Station:    KNUS, 710 am

Show:       Ross Kaminsky Show

Guests:    Gardner, Cory

Link:       https://www.iheart.com/podcast/the-ross-kaminsky-show-20710514/episode/06-12-19-ronald-reagan-and-46041861/

Date:       June 12, 2019

Topics:    Ted Cruz, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, STATES Act, Strengthening Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States, Legalization of Recreational Marijuana, Bill Barr, United States Attorney General, Federalism, Deschedule, Filibuster, Jeff Session, Tom Cotton, Mexico Deal, Tariffs, Wharton School of Business, Tax Increase, Lobbyists, Revolving Door, Non-Compete Contracts, NRSC

Click Here for Audio

HOST ROSS KAMINSKY [00:00:01] All right. So, among the political partnerships, there is only one thing that I can think of recently that’s as weird as Ted Cruz working with AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and that is you working with Elizabeth Warren.

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, CORY GARDNER [00:00:16] [laughs].

KAMINSKY [00:00:16] But you’ve done it with the STATES Act — the “STATES” [in] all capital letters — an acronym for something that I will — well, this “Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States” [Act]. Tell us about the STATES Act, and tell us about its prognosis.

GARDNER [00:00:30] Yeah, you bet. So the STATES Act comes from this conflict in law that we have right now between the federal law and state law as we approach marijuana. I did not support the legalization of recreational marijuana when it happened in Colorado, but it did happen.  It has more support now than it ever has before. It’s not going to go away. And now we have $2 billion — almost — in cash every year in the industry that can’t go into banks, that can’t be brought into the financial systems and out of the shadows. And it is creating a big challenge. It’s creating a challenge for banks and communities and law enforcement as we try to address this. So, we need to change the status quo because it’s unacceptable. Bill Barr, President Trump’s Attorney General has testified to Congress saying the same thing: the status quo simply cannot stand. So, the STATES Act that we introduced with Elizabeth Warren is a way to say, “Look, it’s not about legalization, but it’s about allowing states to move forward with the decision that they make.” So it’s federalism. This is what our founders envisioned when they set up our Constitution. Let the states move forward on so many different things that the federal government shouldn’t be doing, and this is one of those areas where the state could make a decision to opt itself out of the federal prohibition. And that would take care of this conflict between federal and state law, and allow the banking system to to get involved and take this money out the shadows.

KAMINSKY [00:01:46] Now, you and I talked about this a while back, and I’m sure there’s plenty of politics going on here that I don’t understand and maybe cocaine Mitch is part of the problem. But, dude! Why not just deschedule marijuana?

GARDNER [00:01:58] So, it’s probably something that can’t move out of the Senate. There’s — we’re going to have to get 60 votes for this. So we have to overcome a filibuster because there are going to be people — and I understand why — who are going to object to this.  And so we’re going to have to get 60 votes. I do not believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for descheduling, at this point. And so, this would do the same thing though, basically on a states’ rights decision, by allowing states to no longer be subject to that schedule if they choose.

KAMINSKY [00:02:27] [Do] you think you’ve got 60 [votes] for this, or that it wouldn’t be filibustered?

GARDNER [00:02:30] We absolutely have 60 votes for it. So, I do believe it will be filibustered because, like I said, there are going to be people who oppose it, no matter what. But I do believe we have over 60 votes to pass this bill right now.

KAMINSKY [00:02:41] Well, is that, like, Tom Cotton’s job, now that Jeff Sessions is gone?

GARDNER [00:02:45] [laughing] I don’t know if it’s Tom Cotton, but you know, you’ve got some very strong opinions and I completely understand that.  But that’s why I’m willing to just say, “Hey! I’m not looking for a special deal out of the Senate procedure. Let’s have a straight up vote. Sixty votes, let’s take it, and we’ll pass it.

KAMINSKY [00:03:00] I’ll just tell you, Cory, you don’t need to respond to this, but someone just needs to hold up a big sign in some of these so-called conservatives with the word ‘freedom’ on it and then maybe a copy of the Constitution, and tell them anybody who would filibuster any of this is not a conservative — is not a constitutional conservative!  All right, sorry, I got on my soapbox for a second.

GARDNER [00:03:21] [laughing] Well, you know, this is your show. That’s right!

KAMINSKY [00:03:23] Okay, let me ask you quickly about a couple of other things. President Trump came to an apparent deal with Mexico. And going into that, there was certainly a lot of talk and it seemed kind of unease to a certain degree among Senate Republicans, if this were to come up in the Senate. Do you think that the Senate would have voted to oppose those tariffs?

GARDNER [00:03:48] You know, it’s hard to say. I think the Senate would have voted to oppose those tariffs. And here’s why: tariffs are a tax. And we had two studies come out, the Tax Foundation as well as the Wharton School of Business, that showed that a tariff increase on Mexico would have resulted in a reversal of the benefit from the tax cuts of 2017. And so the question would be, do you — the Republican majority of the United States Senate — support tax increases or not? And I believe the answer would be ‘no.’ Look, the reason why — I don’t support tariffs. I think tariffs are a tax on American consumers. They’re a distortion of markets. They’re against our free market — my free market values.  But I believe the President would do it. And that’s why I was so outspoken against tariffs because I don’t support them.

KAMINSKY [00:04:38] I imagine that would be politically difficult, and I don’t just mean for you for — for any Republican — because Republicans, maybe a little less in the Senate than in the House, but still — [are] standing pretty strong with Trump. And if this did end up coming to a vote, there would be one of the tougher votes, I think.

GARDNER [00:04:55] Well, you had the 12 people who voted against the emergency declaration on the border security. And I would imagine those 12 people would have challenges with — or problems with — the tariff.  And there were 8 more people that you would need, then, to overcome a veto on it.  And I don’t know that that would be that difficult, because tariffs are so despised by free market Republicans.

KAMINSKY [00:05:21] Yeah, I think you’re right, although I doubt you’d probably get enough House Republicans to go along to override the veto.

GARDNER [00:05:26] I see what you mean. I see what you mean, yeah. Yeah, that’s a good question.

KAMINSKY [00:05:28] That wasn’t my original point. I mean, you answered my question, and I appreciate that. Okay, one last thing real quick. I’m curious — and this is just out of the blue for you; you had no idea I was going to ask you this.   But I mentioned that Ted Cruz-AOC thing. What’s your gut reaction to a potential law or regulation that would say members of Congress can either never or not for a very long time become lobbyists?

GARDNER [00:05:54] Well, I am just glad that AOC and Ted Cruz have finally seen the light, because I actually have had that bill introduced for several Congresses, now, that would ban Congress members from becoming lobbyists for life. So, you know, I’m already onboard with that. In fact, I teased Ted. I said, “Hey! Why don’t you and AOC just join my bill?”.

KAMINSKY [00:06:15] [laughs].

GARDNER [00:06:15] [laughing] So, you know, somehow they have a little bit bigger platform and stage. But you know, I was glad to see the action. It’s something that I’ve long supported, and hopefully we can now get a little bit more momentum into its passage.

KAMINSKY [00:06:25] I’ve got to say, I struggle with it a little because I completely understand the underlying idea and the ‘revolving door’ and the–. It feels kind of dirty and a little corrupt, in a way. And on the other hand, you know, if somebody hasn’t committed a crime other than maybe serving in Congress, then why should we prevent them from holding whatever job they want to hold? It’s tough in that way, isn’t it?

GARDNER [00:06:47] Well, I think that’s a big question. But we do have, you know, private contracts where you sign up to — you know, non-compete agreements and those kinds of things. And when you voluntarily put yourself up for an election by the people, you’re making a choice. You don’t have to do that. If you want to lobby, you can go and lobby. But if you choose to seek election and the people choose to elect you, then your choice has been made. You’re not going to become a lobbyist afterwards.

KAMINSKY [00:07:13] Good answer! Cory Gardner, Colorado senator, Republican, probably taking a little sigh that you don’t have to run the NRSC anymore — a sigh of relief, I mean.

GARDNER [00:07:23] Well, there’s nothing more former than a former chairman, so –.

KAMINSKY [00:07:28] [laughs].

GARDNER [00:07:28] You know, I think that we were able to expand a freedom-oriented majority, and I’ll continue to fight for that.

KAMINSKY [00:07:33] Yeah, well you did a great job with that in a very difficult election year. So you’re to be congratulated on that. Cory, as always, thanks for your time, and [I] look forward to having you on the show again.

GARDNER [00:07:42] Thanks for having me, Ross. Thank you.