updated 3/14/2014 12:04:00 PM ET 2014-03-14T16:04:00

THE ED SHOW
March 13, 2014

Guest: Brian Schweitzer, Mark Fulton, Ruth Conniff, Lena Taylor, Daniel
Dromm, Keith Ellison

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed
Show live from New York. Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The final public comment period has closed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t think the Keystone -- the controversy
over Keystone is going away anytime soon.

SCHULTZ: Researching both sides and listening to all the experts. I
was wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Proponents to the expansion delivered about two
million comments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s lines (ph) that the economic to move.
That`s going to be the fact that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s about twice the number of those in favor.

EVAN VOKES, FORMER TRANSCANADA EMPLOYEE: A company that has managed
to blow up two brand new pipelines.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Instead of Keystone Pipeline, we get Keystone
cops.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody agrees it`s a good idea except Barack
Obama.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s time to take a stand against misguided
policies and projects.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To wake up this nation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That science if far from settled.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for
watching.

What does it take to be an expert? How long do you have to be doing
something before you are regarded as an authority, a credential voice, an
expert? Got to have academic credentials? Got to spend some time studying
the subject? Work experience I`m sure comes into play. How much work
experience before you`re an expert? 10, 20, 30, 40 years? What`s an
expert? You know what we`re finding out throughout this entire process?
There are no experts on climate change if you`re a Republican because
they`re all just a bunch of lefty wackos out there.

Now, it depends on who`s doing the talking. It depends on who has the
credentials. Who`s been working in the field? Something very interesting
unfolded today in the Senate hearing. We`ll get to it in just a moment.
But I want to start tonight with some numbers. We should see where this
whole thing is on the polling of the Keystone XL Pipeline. You see, public
opinion is starting to shift against the project. It`s the more you know.

In April of 2013, 74 percent of Americans thought, "Hot damn, let`s do
it. It`s hot, let`s do it. Do it. Do it. Do it." They wanted the
Keystone Pipeline built.

Well, last Friday, March 7th, the number had dropped down to 65
percent. There`s something going on. Maybe not enough commercials out but
wait a minute, there`s more. A new poll out today shows support for the
pipeline has now dipped down to 62 percent.

It seems like the more folks talk about this, the more they have
questions about the project. They really think that this project is in
doubt. And the XL Pipeline is trending down with the American public.
There`s new information coming out everyday on the pipeline. The more the
folks know about this the more these numbers fall.

Earlier today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing
on the XL Pipeline. Witnesses from both sides testified, experts. Climate
Scientist Dr. James Hansen made a clear case against the pipeline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. JAMES HANSEN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Tar sands are among the
dirtiest and most carbon intensive fuels. It makes no sense to setup a
system to exploit them in a major way. If we don`t approve it, a lot of
that tar sands will never be developed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

HANSEN: The world is going to realize pretty soon that we`ve got to
limit the amount of carbon we put in the atmosphere and must going to have
to do that via a price on carbon and that`s going to cause the most carbon
intensive things to get left in the ground and that includes tar sands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: All right. Hold it right there. Who is this guy anyway?
Dr. Hansen? Well, he`s an extremely well respected scientist. You see,
he`s a professor at Columbia University, he`s the former Head of NASA
Goddard Institute New York City. He`s got degrees in Physics, Astronomy,
and Mathematics. At the ballpark, they`d call him a real smart dude. He
has won a number of awards including one from the National Academy of
Sciences, no doubt a very solid witness for those who oppose the pipeline.

Now, supporters of the pipeline relied heavily on the State Department
report. Here comes Karen Harbert of the Chamber of Commerce said the
pipeline would have no impact on the environment?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: If you are in support of
the environment, you are in support of the pipeline. It is good for our
energy security adding a more stable and secure source of energy. And the
State Department has concluded that the Keystone Pipeline would have a
negligible impact on the environment, their words and that oil sands will
be developed one way or another.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: OK. A guy that`s been at NASA for 32 years, he left NASA so
he could testify against the government because he knew the real story,
credentials -- its got credentials galore Chamber of Commerce Spokesperson.
What do you think?

Opponents of the pipeline said the State Department report is bias.
New information out today proves, holy smokes they`re right, a firm that
evaluated the Keystone XL Pipeline for the State Department has admitted
that they had ties to TransCanada.

In fact in 2012, the organization known as ICF International submitted
a conflict of intro statement to the State Department. It turns out that
ICF International admitted doing work for TransCanada. So I`d say that`s
pretty good proof that the State Department report can we now deem it as
not exactly rock solid.

Now, meanwhile, the climate change deniers, well they were out in full
force today at the Senate hearing. Pipeline supporter, here we go again
with Karen Harbert. She had a hard time admitting that climate change is
real.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT HERNANDEZ, (D) NEW JERSEY: Does that mean the Chamber
agrees that one that climate change is real and is caused by humans?

HARBERT: Yeah, the Chamber has a long record on climate.

HERNANDEZ: That`s not .

HARBERT: Also protecting the economy.

HERNANDEZ: . a response to my question. I asked a very simply
question. Is the -- does the Chamber believe that climate change is real
and caused by humans? Yes or no.

HARBERT: We believe that we should be doing everything in our power
to address the environment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Answer the question.

HERNANDEZ: That`s great. This climate change caused -- is it real?
Is it real?

HARBERT: The climate is warming without a doubt.

HERNANDEZ: OK. So climate change is real. Is it caused by humans?

HARBERT: And the other part of that answer is, is it warming as much
as some of my colleagues on this panel have predicted in the past?

HERNANDEZ: I`m going to .

HARBERT: And the answer is no.

HERNANDEZ: Is -- it`s caused by humans.

HARBERT: It is caused by lots of different things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Which is worse? Watching that or going to the dentist? Aw,
that hurts.

Then we have climate change denying Senator Ron Johnson from
Wisconsin. The Senator got into a heated exchange with Dr. Hansen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RON JOHNSON, (R) WISCONSIN: I live in Wisconsin. There were two
-- I think 200 foot thick glaciers in Wisconsin. How do you explain .

(CROSSTALK)

. carbon footprint. How do you explain this?

HANSEN: The depar that you just made is blatantly false. We do know
.

JOHNSON: How do you explain climate change that occurred 10,000 years
ago before man had a carbon print? How do you explain it?

HANSEN: Climate -- there are variations in the earth`s orbital
elements and .

JOHNSON: Are those variations just end right now? So now it`s all
man-made?

HANSEN: Yeah, I wouldn`t say that it is all man-made. There are
natural .

(CROSSTALK)

However, the man-made effect is now dominant and we can measure that
because we can measure the energy balance of the planet and we see that
there`s more energy coming in and it is going out.

So therefore, the planet is going to continue to get warmer. It
doesn`t mean each year is going to get warmer because there are natural
fluctuations, but this decade is going to be warmer than the last one and
the following one will be still warmer.

JOHNSON: I agree with Mr. Harbert. I think the science is far from
settled. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: All right, what are we dealing with here? Let`s go to the
board. Who`s got the credentials? Who`s the expert in this deal? Well,
we`ve got a Columbia University professor, at NASA 32 years, degrees in
Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics.

OK, here we go. We`ve got a business degree for the University of
Minnesota, he was an accountant at Jostens, they sell rings and enrolled in
MBA Program by just didn`t work out, he never really completed it.

So this is where the Republicans are. This guy is questioning this
guy. This guy is telling that guy where climate change is in this world.

Really? And I got some news for Senator Johnson, the science
surrounding climate change it`s settled, it`s real and it`s a major threat
to our nation and to our planet. It`s disturbing. I think that the United
States Senator is so in denial of an expert, but I don`t know if he`s an
expert or not. Do you think Dr. Hansen is an expert? Yeah.

Any fair-minded American would say that that gentleman is as
credentialed as anybody when it comes to climate change. So this is the
mentality you`re dealing with when you`re dealing with Republicans on
climate change.

Now, on the flipside, Senator Barbara Boxer of California made a great
case against the pipeline. She highlighted health concerns and dangerous
byproducts that are associated with Trans -- with tar sands oil.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, (D) CALIFORNIA: The National Nurses United
representing 185,000 nurses have joined me in Senate and White House in
calling for a thorough health impact study on our people, the people of
America. When you look at the immediate 45 percent in importation of tar
sands, this is petcoke, Mr. Chairman. You got to take a look at this
because a lot of it is going to be stored around our nation. Already we`ve
seen it coming.

This is juts a sample of what America is going to look like when you
see the tar sands filthy dirty oil. This is what remains of it after it`s
refined and it is stored just like this.

We had testimony from people in Chicago who said kids were having a
picnic in Chicago, the stuff blew around, they were covered in soot and had
to leave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: We`ll, I`d say I`d side with 185,000 nurses and scientist
over the climate changing denying Senator Ron Johnson any day.

President Obama has a major decision to make. He can side with the
Republicans and the oil industry and the non-experts who were at the Senate
hearing today. I mean they were supposed to bring the best of best. Who
brought the Chamber of Commerce? Or the President can side with the
experienced scientists, the experts, the authorities and environmental
groups. I just can`t believe that President Obama would side with Ron
Johnson.

Get your cellphones out, I want to what you think. Tonight`s
question, "Would you let Senator Ron Johnson teach your kids about
science?" Text A for yes, text B for no to 67622. You can always go to
our blog @msnbc.com and we`ll bring you the results later on to the show
and I got an extra star for saying that (inaudible).

All right, let me bring me you the Former Montana Governor, MSNBC
contributor Brian Schweitzer, also with us tonight Mark Fulton, the Adviser
for the Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Let`s go to you first Governor. Governor, I have changed. I mean, I
think it`s undeniably a risk to put this pipeline over the aquifer but if
the best experts were suppose to be at this hearing today how can anybody
support this pipeline?

FMR. GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER, (D) MONTANA: Well, I don`t know. It`s
just this pipeline, you know, there`s 81 pipelines had already across from
Canada coming in to the United States, most of them are hauling oil stands.
And if the Keystone Pipeline isn`t built, those oil stands are still going
to be developed. They`re already planning a pipeline that will go to
Thunder Bay and in Manitoba and that will put in barges and run it through
the Great Lakes and there`ll be another pipeline that goes out to the
Pacific cost for export.

There`s 2.2 trillion barrels that are stored in Canada, the largest
deposit of oil on the planet. And so, it`s going to be developed and
whether we bring this pipeline across Nebraska or whether it`s rail or
barges. As long as we`re using oil in this country, we`re either going to
import it from Canada or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

I`m not a climate change denier, I`m a neuroscientist. I started 30
years ago studying the planet. And I believe that methane and carbon
dioxide are -- and the emissions that humans are using these hydrocarbons
whether it`s coal or whether it`s oil or even cleaner natural gas. We`re
creating a climate change. But we`re not going to leave the hydrocarbon
era tomorrow. And the sooner we move with the carbon tax, the sooner we
move with electric cars, the sooner we move with cleaner and better energy,
the sooner we`re going to decrease the risk to our planet.

But it isn`t just the Keystone Pipeline .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SCHWEITZER: . that is going to be the line in the sand.

SCHULTZ: Well, Mark Fulton what about putting that kind of oil over
an aquifer in a pipe that eventually will leak, they all leak. And if it
does leak why would we want to take that risk?

MARK FULTON, ADVISOR, CARBON TRACKER INITIATIVE: Well Ed, thanks for
having me on your show.

I think I take more of just the economic argument here when we looked
at the impact statement from the state department which is a very
technically very big document, very, very strong document technically.
However what we found was there was something rather simple we felt that
might be put to people, which is really a very simple initial comparison.

So at the moment, you know, rail is being considers the big
alternative right now to the pipeline. So we looked at the assumptions
that they`d made about the differential costs of shipping by rails,
shipping by pipeline and the pipelines more economic. So we looked .

SCHULTZ: Sure.

FULTON: We looked at those price points and we realize that that
would induce we believe more output because it`s more favorable. So our
simple starting point was if you like to say the stand alone level. If you
just take this pipeline versus rail we`re going to see about five gigatons
of carbon. That`s a lot of carbon over the life of this pipeline.

So we felt that at least there should be some argument to say there is
some significance if you take this pipeline versus rail. Now then the
Governor has pointed out that most people say, "Well hang on it`s going to
happen anyway." And I suppose I just make something of an economic, but
even, for want of a better word, moral argument which is -- I suppose
that`s based on the view, "If you`re going to do it, I can do it, so that`s
OK.". And I`m not sure that in all circumstances you want to take that
position.

SCHULTZ: OK.

FULTON: So the test, the significance test was always in a sense,
once you`ve widened it to any possible way that this oil could get to
market, then there`s always going to be an argument against the pipeline.
But if you sort of narrow it down to this decision on this pipeline today
versus rail, then I still think that you can say that this pipeline will
enable quite a lot more carbon.

SCHULTZ: Governor, aren`t you concern about the health risks that are
going to be associated with this kind of oil and some of the testimony that
has been out there about how toxic this is? Do you still believe that it`s
equal to that of Venezuelan oil that`s coming in to the United States?

SCHWEITZER: Pretty equal and pretty equal to the oil that we`re
currently producing in Baker`s Field. These are the so called heavy oils
that we produce conventionally. And of course about half of the oil that`s
coming from the oil sands rights now, they`re producing conventionally.
They`re drilling just like we do oil fields around the world.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SCHWEITZER: Look, we make a very good point that this oil can be more
toxic than some other oils. But sour crude is probably even more dangerous
than this, it`s poisonous. If you breathe some of that that leaks out of a
pipeline, it`s likely to kill you.

SCHULTZ: So you wouldn`t admit that this would be a step in the wrong
direction?

SCHWEITZER: Well, I wouldn`t say that it`s necessarily wrong
direction, right direction. It is the direction. If this oil is not
produced and put in this pipeline, then it will continue to go in the other
pipelines. There`s pipelines that are already running across the Ogallala
Aquifer that are carrying these oil sands from Alberta to these refineries
all over America.

So this is just one more pipeline, there`s already 81 pipelines that
are crossing the border. There`s a 160,000 miles of pipelines that are
crisscrossing this country carrying hydrocarbon some of them are heavy oil,
some of them are natural gas, some of them are distillates, but this is
just one more pipeline.

SCHULTZ: OK.

SCHWEITZER: I think it`s surprising that we draw the line in the sand
on just this pipeline .

SCHULTZ: Mark, what about that?

SCHWEITZER: . as oppose to all the rest of the pipeline.

SCHULTZ: Mark what about there-- if there -- and I know that there is
another Keystone Pipeline that is already been put over, it`s not as
intense as this one or as sophisticated as this one, but why take that risk
if you`re dealing with a company that doesn`t have a good track record
which we talked about last night and the environmental concerns and the
turn to move forward into a different direction?

FULTON: Yeah, well again as I say, for me, I do tend to focus on the
carbon content argument.

SCHULTZ: OK.

FULTON: And that to me is what our work has been about.

SCHULTZ: All right.

FULTON: And again, this notion that there`s lots of other pipelines.
If there was so many other pipelines why are we so keen to build this one?

SCHULTZ: Good point.

FULTON: The idea that this is not going to stimulate production, I
just -- I think that`s just.

SCHULTZ: There`s not a demand of it. There is not a demand for it.
It`s not a security issue, that`s a red hearing. Brian Schweitzer and Mark
Fulton, great to have both of you with us tonight on the discussion, thank
you so much.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter and on Facebook. We want
to know what you think.

Coming up, a new attack on voting rights in Wisconsin. The Rapid
Response Panel weighs in next.

But first, Bill O`Reilly is all worked up about the president`s new
boost for workers. Congressman Keith Ellison coming up on the Ed show.
Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: All right, let`s get some question. I love hearing from our
viewers tonight in our Ask Ed Live segment.

Our first question comes from Doris. She wants to know, "When are the
Democrats going to really fight fire with fire?"

Well, I assure you`re talking about the situation down in Florida, not
a big deal, Republicans held that district for a long time, we`re seven
months out. There`s a whole lot of things that can happen between now and
November. Keep the faith. The facts are on our side.

Our next question is coming from user SCVINDY, Scvindy, that`s what
you`re being named on the Ed Show tonight. Scvindy thanks for the
question. "Has quality public education become unaffordable?"

You know, and I saw this, when I was growing up, we never had fights
in the news about resources. What school is getting this over that school?
But we of course have evolved to neighborhood fights.

We`re going to save some neighborhoods. We`re not going to save
others. We`re going to resource some schools and not resource others.
This charter school fight versus public education is going to evolve into
something huge in this country. And public education, the door is open,
everybody is welcome. I don`t know if that`s going to hold in the next
decade unless we fight for it hard now.

Coming up, the radical pace continues in Wisconsin with a new attack
on voting rights. The Rapid Response Panel weighs in on that.

And later, exclusive footage from the front lines of the fight for
public education.

Stay tuned we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Voting rights are under attack at the State of Wisconsin. The State`s
Senate approved the bill on Wednesday setting limits on the time for
submitting an absentee ballot before Election Day. The legislation will
end weekend voting before state wide elections, restrict in-person absentee
voting and allow lobbyist to make campaign contributions and donations
during elections years.

Now the Republican-led Senate voted to advance the bill to the
Republican controlled assembly. We can assume it`s going to happen.
Governor Scott Walker is a major proponent of the move. He also wants to
require voters to present state issued ID`s in order to vote. Walker told
reporters that he would call lawmakers into a special session for this?
Yeah, to modify voter photo identification requirements and if courts don`t
uphold the measure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. SCOTT WALKER, (R) WISCONSIN: The only real thing I thought that
was pressing and it may still be continue to be pressing depending on what
the court reacts on is voter ID.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Voter ID measures has been blocked since -- short after
Governor Walker sign in the law in 2011. The Voter ID Law was not in
effect during the November 2012 general election or the special election in
June of 2012, when Walker survived the recall. He`s running for reelection
right now in the state. And a poll shows that this race is in the dead
heat.

Governor Walker and Democratic challenger Mary Burke are tied each
with 45 percent of the voters polled. This is especially good news for
Democrats because the poll comes from Rasmussen Reports affirm found by a
conservative activist and also is criticized for results favoring
Republicans.

Joining me now on our Rapid Response Panel Ruth Conniff, Editor-in-
chief for The Progressive Magazine and Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor.

Senator, you first tonight, what`s happening here? I`m amazed and
that, you know, first of all, special sessions cost money. And here`s
Walker, if he doesn`t get the voting laws the way he wants them, he`s
willing to call a special session and spend money to get it right. I want
your take on that and also the fact that it sure seems like this is geared
at minorities, at the elderly and young people. Senator , your thoughts.

STATE SEN, LENA TAYLOR, (D) WISCONSIN: Well first of all, thank you
Ed for having me again. It`s good to be with you. You`re not wrong at
all. This is taking us back to the kind of same mentality of Jim Crow back
in the day.

The reason that he wants to call a special session for voter
suppression is because he realizes that the polling that shows that he`s
dead heat right now when he`s supposed to be their wonder boy. He`s not
doing well in Wisconsin.

The Fox Valley Editorial came out to say that they`re just chipping
away a democracy. He should be concerned because that`s exactly what
they`re doing. So he wants to have special session instead of trying to
come up with those 250,000 jobs he said and have a special session to make
real jobs happen. He wants to have a special session to try suppress
people`s ability to vote.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

TAYLOR: And I hope that the court will do the right thing, but, you
know, you never know in Wisconsin.

SCHULTZ: Ruth, what is Walker gained by pushing for the Voter ID Law?
I mean, he`s got a John Doe investigation looking into the way he ran the
recall campaign. There`s been an e-mail dumped out there. These polls are
not good. What`s he gained? This seems very heavy-handed.

RUTH CONNIFF, THE PROGRESSIVE MAGAZINE: Well, I think it`s exactly
what the senator said. I think that Walker and other Republicans around
the country frankly are looking to curtail voting by, likely, Democrats.
And if you look at the issue they`re trying to fix, when Walker in that
clip says, this is the most important, most pressing election issue, It is
a measure, voter ID, to solve the problem that is nonexistent. There has
never been a case of voter impersonation charge in the State of Wisconsin.
And nationally, the Washington Post recently ran a story saying, looking at
all the evidence. It`s basically a nonexistent problem that they`re trying
to solve.

So, what is the real reason? It`s the same reason they just passed
this bill to make it impossible to vote early on the weekend. They`re
curtailing early voting, and they`re imposing voter ID on folks because
it`s going to make it harder to vote, and it`s going to make it harder to
vote mostly by people on urban areas, like people who are low income, by
minorities, the elderly, and students who tend to vote Democratic.

SCHULTZ: OK. So, Senator Taylor, this is going after Milwaukee, this
is going after Green Bay .

TAYLOR: Yes.

SCHULTZ: . and this going after Madison, that`s how I read it.

TAYLOR: That`s correct. That`s correct. That`s exactly what they`re
doing. They`re trying to in every way try to disenfranchise individuals,
discourage people from voting. If you look at what they`ve done Ed, over
the last two years, at least about 30 pieces almost of legislation had been
done to tweak away, to chip away at the constitutional rights to vote, one
way or another. They made many laws .

SCHULTZ: 30 pieces of legislation? 30 pieces of .

TAYLOR: About 30 pieces -- yes. About 30 pieces of legislation in
the last two years. I mean, I wonder how many issues the clerks are having
to retool, to figure out how to move forward, to learn and train. You have
clerks retiring or refusing to do the elections because it`s just too much.
They don`t want to be in the paper because they made some small error.

Now, if you don`t put something in this corner, you don`t seal the bag
in this way, they just done so many different pieces of legislation
including, on top of that, voter ID, the legislation that take away weekend
and evening voting. I mean, this is going to hurt rural, suburban, and
urban Wisconsin. Because people early vote. We should be encouraging
people .

SCHULTZ: Yeah, this is .

TAYLOR: . to vote and expanding their right to vote.

SCHULTZ: Ruth, this anything but the old progressive Wisconsin that
you grew up in. There`s no question about that. But what about these
numbers? I mean, Rasmussen poll normally favors the Republicans. Is
Walker really tied with -- I mean, do you get that sense out on the beat in
Wisconsin that this guy is in trouble?

CONNIFF: Well, this is the poll that came out after that e-mails that
you mentioned. After all the news about Walker refusing to answer
questions after he went on Fox News on Sunday and refused to answer
questions about, "Why do you have to have a secret e-mail network in your
office? What`s with the secrecy?" So, I think that that has in fact hurt
him. Mary Burke is also beginning to get some traction because people
didn`t know who she was frankly when she started.

And Rasmussen, ironically, told conservative in part because they have
underrepresented minority voting. They didn`t believe that all those folks
are going to come and vote for Obama. And a lot of folks came out and
voted for Obama when they are trying to suppress the vote in that election
-- in the last election, because they were so outraged .

TAYLOR: Exactly.

CONNIFF: . by exactly what`s Senator Taylor talks about.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CONNIFF: The effort to end people`s ability to vote.

SCHULTZ: And finally, senator, are you .

TAYLOR: Ed, in 2012 .

SCHULTZ: Go ahead.

TAYLOR: I was just going to say, Ed, in 2012, forgive me. We had 87
percent turn out in Milwaukee, about 70 something percent turn out
statewide. This is the reason Walker wants to hurry and try to have that
special session suppression time.

SCHULTZ: Then I`ve got to ask you senator before we leave you. Are
you surprised that charges have not been brought to the governor? Brought
-- that the governor hasn`t been brought up .

TAYLOR: I`m just .

SCHULTZ: . on charges?

TAYLOR: I`m disappointed. I will tell you that I believe that if it
was somebody that look like me, that things might be different. I will
tell you that I have not seen anyone who`s been able to get pass as many
John Doe or investigations as my governor has. And in the end, I think the
appearance of impropriety at the very least, who has a secret e-mail system
and your secretaries are doing things 20 feet away from you and you have no
idea, I don`t believe it and no one else should believe the high P (ph).
He said, you know, he would do 250,000 jobs.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

TAYLOR: We haven`t seen it. The lies continue. The deception
continues.

SCHULTZ: All right Ruth Conniff and State Senator Lena Taylor with us
tonight. Thanks so much for joining us.

There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`re
right back.

MANDY DRURY, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Mandy Drury with your CNBC
Market Wrap.

Well, geopolitical concerns and worries about China`s economy
overshadowed today`s positive economic news.

The Dow lead slid 231 points after rising at earlier in the session.
The S and P is up by 21 and the NASDAQ sheds 62.

Jobless claims fail last week to a new three months low. Filings
drops by 9,000 to 315,000.

And retail sales rose more than expected last month, thanks to
increased spending February`s gain of both two straight months of declines.

And that`s it from CNBC, first in business world wide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Steel is the backbone of a lot
of American cities like Lorain, Ohio. But the steel industry is facing
huge obstacles, thanks to bad trade deals, with manufacturing shipped
overseas. Less regulation on quality control could turn dangerous.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we`re really testing for is the first. But
as we discuss before that pipe as it goes down hole is going to see a lot
of challenges in that environment. It`s going to see pressures external
and internal. So to make sure you have a quality product, is important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: We will have a series next week here on the Ed Show.
"Fighting Chance: American Steel," all next week. We`re right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This is the story for the
folks who take a shower after work. Well, this ongoing debate over charter
schools here in New York City, I think is a microcosm of what we`re going
to be seeing around the country. A much larger focus is going to be coming
upon the horizon, folks. Because you see, the fight for better public
education isn`t just happening here, it`s happening all across America.

To get a better look, we sent filmmaker and MSNBC contributor
Alexandra Pelosi to Harlem to bring you this Ed Show exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDRA PELOSI, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So I`m here in Harlem, which is
ground zero of the battle over charter schools.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Parents would keep their kids in public school
if they didn`t stop.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may go to the right public school, but all
public schools is my bad (ph).

PELOSI: You`re happy in your public school.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m happy in my public school, yes I am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I like the charter schools. Kids are doing very
well. Their grades are up. Actually, I think some of them are smarter
than public school kids.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My daughters are both straight A students and we
actually need our space. I actually think it`s not fair for them not to
have the rooms that they actually need to have.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I totally agree with my mom. I don`t think it`s
fair for a charter school to take up space that belongs to us.

PELOSI: So, in this one building, you have an incredibly successful
charter school, competing for space with a special need public school.

PRINCIPAL BARRY DAUB, P.S. M811-MICKEY MANTLE SCHOOL: This is about
space. We are talking about three rooms that we`re to go over to the
charter school in this building.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What goes on in these rooms now?

DAUB: We`re instructing special need students.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me know if you need help.

DAUB: Students who live in this community and have a right to come to
this school. If we lost those rooms, it would affect the whole community.
This is a school. It`s not just three rooms. This is a school that has
spent a lot of time developing a culture of caring and concern and love.
It`s my responsibility to take care of all students. My special need
students have a right to be here. We have to educate them.

PELOSI: And how do you feel about the fight for space in your school?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think unfair. Its kind of -- it`s crazy. My
son has special needs too. Kids should be treated equally, just not
discuss one score better than the other. There will going to be a kid
better than my kid or somebody else`s kid, you know, they should all be
treated equal.

PAULA CUNNINGHAM, SPECIAL NEEDS TEACHER: Our school is a wonderful
school that make (inaudible) school. We are loving, warm, nurturing
community, and we count too. It`s about all of the children not just some
of the children. It`s separate and unequal. It`s survival of the fittest.
Its -- they are winning in (ph). It`s awful. Special needs children count
too. It`s a shame for children that have special needs to be pushed out.
And people can say they can go any place. No, they can`t go any place
because they have special needs. Charter schools have their place and
that`s wonderful. But just don`t take away our place at the table (ph).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Daniel Dromm, the chairman of the city council`s education
committee joins us tonight here on the Ed Show.

Mr. Dromm, good to have you with us. Well, let`s see. We`ve got a
lawsuit that`s been filed. We`ve got a half a million dollar PR campaign
that`s being put out by the charter school advocates. And you got
residents who are saying that their public schools are being short changed.
What`s the result in all of these? What`s the latest?

DANIEL DROMM, NYC COUNCIL MEMBER, QUEENS: Well, I want to thank you
first for showing this side of this story because this side of the story
often doesn`t get out there. And what people need to know is that for Eva
Moskowitz, the pushing to the school, she`s pushing people out of the
school. She (inaudible) .

SCHULTZ: What`s your solution for those kids?

DROMM: . in adult school.

SCHULTZ: What your solution for those kids?

DROMM: She hasn`t given a solution. She said let them go wherever
they may go, you know, and she has no idea about where this kids can go.

SCHULTZ: Just fall by the way side?

DROMM: Just fall by the way side. She`s not talking about what`s
going to happen to them. She`s only focusing in on her own students.

SCHULTZ: She is running a half a million dollar ad campaign. Now,
the public schools aren`t doing that. What`s your response to that?

DROMM: It`s an amazing thing.

SCHULTZ: I mean, you have to win in the arena of public opinion, and
with a half a million dollars, you can turn people against public education
pretty good.

DROMM: Well, it`s an amazing thing. And today`s New York Times have
reported that she pay $500,000 to political consultants. Public schools do
not have access to that type of money. They can`t run their own PR
campaigns. They can`t hire political consultants to make the case for
them. They are the disadveventures (ph). They rely on programs, like this
actually, to get the word about (ph) what they`re doing in the public
school system.

SCHULTZ: We have seen some tweets to this program that charter
schools can go out and recruit. And there`s an extra curricular activity
element in all of these too, who has the best athletic teams, who has the
best students that are gifted in certain areas of music and what not, does
that limit the opportunity for other students to be exposed to those who
have got, you know, extraordinary talents?

DROMM: Absolutely. It makes the system that is better separate and
unequal. And what happens is that those students, who don`t attend those
charter schools, don`t have the same opportunities as those who attend the
public schools. And often times, what happens is that, they`re in same
building. Sometimes, the children who go to charter school go in one
entrance in the school building, and the children who are in the public
school go into another entrance. They`re not oftentimes even allowed to
commingle in the same school building.

SCHULTZ: What is your response to Governor Cuomo`s supporting the
charter schools?

DROMM: Well, you know, in New York State, 97 percent of the students
who attend school go to a public school. And I would hope that the
governor will stand up for those 97 percent. In New York City, it`s 94
percent. We need a governor who`s going to stand up and fight for our
public schools.

SCHULTZ: He`s not fighting for the public schools?

DROMM: He`s focusing right now on the charter schools. I think he
needs to come out and also say there are public schools or good places and
then he wants to stand up and support those children who are in public
schools.

SCHULTZ: Is the governor going on record about this kids losing space
in a public school being taken over by a charter school?

DROMM: And I believe that he said anything yet about this. I think
that this issue is now coming forward. Because I don`t think a lot of
people realize that in order for Eva Moskowitz to come into the school, she
had to push all the kids out of the school.

SCHULTZ: So, is this a bully situation?

DROMM: It`s kind of like a bully situation. It`s unfortunate that
it`s happening in a public school because we`re against bullying as well.
But yes. She has big money. She has power. She has these hedge fund
managers who back her school, who contribute money to her school. And so,
when you have that type of access to power and to money and the other
school doesn`t have that type of access, then it becomes a bullying
situation.

SCHULTZ: She`s gotten a lot of media attention.

DROMM: She`s gotten a lot of media attention. I`m not there fighting
as hard as I can as the chairperson of the Education Committee in the city
council to counter some of that stuff.

SCHULTZ: Isn`t there a different solution for this? If they`ve got a
half a million dollars to pay her, and if they`ve got a half a million
dollars to pay consultants, I mean, is there not any kind of rental space
at all that will be available for this charter schools? Why would they
want to wean French on the public school kids?

DROMM: Right. And you would think with type of money that they can
afford to pay rent. And that`s what this is really about. If they want to
afford it, they can do it. They can rent and pay rent, let them go out and
pay their rent. Charter schools are actually private schools with a public
charter. The idea for charter schools, originally, was that they would be
incubators so that the ideas that come out of charter schools could be
spread out into the public schools. That`s not what`s happen. They have
become corporatized and privatized and people are looking at them to make a
profit

SCHULTZ: What`s the end game here?

DROMM: The end game is that we need to ensure that are public schools
are as equally funded and as popular and then supported .

SCHULTZ: I got that. I want to know how this is going to be
resolved. That`s what I`m asking, I mean, how is this going -- is she
going to get the space?

DROMM: I think that -- I don`t know that`s she`s going to get the
space. I think she has a lawsuit out on it.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DROMM: We then have to wait and see what comes in on that lawsuit and
we`ll take it from there. But, I don`t think public school students should
be pushed out of their building to accommodate a charter school.

SCHULTZ: OK. Daniel Dromm, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks
so much.

You`re watching the Ed Show right here on MSNBC. Stick around. We
got a lot more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Time now for the tenders. Join the Ed Show social media.
You`re going to find us at facebook.com/edshow, twitter.com/edshow, and
ed.msnbc.com. On the radio, noon to 3:00, Monday through Friday on
SiriusXM, Channel 127. You can get my radio podcast @wegoted.com. Thanks
for doing that.

And you have decided. We are reporting. Here are today`s top
Trenders voted on by you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jeez, it takes a lot of calluses to get elected,
doesn`t it?

SCHULTZ: The number three tender, Brewer bows out.

GOV. JAN BREWER, (R) ARIZONA: There does come a time, passed, the
thwarts (ph) of leadership.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please come out of here.

BREWER: After completing this German office, I will be doing just
that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor, how tough was this decision?

BREWER: It wasn`t tough.

SCHULTZ: The Arizona governor will not run for a third term

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor Brewer has made enormous headline during
her time in office, signing SB 1070, wagging of the finger in President
Obama`s face, ramming a Medicaid expansion through the legislators.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She did what she found was right for Arizona. And
that`s how you can ask from the Governor.

SCHULTZ: The number two trender, homework bound.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I never asked for anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, that`s brilliant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That New Jersey teenager who`s suing her parents
to pay her bills.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re 18 and you`ve got a scholarship and now
you`re a grown up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s not fair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: . and free.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rachel Canning is now back home with her family
this morning.

SCHULTZ: The New Jersey teen who sued her parents moves back in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The judge denied her request for financial
support.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re grounded.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As far as my client is concerned, it`s ancient
history.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rachel`s attorney says her parents are now
pressuring her to drop the lawsuit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This ain`t fuller.

SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender, orders up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Obama is using his executive authority
to expand overtime pay for millions of American workers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This President believes in the labor market
that`s fair for people.

BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Now, President Obama
is going to demand white collar workers like you, Henry and me.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. All right.

O`REILLY: That we get overtime.

SCHULTZ: President Obama makes another executive move to boost
workers.

O`REILLY: If this ever became law, then there is -- the companies are
going to fire white collar workers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait, what?

HENRY: He`s targeting the fast food manager who is making $600 a week
currently not eligible for overtime.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People should be rewarded for fair work.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have it your way. Have it your way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight, Congressman Keith Ellison from
Minnesota. Congressman, good to have you with us. Thanks for working
around a few votes.

What does the latest executive order mean for workers? It goes to a
limit of just under $52,000, so Bill O`Reilly doesn`t have to worry about
anything, OK, and neither of us Ed Henry. I think they`re doing better
than that. But, bottom line here is, what is this going to do?

REP. KEITH ELLISON, (D) MINNESOTA: It means the president is
listening. It means that work rules regarding overtime pay are going to be
honored and that people are going to get compensated for the very hard work
that they do. These are reason we got four decades of flat wages in
America. It`s because of low minimum wages, because people are getting the
overtime pay that they earn. It`s because of bad trade deals like the TPP.
It`s because of that number of things, the president is getting responsive
to the American worker and it`s a good thing and I`m glad to see it.

SCHULTZ: And we should point out the George W. Bush did this move at
a $455 a week. The president wants to move it to just under $1,000 a week.
Within the last hour, another story of bipartisan group of senators reached
the deal to reauthorize unemployment insurance for five months. I think
it`s great. They`re going home. And just before they do it, what`s going
to happen in the House?

ELLISON: Well, a lot of this -- there will going to be a lot of
pressure on John Boehner. Is he going to stand with American workers who
found themselves how to work, and who need a little extra help because of
it or not? The fact is, this is a -- who`s side are you on moment? And
the Senate has done its work and Boehner is the one who can put this bill
on the floor. We will vote it up and people will be able to get the money
that they need.

SCHULTZ: So, this will be .

ELLISON: And so .

SCHULTZ: This will be retroactive back .

ELLISON: It will be.

SCHULTZ: . to the end of December .

ELLISON: Yes.

SCHULTZ: . and it will be for five months. The Senate is going to
get 60 votes. Will there be any Republicans with you?

ELLISON: I think so. You know, as a matter of fact, Republicans got
people in their district who have been in a need of unemployment insurance.
I mean, if they don`t, they`re going to pay a price. Again, this is a
moment of who`s side are you on. I think there`s enough sensible
Republicans who are going to do the right thing.

SCHULTZ: So, who`s the hostage here? What are the Republicans
getting out of this deal?

ELLISON: Well, you know, there is this thing called pension smoothing
and it`s a procedure which has resulted at them being able to collect
enough money for a pay-for. And so that`s what it is.

SCHULTZ: OK.

ELLISON: You know, that`s really all they`re paying for.

SCHULTZ: All right. What`s the House doing about Congressman Issa
after his insulting performance the other day?

ELLISON: Well, let me tell you. I actually have the picture here
because Darrell Issa cut our ranking member off at the middle of debate.
Here is the picture of Issa cutting it off. Right now, Dan Kildee of
Michigan is leading a privilege resolution saying that this is
unacceptable. You cannot cut another member off in the middle of debate.
It is against the rules and Issa`s going to be held accountable for it.
Here`s the picture. I hope folks see it.

SCHULTZ: And quickly, the Democrat is trying to get him removed as
the chair?

ELLISON: Well, he doesn`t deserve to be chair. And so, that would be
the right thing. But this motion is to condemn his behavior.

SCHULTZ: OK.

ELLISON: Perhaps the Republican colleagues will see that he doesn`t
deserve to be the chair.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Keith Ellison thanks so much.

That`s the Ed Show. It`s time now for Politics Nation with Reverend
Al Sharpton. Good evening, Rev.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

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.>