Hi, Billy Cunningham, and Senator Ran Paul, according to my production team, is about to call to discuss his vote on essentially eliminating AM radio as a requirement for car manufacturers. And things proceed in the Senate either by unanimous
consent or by overcoming the sixty percent rule. And there was an effort made a few days ago, as I understand it, that said that let's waive the rule by unanimous consent, and we will require which is Amy Klomachar's bill from Minnesota, that all new cars will have an AM radio in him for all kinds of strategic purposes. And we think Senator ram Paul is calling now. But the one senator that said no was a Senator Senator Ran Paul.
And Senator Ran Paul, welcome again to the Bill Cunningham Show. Senator, how are you very good? They'll thank good. You know, I have to take you to task a bit. We've been rounding around for many years,
ninety five percent of the time on the same page. But as I understand it, I read your interview at has with my friend Terry Miners about you being the one Senator that would not waive the rule by unanimous consent that would have required car manufacturers to keep AM radio inside their cars, which is something that's heart and soul of what we do. And I would say this that right now your voice is heard all over Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana
on a big AM station. No FM station can do that. And about four years ago I was contacted by HHS to have a pod put in and our transmitter in Mason and yours truly was selected as the designated survivor on a big AM station with backup to give messages to people that FM radio cannot do. So why did you vote against? I think every Republican not to waive the rule to require AM radio and car manufacturer. I think there's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm very sympathetic to AM radio. As
you know. I've been on AM radio for years. My dad was on for decades before I was on. I know you've been involved with AM radio, and there's so many great voices on AM radio. But I want to do something, and if we're going to do something, it needs to be consistent with our philosophy. The main cars that they're taking AM radio out of are electric cars. Now, people wouldn't be buying these electric cars if we
weren't subsidizing them. So, rather than mandate to car manufacturers that they have AM radio, why don't we quit subsidizing electric cars that are banning and taking out AM radio. So I think it would both get the same result. But I think it would be more consistent with the Republican position not to add mandates to car manufacturers and not to sort of pick the winners and losers, but to let the marketplace decide that. But don't skew the marketplace by subsidizing
cars that don't have AM radio. When I speak to car dealers, there's dozens, maybe hundreds of government mandates already. Government mandates all kinds of stuff in a car, and one thing that is a requirement for safety is communication during a crisis, and that would occur, of course, when AM radio
can do what FM radio can't do. Why not do both? I think to bribe somebody to buy an EV where the batteries are made in communists red China, and the way the materials are mined in Africa is terrible, why not do both? When I take away the seven and a half thousand dollars bribe which isn't working, and make sure that farmers and truck drivers and other Americans have the availability of getting information entertainment. Senator, why not do both?
It isn't either or why not do both? I think getting rid of subsidies is consistent with the limited government philosophy. Adding mandates typically is not something Republicans have offered. Most of the mandates that are on cars already or are mandates, and most Conservatives have opposed. We really haven't been for mandating what goes into a car, what goes into manufacturing. But I think the same result can happen by doing something that is consistent with our philosophy, and that
is getting rid of the subsidy. The different thing to remember is is that as times change, even Tesla. So, for example, if you mandate to somebody who buys a Tesla that it have an AM radio in it, I think you're more likely to get them listening to you by streaming you off a website, because the car is well connected to a computer as a real large computer screen, and the people buying these cars probably aren't going to listen to AM radio frankly on a dial, but are more likely to actually listen
to it streaming. So I think part of the adaptation and survival of AM radio is getting people. You know, I would say, half the time I'm in my car, I'm listening to my phone. You know, people plug their phone in already, But I do know people who plug their phone in and stream AM radio or stream podcasts. So it is coming and the world is changing. You know. It's not for lack of sympathy of AM radio. Basically the idea that I just don't think it's consistent with our philosophy
to tell people what they have to have. The bill also tells them that if it is an additional cost to block the electromatic magnetic impulse from the battery to have an AM signal, if there's any additional cost, you're not allowed to charge the consumer. We've never really been forbidding people from passing our cost along if it costs more to protect the AM signal, to let that be passed along. And so I just don't think it's consistent with the bill.
I don't think it's consistent with our philosophy. What's the status now that you've blocked by unanimous consent? Is this thing going to pass anyway down the road? It may. And the thing is is people need to realize that nobody can block anything. All I'm doing is blocking the expedited vote, where there's no committee hearing and there's no real debate on the floor, and it just goes by unanimously. Very few things of any kind of substance go by unanimously,
and so you know, I'd like to hear both. I really do think that even if you were to mandate this, the future of AM radio needs to be convincing people to stream it on their phone and plug their phone into their car, because more and more that's going to ultimately be how people still get their AM radio. I don't know what the percentage is now, but I know most radio stations. I think I can stream your radio station on the internet. Can't I absolutely, But most people and AM radio do
not stream. There's a few that do, but I don't know the percentages. Seventy eighty percent don't stream. I guess I could stream, but I like putting in seven hundred. And this is the only way if we have a power grid problem, If we have an EMP some of that character and the power grid goes down, the one way to communicate is through a large AM signal with backup generation of power and we can communicate. And that is a life and death proposition. There are farmers right now that are in fields
listening somewhere in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio JM radio. There's truck drivers at night who spend their time listening to that kind and to this kind of a signal. And to say, well you can stream, well, most people don't stream, and most people are not going to stream for a very long
time. And they kind of liked listening to AM radio. And let's face it, when you talk at the beginning with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. That AM radio is the means of communication over the top of the mainstream media with all their dis and misinformation, and so it hurt me. It kind of hurt my heart when Senator ran Paul stoot up against seven hundred
WLW and Bill Cunningham that Senator Ran Paul voted against me. Yeah, basically, I don't think it's consistent for us who believe in limited government to put mandates on manufacturers. But doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to the cause. And so I introduced and it was rejected the people who want. The AM bill rejected my idea, and my idea was to basically get rid of the substance for electric cars. And the thing is is AM radio is not going away
tomorrow. If you're a farmer. Most farmers have a gas truck, you know, and gas trucks are still going to have a radio. There's nobody really talking about getting rid of AM radio in the gas trucks. So I think that there's going to be a long time. But what we should do
is really work hard not to be subsidizing something that punishes an industry. So I'm against the subsidies with or without the AM problem, but particularly because of the AM problem, I think we should be getting rid of the subsidies. Plus, we don't have money, and it's really not fair for people who are buying one hundred thousand dollars expensive electric car to be subsidized by the guy
who can only hold a FOURD to twenty five thousand dollars car. So it's never been really fair to subsidize these electric vehicles, and it's particularly not fair since it's subsidizing vehicles that won't have AM radio in them. But I think even in that small marketplace, it's about one or two percent of the cars or electric cars. I think really, rather than the mandate, part of the emphasis of AM radio should be advertising to those people the ability to stream.
Because you're right, the farmer's not going to be out there streaming on your website. But the one or two percent that have electric cars, you have a chance of getting them if instead of beating them over the head and forcing them to have AM radio, you try to advertise to them that they can get AM radio through streaming. It's a small market now, but it may well be a market that grows over time. Senator I took it personal
because I've been doing this for forty years now. Just I'm beginning of my forty first year and radio at one place, which is AM radio, and AM radio in the beginning was the only radio. FM came along. Now FM is having more difficulties than AM, and streaming is going to happen at some point, whether it's five, ten or fifteen years, We're going to have maybe have evs that makes sense in fifteen to twenty years, hopefully not
to benefit communists read China. But when one of my favorites, Senator Ran Paul comes at me, and says I want you, I want to eliminate AM radio from car manufacturers. Can you understand how those of us in this business, the talk radio titans around America, are kind of pissed off at that. Well, you know, I think it's mis character my position to
say that I want to eliminate AM radio from cars. I actually would like to keep AM radio in cars, and the way I would do it is in a way consistent with our philosophy, and that would be get rid of the subsidies that are given to electric cars. But I don't think mandates is part of our philosophy. I mean, we've spent years saying we're not going to be the people who pick winners and losers. We're not going to get
involved with telling people what to manufacture. We're not going to give subsidies to things we like and not give subsidies to things we don't like. So, actually, I think I'm taking the consistent position that I've always taken is that I'm frankly not for mandates on business, even for mandates that I would like,
you know. I mean, so I don't think there's anything, if anything, I think people would be and should be proud of the fact that I'm not changing my principles just because it happens to be an industry I like. There's no question I'm a big fan of AM radio, always have been. But at the same time, I can't be for mandating things to manufacture, since I spent a career saying I'm not for government telling business what to do. Let's move on to two other issues I'll come back to in about
two minutes. Right now, we're told that American interest in Ukraine are being terribly affected. Negatively, We're totally we have to give billions more to Israel, which I'm much more in my mind think about making sense. But please tell me it's true that it appears to be some softening with Biden about the southern border. To have a functioning country, we got to have a border. Are you going to stand firm on the issue of no foreign aid until
we take care of America's southern border? Without question? You know, my oath of office is to our country, not to other countries. We don't have money to be sending overseas. No. I did consent on the Israeli aid if it was paid for by taking away from the RS. This was Speaker Johnson's position in the beginning, and I hope it will remain in his position that the Israel AID is separate from Ukraine Aid and that it's paid for by taking the money from the RS. And with regard to sending, you
know, tens of billions more to Ukraine, I've drawn the line. I can't vote for any more money it's being sent to Ukraine because we've sent them more than the country's entire GDP. We've sent them over one hundred and ten billion dollars. They're using it to subsidize small business, they're paying their government pensions with this thing. And the bottom line is that we just don't have the money. We're borrowing the money we sent don't have the money. We're
broke thirty four trillion. In the next five years, it's going to be thirty trillion, thirty trillion dollars. And it's a billion here, and a billionaire is certainly we're talking about some money. It is ridiculous when you talk to McConnell, and you speak to Schumer, and maybe if somebody can talk to Biden, if he's up yet, what do you do with the issue of the offset to spend the money, but we have to get rid of eighty seven thousand IRS agents. We got to do this, got to do
that. Do you have a sense it's a deal to be made in the next week, you know, it's interesting that they swear that they won't trade the RS money, you know, for the Israel AID or for the Ukraine Aid. But apparently the handshake deal that was made between McCarthy and Biden O we're raising the debt ceiling, they've already had a handshake deal to use that RS money to increase welfare spending because the Democrats thought that the debt ceiling deal
didn't give them enough welfare spending. So it's interesting that they say, oh, we'll never give up on this IRS money. They're already willing to trade it for different welfare programs that they'refore and it is real money, and it does make a difference. So now I think the one with Israel is reasonable if it's paid for. The other would be less objectionable if it's paid for. But nobody's talking about paying for it. They're talking about trying to trade
border security, which I am for border security. I think we shouldn't let anybody in illegally I think they all should be put right back on the other side of the river. The only thing that was working down there was remain in Mexico. But people have to realize that they think that there's going to be a negotiated deal that's going to work, none of it works unless it
has remained in Mexico, and that takes cooperation with Mexico. No reason we got that was because Trump played hardball with them, and that was one of the beauties of having Trump as president. He was unafraid. He stared down the Mexican president, and the Mexican president agreed to keep him. But we've got a new Mexican president down there. I don't think Bien's going to stare anybody in the face because he's got to look through his eyelids that are half
closed. So I don't think it's going to happen. But so I'm not really going to vote for any fake border security and I'm definitely not voting for any money for Ukraine that's not paid for. So it's very unlikely they'll get me on any of that foreign aid bill. Lastly, have you ever voted on unanimous consent? Have you ever in your time in the Senate. Have you ever voted to waive that? Dozens of times? Almost every day.
There's something I've already discussed four things today. So unanimous consent is sometimes like for a resolution. So if we have a resolution saying we congratulate Bill Cunningham for forty two years in radio and for his service to the Constitution, that's a resolution that's not really legislation. Those pass all the time by unanimous consent.
Significant legislation rarely does, and one person can't block it. What they do is just mean it goes to the normal channels, and the normal channels are that it takes a few votes, and it takes several days to pass something, and they do have quite a few coach sponsors on this, I think it's still wrong and inconsistent with our philosopy. I think there's a reasonable chance they probably will pass at some point. And lastly, Senator I would
say, this is a governmental interest. I'm a capitalist. I've owned businesses, I continue to own some businesses. I love American business. That is the great equalizer. However, there's a government interest in having AM radio functioning, especially the big ones, because if the power grid doesn't exist, if
computers do not work, if cars do not run. We have the capability of getting messages out to the American people as to where to go, what to do the circumstances like a red dawn situation on and only AM radio does that. You're being heard right now in northern Tennessee and Ohio. No FM station can do that. And so when you did what you did, that was a heart that was a stamping to my heart. I'm thinking, this
is my guy, just my home state of Kentucky. These guys trying to destroy AM radio, And I know I had to talk to you because that can't be the case. You got to stand with them. You realize, you realize it's not because I had an alternative that is probably goes more to the crux of the problem, and getting rid of the subsidies basically would eliminate
the problem. Then you wouldn't have to have mand aids, if you didn't have the cars being subsized, nobody would be buying these electric cars and they wouldn't be pressure on AM radio. So all I'm saying is by opposing one method of doing this doesn't mean I'm against AM radio. It just means I'm for a different method of getting the same result. But I think this method, I think many of your listeners would probably agree, is more consistent with
the limited government philosophy. And when it goes through all the stuff you senators go through, are you going to vote yes on AM radio? I'll vote yes to get rid of the subsidies to electric cars that get rid of AM radio. I think that's the best solution. Do you love AM radio? You know I do. I've been on AM radio and going back a decade and my father probably two or three decades. It's a great long format. It's a way to have a discussion, a full discussion like we've just had
that we probably couldn't have on television because the interviews aren't as long. So no great fan of AM radio. Tomorrow I'll be on with a gentleman who is I believe eighty seven years old and he's been doing it for several decades, also in a small community of about six thousand people on an AM radio station that my father in law used to work for. So nothing but sympathy, nothing but sympathy for allowing the message to get out, but just different
ways to skin a cat. Because we disagree on the solution doesn't mean we're not on the same side. Well, I hope AM radio is here long after both of us are gone. And I sense in your heart and soul you understand the value of AM radio and the role it can play in governmental activity plus private enterprise. Once again, Senator Ran Paul, thank you for coming on the Bill Cunningham Show. Senator, thank you, thank you, and God bless America. Let's continue with more the line becomes available. You
know the routine. Five one, three, seven, four, nine, seven thousand. AM radio is your friend. AM radio is your informer. AM radio is necessary. If there's a crisis in this country, you'll be hearing my voice on news radio seven hundred WLW. While interest rates are on the rise everywhere else. At Genesis Diamonds, we've got just the relief you need this holiday season. Five years zero interest on anything,