law massive sanctions on Iran selling
oil under Joe Biden. He essentially refused to enforce those sanctions,
and so Iran used a ghost fleet to get a
round down those sanctions.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
It was ships.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
That that were operating under under foreign flags that that
that were basically hiding from the sanctions regime. By the way,
I think that's one of the most significant things the
Trump administration is going to do is reimpose those sanctions
on Iran and cut off their revenue. Joe Biden, the
Democrats basically gave one hundred billion dollars to the Ayatola
(21:25):
who's chanting death to America and death to Israel. And
I believe that that has ended on January twentieth, and
it should end. Panama was complicit in that that they
were part of that endeavor. And by the way, Panama
also made it made a very deliberate decision to pivot
towards China. So, for example, several years ago, Panama severed
(21:47):
diplomatic relationships with Taiwan and instead embraced China and they
did so at the same time that China was making
massive investments in the ports on both ends of the canal.
And understand the way China does this, The Chinese government
subsidizes those investments so that no American company can outbid them.
(22:12):
Because the Chinese government is essentially subsidizing them. They're not
doing it for economic purposes. They're not doing it because
it makes business sense. They're doing it for strategic purposes
because China wants to control the Panama Canal. Now I
get why the Chinese communist government wants to do that,
but Panama letting them do that is I believe in
(22:34):
direct violation of the treaty and that that's what the
hearing was about today.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Final question on this moving forward? How quick will there
be movement on this issue?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Look, I don't know. I think this hearing was important today,
and I'll tell you what I thought was most significant.
So I called the hearing, and as a chairman, I
can call a hearing on any topic I want.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
I didn't know how the day Democrats would react.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
I didn't know if the Democrats would show up the
hearing and begin screaming and saying Trump is a lunatic
and how Darry do this. I didn't know what they
would say. The most interesting thing about the hearing today
is the Democrats. Almost every Democrat echoed the points that
you and I have been making that China has far
too much influence over the Panama Canal and also the
(23:25):
Panama Canal is charging excessive fees. I'm not sure what
that means, but it surprised me.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
We did not have.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
I sort of anticipated some long Democrat speeches about how
Trump is a crazy man. We didn't get any of that,
and I think that was a very interesting particularly the
Chinese influence on the Panama Canal. There was very significant
bipartisan agreement. I think that's a very promising sign.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
All right, Well, then we got to use that bipartisan
sign to move into topic number two, and that is yep.
Donald Trump was a big proponent of taxes going away
on tips. Now, this is a very big issue in
the campaign. He got a lot of traction with a
lot of Americans that work hard part of their salaries tips.
(24:18):
Not having taxes on those tips would be huge for
American workers and also our economy. So this is something
that has come back up again where Donald Trump's trying
to pay off on this. The question is what's going
to happen with Congress on that? And before I get
to that, I want to tell you about our friends
over at Patriot Mobile. While we may have won this election,
(24:39):
the fight to restore our great nation is only beginning,
and now is the time to take a stand, especially
when it comes to the dollars you spend. Well, that's
why I want you to know about Patriot Mobile because
they are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. Patriot Mobile
offers a way to vote with your wallet without compromising
on quality or can nvenience. And Patriot Mobile isn't just
(25:02):
about providing exceptional cell phone service. It's a call to
action to defend our rights and freedoms. With Patriot Mobile,
not only do you get outstanding nationwide coverage because they
operate on all three major networks, so you get the
coverage you want every day, but you get it without
the wo agenda of Big Mobile. Patriot Mobile has a
coverage guarantee. And here's the best part. Every time you
(25:25):
make a call and every dollar you spend, you support
the first and the second Amendments the sanctity of life.
Our veterans, our first responders, and our wounded warriors, and
switching is never been easier. You keep your same number
you've got now, keep your same phone, or upgrade to
a new one right now. Go to Patriotmobile dot com
slash verdict or call them nine to seven to Patriot
(25:48):
and get a free month of service with a promo
code Verdict. Switch to Patriot Mobile today and defend freedom
with every call and every text you make. That's Patriot
Mobile dot com slash verdict or call them nine seven
to Patriot. All right, So, taxes tips, It was clearly
a big campaign issue. It brought in a lot of voters.
(26:10):
A lot of people came to Donald Trump and said
this couldn't have a huge impact. Now it's paying off
on it. Is there a real chance?
Speaker 2 (26:18):
So yes, and I believe this will happen. This will
happen by the.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
End of the year.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
So let's rewind. In the middle of the presidential campaign,
Donald Trump was in Las Vegas, Nevada, and he actually
told us the story. So he came by in the
middle of the campaign. He had lunch with all the
Republican senators and he said, listen, I was in Vegas.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
I had a rally that night.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
They said, I was having lunch and he said, there
was a waitress who came. It was serving me my meal,
and he said she began like complaining about the enormous
burden that the Biden administration had put on recording her tips,
on paying taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
And he said, I pulled out.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
A piece of paper and I got out of pen
and I just wrote, no taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
They said, it's just.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
An idea that popped in my head. And he said, look,
some people they focus group things, they do white papers.
He said, I didn't do any of that. I just
wrote it down from the conversation I had with the
waitress over lunch.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
And he said.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
I had that rally later the day and I had
thousands of people there, and he said, I just threw
it out there no taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
And he said and they went crazy. They went absolutely crazy.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
And I got to say, there are times when Trump
I just think has an instinct that is a very good,
gut instinct, and I think this policy makes enormous sense.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
And so when he announced it.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
He's right. The crowd went crazy. I looked at it
and I said, this is this is a great idea.
I immediately went to my team and I said, let's
draft the legislation to make this happen. So the next week,
I filed federal legislation of no taxes on tips. Now
what's interesting, Ben, is when I filed this, it immediately
(28:04):
became bipartisan. Both senators from Nevada, Jackie Rosen and Catherine
Court's Master, both of them immediately co sponsored it. One
of them said to me, she said, look in Nevada,
twenty five percent of the employees in the entire state
are tipped workers. And so it was bipartisan. And then
(28:27):
shortly thereafter, Kamala Harris endorsed it and she said, this
is a great idea. So it became there was enormous
bipartisan support. Now, obviously Trump is won, we have a
Republican Senate at Republican House. I've refiled my legislation. Here's
what I'm pressing to happen. So Trump just was back
in Nevada in Las Vegas just made a huge push
(28:49):
to pass this. I am pressing for Congress to pass
the legislation right now. It doesn't have to be part
a budget reconciliation. Now for any tax bill. Under the Constitution,
the House of Representatives has to originate it. So if
that's a provision in the Constitution, the Senate cannot start
(29:12):
a tax bill. A tax bill has to originate with
the House. So I am merging the Speaker of the House.
I'm merging the majority leader, take up my legislation no
taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Just pass it.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
We have the votes in the House, Republicans can pass it.
If it passes and goes over to the Senate, I
believe we can pass it in the Senate, and I
think we'll get sixty votes, so we don't have to
wait for reconciliation. Reconciliation is the process that gets around
the filibuster. Lets us pass something with just fifty votes.
(29:46):
I don't think we need that for no taxes on tips.
If the House passes it, what I'm merging John Thune,
the Senate majority leaders put it on the Senate floor.
I think we'll get sixty votes, and that means we
could pass it. It would be a big bipartisan win,
and we'll put it on President Trump's desk. He can
(30:06):
sign it into law as a huge victory. And by
the way, it's a win win man. If we put
her on the floor and Democrats decide to be partisan.
They decide, Okay, we're going to oppose it, because we
just oppose any tax cut, we oppose anything Trump wants.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Okay, that's not the end of the day.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
If Democrats defeat it in the Senate because we can't
get to sixty, that's fine. Then we'll stick it in
budget reconciliation. We can get it done with fifty. But
it's a win win because every Democrat senator who votes no,
that is an ugly issue in two years to go
face the voters and say, hey, I voted against no
(30:45):
taxes on tips, even though every waiter, every waitress, every bartender,
every taxi driver, every uber driver, every barber, every hairstylist,
every nail salon person, everyone who is real lying on
tips cares a lot about this. So if the Democrats
all want to vote against it, look, I think this
(31:07):
policy is an incredible embodiment of the most important political
transformation of the last decade, which is that Republicans have
become a blue collar party. We are the party of
waiters and waitresses and working men and women, and so
Democrats can decide where they stand. But I think we
(31:27):
ought to get this passed, and one way or another,
my prediction is this will get done before the end
of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Is this one of those issues where people should call
their congressmen, their centers. I mean we talk about this. Yes, yes, yes,
I mean yes, And what do you say? This is
good for my state, this is good for my city,
this is good for hourly workers.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It's the best argument. Just pass no taxes on tips.
So look, one of the things to understand when you
call your congressman, when you call your senator, if you
make a detailed, subtle argument, that doesn't get through. So
every member of Congress gets what I get every day,
which is I get an email. So all right, let
(32:10):
me find my email from today. Call totals. So one
twenty eight, twenty five. Today there were one thousand, three
hundred and seventy two calls to my office. There were
seven hundred and fifty four to DC. There were six
hundred and eighteen to Texas. There were four hundred and
eighty two live calls. So we had interns and staff
assistants who answered four hundred.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
And eighty two calls.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Today there were eight hundred ninety calls that went to voicemails.
Of those calls, one three hundred and twenty two Texans called,
fifty non Texans called, so overwhelmingly the calls were Texans.
So let's break it down casework So that's I've got
an issue with soci security, I've got an issue with
(32:53):
the VA, I've got an issue with the government. Forty
five of those calls were caseworking. I've got a whole
team that works to help text and deal with the
government every day. Twenty four dealt with the academy, so
young men and women, high school students that want to
go to service academy. So twenty four of them. Eight
concerned the campaign. I don't know what they concerned. Ninety
(33:13):
one concerned scheduling. So people calling saying, hey, can you
come and do this event or this other event. Now
of the breakdown, eighteen called in support of me. Twenty
eight called in opposition to me. So people called and said,
I can't stand Cruiz, He's terrible.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Okay, that gets recorded.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
Ten people called in support a President Trump, Seventy nine
people called in opposition to President Trump. Now nominations. Seventy
five people called in support of President Trump's nominees. Seventy
people called in opposition to President Trump's nominees. Now, it's interesting,
RFK Junior got a bunch of calls one hundred and
(33:57):
eighty seven people this is yesterday in support of RFK
Junior for HHS Secretary. Ninety three people called in opposition
to RFK Junior, so about two to one, Bobby Kennedy,
the calls were coming in. Nineteen people called in support
of Cash Battel for FBI director. Four hundred and thirty
(34:20):
two people called in opposition to Cash Battel as FBI director.
And I think there probably were some liberal groups stirring
up calls because that number is big enough, four hundred
and thirty.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
I was to say, when you see days like that,
you got to be thinking somebody went on an email
campaign or a callboitz campaign and said, yeah, target this
member today specifically, because if it doesn't match the day before,
the day after, that's when that's kind of the tel right.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
And that happens.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
There are groups that will focus and say make these calls.
And I think those calls the four hundred and thirty two,
that's a big enough number. That's where that probably came from. Now,
In addition, forty eight people called in support of Tulsea Gabbard,
twenty two people called in opposition to Telsey Gabbert. On
legislative issues, thirteen people called in support of border security,
(35:09):
two people called in opposition to border security, and interestingly enough,
four hundred and seventy four people called in opposition to
the omb pause of federally appropriated funds. So, look, that's
the sort of report. I get that report every day,
and I read it every day. Now look what we
(35:30):
get over the course of the year, hundreds of thousands
of calls. So I can't listen to every voicemail that
comes in. I could literally spend all day long doing
nothing but listening to voicemails and not do any hearings,
not do any legislation, and I still wouldn't have enough time.
So the way I consume that data is through a
report like that. I just read you the report that
(35:51):
came today. Every other member consumes it the same way.
What I'm saying is, if you want Congress to pass
no taxes on tips, you don't need to present a long, detailed,
subtle argument as to all of the pros and cons.
Just pick up the phone and call your member and
say pass no taxes on tips. If you say that sentence,
(36:15):
it will get recorded in a report just like that
to the House member of the senator you're calling. That's
how the information gets consumed.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
That's encouraging. By the way you said, everybody looks at
their call list like the same way you.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
Do it, I hope.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
So I don't know that there may be some people
that don't give a damn.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
I look at it every day.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
I can't promise that all five hundred and thirty five
members of Congress do, but I certainly look at it
every day because I work for thirty one million Texans
and so I want to see what issues people are
engaged on and what they care about.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
It's incredible. Don't forget call your congressman, call your senator.
It can make a huge difference, especially during confirmations and
on issues like taxes on tips. Going away, we do
the show Monday was a Friday to gain give you
this exact type of information. So make sure that that
subscribe button, auto download button and share it on social media.
(37:08):
A lot of people right now are looking for answers
with all the changes in Washington, and it makes a
massive difference when you guys share this podcast on social
media and also when you write us a five star
review and the Center and I will see you back
here Friday morning.
Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you and Senator I never thought i'd say there
was a whole lot of action today in the Senate
when it comes to the Panama Canal. But that is
exactly what happened. Is we're learning a lot more about
the corruption there that should shock a lot of Americans.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Well, today I chaired a hearing in the Senate Commerce
Committee on the Panama Canal. And listen, Donald Trump has
raised this issue. It is a very significant issue. I
got to say. When he raised it, a lot of
people in the media, a lot of Democrats dismissed it,
thought it was crazy talk. But I actually think it
is a very serious point. We've talked about this before
(00:40):
on the podcast, but today I chaired a hearing on
the Panama Canal, and in particular on the conduct that
Panama has committed potentially in violation of the treaty. So
the United States built that canal. Over thirty thousand lives
were lost in the construction of that canal. Over fifteen
(01:05):
billion dollars in today's dollars were spent by America, by
American taxpayers, in building that canal. And Jimmy Carter sadly
gave it away, gave it to Panama. It was indefensible.
I remember I was a little kid. You were not
even been a sparkle in your daddy's eyeball when this happened.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
But I remember it well, and I remember being pissed.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And by the way, this was one of the major
issues that got Ronald Reagan elected in nineteen eighty because
Jimmy Carter gave this away. Well, Donald Trump has rightly
raised this, and in particular when Jimmy Carter gave it away.
Panama agreed to a very specific treaty, a treaty to
keep the Panama Canal neutral and to charge America fair
(01:52):
and equitable rates. And the hearing we had today was
testimony from numerous experts that Panama is in violation of
that treaty. That number one, that they have seeded enormous
control to China over the canal, and this is the
point President Trump has made that is really quite powerful.
(02:12):
And number two, that they are charging exorbitant rates to
American shippers, to commercial shippers, and to the US Navy.
And so that hearing we're going to break down today.
We also we saw this weekend, President Trump went and
did a major event pressing his policy for no taxes
on tips. This is a policy we're going to get enacted.
(02:33):
I am the author of the legislation in the Senate
to get this done, and I believe we're going to
get this done this year.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
We're going to break that down as well.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
I want to take a moment real quick and talk
to you about January the twenty seventh. You may not
have realized, but the twenty seventh was International Holocaust Remembrance
Day Day to remember the great evil of the Holocaust,
when millions of Jews were slaughtered during the Nazis reign
of terror. Today, unfortunately, the rise in global anti Semitism
(03:03):
and the constant attacks on Israel are showing us that
it's more important than ever to remember the atrocities of
the Holocaust to ensure that it never happens again. And
that's why I'm proud to stand with the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. They do incredible work by providing food, shelter,
and safety to Jews in Israel and around the world,
(03:24):
including those remaining Holocaust survivors. Your donation today will help
provide food water, medicine, and not only basic necessities of
the Jewish community, but also things like bomb shelters and
armored ambulances that they need in Israel right now. And
through your gift, you will stand with the Jewish people
and against this growing anti Semitism and hatred. So to
(03:47):
give to show your support to the Jewish people, you
can visit SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ
dot org. You can also call and give them a
donation eighty eight for eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight
eight four eight eight IFCJ eighty eight four eight eight
(04:11):
four three two five or support IFCJ dot org. All right,
so Senator, let's go back in history and really dive
into how all this got started. And you mentioned in
the intro there America built the Panama Canal and then
it was given away. So let's talk about the building.
(04:32):
Let's talk about the price, Let's talk about the cost
and including people that literally gave their lives building this
incredible thing, why it was built, and then let's get
to why we gave it away.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Listen, it was a massive investment from the United States.
It was an extraordinary endeavor. Teddy Roosevelt had the vision
to build the Panama Canal. Look, it used to be
that's traverse from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. You
had to go all the way south below South America,
and that took enormous time. It was enormously costly, and
(05:05):
America said, we can construct a canal through Panama. We
can cut that journey dramatically shorter. It was a major investment,
and as I said, over thirty thousand lives were lost
building that canal. It was not a small investment. Fifteen
billion dollars. And listen, before we get started, I want
(05:28):
to just just take a musical moment to reflect, So
give a listen. That's what we're talking about today.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
So I love that you played the song there, and
you guys actually talked about possibly playing that today in Congress,
which made me laugh at the hearing as well.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Well, that's true, and so let's start. So we opened
the hearing.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
By the way, the Senate Commerce Committee of which I'm chairman,
has explicit jurisdiction over the Panama Canal because it is
enormously important for American commerce, and so that's why we
started with this major hearing. So give a listen. This
is my opening statement as we open the hearing. We're
here today to examine a monument to American ingenuity, the
(06:23):
Panama Canal. Senator Moreno down there suggested we open the
hearing by playing Van Halen and Panama. We may not
do that, but between the American construction of the Panama Canal,
the French effort to build an Isthmus Canal an America's
triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across
(06:48):
Panama cost more than thirty five thousand lives. For the
final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United
States spent nearly four hundred million dollars equivalent to more
than fifteen billion today.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
The Panama Canal.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and
warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter
gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and
many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost
sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and
(07:29):
to the US economy. Not President Trump, when he demanded
fair treatment for American ships and goods. Many in the
media scoffed. But the Panama Canal was not just given away.
President Carter struck a bargain, He made a treaty, and
(07:49):
President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that
that treaty is being violated right now. This committee has
jurisdiction under the Senate rules over the Panama Canal and
today will examine evidence of potential violations.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Resident Trump has highlighted two key issues.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage
through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit.
Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the
canal at a slow pace so as to take nearly
a decade, and Chinese companies control container points ports at
(08:29):
either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability
to block the canal without warning, and the ports give
China ready observation post to take to time that action.
This situation, I believe poses acute risks to US national security. Meanwhile,
(08:50):
the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans because
US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of canal transits.
Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to worships.
Canal profits regularly exceed three billion dollars. This money comes
(09:10):
from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of
higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those
in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees
Panama chooses to levy or canal transits, and they have
pair paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in
(09:31):
Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government
relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly one tenth of its
budget is paid for with canal profit, as those fees
cascade through the American economy and the federal fisk. The
Chinese Communist Party advances its global economic contests against the
(09:52):
United States and takes a militaristic interest in the canal.
While President Trump is rightly focused on the these key
issues their additional problems. In the last two years, the
Canal Authority generated record revenue even while transits were depressed
by drought conditions, and the only comfort to delayed and
overcharge ships is that Panama may invest in more fresh.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Water reserves in the future.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Even as it takes advantage of the global maritime system,
Panama has emerged as a bad actor. Panama has for
years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost Fleet,
which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil
profits to fund terror across the world, and Chinese companies
(10:39):
have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous
Belton Road initiative has come to Panama. China often engages
in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion
in Panama. It also seems to have exploited simple corruption.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
So center you will get these warnings and they're like
multiple red flags here Iran and China and this bridge,
and basically the highest bidder can get whatever the hell
they want, no matter how shady they are from Panama
and the Panama Canal Am I wrong.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
You're not.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
And there were several striking things in the hearing. Number One,
we had a series of witnesses from the Federal Maritime Commission,
and we had an international law professor who testified about
the neutrality treaty, and they testified about a number of things.
Number One, there's a treaty that governs this. So this
is not simply Donald Trump raising an issue. Gosh, we
(11:40):
want the Panama Canal. Panama made a commitment when Jimmy
Carter gave this away, and they made a commitment number one,
that the Panama Canal would remain neutral, that it would
not allow another foreign power to have control over it,
to have military access to it. And number two, they
made a commitment that entreaty that they would charge fair
(12:04):
and equitable fees. Now, on the first point, we heard
an enormous amount of testimony that Panama has made a
massive pivot towards China. Listen, China is engaged in something
called the Belton Road Initiative where they're investing in ports
and infrastructure all over the world, and they're spending billions
(12:24):
and billions of dollars trying to gain power over the
United States. And the Panama Canal is critical to US
national security and to our economy. So on both ends
of the Panama Canal, on the Pacific side and on
the Atlantic side, China controls. Chinese corporations control massive ports
(12:44):
that are right there that give them access and give
them the ability to observe all traffic going through the
canal and potentially to shut down all traffic going through
the canal. As I mentioned also in my opening, theyreuilding
a bridge across the canal. They are spending over a
decade building that bridge. That bridge gives them the capacity
(13:08):
to number one, to engage in surveillance of every ship
going through the canal. But number two, if listen, we
get to a time in the future where we're in
serious conflict with China, let's say a military conflict. Let's
say they invade Taiwan and we are suddenly at risk
of a shooting war. China has the capacity to shut
(13:32):
down the Panama Canal, to use that bridge, to use
the ports on both ends. It ends to say we
will annow allow no transit through that canal. That would
be enormously harmful to the United States, and the point
that was made in the hearing that is directly contrary
to the Treaty Panama sign. Secondly, Panama makes roughly three
(13:57):
billion dollars in fees from transit across the Panama Canal.
Seventy five percent of those transits are American ships, so
they are either American cargo ships, commercial ships going across,
or there are American military ships the US Navy going across.
But either way, Panama is making billions. And the testimony
(14:22):
we heard in the hearing today is that on both
of those grounds there is a strong argument that Panama
is in violation of the treaty. Now, what's interesting, ben
I asked the international law professor was testifying. I said, Okay,
if Panama is in violation of the treaty, number one,
(14:45):
how is that determined? And number two, what is the remedy.
On the question of how is that determined? The testimony
we got today is the professor said, well, under the
terms of the treaty, each party determines unilaterally whether the
other is in violation, which means the United States has
the ability to determine President Trump and this administration can
(15:08):
determine Panama is in violation. That is decisive. And then secondly,
the remedy. Initially, when I asked the remedy, what the
professor testified is that the remedy contemplated in the treaty
was direct military action by the United States to reassert
its control. I also asked, okay, if they're in violation
(15:32):
of the treaty, is there a potential to assert that
the treaty is null and void and the United States
will reassert control on that question, he went back and forth,
But I will say that testimony I think gave enormous
heft to the points President Trump has been making.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
So you look at this and you say, all right,
what are the options now for President Trump and then
for Congress because we can't get it back right there,
I've seen it. I'd be like, we just take this
thing back. We built it. I don't think it's that simple.
Is that a fair fair point to make? Starting off?
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You know, it's interesting you and I did a podcast
early on when President Trump was talking about Canada, Panama,
and Greenland, and I put them on a spectrum. I said, Canada,
it ain't going to become the fifty first state. Their
President Trump is just trolling Canada. He's messing with Trudeau.
(16:31):
And by the way, his trolling of Trudeau probably cost
him being Prime minister. I mean, it was perhaps the
most epic troll in history.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Greenland, on the other.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Hand, as we discussed at length on this podcast, I
think there's a very serious argument that it is in
the United States's interest to try to acquire Greenland, to
try to acquire a number one for national security reasons
because Greenland has a critical geographic location in the Arctic.
If God forbid, we had a military conflict with Russia
(17:07):
or China, any ICBMs and any military attack would likely
come over the Arctic. Greenland is precisely situated to be
able to intercept and combat that. But also Greenland has
vast natural resources, in particular rarest minerals and critical minerals,
and so I think it is very much at our
(17:28):
interest to pursue Greenland.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Now, I will.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Say a little over a week ago, I had a
long conversation with the Danish ambassador. So Greenland is controlled
by Denmark, and the Danish ambassador was quite distressed because
I've been very vocal, including on this podcast, and so
I got a call from the Danish ambassador, what are
you saying on Verdict, which is is an interesting did.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Your response was do go listen to it?
Speaker 3 (17:56):
It's up there.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
I did have a good life. And the Danish ambassador
is like, why are you attacking us? And I said, listen,
let me be clear, you're a friend, you're an ally.
I'm not remotely proposing military action against Denmark or Greenland.
But friends and allies can have real conversations, and I
(18:19):
think it is very much in our interest to acquire Greenland.
And the ambassador said it's not for sale, and I said, well,
everything's for sale, and we're at least going to have
a conversation, because I think it is both in our
interest and your interest to have that conversation, and so
that we had a very direct, I think of very
positive conversations, and I expect over the next four years
(18:41):
the Trump administration is going to press that discussion.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Now.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
At the time you and I did that podcast, I
viewed the Panamac Canal as somewhere in the middle. I
said at the time, I said, we're not going to
get it back, but I think the president is negotiating
over priced, negotiating to lower the prices of transit. Now
I think that's still true. I think the worst case
(19:06):
outcome of this discussion is we end up with a
very significant reduction in the cost the price for American
ships to transit the Panama Canal, both commercial ships and
US Navy ships. That's a very good outcome. I also
think it is very likely we will see a significant
diminution in China's control and influence over the Panama Canal.
(19:30):
That is a massive benefit. But I got to say,
after this hearing today, I've moved. I actually think the
treaty arguments here are quite serious. And I get Panama
would be horrified to give up the canal because they
were given a gigantic gift from Jimmy Carter at the
(19:52):
expense of the United States of America. But I think
the arguments that Panama is violating the treaty and has
forfeited its right to the canal, I think those arguments
are very serious, and I expect the administration to pursue
them seriously.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Let's talk about also the contraband in essence is going
through there Iran and China really getting a grand deal,
but also the idea that we don't know what's going
through there on those ships. How concerned are you about that?
And could this also bring that into perspective where Panama says, hey,
we can't do this right now, we're under too much
of a spotlight.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Well, look, that is a very real problem. So for example,
Panama has flagged multiple ships from Iran from their ghost fleet,
the ghost fleet that they're using to transit oil and
Iran Iran.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Have a definition, by the way, I have a ghost
fleet for people that don't understand what that means.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
So there were in law massive sanctions on Iran selling
oil under Joe Biden. He essentially refused to enforce those sanctions,
and so Iran used a ghost fleet to get a
round down those sanctions.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
It was ships.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
That that were operating under under foreign flags that that
that were basically hiding from the sanctions regime. By the way,
I think that's one of the most significant things the
Trump administration is going to do is reimpose those sanctions
on Iran and cut off their revenue. Joe Biden, the
Democrats basically gave one hundred billion dollars to the Ayatola
(21:25):
who's chanting death to America and death to Israel. And
I believe that that has ended on January twentieth, and
it should end. Panama was complicit in that that they
were part of that endeavor. And by the way, Panama
also made it made a very deliberate decision to pivot
towards China. So, for example, several years ago, Panama severed
(21:47):
diplomatic relationships with Taiwan and instead embraced China and they
did so at the same time that China was making
massive investments in the ports on both ends of the canal.
And understand the way China does this, The Chinese government
subsidizes those investments so that no American company can outbid them.
(22:12):
Because the Chinese government is essentially subsidizing them. They're not
doing it for economic purposes. They're not doing it because
it makes business sense. They're doing it for strategic purposes
because China wants to control the Panama Canal. Now I
get why the Chinese communist government wants to do that,
but Panama letting them do that is I believe in
(22:34):
direct violation of the treaty and that that's what the
hearing was about today.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Final question on this moving forward? How quick will there
be movement on this issue?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Look, I don't know. I think this hearing was important today,
and I'll tell you what I thought was most significant.
So I called the hearing, and as a chairman, I
can call a hearing on any topic I want.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
I didn't know how the day Democrats would react.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
I didn't know if the Democrats would show up the
hearing and begin screaming and saying Trump is a lunatic
and how Darry do this. I didn't know what they
would say. The most interesting thing about the hearing today
is the Democrats. Almost every Democrat echoed the points that
you and I have been making that China has far
too much influence over the Panama Canal and also the
(23:25):
Panama Canal is charging excessive fees. I'm not sure what
that means, but it surprised me.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
We did not have.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
I sort of anticipated some long Democrat speeches about how
Trump is a crazy man. We didn't get any of that,
and I think that was a very interesting particularly the
Chinese influence on the Panama Canal. There was very significant
bipartisan agreement. I think that's a very promising sign.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
All right, Well, then we got to use that bipartisan
sign to move into topic number two, and that is yep.
Donald Trump was a big proponent of taxes going away
on tips. Now, this is a very big issue in
the campaign. He got a lot of traction with a
lot of Americans that work hard part of their salaries tips.
(24:18):
Not having taxes on those tips would be huge for
American workers and also our economy. So this is something
that has come back up again where Donald Trump's trying
to pay off on this. The question is what's going
to happen with Congress on that? And before I get
to that, I want to tell you about our friends
over at Patriot Mobile. While we may have won this election,
(24:39):
the fight to restore our great nation is only beginning,
and now is the time to take a stand, especially
when it comes to the dollars you spend. Well, that's
why I want you to know about Patriot Mobile because
they are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. Patriot Mobile
offers a way to vote with your wallet without compromising
on quality or can nvenience. And Patriot Mobile isn't just
(25:02):
about providing exceptional cell phone service. It's a call to
action to defend our rights and freedoms. With Patriot Mobile,
not only do you get outstanding nationwide coverage because they
operate on all three major networks, so you get the
coverage you want every day, but you get it without
the wo agenda of Big Mobile. Patriot Mobile has a
coverage guarantee. And here's the best part. Every time you
(25:25):
make a call and every dollar you spend, you support
the first and the second Amendments the sanctity of life.
Our veterans, our first responders, and our wounded warriors, and
switching is never been easier. You keep your same number
you've got now, keep your same phone, or upgrade to
a new one right now. Go to Patriotmobile dot com
slash verdict or call them nine to seven to Patriot
(25:48):
and get a free month of service with a promo
code Verdict. Switch to Patriot Mobile today and defend freedom
with every call and every text you make. That's Patriot
Mobile dot com slash verdict or call them nine seven
to Patriot. All right, So, taxes tips, It was clearly
a big campaign issue. It brought in a lot of voters.
(26:10):
A lot of people came to Donald Trump and said
this couldn't have a huge impact. Now it's paying off
on it. Is there a real chance?
Speaker 2 (26:18):
So yes, and I believe this will happen. This will
happen by the.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
End of the year.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
So let's rewind. In the middle of the presidential campaign,
Donald Trump was in Las Vegas, Nevada, and he actually
told us the story. So he came by in the
middle of the campaign. He had lunch with all the
Republican senators and he said, listen, I was in Vegas.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
I had a rally that night.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
They said, I was having lunch and he said, there
was a waitress who came. It was serving me my meal,
and he said she began like complaining about the enormous
burden that the Biden administration had put on recording her tips,
on paying taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
And he said, I pulled out.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
A piece of paper and I got out of pen
and I just wrote, no taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
They said, it's just.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
An idea that popped in my head. And he said, look,
some people they focus group things, they do white papers.
He said, I didn't do any of that. I just
wrote it down from the conversation I had with the
waitress over lunch.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
And he said.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
I had that rally later the day and I had
thousands of people there, and he said, I just threw
it out there no taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
And he said and they went crazy. They went absolutely crazy.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
And I got to say, there are times when Trump
I just think has an instinct that is a very good,
gut instinct, and I think this policy makes enormous sense.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
And so when he announced it.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
He's right. The crowd went crazy. I looked at it
and I said, this is this is a great idea.
I immediately went to my team and I said, let's
draft the legislation to make this happen. So the next week,
I filed federal legislation of no taxes on tips. Now
what's interesting, Ben, is when I filed this, it immediately
(28:04):
became bipartisan. Both senators from Nevada, Jackie Rosen and Catherine
Court's Master, both of them immediately co sponsored it. One
of them said to me, she said, look in Nevada,
twenty five percent of the employees in the entire state
are tipped workers. And so it was bipartisan. And then
(28:27):
shortly thereafter, Kamala Harris endorsed it and she said, this
is a great idea. So it became there was enormous
bipartisan support. Now, obviously Trump is won, we have a
Republican Senate at Republican House. I've refiled my legislation. Here's
what I'm pressing to happen. So Trump just was back
in Nevada in Las Vegas just made a huge push
(28:49):
to pass this. I am pressing for Congress to pass
the legislation right now. It doesn't have to be part
a budget reconciliation. Now for any tax bill. Under the Constitution,
the House of Representatives has to originate it. So if
that's a provision in the Constitution, the Senate cannot start
(29:12):
a tax bill. A tax bill has to originate with
the House. So I am merging the Speaker of the House.
I'm merging the majority leader, take up my legislation no
taxes on tips.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Just pass it.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
We have the votes in the House, Republicans can pass it.
If it passes and goes over to the Senate, I
believe we can pass it in the Senate, and I
think we'll get sixty votes, so we don't have to
wait for reconciliation. Reconciliation is the process that gets around
the filibuster. Lets us pass something with just fifty votes.
(29:46):
I don't think we need that for no taxes on tips.
If the House passes it, what I'm merging John Thune,
the Senate majority leaders put it on the Senate floor.
I think we'll get sixty votes, and that means we
could pass it. It would be a big bipartisan win,
and we'll put it on President Trump's desk. He can
(30:06):
sign it into law as a huge victory. And by
the way, it's a win win man. If we put
her on the floor and Democrats decide to be partisan.
They decide, Okay, we're going to oppose it, because we
just oppose any tax cut, we oppose anything Trump wants.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Okay, that's not the end of the day.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
If Democrats defeat it in the Senate because we can't
get to sixty, that's fine. Then we'll stick it in
budget reconciliation. We can get it done with fifty. But
it's a win win because every Democrat senator who votes no,
that is an ugly issue in two years to go
face the voters and say, hey, I voted against no
(30:45):
taxes on tips, even though every waiter, every waitress, every bartender,
every taxi driver, every uber driver, every barber, every hairstylist,
every nail salon person, everyone who is real lying on
tips cares a lot about this. So if the Democrats
all want to vote against it, look, I think this
(31:07):
policy is an incredible embodiment of the most important political
transformation of the last decade, which is that Republicans have
become a blue collar party. We are the party of
waiters and waitresses and working men and women, and so
Democrats can decide where they stand. But I think we
(31:27):
ought to get this passed, and one way or another,
my prediction is this will get done before the end
of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Is this one of those issues where people should call
their congressmen, their centers. I mean we talk about this. Yes, yes, yes,
I mean yes, And what do you say? This is
good for my state, this is good for my city,
this is good for hourly workers.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It's the best argument. Just pass no taxes on tips.
So look, one of the things to understand when you
call your congressman, when you call your senator, if you
make a detailed, subtle argument, that doesn't get through. So
every member of Congress gets what I get every day,
which is I get an email. So all right, let
(32:10):
me find my email from today. Call totals. So one
twenty eight, twenty five. Today there were one thousand, three
hundred and seventy two calls to my office. There were
seven hundred and fifty four to DC. There were six
hundred and eighteen to Texas. There were four hundred and
eighty two live calls. So we had interns and staff
assistants who answered four hundred.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
And eighty two calls.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Today there were eight hundred ninety calls that went to voicemails.
Of those calls, one three hundred and twenty two Texans called,
fifty non Texans called, so overwhelmingly the calls were Texans.
So let's break it down casework So that's I've got
an issue with soci security, I've got an issue with
(32:53):
the VA, I've got an issue with the government. Forty
five of those calls were caseworking. I've got a whole
team that works to help text and deal with the
government every day. Twenty four dealt with the academy, so
young men and women, high school students that want to
go to service academy. So twenty four of them. Eight
concerned the campaign. I don't know what they concerned. Ninety
(33:13):
one concerned scheduling. So people calling saying, hey, can you
come and do this event or this other event. Now
of the breakdown, eighteen called in support of me. Twenty
eight called in opposition to me. So people called and said,
I can't stand Cruiz, He's terrible.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Okay, that gets recorded.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
Ten people called in support a President Trump, Seventy nine
people called in opposition to President Trump. Now nominations. Seventy
five people called in support of President Trump's nominees. Seventy
people called in opposition to President Trump's nominees. Now, it's interesting,
RFK Junior got a bunch of calls one hundred and
(33:57):
eighty seven people this is yesterday in support of RFK
Junior for HHS Secretary. Ninety three people called in opposition
to RFK Junior, so about two to one, Bobby Kennedy,
the calls were coming in. Nineteen people called in support
of Cash Battel for FBI director. Four hundred and thirty
(34:20):
two people called in opposition to Cash Battel as FBI director.
And I think there probably were some liberal groups stirring
up calls because that number is big enough, four hundred
and thirty.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
I was to say, when you see days like that,
you got to be thinking somebody went on an email
campaign or a callboitz campaign and said, yeah, target this
member today specifically, because if it doesn't match the day before,
the day after, that's when that's kind of the tel right.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
And that happens.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
There are groups that will focus and say make these calls.
And I think those calls the four hundred and thirty two,
that's a big enough number. That's where that probably came from. Now,
In addition, forty eight people called in support of Tulsea Gabbard,
twenty two people called in opposition to Telsey Gabbert. On
legislative issues, thirteen people called in support of border security,
(35:09):
two people called in opposition to border security, and interestingly enough,
four hundred and seventy four people called in opposition to
the omb pause of federally appropriated funds. So, look, that's
the sort of report. I get that report every day,
and I read it every day. Now look what we
(35:30):
get over the course of the year, hundreds of thousands
of calls. So I can't listen to every voicemail that
comes in. I could literally spend all day long doing
nothing but listening to voicemails and not do any hearings,
not do any legislation, and I still wouldn't have enough time.
So the way I consume that data is through a
report like that. I just read you the report that
(35:51):
came today. Every other member consumes it the same way.
What I'm saying is, if you want Congress to pass
no taxes on tips, you don't need to present a long, detailed,
subtle argument as to all of the pros and cons.
Just pick up the phone and call your member and
say pass no taxes on tips. If you say that sentence,
(36:15):
it will get recorded in a report just like that
to the House member of the senator you're calling. That's
how the information gets consumed.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
That's encouraging. By the way you said, everybody looks at
their call list like the same way you.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
Do it, I hope.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
So I don't know that there may be some people
that don't give a damn.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
I look at it every day.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
I can't promise that all five hundred and thirty five
members of Congress do, but I certainly look at it
every day because I work for thirty one million Texans
and so I want to see what issues people are
engaged on and what they care about.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
It's incredible. Don't forget call your congressman, call your senator.
It can make a huge difference, especially during confirmations and
on issues like taxes on tips. Going away, we do
the show Monday was a Friday to gain give you
this exact type of information. So make sure that that
subscribe button, auto download button and share it on social media.
(37:08):
A lot of people right now are looking for answers
with all the changes in Washington, and it makes a
massive difference when you guys share this podcast on social
media and also when you write us a five star
review and the Center and I will see you back
here Friday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
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