November 21, 2025 • 15 mins
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):
The talk station. It was sick a fifty five KR
see the talk station. Brian Thomas welcoming back to the
fifty five Karensee Morning Show and appreciate his willingness to
discuss political matters that come on the program to talk
about it. Congressman David Taylor, representing the second District care
in Ohio and proudly doing so. Congressman Taylor, welcome back
(00:21):
to the morning show. It's always great having you on
the show.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Thanks Brian, thank you for having me. I'm always happy
to talk to you.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I am pleased about that. My listeners are pleased to
hear from him as well. Now I talk about start
off with the Epstein and not quite sure much time
you want to spend with it. That's fine, But finally
we move forward. Everybody says, let's get the Epstein files
out there. A weird thing happened with Donald Trump. First
he campaigns on releasing them, then he says, no, there's
nothing to see here, and then the Democrats get start
to salivate, thinking maybe there's something in there they want
(00:48):
to that he wants to keep from the American public.
I don't know, but we finally ended up to the
point where they're all going to be released subject to
DOJ redactions, which we will all anxiously await and probably
chuckle over. But I mean, I think a lot of
people seem to have lost sight of what this is
all about. I'm my understanding. For example, the discharged Physician
petition Congress from Massey wanted from some justice for these
(01:09):
women who came forward and demanded accountability by those that
molested them, molested them when they were young, before they
were adults, like age fourteen, for example. The point was
there have been no prosecutions with the exception of Epstein
and his you know, Julane Maxwell, where are all the
I mean, there are a thousand victims out there where
I know it wasn't just Epstein molesting them. There's a
(01:31):
lot of people out there that were involved and maybe
engaged in that conduct. Isn't it important for these women
to get some justice for what they went through?
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Oh? Absolutely, Brian. It's like you said, it's not just
the gravity of the crime and the huge number of victims.
That's also we don't know who the all the perpetrators were.
You know, some of the few names that have snuck
out from the British Royalty to others. Obviously, there are
people in positions of considerable influence who may still be
(02:00):
in positions of considerable influence. And the people deserve to
know that the victims deserve justice, and we deserve to
know they were governed by and I appreciate Congressman Matthew's
efforts to get these documents out. It's vitally important that
we do it. There are some concerns about, you know,
(02:21):
the sort of what's within the four corners of the
discharged petition that results in these releases. There's a security
of the victims information is a vital concern, the possible
release of the child sexual abuse materials, right, we have
to be very careful about those things. But this is
a you know, transparent first step towards holding perpetrators accountable.
(02:43):
Passed four hundred and twenty seven to one. I was
happy to vote yes on it. What's not been talked
about a lot is back on September third, we passed
a measure to release even more breadth and depth of information,
including Epstein's a state documentation where you can do some
real tracking of who he dealt with and when, and
(03:06):
that passed the House floor, but two hundred and eight
Democrats voted against that, so that leads to the question
of what their real motivations are. But I agree with
you one hundred percent, Brian, that all of this needs
to come out. And since the Republicans have been in charge,
tens of thousands of pages of documentation have been released.
(03:26):
Zero pages came out under the previous administration. So it
makes it look like political grandstanding on their part, But
it really doesn't matter because between you and me and
the people of the second District, we want to know
what happened and who did it.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Who did it, who is involved in disgusting criminal conduct,
and the whole thing that was just seen to become
more of a who's going to get more shoden Freud
out of this has become a political weapon. You have
people levying accusations against Trump based upon some random musings
in some email between some folks, and that you know,
you could take it out of context, have it in context.
(04:01):
Either way, it looks like every single document release is
going to be weaponized, or at least there's going to
be in an effort to weaponize it against other politicians,
perhaps for political motivations. None of that has anything to
do with whether these women are going to get some justice.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
No, I agree, it's you know, it's sort of been
political theater somewhat since the Democrats have decided they want
these documents released. Oh, they have victims in the who
they betrayed the last four years in the on the
House floor, and you know, play to them. And you know, honestly,
I hope when we get to the bottom of this horrible,
(04:37):
you know, child sex abuse nightmare, we see the Democrats
pursue the huge child sex slave track trafficking the perpetrated
under the previous administration. But I'm not too optimistic that
that'll happen.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Oh and following that statement, the big question is, well,
why why they seem to be like non political, no
brainer type the things Congressman I I don't understand the
division over something that doesn't even bear a political stripe.
You know, justice for these women going after child molesters
and child predators. Does that bear a political stripe?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
I don't think it shouldn't. I mean, as we've as
we've discussed, it should have been released long ago. It
should have been we should have been digging into it
right away. The way this has been handled from back
to the the the prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell themselves.
It's always been uh, there's a list of perpetrators, but
(05:38):
none of them have been in dieted. None of them
have been named publicly except your uh, a British royal
no one particularly cares about, has no influence on American politics.
But yeah, it's it's puzzling, but they managed to caush
it for the four years that Biden was in office.
(06:00):
What makes it sort of a I think they pulled
it and people went to the ste documents and they said, well,
we got to jump on something. We're on the twenty
percent side of every eighty twenty issue in the country.
We need to get on the positive side of one. Look,
I've always been on the side of full transparency business case.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So yeah, well, and then the public is demanding some
information or know how in the hell this Epstein guy,
coming from basic obscurity, could rise to a position where
he could be having one point two billion dollars in
suspicious trading transactions through JP Morgan. How is it that
he became connected with all these power bloker brokers in
these players. I mean, there's a lot of conspiracy theorist
(06:39):
listeners out there. I think there's some evil cabal of
like eight people that run and make decisions for the
entire world. That's not me. But when you see something
like this and all of these global players and multi
millionaire business people all working together and exchanging communications, it
just feeds that narrative and it causes people to what
(07:00):
is going on here?
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Well? No, absolutely, and I'm glad to see that the
JP Morgan documents are already coming out. As I said,
we've been the Oversight Committee has been pursuing this, trying
to do it in a very responsible way, protecting victims' names,
protecting the public from being exposed to the term of
art is cesan. But a child's sexual abuse materials that
(07:26):
you are maybe forced into the public domain by this
discharge petition. But hopefully uh out media outlets are responsible
when that stuff comes out. It doesn't, you know, get
to presented to the eyes of children. You know, no
one wants to see that kind of thing release. But
if that's what's necessary to get to the bottom of
(07:47):
this case, then hopefully it's done responsibly. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Well, you know part of me, you know, the the
attorney in the suspects that there has been some measure
of accountability against these people in the form of settlement
agreements that have confidentiality clauses in them. Congressman, maybe that's
why there hasn't been any prosecution, because they've all settled
out of court.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Just because you settle on a civil from a civil
liability perspective, out of court, doesn't mean the Prosecutor's office
or the US Attorney General couldn't still go after them
for blesting children.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Those settlements, I'm sure sure all include
nbas of varying strength. I'm sure they did all they
could to try to make it so that their payment
led to them that were being exposed to the light.
But there's all kinds of ways to pursue those cases,
and I'm sure the DJI will use every angle they
(08:38):
possibly can. It's been a very active dj during the
first eleven months or so of this Congress. I'm sure
they'll turn their attention to that. Well. President Trump refers
to it as a distraction. I think basically what he's
referring to is he's not involved and it's distracting from
(09:00):
his agenda. He's fully focused on trying to get his
policies across the line. I assume what he means is
they're trying to prevent him from enacting his agenda by
using something in which he is really not involved. Yeah,
more right, More and more people who are were deeply
(09:20):
involved in the case say that, you know, as soon
as he found out that Epstein was involved in this
kind of activity, he not only banned him from his resource,
but you know, reported to appropriate people that he respected.
It was going on.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Cut ties with the guy like everybody else should have
the minute they found out he was a child moll
last year. Congressman. We're going to continue with Congressman Dave Taylor. Now,
something else that should bear no political stripe should be
in the talks Station eight, nineteen fifty five KCD Talk
Station Bryan Thomas with Congressman David Taylor. Let me quote you,
(09:57):
Congressman David Taylor, along the lines of the should and
or a political stripe. Quote. It's a no brainer. If
you want to drive an eighty thousand pound vehicle on
America's roads, you should be able to read the road
signs that that's an irrefutable statement, sir. But there are
people who think that that shouldn't be a requirement. What
is the Commercial Motor Vehicle English Proficiency Act, which you
(10:19):
are a coho sponsor of, Sir, Yeah, Brian.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
It's this sort of goes hand in hand with Connor's Law,
which we talked about just briefly last time I was
with you. This covers the testing procedure. Currently, the written
part of the CDL test can be given in any language.
The driving portion of it is given in English, but
there's very little English proficiency required to pass the driving
(10:47):
part anyway. Basically, the passing the driving part is no
indication that you are proficient in English. So this will
require you to take the test in English before getting
a CDL, Whereas Connor's law covers folks already have a
CDL that are driving, they get pulled over for this,
that or the other thing, and if they're not proficient
(11:07):
in English, then they're taken out of service. It's such
a common sense law that it was the law starting
in nineteen thirty seven up until the Obama administration. They
gutted the teeth of the law. That taking you out
of service part was taken out of the law. So
if they pull you over you can't read or speak English,
(11:29):
they give you a ticket and on you go, continuing
to endanger everybody on the road. So these two things
go hand in hand, and I expect them to have
considerable bipartisan support. But with the way we've seen Democrats
absolutely go to the mastresses to protect illegals and keep
them in the United States, I don't know, but I'm
(11:52):
expecting this is a very common sense law. Is the
law for most of the last hundred years, hopefully it
can be again.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
So commercial driver's license are those the purview of the
states or is that a federal issue? Because my understanding
that the laws regarding the roads and the issuance of
licenses commercial or you know, like my own driver's license
are a state law. Is this is this through the
exercises or the use of the commerce clause, you can
reach out there and sort of even the playing field
(12:21):
in terms of what's required to get a cd L.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Yeah, the states are handing out CDL with their own
rules to a large extent. But uh, these hopefully both
of these laws will be rolled into the surface reauthorization law,
what usually called the Highway Bill. Yeah, it's here because
you you know, as an attorney. You know, there's no
(12:44):
more abused clause of the Constitution than the Commerce clause.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Oh, don't get me started, Commress from Taylor.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
But that's like we can all agree that.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
No, that's always hesitant to even bring up the topic
because I'm arguing in favor of using the commerce clause
to keep dangerous drivers off the road. And you're right,
it's the worst one ever.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Right, But I mean this is pretty clear nextus to uh,
you know, national commerce when you're hauling big rigs are
going from LA to New York, much.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
More southern, much more so than growing private wheat on
your own private property for your own private consumption, which
is the genesis of how we went off the rails
here in the United States from the Wicked versus Philburn case.
Sorry to subject around you. All right, So, so is
this teed up? Is it ready to go? Is it
ill still in committee? Are we going to see a
(13:37):
vote on this one?
Speaker 2 (13:40):
We're hoping that it'll be out of committee soon. The
Connors Law we've we sponsored quite a while ago, and
I think it's it's it should be close, honest. We're
hoping the reauthorization we'll come through t and I and
we're hoping both of these bills are are added to that.
That's the highway build I'm talking about, and that sort
(14:01):
of slated for spring for a final passage, So hopefully
we'll get marked up maybe before the end of the year,
if not early part of twenty six, and I have
that passed in the spring and be off and running
all right.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Other than the fact that a lot of Republicans sponsored this,
have you heard an argument articulating against this and saying
why this is not a good idea? That's kind of
the where I'm where I'm especially my curiosity, why isn't
this a good idea?
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I'd love to hear it bright. I know no one.
No one has come to me and said that's dumb.
So that gives me hope that then we'll get some
bipartisan support for it. And I really do think we will.
The trucking groups or the lobbying groups or advocacy groups,
whatever you want to call them, are all in favor
(14:51):
of it. It will be The flip side of the
coin is that it'll be good for American workers. You know,
since COVID the long haul truckers are trucking in general,
they're very lucrative careers, and I think that's part of
why some of these companies are in these CDL mills,
(15:11):
are putting illegals and trucks and paying them less than
what they have to pay an American work driver. So
that's guide of the coin too.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
No question about it. Well, we'll keep our fingers crossed
on that. Congres and David Taylor, thank you so much
for spending time with my listeners with me today, and
I want to wish you on behalf of my family
and my listening audience, that you and your family have
a truly wonderful and joyous Thanksgiving holiday, and I'll look
forward to having you back on the program real soon.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Sir, Same to you and yours, Brian, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Thanks my friend. I'll try to do that. It's Friday,
probably will We're going to help some folks out
The talk station. It was sick a fifty five KR
see the talk station. Brian Thomas welcoming back to the
fifty five Karensee Morning Show and appreciate his willingness to
discuss political matters that come on the program to talk
about it. Congressman David Taylor, representing the second District care
in Ohio and proudly doing so. Congressman Taylor, welcome back
(00:21):
to the morning show. It's always great having you on
the show.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Thanks Brian, thank you for having me. I'm always happy
to talk to you.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I am pleased about that. My listeners are pleased to
hear from him as well. Now I talk about start
off with the Epstein and not quite sure much time
you want to spend with it. That's fine, But finally
we move forward. Everybody says, let's get the Epstein files
out there. A weird thing happened with Donald Trump. First
he campaigns on releasing them, then he says, no, there's
nothing to see here, and then the Democrats get start
to salivate, thinking maybe there's something in there they want
(00:48):
to that he wants to keep from the American public.
I don't know, but we finally ended up to the
point where they're all going to be released subject to
DOJ redactions, which we will all anxiously await and probably
chuckle over. But I mean, I think a lot of
people seem to have lost sight of what this is
all about. I'm my understanding. For example, the discharged Physician
petition Congress from Massey wanted from some justice for these
(01:09):
women who came forward and demanded accountability by those that
molested them, molested them when they were young, before they
were adults, like age fourteen, for example. The point was
there have been no prosecutions with the exception of Epstein
and his you know, Julane Maxwell, where are all the
I mean, there are a thousand victims out there where
I know it wasn't just Epstein molesting them. There's a
(01:31):
lot of people out there that were involved and maybe
engaged in that conduct. Isn't it important for these women
to get some justice for what they went through?
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Oh? Absolutely, Brian. It's like you said, it's not just
the gravity of the crime and the huge number of victims.
That's also we don't know who the all the perpetrators were.
You know, some of the few names that have snuck
out from the British Royalty to others. Obviously, there are
people in positions of considerable influence who may still be
(02:00):
in positions of considerable influence. And the people deserve to
know that the victims deserve justice, and we deserve to
know they were governed by and I appreciate Congressman Matthew's
efforts to get these documents out. It's vitally important that
we do it. There are some concerns about, you know,
(02:21):
the sort of what's within the four corners of the
discharged petition that results in these releases. There's a security
of the victims information is a vital concern, the possible
release of the child sexual abuse materials, right, we have
to be very careful about those things. But this is
a you know, transparent first step towards holding perpetrators accountable.
(02:43):
Passed four hundred and twenty seven to one. I was
happy to vote yes on it. What's not been talked
about a lot is back on September third, we passed
a measure to release even more breadth and depth of information,
including Epstein's a state documentation where you can do some
real tracking of who he dealt with and when, and
(03:06):
that passed the House floor, but two hundred and eight
Democrats voted against that, so that leads to the question
of what their real motivations are. But I agree with
you one hundred percent, Brian, that all of this needs
to come out. And since the Republicans have been in charge,
tens of thousands of pages of documentation have been released.
(03:26):
Zero pages came out under the previous administration. So it
makes it look like political grandstanding on their part, But
it really doesn't matter because between you and me and
the people of the second District, we want to know
what happened and who did it.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Who did it, who is involved in disgusting criminal conduct,
and the whole thing that was just seen to become
more of a who's going to get more shoden Freud
out of this has become a political weapon. You have
people levying accusations against Trump based upon some random musings
in some email between some folks, and that you know,
you could take it out of context, have it in context.
(04:01):
Either way, it looks like every single document release is
going to be weaponized, or at least there's going to
be in an effort to weaponize it against other politicians,
perhaps for political motivations. None of that has anything to
do with whether these women are going to get some justice.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
No, I agree, it's you know, it's sort of been
political theater somewhat since the Democrats have decided they want
these documents released. Oh, they have victims in the who
they betrayed the last four years in the on the
House floor, and you know, play to them. And you know, honestly,
I hope when we get to the bottom of this horrible,
(04:37):
you know, child sex abuse nightmare, we see the Democrats
pursue the huge child sex slave track trafficking the perpetrated
under the previous administration. But I'm not too optimistic that
that'll happen.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Oh and following that statement, the big question is, well,
why why they seem to be like non political, no
brainer type the things Congressman I I don't understand the
division over something that doesn't even bear a political stripe.
You know, justice for these women going after child molesters
and child predators. Does that bear a political stripe?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
I don't think it shouldn't. I mean, as we've as
we've discussed, it should have been released long ago. It
should have been we should have been digging into it
right away. The way this has been handled from back
to the the the prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell themselves.
It's always been uh, there's a list of perpetrators, but
(05:38):
none of them have been in dieted. None of them
have been named publicly except your uh, a British royal
no one particularly cares about, has no influence on American politics.
But yeah, it's it's puzzling, but they managed to caush
it for the four years that Biden was in office.
(06:00):
What makes it sort of a I think they pulled
it and people went to the ste documents and they said, well,
we got to jump on something. We're on the twenty
percent side of every eighty twenty issue in the country.
We need to get on the positive side of one. Look,
I've always been on the side of full transparency business case.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So yeah, well, and then the public is demanding some
information or know how in the hell this Epstein guy,
coming from basic obscurity, could rise to a position where
he could be having one point two billion dollars in
suspicious trading transactions through JP Morgan. How is it that
he became connected with all these power bloker brokers in
these players. I mean, there's a lot of conspiracy theorist
(06:39):
listeners out there. I think there's some evil cabal of
like eight people that run and make decisions for the
entire world. That's not me. But when you see something
like this and all of these global players and multi
millionaire business people all working together and exchanging communications, it
just feeds that narrative and it causes people to what
(07:00):
is going on here?
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Well? No, absolutely, and I'm glad to see that the
JP Morgan documents are already coming out. As I said,
we've been the Oversight Committee has been pursuing this, trying
to do it in a very responsible way, protecting victims' names,
protecting the public from being exposed to the term of
art is cesan. But a child's sexual abuse materials that
(07:26):
you are maybe forced into the public domain by this
discharge petition. But hopefully uh out media outlets are responsible
when that stuff comes out. It doesn't, you know, get
to presented to the eyes of children. You know, no
one wants to see that kind of thing release. But
if that's what's necessary to get to the bottom of
(07:47):
this case, then hopefully it's done responsibly. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Well, you know part of me, you know, the the
attorney in the suspects that there has been some measure
of accountability against these people in the form of settlement
agreements that have confidentiality clauses in them. Congressman, maybe that's
why there hasn't been any prosecution, because they've all settled
out of court.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Just because you settle on a civil from a civil
liability perspective, out of court, doesn't mean the Prosecutor's office
or the US Attorney General couldn't still go after them
for blesting children.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Those settlements, I'm sure sure all include
nbas of varying strength. I'm sure they did all they
could to try to make it so that their payment
led to them that were being exposed to the light.
But there's all kinds of ways to pursue those cases,
and I'm sure the DJI will use every angle they
(08:38):
possibly can. It's been a very active dj during the
first eleven months or so of this Congress. I'm sure
they'll turn their attention to that. Well. President Trump refers
to it as a distraction. I think basically what he's
referring to is he's not involved and it's distracting from
(09:00):
his agenda. He's fully focused on trying to get his
policies across the line. I assume what he means is
they're trying to prevent him from enacting his agenda by
using something in which he is really not involved. Yeah,
more right, More and more people who are were deeply
(09:20):
involved in the case say that, you know, as soon
as he found out that Epstein was involved in this
kind of activity, he not only banned him from his resource,
but you know, reported to appropriate people that he respected.
It was going on.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Cut ties with the guy like everybody else should have
the minute they found out he was a child moll
last year. Congressman. We're going to continue with Congressman Dave Taylor. Now,
something else that should bear no political stripe should be
in the talks Station eight, nineteen fifty five KCD Talk
Station Bryan Thomas with Congressman David Taylor. Let me quote you,
(09:57):
Congressman David Taylor, along the lines of the should and
or a political stripe. Quote. It's a no brainer. If
you want to drive an eighty thousand pound vehicle on
America's roads, you should be able to read the road
signs that that's an irrefutable statement, sir. But there are
people who think that that shouldn't be a requirement. What
is the Commercial Motor Vehicle English Proficiency Act, which you
(10:19):
are a coho sponsor of, Sir, Yeah, Brian.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
It's this sort of goes hand in hand with Connor's Law,
which we talked about just briefly last time I was
with you. This covers the testing procedure. Currently, the written
part of the CDL test can be given in any language.
The driving portion of it is given in English, but
there's very little English proficiency required to pass the driving
(10:47):
part anyway. Basically, the passing the driving part is no
indication that you are proficient in English. So this will
require you to take the test in English before getting
a CDL, Whereas Connor's law covers folks already have a
CDL that are driving, they get pulled over for this,
that or the other thing, and if they're not proficient
(11:07):
in English, then they're taken out of service. It's such
a common sense law that it was the law starting
in nineteen thirty seven up until the Obama administration. They
gutted the teeth of the law. That taking you out
of service part was taken out of the law. So
if they pull you over you can't read or speak English,
(11:29):
they give you a ticket and on you go, continuing
to endanger everybody on the road. So these two things
go hand in hand, and I expect them to have
considerable bipartisan support. But with the way we've seen Democrats
absolutely go to the mastresses to protect illegals and keep
them in the United States, I don't know, but I'm
(11:52):
expecting this is a very common sense law. Is the
law for most of the last hundred years, hopefully it
can be again.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
So commercial driver's license are those the purview of the
states or is that a federal issue? Because my understanding
that the laws regarding the roads and the issuance of
licenses commercial or you know, like my own driver's license
are a state law. Is this is this through the
exercises or the use of the commerce clause, you can
reach out there and sort of even the playing field
(12:21):
in terms of what's required to get a cd L.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Yeah, the states are handing out CDL with their own
rules to a large extent. But uh, these hopefully both
of these laws will be rolled into the surface reauthorization law,
what usually called the Highway Bill. Yeah, it's here because
you you know, as an attorney. You know, there's no
(12:44):
more abused clause of the Constitution than the Commerce clause.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Oh, don't get me started, Commress from Taylor.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
But that's like we can all agree that.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
No, that's always hesitant to even bring up the topic
because I'm arguing in favor of using the commerce clause
to keep dangerous drivers off the road. And you're right,
it's the worst one ever.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Right, But I mean this is pretty clear nextus to uh,
you know, national commerce when you're hauling big rigs are
going from LA to New York, much.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
More southern, much more so than growing private wheat on
your own private property for your own private consumption, which
is the genesis of how we went off the rails
here in the United States from the Wicked versus Philburn case.
Sorry to subject around you. All right, So, so is
this teed up? Is it ready to go? Is it
ill still in committee? Are we going to see a
(13:37):
vote on this one?
Speaker 2 (13:40):
We're hoping that it'll be out of committee soon. The
Connors Law we've we sponsored quite a while ago, and
I think it's it's it should be close, honest. We're
hoping the reauthorization we'll come through t and I and
we're hoping both of these bills are are added to that.
That's the highway build I'm talking about, and that sort
(14:01):
of slated for spring for a final passage, So hopefully
we'll get marked up maybe before the end of the year,
if not early part of twenty six, and I have
that passed in the spring and be off and running
all right.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Other than the fact that a lot of Republicans sponsored this,
have you heard an argument articulating against this and saying
why this is not a good idea? That's kind of
the where I'm where I'm especially my curiosity, why isn't
this a good idea?
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I'd love to hear it bright. I know no one.
No one has come to me and said that's dumb.
So that gives me hope that then we'll get some
bipartisan support for it. And I really do think we will.
The trucking groups or the lobbying groups or advocacy groups,
whatever you want to call them, are all in favor
(14:51):
of it. It will be The flip side of the
coin is that it'll be good for American workers. You know,
since COVID the long haul truckers are trucking in general,
they're very lucrative careers, and I think that's part of
why some of these companies are in these CDL mills,
(15:11):
are putting illegals and trucks and paying them less than
what they have to pay an American work driver. So
that's guide of the coin too.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
No question about it. Well, we'll keep our fingers crossed
on that. Congres and David Taylor, thank you so much
for spending time with my listeners with me today, and
I want to wish you on behalf of my family
and my listening audience, that you and your family have
a truly wonderful and joyous Thanksgiving holiday, and I'll look
forward to having you back on the program real soon.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Sir, Same to you and yours, Brian, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Thanks my friend. I'll try to do that. It's Friday,
probably will We're going to help some folks out
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.