March 22, 2023 • 49 mins
Congressman Adam Schiff stops by to talk about why he's the right candidate to support in the primary for California's open Senate seat. Then we'll talk to Rep. Chris Deluzio about his new legislation to make our railways safer. Plus, NARAL's Angela Vasquez Giroux details the effects abortion bans are having on women's reproductive health.
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 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and the gloves if they were ever on,
are off between Donald Trump and Ron De Santis. We
have a show you don't want to miss. A minute
of Congressman Adam Ship stops by to talk about why
(00:22):
he is the right cant todate in California's contentious Democratic primary.
Then we'll talk to Congressman Chris Deluzio about his new
legislation to make our railways safer. But first we have
Nay Rals Angela Basquez Jirou. Welcome back to Fast Politics. Angelo,
(00:42):
thank you, thank you for having me. I'm excited to
chat about the horrifying state of affairs. We're you know,
so super interesting. Something we had talked about. I think
you thought it was my worried notion, but it was actually,
believe it or not, something that Robin Marty had told me.
Robin Marty, the woman who wrote the post Row Handbook,
who works in what was an abortion clinic in Alabama
(01:06):
and is now a women's health clinic because they have
no abortion in Alabama, which is she wasn't seeing in Alabama,
the doctors were stopping treating the highly political condition of
being pregnant. Talk to me about what's happening now. Yeah,
you know, I think when we first were worried about
what exceptions and exemptions to the lawment and what the
(01:28):
decision to overturn ROW could mean, a lot of folks
were worried about this initial state of chaos and confusion,
right because what the law says doesn't always match how
medicine works. And that's you know, always been a problem
when it comes to aborsion, but especially now. Doctors have
said in countless places, I think most recently in Texas,
that they don't know when they're allowed to do something.
(01:50):
They don't know when you know, how close to death
do I have to be before you're allowed to treat
my ectopic pregnancy? How close to death do I have
to be before I'm allowed to have Miffie pristone? Those
things aren't clear. We're asking doctors to take on a
tremendous amount of risk, and you know, I think now
where we are with hospital systems, they're starting to see
that you can't have a labor and delivery unit without
(02:12):
having proper abortion care because abortion care. As you've said before,
it as we've all said, it is healthcare. It is
a critical part of that cycle of your reproductive life.
And you can't promise or even attempt a safe pregnancy
if you don't have abortion care as part of your practice. Yeah,
I mean, it just seems completely crazy we're seeing this
(02:37):
kind of movement away from treating pregnancy. Yeah. It's also
you know, there's this failed, kind of naive idea, right
that you can create these laws that only impact people
in certain situations, right, like this idea of there are
good abortions and there are bad abortions. It's okay to
get an abortion if you didn't want to have the
sex that led to the pregnancy, but it's not okay
(03:00):
have an abortion, you know, if you were having sex
outside of marriage. Laws don't apply that way, and neither
does medical care. So, like a lot of folks predicted,
you know, Robin, most prestiently, these laws, they don't stop
at some fictitious borders that you know, right to life
ers think they do. They impact the entire scope of
(03:20):
healthcare and the lives of you know, anyone who can
be pregnant. And that's why now we're seeing this is
you know, I hate to say it because I don't
like to be a pessimist, but it's this is just
the first domino to fall. We'll see more hospitals who
feel like they can't provide appropriate care anymore. Even though
the letter of the law doesn't say it's illegal to
(03:42):
treat pregnancies now, but it does say enough that it
stops it from happening. What I think is so interesting,
and again I don't want to say interesting, because the
whole thing is just a fucking nightmare and it's so upsetting.
But one of the things that I think is really
interesting is that you are seeing. The reason in nineteen
seventy three the role was decided so broadly by many
(04:06):
conservative judges was because what ultimately was happening was doctors
were afraid to treat women right, no matter what, they
were afraid to treat them because they didn't know what.
You know, Again, once you get law and medicine together,
it's always a fucking disaster. So you had all these
women who could not get treated, and now we're seeing
(04:27):
again a return to women being unable to be treated. Yeah,
it's a thing that we say that, you know, another
one of these mottos that sounds a little pithy at first,
but then plays itself out in real time. You know,
in a post for a world, is a ban is
a ban? Is a ban? You ban you know, abortion
after twelve weeks, you're also banning all abortion before twelve
(04:49):
weeks because doctors aren't going to stick around in practice
in this limited scope where it's all confusing anyway, it
doesn't make sense to continue to believe that that it's
possible to legislate what happens in a moment of crisis. Right.
There's just no place that I can think of where
this lens of law is applied to situations where you know,
(05:14):
a life hangs in the balance in a matter of minutes,
and what you're supposed to call your malpracticed lawyer and
get the hospital board together to make a decision. No, right,
And like we knew the answer to this in the seventies,
you know, like we didn't even know that smoking was
bad in the seventies, but we knew how to do
this right. So it's very colossally confusing to me about
(05:34):
why it's so hard now and the answers it's not hard,
we know this, but there's a small vocal and somewhat
powerful segment of Zealots who don't care. I want to
talk to you about this Texas case because you know,
we've talked about her a little bit. It's really meaningful
explain to us a little bit about that. Yeah. So,
there's an organization that formed expressly for the purpose of
(05:57):
trying to outlaw medication at board. They've filed suit in
Texas with a specific court, a specific judge who they
all will rule in their favor, and it will ruin
our ability to access most medication abortion. The suit actually
asked the FDA ask the court to force the FDA
to withdraw its approval for Miffi pristone, which is one
of two drugs used in the Medication Abortion Protocol. This
(06:21):
drug was approved decades ago, it's been in use for
more than twenty years, safer than thailan all. They're coming
for it now because political reasons. Right. A part that's
so devastating about this and horrifying is that this case
in Texas would impact every single person in the country.
You know, if you're in California, you're still going to
(06:41):
lose access to Miffi pristone if you're in Michigan, You're
going to lose access to MIFFI pristone. We did some
research at NYALL and we found that at least sixty
four point five million people would be impacted by this decision.
That's more than are currently living without abortion access due
to the decisions. So to classify this as seizemic is
(07:03):
almost an understatement. But it's impossible, as all of these
impacts have been to really understand how bad things can
get until it happens, which is almost anticipating a healthscape, right, Yeah,
I mean, I just am shocked. Can you explain where
we are now with this? Because this was a case
where the organization chopped for a venue, found a venue
(07:24):
where they knew they would only get one judge. The
judge it's a part of Texas. The judge is a
very conservative judge appointed by Trump, very active and anti
choice legislation, anti choice activisty. He now is trying to
figure out if he can do this right right. The
read on the ground from a lot of lawyers who
(07:45):
are watching us closely is that he's, you know, he
has made up his mind. He will rule in probably
the worst way imaginable, But he is now sort of
pantomizing the motions of what it would look like if
he were actually considering our gus. He had a hearing
last week which he tried not to publicize. He wanted
(08:05):
to have this in secret so that no one would
have and no one would hear what was happening. And
in that hearing it was pretty clear from the questions
he was asking that even though to rule that to
force the FDA to withdraw approval for a drug would
be unprecedented, but the fact that that was set out
loud by the plaintiffs and he didn't really have a
(08:27):
reaction to it, right, everything that we're seeing on the
ground is telling us that this will be bad. And
you know, I know there is a lot of great
hot takes and legal conjecture out there about whether it
would actually do anything, whether this ruling would actually have
an impact. But if there's one thing, especially folks and
(08:47):
reproductive rights have learned over the last three or four years,
it's that there's a first time for everything, and it's
usually the first time for a worse time for us. Right,
no one thought SVA in Texas was going to stand,
and then it did. I actually thought SBA in Texas
was going to stand. I thought they're going to fuck
us now, you know, I thought that, But I also thought, well,
(09:10):
but there's where I still had this tiny shred of sacred,
you know, feeling for the Supreme Court that, like, you know,
despite the fact that they're filled with, you know, these
conservative activists who are just hell bent on returning us
to eighteen ten, you know, but they stand on precedent
and they won't rule against something that's clearly unconstitutional. And
(09:30):
you know that band aid was ripped off real fast
for me there. I think that's sort of why I
have this position now, right is I don't think that
they're going to be a backstop or a protector for
us on this. They weren't on SBA, so why would
they pass up a chance to do it here. Yeah,
it doesn't make any sense. I mean, just so so
incredibly upset and I'm just so grim. What else are
(09:52):
you seeing? I mean, again, this will get if he
does enact this on the banning the pills, they will
it will go up to the next court, which I
think is the fifth Circus Circuit right, Yes, Circus though
is kind of a good um good for how it
feels sometimes to deal with these courts. It would go
(10:14):
next to the Fifth Circuit. Obviously there would be some
appeals or request for a stay, So there is a
chance that, you know, whatever decision we get might not
be implemented right away. That's important to note, especially for
folks who are concerned about access, as all of us
mostly are. We might not lose access the day of
the court decision, but we will have again as we're
(10:36):
having now mass confusion about what's allowed where. You know,
if you if you can get pills delivered to your
house across the border. All of those things are going
to be thrown back into the complete chaos no matter
what happens, no matter what the ruling is or the
timing of it. But you know, the hope is that
cooler judicial heads will prevail and that there will be
(10:58):
some relief. If the decision is bad, If the Fifth
Circuit rules, you know, to override this and to keep
the Hills legal, it will go to the Supreme Court.
You know, the Supreme Court is always going to make
the worst possible decisions at every stage. Yeah, that's where
the heartbreak is, right that we don't have what we
(11:18):
thought we had. An elementary school which as a you know,
an impartial branch of government that was there to save
us from ourselves, and it seems like, you know, instead,
what we have is this court that's been packed with
anti abortion activists and they're not going to stop. They're
going to stop until they fanned abortion, all abortion everywhere.
(11:39):
And again, I think the Biden administration has done a
lot of really good things. But do you think that
they made a mistake by not pushing harder on the
Supreme Court? I mean, we know that we have a
Supreme Court that is just beyond the pale. I mean
when it comes to women's rights. We're seeing what's happening
here firsthand, in front of our very eyes. I mean,
(12:02):
do you think that the Biden administration should have done more?
I mean, again, you know we're in very murky legal
water here, but I mean, do you think that they
should have pushed harder? You know, it's a really hard
question to answer without you know, obviously we have the
benefit of hindsight, and anything more than what anyone did
would have been helpful. Right, But looking forward, we do
(12:23):
have a chance now, including in partnership with a Biden
administration as a sort of movement to look at what
meaningful court reform would be. You know, we do have
a court system right now that is has been rigged
in favor of of conservatives, has you know, a lot
of unelected power, with unchecked unelected power, and there are
(12:46):
things we can do to offset that, to change it,
to remove some of those bad actors. And I think
that's where some where a lot of our energy and
focus needs to be next. This is the last frontier.
You know, we don't we don't elect judges, but we
do elect the people who do. And we do have
some levers that we can pull, and we do have
some things we can organize around, and court reform is
(13:10):
certainly one of those things that for the future of
our movement, in the future of democracy, we need to
fix it fast. Yeah. Wait, I want to ask one
more question. What else is Neirau working on? This is
such an important time. You're from Nerau. What else is
Neirau working on? Well, we are working hard on making
sure that folks know what's at stake right now. One
(13:31):
thing we're finding is that now that the folks know
about this Texas case, or if they do know, they're
not sure that it actually impacts them so a big
part of our work right now is making sure that
we're talking to people that people like you are talking
to your listeners and your audience. And then the other
part is getting ready for this decision. Know, when this happens,
there's going to be confusion, there's going to be anger,
(13:52):
and it's our job as an organization that's built on
the power of people, of people organizing each other and
organize themselves, to help direct them into the places where
they can be productive and make the most positive and
powerful change. So really it's spreading the word, getting ready
for the decision, and once that happens, it's getting folks
(14:13):
organized and mobilized. Thank you so much, Angela, absolutely anytime.
Congressman Adam Schiff represents California's thirtieth district and is running
for the open California Senate seed. Welcome to you, Fast Politics,
Congressman Adam Chief. Thank you. It's great to be with you.
(14:33):
We're delighted to have you. Now we're all in California,
so I can bitch about how cold it is here.
So California, you are in the beginning of this primary race.
Talk to me about this race and about how it's
going and what the landscape looks like. You know, I
think the race is going really well. We launch short campaign,
(14:53):
I guess about six weeks ago and at a tremendous response,
with support coming in from every county in this and
my colleagues have been hugely supportive of me as well.
Speaker Policy early endorsed me. Now more than half of
my California House colleagues are supporting me, as well as
local and state officials up in down California, and we've
(15:15):
been traveling to state meeting with constituents, meeting with voters,
and the response has been terrific. So I feel very
good about it. And what I'm enjoying the most, I
have to say is traveling to other parts of this
state and sitting down with people, getting to know some
of the unique challenges that people face and getting some
great ideas and how I can help them meet those challenges.
(15:35):
I want to talk to you about SVB Bank because
it's a pretty interesting article about how that has become
a sort of moment in the campaign that everybody's kind
of weighing in on. Will you talk to me a
little bit about that, you know, I think this was
a terrible tragedy for the state and potentially a terrible
tragedy for a lot of employees who have had their
(15:56):
bankroll done at SBB without even knowing it. We were
desperately concerned that there could be hundreds of thousands of
people who wouldn't get paychecks when this bank failed, who
had no fault of their own, simply had their payroll
done SVB. But this is I think a tremendous failing
of the management of the bank, as well as a
(16:16):
tremendous failing of regulators and oversight. The overseers at the
FED saw that there were problems at SBB, saw that
the bank was at a huge percentage of its deposits
and uninsured accounts because there were accounts over two hundred
fifty thousand. Saw the bank was invested in a lot
of long term debt that was diminishing in value as
(16:39):
interest rates were going up. And yet nothing was done
and certainly nothing commensurate with the risks to fend off
what ended up being this run on the bank and failure.
But the primary responsibility were the bank executives, and I've
introduced legislation to fall back their stock profits and bonuses
because those bank executives took excessive risk, which enriched themselves
(17:03):
but nonetheless put depositors at tremendous risk and ultimately put
a chuck of the banking system at risk. And I
was grateful to see after I introduced the bill that
President Biden announced that he was also going to support
legislation in Congress helped clawback that compensation from banking secutives.
I want to talk to you about that, because they're
(17:25):
really the tides have turned on bailouts, and I mean,
if they ever were pro bailout, but there certainly have
been times in American life where these banks were very,
very precarious and much of the economy seemed like it
could collapse. Now it feels like a lot of these
banks were short up. I mean, is your sense now
(17:46):
that this crisis has been averted largely? It has largely
been averted, but clearly there are still other shoes that
are falling. The near collapse of Credit Suite and its
takeover by UBS shows that the shockwaves started in California.
They were reverberated to a regional bank that failed, also
in New York and around the world. And I think
(18:06):
the market is still trying to settle down, but it
points up to points up some real continuing failures, and
that is banks that are of the size of SBB
don't have the same level of oversight. They don't go
through the same liquidity tests and stress tests by regulators.
And now we're discovering that you can be much smaller
(18:28):
and still be too big to fail, and so we
need to, I think, strengthen the oversight of these midsize
banks or smaller banks, because they too can create a
contagion that really threatens the whole system. So I want
to ask you about this idea of how this happened.
I mean, do you think ultimately this is a failure
(18:49):
of regulation. I think it's certainly, without doubt a failure
of the regulators. It's also failure of the management of
the bank Congress also, and I voted against this weekend
Dodd Frank that oversight regime by essentially in twenty eighteen
watering down dot Frank and allowing banks of this size
to undergo less regulatory scroup. But even with that, the
(19:10):
regulators were apparently aware of this, aware of the danger,
and didn't act with sufficient urgency defended off. So I
think that movement twenty eighteen was in the wrong direction,
and I opposed it. But even so, regulators saw the
risk and just failed to do enough about it. And
for the bank executives, they were willing to take the
risk because it made the more money it made, the
(19:32):
more bonuses, it increased the value of their stock, and
they were essentially gambling with other people's money to potentially
disastrous effect. We had Katie Porter on this podcast. We
may have other people running. Tell us why you're the person.
I mean, this is such an interesting center race because
it is completely decided at the primary level. So tell
(19:53):
us why Democrats would do better with you than with
Katie Porter. You know, I think all of us that
are running order or relieve myself, we're all progressives. It
will be hard for people to distinguish a lot about
our voting records that are all pretty progressive. I think
what voters are most looking for is who's going to
make progress, Who's going to be able to tackle the
(20:14):
problem of homelessness, Who's going to be able to increase
the safety of our neighborhoods and the quality of our
public schools. Who's going to be able to deal with
the utter unaffordability of housing for billions of California families
who in the Central Valley, can do something about some
of the worst air quality in the country and a
lack of adequate drinking water. And I think the reason
(20:35):
why so many of my House colleagues and the Speaker,
and so many elected officials that have experienced with all
three of us have decided to support me is they're
looking for someone that can work within the Senate to
get things done to approve the quality of life for Californias,
And this is what I'm offering. I think I have
a record of getting things done, and more than that,
(20:56):
on some of the seminal issues of the day facing
the country, threats to our democracy. I think I've shown
the kind of leadership that California has come to expect
of its senator. We all had the opportunity to fight
back against the effort to tear down our institutions during
the last administration. We had not the opportunity. We have
the responsibility to do it. But I think that my
(21:18):
record is distinguished in the prominent role I played in
that and continue to play in that because directly, our
democracy is still very much at risk. So you were
very involved in the impeachment, very involved in Trump administration.
Kevin McCarthy seems to completely hate you, which is probably
a good sign. Like Eric Swawell, if you frequent flyer
(21:40):
on this podcast, you're the constant target of Kevin McCarthy.
As a senator, a junior senator from California, how would
you be able to sort of enact that same kind
of muscle. First of all, it's very rare for a
House member to have the kind of voice that I've
been able to have as a House member. I would
begin the Senate, I think as a very atypical junior senator.
(22:03):
I would begin my effort and the Senate very well
known to the people of California and to the people
around the country, and I think I can use that
prominent position to defend our institutions. We are not out
of the woods at all, as we see with what
is likely to happen this week in New York for
a former president and lashing out against the rule of law.
(22:26):
I'm on the Judiciary Committee now, since McCarthy took me
out the Intel Committee. I told how King Jeffreys put
me where I could be useful, and he said I
want to put you in my seat as a senior
member of the Judiciary Committee. Well, Jim Jordan is now
trying to interfere with the Manhattan District Attorney's office and
the rule of law, acting again as Trump's Carol defense counsel.
I'm going to push back on that in the House.
(22:46):
I'll be even more able to push back on those
kind of assaults on the rule of law in the Senate.
But equally important, one of the things that I've been
championing for years now is the inter relationship between the
weakness the fragility of democracy and the flaws the structural
problems in our economy. The fact that the economy is
not working for millions of people, that at a time
(23:08):
of historically low unemployment, people still can't afford a place
to live, They still can barely afford to access healthcare,
many millions can't. Many others see their quality of life
to something below that of their parents. All of that
leaves people vulnerable to a demagogue who comes along and
promises that they alone can fix it. And so I've
been very focused on trying to build an economy that
(23:32):
works for everyone. This is really a central focus of
my campaign, and I think I can do that. It's
even greater effect In the Senate. I wanted to ask
you about that. Some of the big problems in California
are also problems we have in New York. Homelessness, super
expensive housing. You know, these problems, they seem almost insurmountable.
I mean, how do you even begin to start getting
(23:54):
serious of effecting them. Well, first of all, I think
we have to recognize that the fact that is not
working for millions of people is not an accident. It's
not the product as my Republican friends would like us
to believe, the product of some impersonal forces, the Adam
Smith's invisible hand. This is often the result of a
very visible hand by very powerful special interests. And to
(24:17):
give you just a couple examples, during the pandemic, when
we want to double the child tax credit, something I
fought hard to ensure, we lifted forty percent of the
kids in the country who are in poverty out of Parker.
That single step of increasing that single provision of the
tax coat had such a demonstrable impact. And that should
tell us a couple of things. That should tell us
(24:39):
that this isn't rocket science. We don't have to wait
to be inspired by some bolt from above. But it
also should tell us this is a policy decision we've made.
And when Congress allowed that child tax credit increased to
expire and millions fell back into poverty, that was also
a policy choice. And we've made scores of these choices.
(25:01):
When we treat the carried interest of hedge fund managers
as a capital gain rather than ordinary income, we're deciding
as a policy matter that we should help the most
successful do even better, and we let the child taxpread expire,
we should let those who are strugg in the most
struggle even more. And so it's not just a tax code.
Of course, there are a myriad of ways in which
(25:22):
the Congress has decided who should win and who should
lose in our economy, and the result is the economy
that's just not working for millions of people, and we
need to change that. I think there are lots of
ways we can change that. In terms of the most
graphic illustration of an economy that's not working, and that
is people living on the street. We need to better
identify what's working what's not working. People are generous and compassionate.
(25:47):
They want to help people find a place to live
and get off the street. But they also want to
make sure they're not spending taxpayer dollars on things that
don't work. And so I think one of the things
that we can do that I would certainly pushed, let's
have greater accountability over what's working and what's not invest
in the things that can cost effectively move people into housing.
(26:08):
My experience as people in comparsion if they want to help,
but they also want to know that it's being done
in a way that is cost effective. Yeah, I mean
it seems really like not an easy situation. Let's talk
for two seconds about this Trump whatever is coming down
the pike, and this will air on Wednesday. So he
may already be indicted, he may not be indicted, he
(26:29):
may never be indicted. Do you think that Mary Garland
waited too long? I do, And I've been a very
outspoken and critical of the delay at the Justice Department.
And I came out of the Justice Department. I spent
almost six years as an assistant US attorney. I have
great love and affection for the Department. But for almost
(26:49):
a year it appear the department did nothing except focus
on those who broke into the Capitol that day and
beat police officers. And that works if you're going to
roll up people who are sort of foot soldiers on
the higher ups, if it's a case involving a single
line of effort to overturn the election. But of course
there were multiple lines of effort. There was a president
(27:10):
on the phone with Georgia, with the Secretary of State
trying to grabbe at him into finding eleven thousand, seven
hundred eighty votes that don't exist that his own attorney
general told them were bs. There were efforts to put
pressure on the vice president. There was a whole fake
electro plot. Those other matters the Just Department didn't seem
to even be looking into until a year after the fact.
(27:32):
It is so unusual that a Congress, in the January
sixth Committee, which I was so proud to serve on,
should be so far ahead of the Justice Department in
an investigation. But we were, and as a result, Manhattan
appears poised to go forward with charges which, while very
serious a campaign fraud scheme is very serious, are not
(27:52):
as serious as an attack on our democracy, a violent
insurrection incited by a president who wanted to stop the
piece transfer of power. If the Justice Department had moved
with more swiftness and following the evidence where it led,
and it led to Donald Trump. The first prosecution would
be by the Justice Department, which has the resources, the wherewithal,
(28:14):
and most importantly, the jurisdiction or the most serious potential
charges against the former president. We have a situation now
where it looks like the state charges are going to
come before the DOJ charges, If the DOJ charges come
at all. There are a number of problems with that,
as you well know, including that the you know, there's
the appearance of partisanship because these are elected officials, and
(28:38):
also there is a real question over whether or not
these state charges. The thinking is that the dug would
rather go first. And having waited so long, I mean,
do you think that there's a chance here that we'll
see accountability or now? I certainly hope to pray that
we see accountability, because one thing that we have seen
time and time again with Donald Trump is and he's
(29:00):
not held accountable, it leads him to commit worse and
worse misconduct, abuse and offenses. When he wasn't held accountable
for his Russian miss conduct, he engaged in worst miss
conduct vias in the Ukraine. When he wasn't held accountable
for that, he engaged in even worse miss conduct, leading
to a violent attack on the Capitol. If we should
(29:20):
have a precedent where a corrupt former president can escape
accountability because it would be perceived as too controversial if
he were held to justice, then then either he or
someone else in the future will do even worse. I
understand the concern around New York, but at the same time,
a much bigger concern from my point of view, is
(29:43):
establishing a precedent that a president can be wallless and
there's no way to hold them account. You can't hold
them to account while they're in office. You can't hold
them to account whether or out of office. The Founders
would have never subscribed to such a dangerous idea. And
so if the Manhattan Grant Jury has probably caused to
believe Donald Trump committed a crime, and the District Attorney's
(30:05):
office believes it can prove that crime, it not only
should go forward, it really must go forward, right, no question. Now,
I have one last question for you, because we're almost
at a time, explain to us why Gavin Newsom had
said originally that he would, you know, put, there hasn't
been a black woman in the Senate since our vice president.
The Senate has been very white, add very male for
(30:28):
a long time. Explain to us why, you know, in
my head, I'm really just thinking about it in my head.
If I'm voting in this primary, explain to us why
the vote should go to you. Yeah. Well, I mean,
first of all, I think that voters are going to
consider issues of race and gender, and I think they
should think that diversity is extremely important. And I've been
(30:49):
very proud over the last six to eight years as
the national Battleground Finance Chair for the Congressional Campaign arm
to go around the country and help elect money for
campaign for stumped for an incredibly diverse set of candidates
for the House and for the Senate. I've been very
proud of the work that I've done to do that,
and so I think voters are going to consider those issues.
(31:11):
I think they'll consider my track record. I also think
they'll consider what is the leadership ability of the different candidates,
What is their ability to get things done on behalf
of the American people, What kind of skills are most
in need at a time of such fragility and our
democracy and at a time when our economy is simply
(31:31):
not working for so many people. And above all, I
think the voters have a choice to decide who they
think is the best person right now, and I'm making
the case why what I offer is the most compelling.
But I have great respect for my two colleagues are
also running, and I want to do my best to
be articulating the case for myself, not the case against anyone.
(31:55):
And I think the case for myself is really one
based on my leadership ability and the ability to get
people gettings done for the people of California, to help
attack the problem of homelessness and the unaffordability of housing,
to create safe neighborhoods for people and their families, to
support the public education, and to make sure that people
(32:18):
can access healthcare of the very kind of bread and
butter that people are looking to their elected officials to
try to address. Thank you, thank you, thank you, great
to be with you. Thanks for having me on. Congressman
Chris Delusio represents Pennsylvania's seventeenth district. Welcome too Fast Politics.
Congressman Delusio, Molly, thanks for having me talk to me
(32:41):
about how this train and derailment entered your life. Yeah.
I represent Western Pennsylvania District. One of the counties represent
is Beaver County, and my constituents, my neighbors in Beaver County,
they border Ohio, they border East Palestine. People in Darlington
Township there were within the evacuation zone. Lots of folks
(33:01):
have been upended by Norfolk Southern's derailment. People evacuate out
of their homes, a bunch of farms in that area,
small businesses nearby impacted and worried about the economic costs
for years to come. And so my team and I
immediately started working on federal resources for folks on the
(33:22):
one hand. But then the other side of this is
rail safety legislation. To make sure that these railroads can't
just dictate terms. They've got to have some safety rules
and requirements coming out of the Congress, I think to
really change what they're doing. And listening to the workers
in this industry, you've been sounding the alarm. I think
for a long time that the railroads have been squeezing
them and everybody else, putting profit way above safety. In
(33:46):
the communities I represent, who these tracks run right through
our neighborhoods, like a lot of folks in this country. Yeah,
I think this is an incredible kind of moment here
where we have seen the rail workers from long time.
I mean, if you read any of the reporting you
know to twenty eleven, twenty twelve, twenty thirteen, you know
(34:06):
they're saying, you know, they're cutting corners, they're taking safety risks.
If we're going to squarely look at how something like
this happens, I mean, I want you to talk to
us about it. Seems like you cannot trust these industries
to regulate themselves. Absolutely not. And I think the rail
industry is a good example. For years, they've been doing
(34:28):
everything they can to squeeze every penny of profit out
of their operations as they can. Precisions scheduled railroading PSR
has been a doctrine. Wall Street loves it. Right. You
lengthen the trains, you reduce the staffing, you reduce the inspections,
You do everything you can to choose profits. And the
people who pay for that are the workers and the
(34:49):
communities like the ones I represent. When these trains run
through our towns and our neighborhoods, and ultimately and eventually
and unfortunately, the rail and you have what happens at
East Palestine to my neighbors in Beaver County where there
are toxic chemicals released. So this this idea that railroads
or any other other industry, if left to their own devices,
(35:10):
will just keep us safe. It's it's crap. I don't
know where else we need to see you to know that.
If we're thinking about the lack of railroad regulation and
railroad accidents, imagine what's happening that we can't even see
in technology. Yeah, again, you listen to the workers in
this industry or others. I sat down with a union
(35:31):
carman in my district. There's a rail yard the north
from southern owners of my district that I was talking
with him about you know, what do you see on
the ground, what do you and your co workers experience?
And he told a pretty basic story to me about
how much time they have to inspect a car. Not
that long ago, it was three minutes a car. Years
before that, it was as long as something like five minutes.
They have one minute to inspect each of these cars,
(35:52):
and the reality is that's not enough time, and so
they either do a half ass job or they do
the best they can in a minute or they risk
losing their job. And again that puts workers in the
position of not being able to do their job well
enough to protect us, and it puts all of us
a risk. And it's the same thing over and over,
certainly in this industry and with this railroad. Yeah, so
I want you to explain the landscape. Is Norfolk Southern
(36:14):
kind of the train company when it comes to hazardous materials?
Are there others? What percentage of this situation did they
kind of control? I don't think it's unique to them.
And given some of the common carriage rules, you know,
the railroads have to take the materials that come to
that subject to whatever rules we've got. So it's not
(36:35):
unique to Norfolk Southern, which means this and likely will
happen in other places where it's not just that. But
they're a big player in terms of tracks and their
footprint in my neck of the woods, in my district.
I mean, they own bridges, they've got lines, they've got
a rail yard that runs through my district. So they're
they're here in western Pennsylvania. And with the consolidation in
(36:55):
this industry, which again a similar trend across a heck
of a lot of industries, fewer and fewer of the
big railroads to deal with, which means they have more
and more power over all of us, over Washington, over
their workers. Do you think that it makes sense full
make buy backs? Stock buybacks harder for companies to be
able to do, Like, it seems to me like a
(37:16):
lot of what we're seeing with these consolidations and the
you know, is there's a real incentive from these companies
to do stock buybacks and a very little downside. Yeah,
and look, this country used to treat stock buybacks as
market manipulation. Right. Norfolk Southern's a good example. You know,
in the last couple decades, you know, they've cut their
workforce around a third, and at the same time they've
(37:40):
pushed out to their shareholders buy backs and dividends forty
five percent increase with that money, right, So these companies
are investing and enriching themselves, and they're doing the expense
of paying their workers and investing in safety. That's again
not unique to this railroad. It's a problem, and it's
a problem that isn't going to be changed by changing
(38:01):
the hearts to make executives less greedy. Right, It's going
to be changed by changing the rules in the laws.
I got lesson for us, right, And that's what I
wanted to ask you, was the stock buybacks are really
a case of unregulated financial actions, right. I think so,
And I think again, we don't. We don't fix this
just by wishing it to change. We got to have
(38:22):
concrete action in the Congress, rulemaking in the administration, and
in concert with each other. Now we get to this
very exciting bipartisan rail safety bill. Tell us about it. Yeah, look,
I'm proud to be partnering up with a Republican Nick Loloda,
fellow Navy guy from New York. We're introducing the Railway
(38:43):
Safety Act. It's a House companion of the bipartisan Senate
bill that my Senators Fetterman and Casey introduced with Jade
Vance and Shared Brown. It shows there is biparts and interest,
I think, and standing up to this industry and make
it safer. There's a lot the bill does around safety requirements,
staffing levels. I mean, look, the railroads have lobbied against
(39:05):
a two person staffing requirement for these trains. It's crazy.
It also adds stiffer penalties when they break the rules.
I mean the penalties now are weak, and I think
that's an important piece of it. So it does a lot.
I think it's something we need because these types of
derailments they're going to continue. I mean, they happen in
the order of hundreds of them a year. And if
you'd all change the industry, we'd all change the rules
(39:27):
around how they operate. They are not going to do
it themselves. And so I think it's important that we're
able to do this in a buy partisan way because look,
I said, in the House Representatives, where the Republicans are
the majority, if you want to get rail safety reform,
you got to get some Republicans on board. I'm I'm
glad Nick's doing this with me. I think we can
build this out and hopefully get it done. But Republicans,
I mean, I just want to play Devil's advocate here
for a second. Republicans, especially these New York Republicans who
(39:50):
barely won and many of whom won because Democratic Party
of New York fucked up. I mean, they have every reason. Again,
we know Republicans doing again. I'm very partisan, so I
can say this hate doing any kind of governing, but
I just want to point out there's no incentive to
let these railroads get away with it. No, And look,
(40:10):
if you you know you represent an area where the
tracks come through. If this happens in your district, or
this hurts your people, you're going to feel that pressure.
And you should because one of our basic jobs here
is to make sure our government can keep people safe.
You know, the tracks in East Palestine look like a
heck of a lot like neighborhoods all over, certainly Western Pennsylvania.
In this country, they run right through people's backyards, they
(40:32):
run right through town. Yea, this will happen in other
places if we don't change this industry. It's going to happen,
and I hope not be worse than this one was.
And this was pretty bad. So I think you know
that the incentives for any member, whatever your party are.
You gotta do something here because this will continue if
we don't change this industry and make them operate more
safely and frankly, make them pay more when they screw up.
(40:54):
So I just want to I want to ask you
about how is it going over and East Palestine. Look, people,
and I should be pretty clear about my constituents are
just on the state line and Darlington Township right across
from East Palestine. So I want to speak for the
folks in Ohio, but what I hear from my constituents
people are mad at the railroad. They are nervous and
(41:17):
worried about their health, right, their air, their water, their soil.
You've got a lot of farms in that part of Pennsylvania.
Farmers are worried about crops or cattle or whatever the
case may be, and whether, if whether one there's going
to be an issue in terms of health and quality,
or even if there isn't, whether people aren't going to
want to buy their stuff because of the stigma. And
(41:37):
that's a real concern, that's a real business impact for farmers,
for small businesses all over this part of my state
and certainly in Ohio. And you know, there's not an
easy answer for how to make everyone whole. But the
part that I do not stray from is that this
railroad has to make everybody whole. And there are costs
well beyond just the obvious ones of well, we had
(41:58):
to evacuate and pay for a hotel bill. Well, you
know you're going to have if there are issues around
water testing, air testing for years to come if there
are mitigation efforts that are going to take a long time,
if you have business impacts in your farm or otherwise,
those are not short term, easy costs. And I don't
want any world where they're as a railroad like nor
Frolk Southern it gets to do this and walk away
(42:19):
and leave folks holding the bag. No way. Yeah that's right,
and it's incredible. So what's the meat of the spill. Well,
the meat of this bill is a bunch of things.
You know, we require that two persons staffing, which is
really important to know. Secretary boota judge is working at
Department Transportation. Do that through rulemaking. I want us to
codify it. You know, it gives the Secretary authority to
(42:42):
change the requirements. And what is a hazardous material like
vinyl chloride which wasn't considered EE hazard and thus not
eye hazard. Flana will train where there are stricter rules
around speed and breaking. This requires more advanced notification to
local communities and states. And you've got something hazardus coming through.
(43:02):
I mean, there are things in here to reduce the risk.
And these wheel bearing failures, which seems like was was
what caused the derailment and he's Palestine. Those detectors that
didn't do their job, and they're more. There are more
pieces of this, but the piece I want to hold
in on too. The penalties for violations go up substantially
under this legislation. You know, they were very weak in
(43:23):
some cases go up tenfold if not more, depending on
the size of the business here. So I think that
has to be part of this, and beyond just you know,
my bill, things like what the administration did where the
EPA now has this order holding Norfolk Southern account for
all the cleanup cost. That has to be part of
what we're doing, and they're going to be. There's going
to be and there is private litigation against the railroad,
(43:44):
I'm sure. So there has to be a mix of
not just a week and do in the Congress to
change the industry, but executive action and private action to
hold this railroad accountable. Yeah, and the environmental catastrophe here
seems much larger than what is being sort of cop
too right now. Well, I think that to me is
why it's so important that we are doing all of
(44:05):
the testing and things to understand the scope of the
problem and what the heck we can do to mitigate
it for my constituents and for their neighbors and East Palestine.
You know, this cannot be the railroad cleans up gets
the tracks going again and issues some you know, small
checks to people like that's not adequate, right, And you know,
you if there is contamination and if there are mitigation
(44:26):
efforts that have to happen for years to come, well,
you know that's going to affect people's property values for
a long time. It's going to affect those small businesses
and farms, and affect people's health for their lifetimes. Right.
So we can't even begin to understand how we make
folks whole until we understand exactly what the risks are
for people. And you know that was why we pushed
to have not just the EPA, but the CDC there
(44:47):
to understand if there are things we're picking up. You know,
folks have reported publicly about symptoms they felled the aftermath,
so there are you know, there are real risks here.
And you know, I don't want us to ever be
whitewashing what's happened in the cleanup, because it's it's not
over and we're in this for the long haul. Yeah.
One of the things that We had Aaron Brockvitch on
(45:08):
this podcast and she talked about animals dying. Yeah, that
even that weekend. I mean, we saw in public reporting
really quickly a lot of fish right in the waterways.
Its palastine. And you know, I've talked with farmers out
there who you know. I thought, the guy who's got cattle,
(45:29):
he seemed he seemed fine with where his animals work.
But I come back to, even if that's if there
isn't anything wrong, you still risk that someone does want
to buy your beef because coming from this area. But
I also think you risk if the beef. I mean,
we don't even know what the tail on the beef
looks like. Right, they eat the dead fish. I mean
(45:49):
they obviously don't eat the dead fish, but they drink
the water, you know, I mean, they just could go anywhere. Right.
To me, it gets back to there are a lot
of questions we still have to answer, and that requires
substantial investment for testing and resources for a long time.
And that not just that we identify this stuff. Can
we figure out how to mitigate and help people be
made whole? And those to me, are not cost the
(46:11):
public should be bearing. That's this railroad right exactly. I
mean just incredible stuff. Do you have anything else you
want to sort of talk about that's happening in your
district that is will be just super illuminating for listeners
of fast politics. I would love to And it's a
little off topic from Real Safe. It's the biggest newspaper
in my region, in my district, the Pittsburgh Post. Is
(46:33):
that the workers they have been on strike for months.
They have gone without pay raises for more than fifteen years,
there without healthcare. There's been violence where some workers on
the pick and line were sent to the hospital. It's
a brutal fight. They've been really basically standing up for
dignity on the job in a way that it's sad
they got to be out in the pick of mine
(46:54):
doing this, but here we are, and so I'm trying
to always bring attention to their struggle and make sure
folks are paying attention that this is probably happening in
a local media landscape and lots of cities and towns
around this country where you've seen big papers and big
groups buy up small outlets and gut newsrooms and gun
print operations and the rest and Phittsburgh Post Becausett's owners
have been no different there. Yeah, really important local news
(47:17):
is something very near and dear to my heart. Thank
you so much, Congressman, thank you for joining us. Yeah, Molly,
thanks for having me on. Molly Jung Fast Jesse Cannon.
Trump slawyers were deceived by him. I don't get it.
The sums out of character. ABC News had a big scoop.
(47:39):
Special Council claims Trump deliberately misled his attorneys about classified documents.
Can I just say I think that the beginning of
the problem here is you are a Trump attorney, right,
do you like getting paid? I mean you obviously don't
because you are a Trump attorney, and also you like criming.
So any way, again, this is one of these scoops
(48:02):
where it's like, obviously, we're only learning a little bit
of the story, right, because if that means that the
idea here is that Howell, who's the judge in any
sealed filing, ordered that Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's many attorneys,
should comply with a grand jury subpoena for testimony on
six separate lines of inquiry over which he had previously
(48:25):
asserted attorney client privilege. So it sounds like Jack Smith
has a number of possible veins that he could take
here against Trump again. Trump responded in a very trumpy
fashion with lots of all caps. Shame on fake news
ABC for broadcasting Capitol illegal capital leaked false allegations from
(48:50):
a never Trump now former chief judge. So we'll see
how this plays out. Not the purple walk we were
expecting on Tuesday, but certainly something makes our moment of fuckoray.
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to your the best minds
in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
(49:12):
enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and the gloves if they were ever on,
are off between Donald Trump and Ron De Santis. We
have a show you don't want to miss. A minute
of Congressman Adam Ship stops by to talk about why
(00:22):
he is the right cant todate in California's contentious Democratic primary.
Then we'll talk to Congressman Chris Deluzio about his new
legislation to make our railways safer. But first we have
Nay Rals Angela Basquez Jirou. Welcome back to Fast Politics. Angelo,
(00:42):
thank you, thank you for having me. I'm excited to
chat about the horrifying state of affairs. We're you know,
so super interesting. Something we had talked about. I think
you thought it was my worried notion, but it was actually,
believe it or not, something that Robin Marty had told me.
Robin Marty, the woman who wrote the post Row Handbook,
who works in what was an abortion clinic in Alabama
(01:06):
and is now a women's health clinic because they have
no abortion in Alabama, which is she wasn't seeing in Alabama,
the doctors were stopping treating the highly political condition of
being pregnant. Talk to me about what's happening now. Yeah,
you know, I think when we first were worried about
what exceptions and exemptions to the lawment and what the
(01:28):
decision to overturn ROW could mean, a lot of folks
were worried about this initial state of chaos and confusion,
right because what the law says doesn't always match how
medicine works. And that's you know, always been a problem
when it comes to aborsion, but especially now. Doctors have
said in countless places, I think most recently in Texas,
that they don't know when they're allowed to do something.
(01:50):
They don't know when you know, how close to death
do I have to be before you're allowed to treat
my ectopic pregnancy? How close to death do I have
to be before I'm allowed to have Miffie pristone? Those
things aren't clear. We're asking doctors to take on a
tremendous amount of risk, and you know, I think now
where we are with hospital systems, they're starting to see
that you can't have a labor and delivery unit without
(02:12):
having proper abortion care because abortion care. As you've said before,
it as we've all said, it is healthcare. It is
a critical part of that cycle of your reproductive life.
And you can't promise or even attempt a safe pregnancy
if you don't have abortion care as part of your practice. Yeah,
I mean, it just seems completely crazy we're seeing this
(02:37):
kind of movement away from treating pregnancy. Yeah. It's also
you know, there's this failed, kind of naive idea, right
that you can create these laws that only impact people
in certain situations, right, like this idea of there are
good abortions and there are bad abortions. It's okay to
get an abortion if you didn't want to have the
sex that led to the pregnancy, but it's not okay
(03:00):
have an abortion, you know, if you were having sex
outside of marriage. Laws don't apply that way, and neither
does medical care. So, like a lot of folks predicted,
you know, Robin, most prestiently, these laws, they don't stop
at some fictitious borders that you know, right to life
ers think they do. They impact the entire scope of
(03:20):
healthcare and the lives of you know, anyone who can
be pregnant. And that's why now we're seeing this is
you know, I hate to say it because I don't
like to be a pessimist, but it's this is just
the first domino to fall. We'll see more hospitals who
feel like they can't provide appropriate care anymore. Even though
the letter of the law doesn't say it's illegal to
(03:42):
treat pregnancies now, but it does say enough that it
stops it from happening. What I think is so interesting,
and again I don't want to say interesting, because the
whole thing is just a fucking nightmare and it's so upsetting.
But one of the things that I think is really
interesting is that you are seeing. The reason in nineteen
seventy three the role was decided so broadly by many
(04:06):
conservative judges was because what ultimately was happening was doctors
were afraid to treat women right, no matter what, they
were afraid to treat them because they didn't know what.
You know, Again, once you get law and medicine together,
it's always a fucking disaster. So you had all these
women who could not get treated, and now we're seeing
(04:27):
again a return to women being unable to be treated. Yeah,
it's a thing that we say that, you know, another
one of these mottos that sounds a little pithy at first,
but then plays itself out in real time. You know,
in a post for a world, is a ban is
a ban? Is a ban? You ban you know, abortion
after twelve weeks, you're also banning all abortion before twelve
(04:49):
weeks because doctors aren't going to stick around in practice
in this limited scope where it's all confusing anyway, it
doesn't make sense to continue to believe that that it's
possible to legislate what happens in a moment of crisis. Right.
There's just no place that I can think of where
this lens of law is applied to situations where you know,
(05:14):
a life hangs in the balance in a matter of minutes,
and what you're supposed to call your malpracticed lawyer and
get the hospital board together to make a decision. No, right,
And like we knew the answer to this in the seventies,
you know, like we didn't even know that smoking was
bad in the seventies, but we knew how to do
this right. So it's very colossally confusing to me about
(05:34):
why it's so hard now and the answers it's not hard,
we know this, but there's a small vocal and somewhat
powerful segment of Zealots who don't care. I want to
talk to you about this Texas case because you know,
we've talked about her a little bit. It's really meaningful
explain to us a little bit about that. Yeah. So,
there's an organization that formed expressly for the purpose of
(05:57):
trying to outlaw medication at board. They've filed suit in
Texas with a specific court, a specific judge who they
all will rule in their favor, and it will ruin
our ability to access most medication abortion. The suit actually
asked the FDA ask the court to force the FDA
to withdraw its approval for Miffi pristone, which is one
of two drugs used in the Medication Abortion Protocol. This
(06:21):
drug was approved decades ago, it's been in use for
more than twenty years, safer than thailan all. They're coming
for it now because political reasons. Right. A part that's
so devastating about this and horrifying is that this case
in Texas would impact every single person in the country.
You know, if you're in California, you're still going to
(06:41):
lose access to Miffi pristone if you're in Michigan, You're
going to lose access to MIFFI pristone. We did some
research at NYALL and we found that at least sixty
four point five million people would be impacted by this decision.
That's more than are currently living without abortion access due
to the decisions. So to classify this as seizemic is
(07:03):
almost an understatement. But it's impossible, as all of these
impacts have been to really understand how bad things can
get until it happens, which is almost anticipating a healthscape, right, Yeah,
I mean, I just am shocked. Can you explain where
we are now with this? Because this was a case
where the organization chopped for a venue, found a venue
(07:24):
where they knew they would only get one judge. The
judge it's a part of Texas. The judge is a
very conservative judge appointed by Trump, very active and anti
choice legislation, anti choice activisty. He now is trying to
figure out if he can do this right right. The
read on the ground from a lot of lawyers who
(07:45):
are watching us closely is that he's, you know, he
has made up his mind. He will rule in probably
the worst way imaginable, But he is now sort of
pantomizing the motions of what it would look like if
he were actually considering our gus. He had a hearing
last week which he tried not to publicize. He wanted
(08:05):
to have this in secret so that no one would
have and no one would hear what was happening. And
in that hearing it was pretty clear from the questions
he was asking that even though to rule that to
force the FDA to withdraw approval for a drug would
be unprecedented, but the fact that that was set out
loud by the plaintiffs and he didn't really have a
(08:27):
reaction to it, right, everything that we're seeing on the
ground is telling us that this will be bad. And
you know, I know there is a lot of great
hot takes and legal conjecture out there about whether it
would actually do anything, whether this ruling would actually have
an impact. But if there's one thing, especially folks and
(08:47):
reproductive rights have learned over the last three or four years,
it's that there's a first time for everything, and it's
usually the first time for a worse time for us. Right,
no one thought SVA in Texas was going to stand,
and then it did. I actually thought SBA in Texas
was going to stand. I thought they're going to fuck
us now, you know, I thought that, But I also thought, well,
(09:10):
but there's where I still had this tiny shred of sacred,
you know, feeling for the Supreme Court that, like, you know,
despite the fact that they're filled with, you know, these
conservative activists who are just hell bent on returning us
to eighteen ten, you know, but they stand on precedent
and they won't rule against something that's clearly unconstitutional. And
(09:30):
you know that band aid was ripped off real fast
for me there. I think that's sort of why I
have this position now, right is I don't think that
they're going to be a backstop or a protector for
us on this. They weren't on SBA, so why would
they pass up a chance to do it here. Yeah,
it doesn't make any sense. I mean, just so so
incredibly upset and I'm just so grim. What else are
(09:52):
you seeing? I mean, again, this will get if he
does enact this on the banning the pills, they will
it will go up to the next court, which I
think is the fifth Circus Circuit right, Yes, Circus though
is kind of a good um good for how it
feels sometimes to deal with these courts. It would go
(10:14):
next to the Fifth Circuit. Obviously there would be some
appeals or request for a stay, So there is a
chance that, you know, whatever decision we get might not
be implemented right away. That's important to note, especially for
folks who are concerned about access, as all of us
mostly are. We might not lose access the day of
the court decision, but we will have again as we're
(10:36):
having now mass confusion about what's allowed where. You know,
if you if you can get pills delivered to your
house across the border. All of those things are going
to be thrown back into the complete chaos no matter
what happens, no matter what the ruling is or the
timing of it. But you know, the hope is that
cooler judicial heads will prevail and that there will be
(10:58):
some relief. If the decision is bad, If the Fifth
Circuit rules, you know, to override this and to keep
the Hills legal, it will go to the Supreme Court.
You know, the Supreme Court is always going to make
the worst possible decisions at every stage. Yeah, that's where
the heartbreak is, right that we don't have what we
(11:18):
thought we had. An elementary school which as a you know,
an impartial branch of government that was there to save
us from ourselves, and it seems like, you know, instead,
what we have is this court that's been packed with
anti abortion activists and they're not going to stop. They're
going to stop until they fanned abortion, all abortion everywhere.
(11:39):
And again, I think the Biden administration has done a
lot of really good things. But do you think that
they made a mistake by not pushing harder on the
Supreme Court? I mean, we know that we have a
Supreme Court that is just beyond the pale. I mean
when it comes to women's rights. We're seeing what's happening
here firsthand, in front of our very eyes. I mean,
(12:02):
do you think that the Biden administration should have done more?
I mean, again, you know we're in very murky legal
water here, but I mean, do you think that they
should have pushed harder? You know, it's a really hard
question to answer without you know, obviously we have the
benefit of hindsight, and anything more than what anyone did
would have been helpful. Right, But looking forward, we do
(12:23):
have a chance now, including in partnership with a Biden
administration as a sort of movement to look at what
meaningful court reform would be. You know, we do have
a court system right now that is has been rigged
in favor of of conservatives, has you know, a lot
of unelected power, with unchecked unelected power, and there are
(12:46):
things we can do to offset that, to change it,
to remove some of those bad actors. And I think
that's where some where a lot of our energy and
focus needs to be next. This is the last frontier.
You know, we don't we don't elect judges, but we
do elect the people who do. And we do have
some levers that we can pull, and we do have
some things we can organize around, and court reform is
(13:10):
certainly one of those things that for the future of
our movement, in the future of democracy, we need to
fix it fast. Yeah. Wait, I want to ask one
more question. What else is Neirau working on? This is
such an important time. You're from Nerau. What else is
Neirau working on? Well, we are working hard on making
sure that folks know what's at stake right now. One
(13:31):
thing we're finding is that now that the folks know
about this Texas case, or if they do know, they're
not sure that it actually impacts them so a big
part of our work right now is making sure that
we're talking to people that people like you are talking
to your listeners and your audience. And then the other
part is getting ready for this decision. Know, when this happens,
there's going to be confusion, there's going to be anger,
(13:52):
and it's our job as an organization that's built on
the power of people, of people organizing each other and
organize themselves, to help direct them into the places where
they can be productive and make the most positive and
powerful change. So really it's spreading the word, getting ready
for the decision, and once that happens, it's getting folks
(14:13):
organized and mobilized. Thank you so much, Angela, absolutely anytime.
Congressman Adam Schiff represents California's thirtieth district and is running
for the open California Senate seed. Welcome to you, Fast Politics,
Congressman Adam Chief. Thank you. It's great to be with you.
(14:33):
We're delighted to have you. Now we're all in California,
so I can bitch about how cold it is here.
So California, you are in the beginning of this primary race.
Talk to me about this race and about how it's
going and what the landscape looks like. You know, I
think the race is going really well. We launch short campaign,
(14:53):
I guess about six weeks ago and at a tremendous response,
with support coming in from every county in this and
my colleagues have been hugely supportive of me as well.
Speaker Policy early endorsed me. Now more than half of
my California House colleagues are supporting me, as well as
local and state officials up in down California, and we've
(15:15):
been traveling to state meeting with constituents, meeting with voters,
and the response has been terrific. So I feel very
good about it. And what I'm enjoying the most, I
have to say is traveling to other parts of this
state and sitting down with people, getting to know some
of the unique challenges that people face and getting some
great ideas and how I can help them meet those challenges.
(15:35):
I want to talk to you about SVB Bank because
it's a pretty interesting article about how that has become
a sort of moment in the campaign that everybody's kind
of weighing in on. Will you talk to me a
little bit about that, you know, I think this was
a terrible tragedy for the state and potentially a terrible
tragedy for a lot of employees who have had their
(15:56):
bankroll done at SBB without even knowing it. We were
desperately concerned that there could be hundreds of thousands of
people who wouldn't get paychecks when this bank failed, who
had no fault of their own, simply had their payroll
done SVB. But this is I think a tremendous failing
of the management of the bank, as well as a
(16:16):
tremendous failing of regulators and oversight. The overseers at the
FED saw that there were problems at SBB, saw that
the bank was at a huge percentage of its deposits
and uninsured accounts because there were accounts over two hundred
fifty thousand. Saw the bank was invested in a lot
of long term debt that was diminishing in value as
(16:39):
interest rates were going up. And yet nothing was done
and certainly nothing commensurate with the risks to fend off
what ended up being this run on the bank and failure.
But the primary responsibility were the bank executives, and I've
introduced legislation to fall back their stock profits and bonuses
because those bank executives took excessive risk, which enriched themselves
(17:03):
but nonetheless put depositors at tremendous risk and ultimately put
a chuck of the banking system at risk. And I
was grateful to see after I introduced the bill that
President Biden announced that he was also going to support
legislation in Congress helped clawback that compensation from banking secutives.
I want to talk to you about that, because they're
(17:25):
really the tides have turned on bailouts, and I mean,
if they ever were pro bailout, but there certainly have
been times in American life where these banks were very,
very precarious and much of the economy seemed like it
could collapse. Now it feels like a lot of these
banks were short up. I mean, is your sense now
(17:46):
that this crisis has been averted largely? It has largely
been averted, but clearly there are still other shoes that
are falling. The near collapse of Credit Suite and its
takeover by UBS shows that the shockwaves started in California.
They were reverberated to a regional bank that failed, also
in New York and around the world. And I think
(18:06):
the market is still trying to settle down, but it
points up to points up some real continuing failures, and
that is banks that are of the size of SBB
don't have the same level of oversight. They don't go
through the same liquidity tests and stress tests by regulators.
And now we're discovering that you can be much smaller
(18:28):
and still be too big to fail, and so we
need to, I think, strengthen the oversight of these midsize
banks or smaller banks, because they too can create a
contagion that really threatens the whole system. So I want
to ask you about this idea of how this happened.
I mean, do you think ultimately this is a failure
(18:49):
of regulation. I think it's certainly, without doubt a failure
of the regulators. It's also failure of the management of
the bank Congress also, and I voted against this weekend
Dodd Frank that oversight regime by essentially in twenty eighteen
watering down dot Frank and allowing banks of this size
to undergo less regulatory scroup. But even with that, the
(19:10):
regulators were apparently aware of this, aware of the danger,
and didn't act with sufficient urgency defended off. So I
think that movement twenty eighteen was in the wrong direction,
and I opposed it. But even so, regulators saw the
risk and just failed to do enough about it. And
for the bank executives, they were willing to take the
risk because it made the more money it made, the
(19:32):
more bonuses, it increased the value of their stock, and
they were essentially gambling with other people's money to potentially
disastrous effect. We had Katie Porter on this podcast. We
may have other people running. Tell us why you're the person.
I mean, this is such an interesting center race because
it is completely decided at the primary level. So tell
(19:53):
us why Democrats would do better with you than with
Katie Porter. You know, I think all of us that
are running order or relieve myself, we're all progressives. It
will be hard for people to distinguish a lot about
our voting records that are all pretty progressive. I think
what voters are most looking for is who's going to
make progress, Who's going to be able to tackle the
(20:14):
problem of homelessness, Who's going to be able to increase
the safety of our neighborhoods and the quality of our
public schools. Who's going to be able to deal with
the utter unaffordability of housing for billions of California families
who in the Central Valley, can do something about some
of the worst air quality in the country and a
lack of adequate drinking water. And I think the reason
(20:35):
why so many of my House colleagues and the Speaker,
and so many elected officials that have experienced with all
three of us have decided to support me is they're
looking for someone that can work within the Senate to
get things done to approve the quality of life for Californias,
And this is what I'm offering. I think I have
a record of getting things done, and more than that,
(20:56):
on some of the seminal issues of the day facing
the country, threats to our democracy. I think I've shown
the kind of leadership that California has come to expect
of its senator. We all had the opportunity to fight
back against the effort to tear down our institutions during
the last administration. We had not the opportunity. We have
the responsibility to do it. But I think that my
(21:18):
record is distinguished in the prominent role I played in
that and continue to play in that because directly, our
democracy is still very much at risk. So you were
very involved in the impeachment, very involved in Trump administration.
Kevin McCarthy seems to completely hate you, which is probably
a good sign. Like Eric Swawell, if you frequent flyer
(21:40):
on this podcast, you're the constant target of Kevin McCarthy.
As a senator, a junior senator from California, how would
you be able to sort of enact that same kind
of muscle. First of all, it's very rare for a
House member to have the kind of voice that I've
been able to have as a House member. I would
begin the Senate, I think as a very atypical junior senator.
(22:03):
I would begin my effort and the Senate very well
known to the people of California and to the people
around the country, and I think I can use that
prominent position to defend our institutions. We are not out
of the woods at all, as we see with what
is likely to happen this week in New York for
a former president and lashing out against the rule of law.
(22:26):
I'm on the Judiciary Committee now, since McCarthy took me
out the Intel Committee. I told how King Jeffreys put
me where I could be useful, and he said I
want to put you in my seat as a senior
member of the Judiciary Committee. Well, Jim Jordan is now
trying to interfere with the Manhattan District Attorney's office and
the rule of law, acting again as Trump's Carol defense counsel.
I'm going to push back on that in the House.
(22:46):
I'll be even more able to push back on those
kind of assaults on the rule of law in the Senate.
But equally important, one of the things that I've been
championing for years now is the inter relationship between the
weakness the fragility of democracy and the flaws the structural
problems in our economy. The fact that the economy is
not working for millions of people, that at a time
(23:08):
of historically low unemployment, people still can't afford a place
to live, They still can barely afford to access healthcare,
many millions can't. Many others see their quality of life
to something below that of their parents. All of that
leaves people vulnerable to a demagogue who comes along and
promises that they alone can fix it. And so I've
been very focused on trying to build an economy that
(23:32):
works for everyone. This is really a central focus of
my campaign, and I think I can do that. It's
even greater effect In the Senate. I wanted to ask
you about that. Some of the big problems in California
are also problems we have in New York. Homelessness, super
expensive housing. You know, these problems, they seem almost insurmountable.
I mean, how do you even begin to start getting
(23:54):
serious of effecting them. Well, first of all, I think
we have to recognize that the fact that is not
working for millions of people is not an accident. It's
not the product as my Republican friends would like us
to believe, the product of some impersonal forces, the Adam
Smith's invisible hand. This is often the result of a
very visible hand by very powerful special interests. And to
(24:17):
give you just a couple examples, during the pandemic, when
we want to double the child tax credit, something I
fought hard to ensure, we lifted forty percent of the
kids in the country who are in poverty out of Parker.
That single step of increasing that single provision of the
tax coat had such a demonstrable impact. And that should
tell us a couple of things. That should tell us
(24:39):
that this isn't rocket science. We don't have to wait
to be inspired by some bolt from above. But it
also should tell us this is a policy decision we've made.
And when Congress allowed that child tax credit increased to
expire and millions fell back into poverty, that was also
a policy choice. And we've made scores of these choices.
(25:01):
When we treat the carried interest of hedge fund managers
as a capital gain rather than ordinary income, we're deciding
as a policy matter that we should help the most
successful do even better, and we let the child taxpread expire,
we should let those who are strugg in the most
struggle even more. And so it's not just a tax code.
Of course, there are a myriad of ways in which
(25:22):
the Congress has decided who should win and who should
lose in our economy, and the result is the economy
that's just not working for millions of people, and we
need to change that. I think there are lots of
ways we can change that. In terms of the most
graphic illustration of an economy that's not working, and that
is people living on the street. We need to better
identify what's working what's not working. People are generous and compassionate.
(25:47):
They want to help people find a place to live
and get off the street. But they also want to
make sure they're not spending taxpayer dollars on things that
don't work. And so I think one of the things
that we can do that I would certainly pushed, let's
have greater accountability over what's working and what's not invest
in the things that can cost effectively move people into housing.
(26:08):
My experience as people in comparsion if they want to help,
but they also want to know that it's being done
in a way that is cost effective. Yeah, I mean
it seems really like not an easy situation. Let's talk
for two seconds about this Trump whatever is coming down
the pike, and this will air on Wednesday. So he
may already be indicted, he may not be indicted, he
(26:29):
may never be indicted. Do you think that Mary Garland
waited too long? I do, And I've been a very
outspoken and critical of the delay at the Justice Department.
And I came out of the Justice Department. I spent
almost six years as an assistant US attorney. I have
great love and affection for the Department. But for almost
(26:49):
a year it appear the department did nothing except focus
on those who broke into the Capitol that day and
beat police officers. And that works if you're going to
roll up people who are sort of foot soldiers on
the higher ups, if it's a case involving a single
line of effort to overturn the election. But of course
there were multiple lines of effort. There was a president
(27:10):
on the phone with Georgia, with the Secretary of State
trying to grabbe at him into finding eleven thousand, seven
hundred eighty votes that don't exist that his own attorney
general told them were bs. There were efforts to put
pressure on the vice president. There was a whole fake
electro plot. Those other matters the Just Department didn't seem
to even be looking into until a year after the fact.
(27:32):
It is so unusual that a Congress, in the January
sixth Committee, which I was so proud to serve on,
should be so far ahead of the Justice Department in
an investigation. But we were, and as a result, Manhattan
appears poised to go forward with charges which, while very
serious a campaign fraud scheme is very serious, are not
(27:52):
as serious as an attack on our democracy, a violent
insurrection incited by a president who wanted to stop the
piece transfer of power. If the Justice Department had moved
with more swiftness and following the evidence where it led,
and it led to Donald Trump. The first prosecution would
be by the Justice Department, which has the resources, the wherewithal,
(28:14):
and most importantly, the jurisdiction or the most serious potential
charges against the former president. We have a situation now
where it looks like the state charges are going to
come before the DOJ charges, If the DOJ charges come
at all. There are a number of problems with that,
as you well know, including that the you know, there's
the appearance of partisanship because these are elected officials, and
(28:38):
also there is a real question over whether or not
these state charges. The thinking is that the dug would
rather go first. And having waited so long, I mean,
do you think that there's a chance here that we'll
see accountability or now? I certainly hope to pray that
we see accountability, because one thing that we have seen
time and time again with Donald Trump is and he's
(29:00):
not held accountable, it leads him to commit worse and
worse misconduct, abuse and offenses. When he wasn't held accountable
for his Russian miss conduct, he engaged in worst miss
conduct vias in the Ukraine. When he wasn't held accountable
for that, he engaged in even worse miss conduct, leading
to a violent attack on the Capitol. If we should
(29:20):
have a precedent where a corrupt former president can escape
accountability because it would be perceived as too controversial if
he were held to justice, then then either he or
someone else in the future will do even worse. I
understand the concern around New York, but at the same time,
a much bigger concern from my point of view, is
(29:43):
establishing a precedent that a president can be wallless and
there's no way to hold them account. You can't hold
them to account while they're in office. You can't hold
them to account whether or out of office. The Founders
would have never subscribed to such a dangerous idea. And
so if the Manhattan Grant Jury has probably caused to
believe Donald Trump committed a crime, and the District Attorney's
(30:05):
office believes it can prove that crime, it not only
should go forward, it really must go forward, right, no question. Now,
I have one last question for you, because we're almost
at a time, explain to us why Gavin Newsom had
said originally that he would, you know, put, there hasn't
been a black woman in the Senate since our vice president.
The Senate has been very white, add very male for
(30:28):
a long time. Explain to us why, you know, in
my head, I'm really just thinking about it in my head.
If I'm voting in this primary, explain to us why
the vote should go to you. Yeah. Well, I mean,
first of all, I think that voters are going to
consider issues of race and gender, and I think they
should think that diversity is extremely important. And I've been
(30:49):
very proud over the last six to eight years as
the national Battleground Finance Chair for the Congressional Campaign arm
to go around the country and help elect money for
campaign for stumped for an incredibly diverse set of candidates
for the House and for the Senate. I've been very
proud of the work that I've done to do that,
and so I think voters are going to consider those issues.
(31:11):
I think they'll consider my track record. I also think
they'll consider what is the leadership ability of the different candidates,
What is their ability to get things done on behalf
of the American people, What kind of skills are most
in need at a time of such fragility and our
democracy and at a time when our economy is simply
(31:31):
not working for so many people. And above all, I
think the voters have a choice to decide who they
think is the best person right now, and I'm making
the case why what I offer is the most compelling.
But I have great respect for my two colleagues are
also running, and I want to do my best to
be articulating the case for myself, not the case against anyone.
(31:55):
And I think the case for myself is really one
based on my leadership ability and the ability to get
people gettings done for the people of California, to help
attack the problem of homelessness and the unaffordability of housing,
to create safe neighborhoods for people and their families, to
support the public education, and to make sure that people
(32:18):
can access healthcare of the very kind of bread and
butter that people are looking to their elected officials to
try to address. Thank you, thank you, thank you, great
to be with you. Thanks for having me on. Congressman
Chris Delusio represents Pennsylvania's seventeenth district. Welcome too Fast Politics.
Congressman Delusio, Molly, thanks for having me talk to me
(32:41):
about how this train and derailment entered your life. Yeah.
I represent Western Pennsylvania District. One of the counties represent
is Beaver County, and my constituents, my neighbors in Beaver County,
they border Ohio, they border East Palestine. People in Darlington
Township there were within the evacuation zone. Lots of folks
(33:01):
have been upended by Norfolk Southern's derailment. People evacuate out
of their homes, a bunch of farms in that area,
small businesses nearby impacted and worried about the economic costs
for years to come. And so my team and I
immediately started working on federal resources for folks on the
(33:22):
one hand. But then the other side of this is
rail safety legislation. To make sure that these railroads can't
just dictate terms. They've got to have some safety rules
and requirements coming out of the Congress, I think to
really change what they're doing. And listening to the workers
in this industry, you've been sounding the alarm. I think
for a long time that the railroads have been squeezing
them and everybody else, putting profit way above safety. In
(33:46):
the communities I represent, who these tracks run right through
our neighborhoods, like a lot of folks in this country. Yeah,
I think this is an incredible kind of moment here
where we have seen the rail workers from long time.
I mean, if you read any of the reporting you
know to twenty eleven, twenty twelve, twenty thirteen, you know
(34:06):
they're saying, you know, they're cutting corners, they're taking safety risks.
If we're going to squarely look at how something like
this happens, I mean, I want you to talk to
us about it. Seems like you cannot trust these industries
to regulate themselves. Absolutely not. And I think the rail
industry is a good example. For years, they've been doing
(34:28):
everything they can to squeeze every penny of profit out
of their operations as they can. Precisions scheduled railroading PSR
has been a doctrine. Wall Street loves it. Right. You
lengthen the trains, you reduce the staffing, you reduce the inspections,
You do everything you can to choose profits. And the
people who pay for that are the workers and the
(34:49):
communities like the ones I represent. When these trains run
through our towns and our neighborhoods, and ultimately and eventually
and unfortunately, the rail and you have what happens at
East Palestine to my neighbors in Beaver County where there
are toxic chemicals released. So this this idea that railroads
or any other other industry, if left to their own devices,
(35:10):
will just keep us safe. It's it's crap. I don't
know where else we need to see you to know that.
If we're thinking about the lack of railroad regulation and
railroad accidents, imagine what's happening that we can't even see
in technology. Yeah, again, you listen to the workers in
this industry or others. I sat down with a union
(35:31):
carman in my district. There's a rail yard the north
from southern owners of my district that I was talking
with him about you know, what do you see on
the ground, what do you and your co workers experience?
And he told a pretty basic story to me about
how much time they have to inspect a car. Not
that long ago, it was three minutes a car. Years
before that, it was as long as something like five minutes.
They have one minute to inspect each of these cars,
(35:52):
and the reality is that's not enough time, and so
they either do a half ass job or they do
the best they can in a minute or they risk
losing their job. And again that puts workers in the
position of not being able to do their job well
enough to protect us, and it puts all of us
a risk. And it's the same thing over and over,
certainly in this industry and with this railroad. Yeah, so
I want you to explain the landscape. Is Norfolk Southern
(36:14):
kind of the train company when it comes to hazardous materials?
Are there others? What percentage of this situation did they
kind of control? I don't think it's unique to them.
And given some of the common carriage rules, you know,
the railroads have to take the materials that come to
that subject to whatever rules we've got. So it's not
(36:35):
unique to Norfolk Southern, which means this and likely will
happen in other places where it's not just that. But
they're a big player in terms of tracks and their
footprint in my neck of the woods, in my district.
I mean, they own bridges, they've got lines, they've got
a rail yard that runs through my district. So they're
they're here in western Pennsylvania. And with the consolidation in
(36:55):
this industry, which again a similar trend across a heck
of a lot of industries, fewer and fewer of the
big railroads to deal with, which means they have more
and more power over all of us, over Washington, over
their workers. Do you think that it makes sense full
make buy backs? Stock buybacks harder for companies to be
able to do, Like, it seems to me like a
(37:16):
lot of what we're seeing with these consolidations and the
you know, is there's a real incentive from these companies
to do stock buybacks and a very little downside. Yeah,
and look, this country used to treat stock buybacks as
market manipulation. Right. Norfolk Southern's a good example. You know,
in the last couple decades, you know, they've cut their
workforce around a third, and at the same time they've
(37:40):
pushed out to their shareholders buy backs and dividends forty
five percent increase with that money, right, So these companies
are investing and enriching themselves, and they're doing the expense
of paying their workers and investing in safety. That's again
not unique to this railroad. It's a problem, and it's
a problem that isn't going to be changed by changing
(38:01):
the hearts to make executives less greedy. Right, It's going
to be changed by changing the rules in the laws.
I got lesson for us, right, And that's what I
wanted to ask you, was the stock buybacks are really
a case of unregulated financial actions, right. I think so,
And I think again, we don't. We don't fix this
just by wishing it to change. We got to have
(38:22):
concrete action in the Congress, rulemaking in the administration, and
in concert with each other. Now we get to this
very exciting bipartisan rail safety bill. Tell us about it. Yeah, look,
I'm proud to be partnering up with a Republican Nick Loloda,
fellow Navy guy from New York. We're introducing the Railway
(38:43):
Safety Act. It's a House companion of the bipartisan Senate
bill that my Senators Fetterman and Casey introduced with Jade
Vance and Shared Brown. It shows there is biparts and interest,
I think, and standing up to this industry and make
it safer. There's a lot the bill does around safety requirements,
staffing levels. I mean, look, the railroads have lobbied against
(39:05):
a two person staffing requirement for these trains. It's crazy.
It also adds stiffer penalties when they break the rules.
I mean the penalties now are weak, and I think
that's an important piece of it. So it does a lot.
I think it's something we need because these types of
derailments they're going to continue. I mean, they happen in
the order of hundreds of them a year. And if
you'd all change the industry, we'd all change the rules
(39:27):
around how they operate. They are not going to do
it themselves. And so I think it's important that we're
able to do this in a buy partisan way because look,
I said, in the House Representatives, where the Republicans are
the majority, if you want to get rail safety reform,
you got to get some Republicans on board. I'm I'm
glad Nick's doing this with me. I think we can
build this out and hopefully get it done. But Republicans,
I mean, I just want to play Devil's advocate here
for a second. Republicans, especially these New York Republicans who
(39:50):
barely won and many of whom won because Democratic Party
of New York fucked up. I mean, they have every reason. Again,
we know Republicans doing again. I'm very partisan, so I
can say this hate doing any kind of governing, but
I just want to point out there's no incentive to
let these railroads get away with it. No, And look,
(40:10):
if you you know you represent an area where the
tracks come through. If this happens in your district, or
this hurts your people, you're going to feel that pressure.
And you should because one of our basic jobs here
is to make sure our government can keep people safe.
You know, the tracks in East Palestine look like a
heck of a lot like neighborhoods all over, certainly Western Pennsylvania.
In this country, they run right through people's backyards, they
(40:32):
run right through town. Yea, this will happen in other
places if we don't change this industry. It's going to happen,
and I hope not be worse than this one was.
And this was pretty bad. So I think you know
that the incentives for any member, whatever your party are.
You gotta do something here because this will continue if
we don't change this industry and make them operate more
safely and frankly, make them pay more when they screw up.
(40:54):
So I just want to I want to ask you
about how is it going over and East Palestine. Look, people,
and I should be pretty clear about my constituents are
just on the state line and Darlington Township right across
from East Palestine. So I want to speak for the
folks in Ohio, but what I hear from my constituents
people are mad at the railroad. They are nervous and
(41:17):
worried about their health, right, their air, their water, their soil.
You've got a lot of farms in that part of Pennsylvania.
Farmers are worried about crops or cattle or whatever the
case may be, and whether, if whether one there's going
to be an issue in terms of health and quality,
or even if there isn't, whether people aren't going to
want to buy their stuff because of the stigma. And
(41:37):
that's a real concern, that's a real business impact for farmers,
for small businesses all over this part of my state
and certainly in Ohio. And you know, there's not an
easy answer for how to make everyone whole. But the
part that I do not stray from is that this
railroad has to make everybody whole. And there are costs
well beyond just the obvious ones of well, we had
(41:58):
to evacuate and pay for a hotel bill. Well, you
know you're going to have if there are issues around
water testing, air testing for years to come if there
are mitigation efforts that are going to take a long time,
if you have business impacts in your farm or otherwise,
those are not short term, easy costs. And I don't
want any world where they're as a railroad like nor
Frolk Southern it gets to do this and walk away
(42:19):
and leave folks holding the bag. No way. Yeah that's right,
and it's incredible. So what's the meat of the spill. Well,
the meat of this bill is a bunch of things.
You know, we require that two persons staffing, which is
really important to know. Secretary boota judge is working at
Department Transportation. Do that through rulemaking. I want us to
codify it. You know, it gives the Secretary authority to
(42:42):
change the requirements. And what is a hazardous material like
vinyl chloride which wasn't considered EE hazard and thus not
eye hazard. Flana will train where there are stricter rules
around speed and breaking. This requires more advanced notification to
local communities and states. And you've got something hazardus coming through.
(43:02):
I mean, there are things in here to reduce the risk.
And these wheel bearing failures, which seems like was was
what caused the derailment and he's Palestine. Those detectors that
didn't do their job, and they're more. There are more
pieces of this, but the piece I want to hold
in on too. The penalties for violations go up substantially
under this legislation. You know, they were very weak in
(43:23):
some cases go up tenfold if not more, depending on
the size of the business here. So I think that
has to be part of this, and beyond just you know,
my bill, things like what the administration did where the
EPA now has this order holding Norfolk Southern account for
all the cleanup cost. That has to be part of
what we're doing, and they're going to be. There's going
to be and there is private litigation against the railroad,
(43:44):
I'm sure. So there has to be a mix of
not just a week and do in the Congress to
change the industry, but executive action and private action to
hold this railroad accountable. Yeah, and the environmental catastrophe here
seems much larger than what is being sort of cop
too right now. Well, I think that to me is
why it's so important that we are doing all of
(44:05):
the testing and things to understand the scope of the
problem and what the heck we can do to mitigate
it for my constituents and for their neighbors and East Palestine.
You know, this cannot be the railroad cleans up gets
the tracks going again and issues some you know, small
checks to people like that's not adequate, right, And you know,
you if there is contamination and if there are mitigation
(44:26):
efforts that have to happen for years to come, well,
you know that's going to affect people's property values for
a long time. It's going to affect those small businesses
and farms, and affect people's health for their lifetimes. Right.
So we can't even begin to understand how we make
folks whole until we understand exactly what the risks are
for people. And you know that was why we pushed
to have not just the EPA, but the CDC there
(44:47):
to understand if there are things we're picking up. You know,
folks have reported publicly about symptoms they felled the aftermath,
so there are you know, there are real risks here.
And you know, I don't want us to ever be
whitewashing what's happened in the cleanup, because it's it's not
over and we're in this for the long haul. Yeah.
One of the things that We had Aaron Brockvitch on
(45:08):
this podcast and she talked about animals dying. Yeah, that
even that weekend. I mean, we saw in public reporting
really quickly a lot of fish right in the waterways.
Its palastine. And you know, I've talked with farmers out
there who you know. I thought, the guy who's got cattle,
(45:29):
he seemed he seemed fine with where his animals work.
But I come back to, even if that's if there
isn't anything wrong, you still risk that someone does want
to buy your beef because coming from this area. But
I also think you risk if the beef. I mean,
we don't even know what the tail on the beef
looks like. Right, they eat the dead fish. I mean
(45:49):
they obviously don't eat the dead fish, but they drink
the water, you know, I mean, they just could go anywhere. Right.
To me, it gets back to there are a lot
of questions we still have to answer, and that requires
substantial investment for testing and resources for a long time.
And that not just that we identify this stuff. Can
we figure out how to mitigate and help people be
made whole? And those to me, are not cost the
(46:11):
public should be bearing. That's this railroad right exactly. I
mean just incredible stuff. Do you have anything else you
want to sort of talk about that's happening in your
district that is will be just super illuminating for listeners
of fast politics. I would love to And it's a
little off topic from Real Safe. It's the biggest newspaper
in my region, in my district, the Pittsburgh Post. Is
(46:33):
that the workers they have been on strike for months.
They have gone without pay raises for more than fifteen years,
there without healthcare. There's been violence where some workers on
the pick and line were sent to the hospital. It's
a brutal fight. They've been really basically standing up for
dignity on the job in a way that it's sad
they got to be out in the pick of mine
(46:54):
doing this, but here we are, and so I'm trying
to always bring attention to their struggle and make sure
folks are paying attention that this is probably happening in
a local media landscape and lots of cities and towns
around this country where you've seen big papers and big
groups buy up small outlets and gut newsrooms and gun
print operations and the rest and Phittsburgh Post Becausett's owners
have been no different there. Yeah, really important local news
(47:17):
is something very near and dear to my heart. Thank
you so much, Congressman, thank you for joining us. Yeah, Molly,
thanks for having me on. Molly Jung Fast Jesse Cannon.
Trump slawyers were deceived by him. I don't get it.
The sums out of character. ABC News had a big scoop.
(47:39):
Special Council claims Trump deliberately misled his attorneys about classified documents.
Can I just say I think that the beginning of
the problem here is you are a Trump attorney, right,
do you like getting paid? I mean you obviously don't
because you are a Trump attorney, and also you like criming.
So any way, again, this is one of these scoops
(48:02):
where it's like, obviously, we're only learning a little bit
of the story, right, because if that means that the
idea here is that Howell, who's the judge in any
sealed filing, ordered that Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's many attorneys,
should comply with a grand jury subpoena for testimony on
six separate lines of inquiry over which he had previously
(48:25):
asserted attorney client privilege. So it sounds like Jack Smith
has a number of possible veins that he could take
here against Trump again. Trump responded in a very trumpy
fashion with lots of all caps. Shame on fake news
ABC for broadcasting Capitol illegal capital leaked false allegations from
(48:50):
a never Trump now former chief judge. So we'll see
how this plays out. Not the purple walk we were
expecting on Tuesday, but certainly something makes our moment of fuckoray.
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to your the best minds
in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
(49:12):
enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.