The Ed Show for Friday, February 7th, 2014
Read the transcript to the Friday show
THE ED SHOW
February 7, 2014
Guests: Zerlina Maxwell, Terry O`Neill, David Cay Johnston, Brian
Schweitzer, James P. Hoffa
ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota.
Let`s get to work.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, 44TH AND CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Women
deserve equal pay for equal work.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: American women a raise so they can raise their
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eliminating the gap between what men and women earn.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Destination cannot afford to continue treating women
OBAMA: But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. And in
2014 it`s an embarrassment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rosie the Riveter is not done yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are many things that this Congress can to do
insure that women succeed.
OBAMA: It`s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Make sure that women have equal pay.
OBAMA: When women succeed, America succeeds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching.
All right, the first 20 seconds of this broadcast, it`s for the men.
Fellas, how would you like to walk into the workplace knowing that every
woman in the workplace makes more than you? In fact, you only make 77
cents on a dollar compared to the women in the workplace. Fair enough?
You know, the fight for equality for women in this country, it is far from
over and it is very political.
Democrats have been fighting for years to make equal pay for women a
reality in the workplace. But of course, Republicans have done everything
in their power to stop this from happening. Just look at the record.
The first legislation President Obama signed into law was the Lily
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act back in 2009. This law, great first step, no
question, it`s the right direction to go. It provides women with a longer
window of opportunity to sue employers over discrimination. The law
doesn`t go far enough as I see it. It doesn`t address the gender pay gap.
Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns in our society. In 2010,
median income for women was just $37,000. Men? Well, sitting at $47,000.
Now, this is a real issue that Americans want addressed. President Obama
made a heated case in this year`s State of the Union to Congress to send
him a Fair Pay Act.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77
cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong. And in 2014, it`s an
embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.
It is time to do a way with workplace policies that belong in a Mad Men
episode. This year, let`s all come together, Congress, the White House,
businesses from Wall Street to Main Street to give every woman the
opportunity she deserves because I believe when women succeed, America
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: And the Republican men, they just sit there and smile.
President Obama is exactly right. In 2014, it`s an embarrassment. Women
are still discriminated against to the workplace and it is discrimination.
There is a bill out there that can fix all of this.
Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski has introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act.
This bill would prohibit employers from retaliating against workers for
questions about salary. So if women were to go to management and bring
this issue up, they wouldn`t be discriminated against or retaliated
against. It also requires employers to prove pay disparities are based on
skill rather than gender.
It is completely reasonable, it`s common sense, it`s a bill that
Republicans have blocked all along, it`s just one of the many great bills
that the Republican House has killed time and time again. This is why
Democrats, this issue right here alone, this is why Democrats need to fight
harder than ever coming up in the midterms. Women`s issues are going to be
huge in 2014, in the midterms, with the attacks on women`s rights that we
have seen on the state level all across this country.
Now, republic control of the House has kept the Paycheck Fairness Act in
the corner, in the stands, nowhere to be heard, it`s not going anywhere,
that`s the way it`s going to be unless the Democrats get the House. This
is why Democrats should, I think, be absolutely outraged that Priorities
USA Action, super PAC, the largest, not the smallest, the largest
Democratic super PAC in the country has decided that, well, they`re going
to sit out the midterms, they`re going to be a spectator, they`re just
going to give up on the House and focus on Hillary Clinton`s 2016
OK. Former Secretary Hillary Clinton, here`s Big Eddy`s first piece of
advice, you go to reverse this. Mrs. Clinton, you need to tell the super
PAC, "No. Let`s hold off on that. I really appreciate the support but we
do need the House."
This is a bad move. This is a dangerous and selfish move by Priorities
USA. I can`t believe that every Democrat is not outraged that there is an
organization that has raised a boatload of money to get President Obama
into the White House and they have decided, "No. I think we`ll sit out the
If Democrats don`t retain control of the House, where are we headed for?
We`re heading for another couple of years of blatant Republican
obstruction. That`s fun.
I also think it`s really a little bit too early to start talking about who
we`re backing and picking sides, and picking candidates. I mean I think
Hillary Clinton is fantastic but, you know, anything is possible and I
think it`s also pretty important to point out that Vice President Joe Biden
said today that he hasn`t ruled out a presidential run.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Give me another good reason while you shouldn`t run?
JOE BIDEN, 47TH AND CURRENT VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can`t.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah?
BIDEN: There maybe reason I don`t run but there`s no obvious reason for me
why I think I should not run.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: You know, we need to forget about 2016 for a little while. Can
we get to midterms?
Here`s the thing, if the Democrats were to get the House in 2016 or 2014,
it will put anybody on the Democratic ticket who is running for the White
House in a much better position.
Now, Priorities USA needs to step up. Do the right thing and help
Democrats win the House, reverse this position. And if Democrats don`t win
the House, bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act will never become law. It
is the ironed fist of the Republicans that have obstructed the way this
country is supposed to run. It is not a democracy. We have stalled right
now. Corporate money is controlling everything. The people`s voices have
been put to the sideline because an ideologue is running the House and the
only thing that`s going to remove that is the vote.
If for one of the largest super PAC to come out and make an announcement, I
have to ask, whose side are you on?
Get your cellphones out I want to know what you think tonight`s question.
"Will Republicans ever vote to advance women`s rights?" Text A for Yes,
text B for No to 67622, you can always go to our blog @ed.msnbc.com. We`ll
bring you the results later on in the show.
I`d like someone in the next interview with President Obama to ask the
president of the United States, "You know, this super PAC outfit really did
a lot for you to get in the White House. You think it`s a right thing for
them to sit out in the midterms?" There`s no waffling on that Mr.
President. You need to redirect that super PAC, your friends over there,
and tell them they need to get involved. Haven`t you been obstructed
For more on this, let me bring in Terry O`Neill President of the National
Organization for Women and Zerlina Maxwell of theGrio.com with us tonight.
Great to you have both of you with us.
I don`t want to be negative, OK? But why do I have this feeling that
women`s rights in this country completely stuck in the mud right now,
Terry, unless the House is turned over. Your thoughts.
TERRY O`NEILL, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: Ed, I think you`re
absolutely right. Anyone who supports equality for women needs to be
highly engaged in the 2014 midterm elections.
We thought the last midterm elections were the disastrous 2010 midterm
elections. We saw Tea Party extremist flooding into state legislatures and
into the United States House of Representatives and a lot of that was
because our folks didn`t vote. Unmarried woman alone, their voter turn out
rate in 2010 was only 38 percent.
So we need to have a real focus on these midterm elections because the last
midterm elections were disastrous for women. We can`t let that happen
SCHULTZ: Well, Terry, I want to ask you, the onslaught of legislation that
came against the women here in recent years, was that anticipated or was
that just, you know, it just came at such a rapid and torrid pace, it was
hard to maneuver against it. What about that?
O`NEILL: It was a -- I think it was unanticipated and it was -- I think
what was really unanticipated was the shocking amount of funding that came
not -- remember the 2010 elections happen right after the Supreme Court
opens the floodgates to corporate meddling in political elections.
And then we have all of this corporate money flooding into not just the
elections but then afterward fighting for the kinds of legislative policies
that hurt women, not only going after our .
O`NEILL: . reproductive rights but also our economic justice rights.
SCHULTZ: Zerlina, you know, we talk a lot about minimum wage, OK? And we
think that this obviously is going to appeal to wage earners across
America, it might get them to be motivated to get involved with the
process. How can this issue not motivate every woman in America to engage
in the midterms when it`s 77 cents on a dollar? Why hasn`t there -- why is
there been so little progress on women`s rights with this dynamic being
ZERLINA MAXWELL, THEGRIO.COM : Well, I think, you know, we touched on that
before. Really, it`s about the House blocking everything.
So for example, Cathy McMorris Rodgers who gave the State of the Union
response for the Republican Party and it was supposed to be a moment where,
"Look, the GOP put a woman on the screen" and they were really caring about
women`s rights, but she voted against Paycheck Fairness. And so, you know
MAXWELL: . putting a woman`s face on bad policy is not the way to actually
make women`s lives better. And the minimum wage is the biggest issue, I
think, and needs to be framed in under the umbrella of the war on women.
The war on women is not just about reproductive justice. The war on women
is about the minimum wage. The war on women is about equal pay. The war
on women is about paid sick leave, paid maternity leave. All of these
things are about economic justice for women and families.
SCHULTZ: And all of those things you just mentioned, Zerlina, we haven`t
moved on because of .
SCHULTZ: . Republicans.
SCHULTZ: And if that doesn`t motivate women to engage, I don`t know what
Zerlina, is it too early to talk about candidates or should we wait until
after the midterm? I mean, and your response to this super PACs saying
they`re going to sit on the sideline in the midterms.
MAXWELL: I think that`s a huge mistake. And I think that, you know,
Hillary -- I`m looking to Hillary Clinton to be someone on the stump in
2014, on the stump talking about minimum wage and how the largest portion
of minimum wage workers in this country are black and Latina women.
So when we talk about the gender gap, I think it`s very, very important
that we note that gender gap is women of color. Single women and women of
color it is not unmarried women or, excuse me, it`s not married women and
it`s not white women.
And so I think that if we get Hillary Clinton on the stump in 2014 talking
about the minimum wage, talking about equal pay, talking about reproductive
justice for low income women, I think that she would have a great impact on
get -- motivating young women to vote in the midterm elections because it
really is life or death for many of these women.
SCHULTZ: Terry, who could you point to on the Republican side that you
would call an ally when it comes to passive common sense legislation like
the Paycheck Fairness Act? What are some of the arguments you hear against
it? Who are your allies, if any, over there?
O`NEILL: You know, Ed, the Republican leadership and the House of
Representatives and the United States Senate have so squashed the ability
of any Republican in the rank and file to support women`s economic justice
measures like what Zerlina was talking about. Paid sick days, paid family
leave, extended leave, affordable high quality child care so that working
moms can feel safe leaving their kids. You know, we don`t have Republican
champions. What the Republicans are saying is, "Oh, women make these
choices and it`s because of choices that women make that they`re not --
that they don`t have equal pay.
Two-thirds of minimum wage workers in this country are women.
O`NEILL: Women do not choose to be crowded off into the lowest paying jobs
in the economy and yet that is what is happening to women. Zerlina is
absolutely right. It`s about younger women. It`s about women of color.
It`s about immigrant women. Women in immigrant communities who are very
subject to .
O`NEILL: . exploitation in the workplace. Those things you .
SCHULTZ: I want to ask both of you.
SCHULTZ: Yeah. I want to ask both of you. Is it too early to back
Hillary Clinton? Zerlina?
SCHULTZ: I don`t think it`s too early to say, you know. I would support
Hillary Clinton if she were to run in 2016 but I do think it`s too early to
coronate her with the nomination when we haven`t even gotten passed the
fact that, you know, winning -- making sure that we keep the House and then
going forward to win -- just keep the Senate and going forward to win the
House, you know, that needs to be a priority. And talking about Hillary
Clinton in 2016 does nothing to forward the purpose.
MAXWELL: . of making sure that Democrats win back the House of
Representatives. And make sure that things can get passed .
SCHULTZ: You know.
MAXWELL: . because nothing can get done if we can`t have legislation.
SCHULTZ: And what do you think Terry?
O`NEILL: I couldn`t agree more. It is going to be an uphill battle as it
is for women`s rights supporters to retain control of the Senate, let
alone, take the House.
O`NEILL: And I love the idea of Hillary being out there stumping for
women`s right supporters. I think its way too early for us to be talking
about 2016. Midterm elections are notorious for our voters to sit home.
We`ve got to light a fire under our own base and make sure that.
O`NEILL: . all of our people get out and vote.
SCHULTZ: Well, Terry, what do you think of this Priorities USA sitting out
the midterms -- announced sitting out the midterms. What`s your response
O`NEILL: I think it`s a huge mistake. I don`t understand why they would
do that. I think that they absolutely need to be engaged. If you care
about these policies, then you`ve got to get engaged in these elections.
You`ve got to get voters mobilize to care about these policies and these
O`NEILL: That`s what`s going to help in 2016.
SCHULTZ: No doubt. Terry O`Neil, Zerlina Maxwell great to have you on the
Ed Show on this Friday. I appreciate your time so much. Thank you.
Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter and on Facebook. The Twitter is @Ed
Show and of course wegoted. We always want to know what you think.
Coming up, America wants a minimum wage increase and the fight is starting
to heat up.
Economist David Cay Johnston is here to debunk Republican lies on raising
the minimum wage and the impact that would have in the economy.
Plus, I`m going to continue our discussion on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is here with some facts. He`s
going to break some news here on the Ed Show tonight about this pipeline
and how it could be build without the president`s approval.
SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders, social media action is out there.
Check us out on Twitter @Ed Show and you can grab my radio show on Sirius
XM Channel 127, Monday through Friday, noon to 3 PM and get my podcast at
The Ed Show social media nation has decided, lots going on out there today.
We`re reporting and here are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Royale with Cheese.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Royale with Cheese?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s right.
SCHULTZ: The number three Trender, battle royale.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was a time for a plus size princess.
SCHULTZ: A petition calls for Disney Princess diversity.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Something out there for young girls to look at and
relate to. Is that such a bad thing?
EMME, MODEL: She`s really hitting home that it`s important to have more
diverse representations of beauty for kids
MEME ROTH, FOUNDER, NATIONAL ACTION AGAINST OBESITY: If you`re going to do
a story line with obesity then you`re going to need to do a princess
diabetes, princess cancer.
KAREN HEPP, GOOD DAY PHILADELPHIA ANCHOR: This is not the end of the
storm. This is the beginning of our problems.
SCHULTZ: The number two Trender, winner meltdown.
HEPP: We will have many, many fires.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the end, friend.
SCHULTZ: A local reporter predicts more than the weather.
HEPP: We`re going to have people that are going to be dying over the next
couple of days.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible) come out.
HEPP: This the time to looking around and say, "What am I going to do to
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just burn whatever you can to stay warm and try to wait
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Winter is coming.
HEPP: I just fear so much over the next coming days.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Thank you for that.
SCHULTZ: And today`s top Trender, wage rage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Having a moral issue and an economic issue here.
SCHULTZ: The minimum wage fight takes center stage.
Class warfare is keeping minimum wage low, depressing the wages as best we
BERNIE SANDERS, (D) VERMONT: Most Republicans and Ms. Bachmann to tell us
her view believe in abolishing the concept of the minimum wage,
SCHULTZ: They can`t live high on the hog and expect America to follow one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize Winner, journalist joins us
tonight here on the Ed Show. David Cay, good to have you with us, as
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, TAX SPECIALIST AND COLUMNIST: Glad to be here.
SCHULTZ: You know, you spilled it out, I mean, in detail in your most
Tell us, what giving low wage worker an income boost? How is that going to
help this economy? I mean, it seems like the Republicans are in denial of
the most basic facts that are out there about what kind of impact this
would have on the economy.
JOHNSTON: Well, the very simplistic idea if you raise these wages,
there`ll be fewer jobs is appealing but it`s not supported by the elements.
There`s been exhaustive research into this using payroll records and tax
And, in fact, what happens is when you raise these wages, people have more
money to spend, they end up -- the employers get to pick better workers,
they have fewer demands for public services.
I mean, let`s remember that millions of -- billions of dollars are being
spent for welfare to help workers at McDonald`s and other fast food
restaurants, they were even teaching people how to apply for food stamps.
So that`s a hidden cost.
So you have to think of this in the broad fashion. And it also makes
businesses more efficient. You have less turn over if you pay a better
wage. People work in teams. It takes time to develop a team.
SCHULTZ: I mean, Republicans say that this is going to hurt small
business, that this is going to have unemployment go up. What better time
-- we have employment now, according to the labor department today, at 6.6
percent. It`s down a percentage and a half over the last year. That`s how
it`s come down. We`ve had 47 months of private sector job growth.
We`ve added over 8 million jobs. There`s no better time. When is the
right time for a minimum wage increase? Is there economically a pattern
that can be followed about when the best time to do this?
JOHNSTON: Well, first of all, I wouldn`t call it an increase. We`re
talking about restoring the minimum wage to where it was almost a half
century ago, when I was a minimum wage worker.
JOHNSTON: That`s what we`re talking about here. But if you follow the
logic of holding down the minimum wage, I`m sorry, then why don`t we cut
it. That way, the bosses would make more money and concentrate more wealth
in a few hands. And, of course, my piece on News Week this week is about
how the founding fathers were very concerned about this very thing. They
believe and their writing show clearly that they believe that extreme
inequality, exactly what we have today, would doom our democracy.
SCHULTZ: What would $10.10 an hour do for workers across America?
JOHNSTON: Well, it would mean that for many of them, they no longer have
to work two jobs or as many hours. Many of the workers at minimum wage are
working two or three jobs. That`s one. It would give them more time if
they have children to be with them. If there are students, it would mean
more time to study because they could work fewer hours. It would mean less
pressure to move out of neighborhoods. And we`re seeing this in Washington
DC where the poor have been pushed out into the suburbs and but for a
transit system, it`s mostly designed for office workers, but a transit
JOHNSTON: . many of them wouldn`t be able to do that.
SCHULTZ: But this is a key point because the Republicans and the antis
keep coming back at this. Is there or has there been any extensive
research showing that small business in America suffers when there is a
minimum wage increase?
JOHNSTON: The only research that you`ll find supporting that is by a fake
organization that is an arm of a public relations firm whose biggest client
is the restaurant industry. If all the other research, including a very
well done study that over a period of about 16 years, look at counties in
two states where one had a higher minimum wage than the other and the
counties touched each other and there are hundreds of those counties in
America. And the research showed there wasn`t any loss of jobs in the
higher place areas and people would better off as a result to this.
So there`s lots of empirical studies out there about this and none of them
support what on the surface, Ed, seems reasonable. I mean you would think
if you don`t think any deeper that higher wages would mean fewer workers
but that`s if you think they`re only two issues involve here. And you
don`t think about all the broad factors in economics. No one you hear
economists say, "All else being equal." That`s what the Republicans are
JOHNSTON: All else being equal and all else is not equal.
SCHULTZ: Yeah, that`s exactly right. David Cay Johnston great to have you
on the Ed Show. I appreciate your time so much. Thank you, sir.
Coming up, the Keystone XL conversation continues here on the Ed Show.
We`re going to break some news tonight. Brian Schweitzer and James Hopper,
the teamsters will be joining me live tonight.
Plus, one of President Obama`s loudest critics lands in tonight`s
Pretenders. But next, I`m taking your questions on Ask Ed Live here on the
Ed Show at MSNBC. We`ll be right back.
SCHULTZ: All right. Let`s get after it. Welcome back to the Ed Show.
Love hearing from our viewers, love questions tonight in our Ask Ed Live
First question comes from Cletis he says, "Is it a good idea for the
president to sign the farm bill?"
You know, I`ve got mix emotions about the farm bill. Yeah, there`s some
good stuff in it. Just because it`s bipartisan doesn`t make it a good
bill, OK? And I know that a lot of Democrats are running around saying,
"Hey, this is bipartisan."
Bottom line is these food stamp cuts were rude, crude and unnecessary. In
fact I think you could make a case that the food stamp program should have
been increased because we`ve a got lot of people hurting this country with
long-term unemployment. But what did we do? We signed the farm bill that
picks on the poor. I don`t think it was good.
Our next question is from Eugene "What is your favorite winter Olympics
sport to watch?"
I don`t know. It`s kind of tough to me the bobsledding, you know. I`m
always kind of like watching that. Plus, they don`t use any fuel.
Stick around. The Rapid Response Panel is next. We`re coming right back.
SUE HERERA, CNBC HOST: I`m Sue Herera with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks
end higher despite weaker (ph) than expected jobs data. The DOW gained a
165 points, the S and P at a 23, and the NASDAQ up 68.
Today`s big story, the employment report. It showed 113,000 jobs were
created last month, far fewer than expected. The unemployment rates 6
lower to 6.6 percent.
And Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is urging Congress to raise the debt
ceiling. He says extraordinary measures are being implemented so the
government can pay its bills.
And that`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Energy independence and security is a big deal. News flash.
We`re not getting out of the oil business in America. It runs our economy.
I think it really is a disservice in the conversation and a debate to take
it all or nothing approach to this. We`re not really confronting reality
here. It`s about safety. And it`s about energy independence.
Obviously, the best solution is, it will never come out of the ground. But
that`s not reality. If this is built, it doesn`t mean that you and I are
going to be consuming more. We, the consumers, have to do something here.
Here, we can do something about safety with the pipeline and I think the
president should give this project the stamp of approval.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Welcome to the Ed Show. Been quite a week on this program
talking about the XL Keystone Pipeline when the decision that`s going to be
made by the president coming up.
Bottom line here, in all of these folks, is that we`re in the time to
discuss this until March 7th.
This week we`ve opened the floor for discussion on the proposed Keystone
Pipeline. You probably know where I stand on all of these. I know my
position is a very popular with a lot of liberals across this country.
I`ve heard you loud and clear. So with the interest of fairness and
promoting an open dialogue, I`ve invited opponents of the pipeline all week
long, every single night to give their take and that`s going to continue on
this program. I appreciate the conversations, but I am where I am on this.
And I think it`s a very realistic position. I think it`s well grounded.
And there`s a new development tonight. The trade agreement NAFTA may have
opened the door for this pipeline to go through without President Obama`s
approval. For more on this, let me bring in Former Montana Governor Brian
Schweitzer who is in favor of the pipeline. Governor, good to have you
with us tonight. I appreciate your time and the conversation. We know
you`re in favor of this. You`ve been part of negotiating the deal with
Canada with the off-ramp which would make it available to Bakken Shale oil
in North Dakota, you know, South Dakota, and Montana oil, American oil to
get into the pipeline. But now, there is a new development. And you`re
saying that this pipeline could be built under NAFTA? Explain that to our
audience tonight sir.
FMR. GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER, (D) MONTANA: Absolutely. Let`s not -- that
horse left the barn in NAFTA a lot of years before. And, you know, Ed, you
didn`t support NAFTA, I didn`t support NAFTA, but the only reason that the
president and the secretary of state are involved in this in Washington,
D.C. is because it`s a pipeline that crosses an international border.
We have 160,000 miles of pipelines and they`re all permitted by the states.
The Keystone Pipeline is already permitted by Montana, South Dakota, and
Nebraska, and Kansas, and all the way to Texas. The little part that we
need Washington, D.C. to make a decision on is that one foot or that one
mile that crosses in the international border.
Well, TransCanada has already decided where that route will be and it`s
going to cross from Saskatchewan into Montana right at the Port of Morgan,
about nine miles east to the Port of Morgan which is a port that is open
for commerce back and forth. And so, if for example, if Washington, D.C.
were to say, "No, we won`t give a permit", well then TransCanada will just
bring that pipeline down to the border, pump it in to some big tanks, and
then run some trucks across the border, and they would move that oil to
some tanks on the Montana side, pump it back in the pipeline and ship it on
Why wouldn`t they do that? They`re already spending $7 billion on a
pipeline. It only caused them $100 million to build this facility on both
sides of the border. And they don`t need Washington, D.C. to give them
SCHULTZ: So this whole situation with tar sands oil could end up at a
pipeline without any decision by the president, correct?
SCHWEITZER: Absolutely. In fact -- let`s talk about this oil. The oil in
Alberto -- the tar sands oil is the same geology and chemistry as the oil
that we`re currently bringing from Venezuela. It`s the same geology and
chemistry as the Bakersfield, California oil fields that we`ve been pumping
So, you know, God, I love the environmental community. I use less. I`m
challenging everybody to use less hydrocarbons. We didn`t leave the Stone
Age because we ran out of stones. We didn`t leave the Bronze Age because
we ran out of bronze. And we won`t leave the Hydrocarbon Era because we
ran out of hydrocarbons. We`re going to leave it when we have a better,
more efficient energy system. Let`s work on that.
SCHULTZ: So, back to the pipeline for just a moment. I want to be very
clear on this. It is getting the oil across the border that is the issue
in the way they transport it. And then getting it into the pipeline which
is going -- and already has been approved state by state -- so this leaves
the president almost powerless from stopping this because the NAFTA
agreement which was made 20 years ago. So what`s all the fuzz about?
SCHWEITZER: Well, as usual, there`s a lot of motion masquerading his
action in Washington, D.C. And the far left and the far right, they raise
a lot of money on these issues. They tell a lot of lies. You know, on the
left they say, "This is dirty oil." Well, it`s the same kind of oil that
we`re actually putting on those refineries right now that`s coming from
Venezuela. On the right, they say, "Oh, the Democrats are bad because
they`re not immediately proposing this pipeline and every other pipeline
from around the world."
Well, let`s settle down for a little bit. We`re still using oil. And when
we passed NAFTA, we said, you can bring those commodities really across the
border. The only reason Washington, D.C. has anything to do with it is
because if there`s a bridge, if there`s a road, if there`s a rail, or if
there`s a pipeline or transmission line, Washington, D.C. has to sign off
But if they don`t actually bring the pipeline across the border, if they
track it across the border, they don`t need a damn thing from Washington,
D.C. They`re just going to do it. So this is all has to do about nothing.
SCHULTZ: OK. So is TransCanada, the company in question dealing with this
north to the border? Are they prepared to operate like this and to move
SCHWEITZER: Well, I don`t work for TransCanada. They`ve ever been a donor
of mine. But I can tell you this, they know all about this. They`re not
silly. They`re not idiots. They know the law. Tthey have pipelines and
transmission lines all over North America. They`re crossing the border in
a lot of places. They know exactly what they`re doing. And they`re
building this pipeline. It`s going to come across the border.
And if they have to truck it which is one of the least safe ways of moving
oil, then they`ll track it a mile or two across border. It would make a
lot more sense environmentally if we just let that pipeline be. There`s a
160,000 miles of pipelines. It`s the safest way to move oil. I`d rather
not put it on the rail. Don`t want to put it on a track. But if this is
the brinkmanship that they get to in Washington, D.C., you know, companies
SCHULTZ: Yeah. Governor Schweitzer, I visit with some people from the
State of Nebraska today, and they`re very concerned about eminent domain
and property rights. And Nebraska is the last state that has signed on to
this. In fact, Governor -- his name is (inaudible), the governor down
SCHULTZ: . has changed his condition. Heineman. Heineman is.
SCHULTZ: . changed (ph) his position. Also Senator Johanns, has changed
his position on this as well. 30 percent of the land owners in Nebraska
have not gone along with this that they are being very abstinent (ph). How
is this going to play out? Are they just going to get run over? Are there
eminent domain issues that simply could get on the way of this project at
this point as you see it?
SCHWEITZER: Well, there`s 10,000 miles of pipelines, gas and oil pipelines
in Nebraska right now, and almost all of those pipelines came across lands
in some cases where they didn`t want it. You know, that happens to
ranchers. My dad used to run those pipeline oil, and then off with a
shotgun, but they always came back with a lawyer. And if you don`t agree
and sign on the dotted line and get paid a certain amount, it will go the
courts and through eminent domain. They`ll condemn that line and they`ll
bring a transmission line or a pipeline through if it`s decided that is in
the best interest of society as a whole. But as long as we`re using
electricity, as long as we`re using oil, society needs these pipelines,
they need these transmission lines, that`s part of an energy system.
SCHULTZ: And Governor, there have been no less than five environmental
impact studies. And now the one -- the most recent from the State
Department which was released last Friday is now under question and I`m
told it`s under investigation by the inspector general. Do you believe
that this is a credible and unbiased report? There have been no conflicts
of interest from your knowledge about this report. And these reports are
reliable that this pipeline should move forward?
SCHWEITZER: Well, I`m usually pretty distrustful about anything that comes
out on Washington, D.C. So, I couldn`t tell you who was involved in it.
But I can just simply say, it`s just another pipeline, and it`s just
another supply of oil. It is non-conventional oil just like the oil that
comes from Venezuela, and like as comes from Bakersfield, California. They
say, well, it`s a lot more toxic, oh, come on.
SCHULTZ: And I want to ask you about that. I mean, I keep being told by
environmental people that this is far worst than the oil that`s coming in
to the United States. That this is 17 percent worst as far as the carbon
emissions on this, that this is the worst oil that could -- worst crude
that possibly could be put through a pipeline, is that true?
SCHWEITZER: Well, no. Nature magazine thought last year that this was
probably environmentally sound. The oil that`s being pumped in
Bakersfield, California is far more toxic and produces more CO2 than this
oil. And frankly, you know, if you ship it on rail or if you track it, the
amount of CO2 that you will burn in moving the oil and the safety factor of
spilling, it is much greater. As long as you`re.
SCHWEITZER: . using gasoline, you need oil. It`s coming from all over the
world. I`d rather buy it from a friend like Canada, then people like
Venezuela, or the folks in Saudi Arabia or Iraq, or Nigeria or some other
dug on place where they got dictators running the country.
SCHULTZ: All right. Brian Schweitzer, Former Governor of Montana with us
tonight here on the Ed Show. I appreciate your time. Thank you sir.
We`ll take another look at the pipeline ahead with James Hoffa, the
President of the Teamsters. That`s coming up next. Stay with us.
SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, self-satisfied. Bill O`Reilly, the
merit cable news has broken his arm padding himself on the back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O`REILLY, TELEVISION HOST: I`m going to predict that that interview
that I did is going to go down in journalistic history as what should be
done. It takes a certain skill to pose questions in a factual way and be
persistent without being disrespectful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: O`Reilly, nobody is talking about that interview except you. We
think you`re going to be going down in history for a few other moments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O`REILLY: Don`t block the shot. Got it? Don`t block the shot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m working.
O`REILLY: No you`re not. You`re blocking the shot.
There are racists. There are people who don`t like women holding power.
You`re not going to change the minds of the ignorant and it`s not worth the
effort in any case. There`s a huge grievance industry in America that
peddles victimization all they long. What good does that do?
You want anarchy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, when I want.
O`REILLY: You want to open-border anarchy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I want is fairness. We have lured this.
O`REILLY: Fairness is cool (ph).
Good luck. Good life. I can all write it and we`ll do it live. Things
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Bill O`Reilly wasn`t making history with his rude grandstand
against the president. O`Reilly was making a mess. If Bill O`Reilly
believes ego is journalism, he can keep on pretending.
SCHULTZ: Time now for the Friday Punch Out. The Ed Show never quits
working for you. So, follow us this weekend on Twitter @EdShow.
Now, here is what we want to tell you that we`re working on coming up for
the next week in fast forward.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Coming in at number three, Bridgegate, blows into the windy city.
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY: I was blindsided in that circle of
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All of a sudden, nobody wants left wing (ph).
They`re not pairing with them, and if they want it, so they would have,
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re starting our own circle of trust. And guess
what, you`re not in it.
SCHULTZ: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie continues his fund raising
tour in Chicago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They want the Christie money. They may not want to be
there right next to him and take a picture right at that moment, while the
controversy is where it is, but they want the Christie money guys.
CHRISTIE: We all work that way.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) redemption, Chicago. You`re out of there.
SCHULTZ: Fast forward number two, NBC is the place for the Sochi Winter
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The excitement building because that Olympics
(inaudible) after its epic tour around Russia will be brought here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Team USA gets set to take part of the opening ceremony
just hours from now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am feeling very Olympic today. How about you?
SCHULTZ: The Ed Show will still be getting to work everyday at 5 PM
Let`s get to work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re team USA and we`re going all the way.
SCHULTZ: And our number one story to watch, labor in the Keystone XL
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It takes a very dirty product, ships it through the
United States where we bare the risk of an oil spill.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can do better particularly at this committee. If we
made the investment, we need to make in our water infrastructure, or port
infrastructure, our roads, bridges, highways and transit systems. We can
put millions of people to work permanently.
SCHULTZ: What`s the union perspective on the proposed pipeline?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To bring about thousands of family paying wage jobs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: James Hoffa joins us tonight, President of the International
Brotherhood of the Teamsters. Mr. Hoffa, good to have you with us. You
are the first union head that I have spoken with on this program about the
XL Keystone Pipeline. Your thoughts. Where do the Teamsters stand on this
proposed pipeline and where are union workers in this country on this
JAMES P. HOFFA, PRES., INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS: We`re entirely
behind the Keystone project. It`s basically part of our infrastructure.
It`s going to put thousands of people to work, not only Teamsters, but all
of working people. You saw some of the pictures that we had on the show
where we have, you know, where literally hundreds of people in one segment
working on this pipeline.
This is something America needs right now. It puts people to work. We`re
talking about where are the good jobs in America. Well this is one of them
and it`s one where we can get going again and basically help our country
and basically get U.S. scoring (ph) again with regard to our
SCHULTZ: Mr. Hoffa, do you believe the environmental impact studies that
this would be somewhat of a wash? And do you think that they have been
incredible to this point because a lot of environmental groups are
questioning the credibility of these studies?
HOFFA: Well, I think that study was very helpful because I think that was
a big issue. And finally, we have -- where I think is an independent study
saying, you know, really, you know, it`s -- we`re basically saying that
this is safer, and I believe it`s safer. I believe in transporting oil by
trucks. But if you have a thousand trucks, there are going to be
accidents. If you have 10,000, basically, you know, railroad cars, there`s
going to be accidents. And we`ve had accidents. The technology today with
these pipelines, perspective with the new pipeline, and if we put into
proper reserves to make sure they monitor this pipeline, it can be safe and
safely done. And I thought the report went a long way to basically erase
some of the concerns people have.
SCHULTZ: The Southern segment of the pipeline running from Cushing,
Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast and open for business on January 22nd. Do
unions want the job to build the Northern portion? Is this a big part of
it that this would be union jobs and is this why you`re for it?
HOFFA: Absolutely Ed. And what better than to have people making good
money, and you know, what`s our problem right now, we don`t have enough
demand on the economy. This puts people to work. Skilled workers, people
that know how to put pipeline in. This is, you know, great technical work.
It`s going to be done right. It`s going to be done safely that`s going to
be the right kind of material used. And that`s being done. And we can
partner with this oil companies to make sure it gets done. Where everybody
makes good wages and then basically we have a safe pipeline.
SCHULTZ: All right. I want to turn to the TPP because there`s been some
more trade information that came out today or should I say earlier this
week. The Korean trade deal, in the last -- since 2011, our trade deficit
with Korea has grown 54 percent. How much more information does the White
House need to realize that the TPP is -- would take our economy in the
wrong direction. More bad news on another trade deal, sir.
HOFFA: Well, we predicted that when they did Panama, Columbia and South
Korea. We knew that Korea was the biggest part. That`s a big deal. And
they want us to export their cars. It`s a one-way deal. It`s very hard to
do any business with Korea, to get cars, and they don`t want our cars. But
yet, they continue to export, you know, thousands of cars, thousands of
products, and it was very predictable.
We told the administration this would happen, but they didn`t care. They
went ahead with this. So what we`ve going to do is to try and get smart
trade deals, and which brings us to the TPP. You know, thank God, I think
we`ve got these things stopped now because Harry Reid has finally said,
don`t bring it before me -- because Harry Reid, if you remember, voted
against NAFTA. And he`s very proud to say that and he`s against this
SCHULTZ: Mr. Hoffa and the Teamsters, good to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time. Thanks so much.
HOFFA: All right.
SCHULTZ: And just a programming note, in the next few weeks, I can`t tell
what day. But in the next few weeks, I will make the trip to Nebraska.
And I will investigate this imminent domain with a number of land donors
down there who are claiming that this is terribly wrong, that this pipeline
is going over their land. It`s a story that I think needs to be told.
That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. Politics Nation with Reverend Al
Sharpton starts right now. Good evening Rev.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>