Return to Transcripts main page
NEW DAY
Train Accelerated Going into Fatal Curve; Boehner Erupts Over Amtrak Funding Question; Enough Being Done to Ensure Railway Safety?; Jeb Bush: 'I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq'; Are Executions Sign of Imminent North Korean Collapse?; Iran Fires on Commercial Cargo Ship. Aired 7-7:30a ET
Aired May 15, 2015 - 07:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This as the NTSB says according to their initial investigation the train bizarrely accelerated from around 70 miles per hour to 100 in under a minute just before reaching the sharp turn. What happens next caught on surveillance camera from a nearby building. Watch as sparks fly at over 100 miles an hour, the deadly speed catapulting seven train cars and the engine off the tracks.
[07:00:10] JOSEPH BOARDMAN, AMTRAK CEO: We will have positive train control on the Northeast Corridor section by December 31.
MARSH: Amtrak's CEO says that safety mechanism to prevent human error will be in place by the congressional mandate. But some say too little too late.
(on camera): Why isn't it done now? Was it an issue of cost? Has it just come down to the bottom line?
BOARDMAN: It's -- no, it's a time issue and also a cost issue.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARSH: All right. Well, back out here live, while they do not have positive train control on these particular tracks, there is an automatic braking system that was in place. It has been in place for years on the opposite side of the tracks to slow southbound trains, like trains traveling from New York to D.C. The reason for that is because those trains are usually traveling much faster, much faster rate, as high as 110 miles per hour.
So they had that automatic braking system on the opposite side of the tracks. Didn't have it on the side where the accident happened. We asked Amtrak why. They say because the speed limit on this side is much slower. And so they say the risk was slower -- Chris.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: And at this point, Rene, there's just no question that the speed of this train and the lack of any infrastructure or technology, whatever you want to call it, to stop the train is why we lost these lives and had all the injuries. The question becomes what are you going to do about it. Democrats are saying spend more money on infrastructure. That's the problem. The Republicans are hating that idea, as we just saw from Speaker Boehner.
So let's bring in Joe Johns right now and talk about how the politics are making this situation anything but better. What's the latest on this front?
JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chris, the speaker of the House reacting strongly, even angrily to that reporter's questions about attempts to link reduced funding for Amtrak to the crash in Philadelphia. That question coming just a day after the House Appropriations Committee voted to reduce funding for the rail system by more than $200 million just a couple days after that crash in Philadelphia.
This is such a sensitive political issue right now because Democrats want more funding for Amtrak at a time when Republicans are trying to reduce government spending. Speaker Boehner taking the position that it's just too early to make a connection on cause. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Are you really going to ask such a stupid question? Listen, you know, they started this yesterday. It's all about funding; it's all about funding. Well, obviously, it's not about funding. The train was going twice the speed limit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: Democrats pushing back on this. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York responding in a statement, saying Speaker Boehner's comments are patently false. Experts have made clear that positive train control could have prevented the tragedy in Philadelphia. It is simply a fact that insufficient funding for Amtrak has delayed the installation of positive train control.
By the way, that statement coming out just about the same time that we got the reports that the train control technology was actually installed in the tracks near the crash site but was not working.
President Obama did take the opportunity last night to highlight the need for more infrastructure spending, though also pointing out that the cause of the accident has not been confirmed, Chris.
CUOMO: Right. And we're hearing from the rail side that the reason it's not working is because it's not fully installed. There's a communication component. You know, it can always get complex when people want to avoid an answer.
Joe Johns, thank you very much.
Let's bring in Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania, Bill Shuster. He's the chairman of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee. This is going to fall onto his plate about what we do next.
And Congressman, thank you for joining us on NEW DAY. Let's start with the obvious. Your speaker says it is stupid to say or ask in any way whether or not this situation could have been avoided by infrastructure. Do you agree that that's a stupid question?
REP. BILL SHUSTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: I believe it's shameless that we have some of our colleagues trying to exploit such tragedy like this for funding. We need to figure out the facts first and then move forward. And we have passed in the House a bill to significantly reform the management and operation of Amtrak. I think that's where you start. Making sure Amtrak is doing everything in the right way to maximize the dollars they spend. I don't believe they maximize those dollars today.
CUOMO: All right. So there are two different issues. You're making the "it's not simply how much money you put at this; it's how well you spend it." That goes to accountability. And I think people are going to agree with you on that.
But now there's this other issue. There's this other issue, Congressman, which is saying, "Hey, it's too early to tell whether this has anything to do with anything but the speed of this train." That sounds dangerously ignoring what we've heard from the NTSB. They said, no matter what the engineer was doing, no matter why the train was going that fast, this could have been avoided if positive track control was installed and working. Do you disagree with that?
[07:05:00] SHUSTER: If positive train control were in place, that's true. But it was the FCC, this administration's FCC has taken years for them to approve putting up poles, putting up the technology. It's a very complicated system.
So to say that it wasn't there is the fault of the industry is wrong or Congress, because we passed that law several years ago. But we're stuck in another agency in this town, taking years and years to make us jump through bureaucratic hoops to get technology out there. So once again, the FCC should be -- have some culpability on this.
CUOMO: That's great. There's plenty of blame to go around and point fingers. And we should do it. We should be asking those questions and get the accountability, because there's been a lot of money and a lot of time; and yet we are where we are right now.
But I still feel that there's a resistance to what should be very obvious here. If the PTC were in place, this would not have happened, no matter what the engineer was doing. Do you accept that as true, as it is presented by the NTSB?
SHUSTER: I believe PTC were in place, that is true.
CUOMO: OK.
SHUSTER: And we're working on getting PTC in place. It's a very complicated system. We've got an agency in this town that has been dragging their feet and slowing us down.
CUOMO: Right.
SHUSTER: Or we would have probably been in place right now.
CUOMO: Right.
SHUSTER: And Amtrak's right on the verge of getting it up and running.
CUOMO: Well, actually, what they're right on the verge of doing, as I understand it, is asking you for more time. That the industry is pushing for more time to extend it. and the word is that you're going to give them more time. Now, how does that play with accountability in this situation?
SHUSTER: Well...
CUOMO: If you keep giving them money and more time to do the job and it doesn't get done, now whose fault is it?
SHUSTER: Well, in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is prepared to turn the system on in several months. They're just about ready to do it. Across this country, once again I said, the FCC has stopped us from putting the technology in place. And so they are going to need more time to do it. It just -- from the technological standpoint, from the timing standpoint, stopped by a government agency of the Obama administration, that's one of the problems is not out there.
And let me tell you something else. If people want to stand up and change the situation, the House has already passed back in March a significant reform bill to Amtrak. It's on its way to the Senate -- it's in the Senate. If the senators over that there want to talk about Amtrak, what they ought to be talking about is this significant reform bill that will do the things I'm talking about to change the way Amtrak operates.
CUOMO: But just cutting the money isn't going to be -- I know that sounds good. You know, we're tightening up. You know, we're closing those budgets. We're going to give these agencies less to work with.
But everybody in this industry says the problem is we don't have enough money. And then that goes to, well, how are they spending the money we give them? Then whose job is that to be accountable? You're saying the FCC made a mistake. Well, whose job is it to check the FCC and make sure the money is spent right, so we don't wind up with what just happened?
SHUSTER: Well, the FCC is an agency that's very independent out there. Congress can only do so much.
The president has, I believe, the bully pulpit. He has the pressure he can place on his commissioners that he put in place to get them moving forward. So I would lay it at the president's feet. Again, there's a reform bill out there that we passed out of our committee out of the House on a bipartisan vote 316 to some and it's over in the Senate now.
The Senate needs to take that up and let's pass this. Let's do the reforms necessary. Let's get the states involved. Let's make sure that, if we're giving billions of dollars to Amtrak, that they're spending it wisely. And right now I don't believe that's going on.
CUOMO: There's criticism of your bill that one of the elements of it is that you're going to give those operators in the northeast a larger share of the money than the rest of the country. And that that will jeopardize the safety concerns around, as you pointed out, the rest of this country, because they're not going to have enough money because you're giving it all to your friends in the northeast. Is that fair criticism?
SHUSTER: No, not at all, Chris. What we're doing is keeping the profits in the Northeast Corridor. The Northeast Corridor makes about $500 million profit. Those dollars today, those passengers today that pay -- earn those profits are being spread out all over the country.
The Northeast Corridor's the most important rail corridor in this country. Eighteen percent of our population, 2 percent of our land mass. It provides 20 percent of our GDP. It's a highly -- it's a dense corridor. Two hundred million people travel this corridor every year, 200 million people. So it's a significant transportation mode. Those dollars should stay in the northeast. And then we should look at the other areas and figure out how to make them operate better, help them to raise more revenues.
Those are things that I think are very, very fair, and I think most Americans would look at that and say it's fair. If you make the money in the Northeast Corridor, let's invest it in the Northeast Corridor. Let's make it the safest corridor in America.
CUOMO: All right. So you are keeping more money here in the northeast, but you're saying there's a good reason for it. It's not a bad reason. Thank you for clarifying that.
Now, let's just finish on the point that we started with. Because it seems like the answer here is, at least in part, going to be politics. And I don't know how it's helpful for your speaker to stand up and say it's stupid to ask whether or not this situation that we're dealing with down here had anything to do with infrastructure I think you know the answer to that has to be yes. And do we have to deal with it clearly if we want to make the situation better?
[07:10:03] SHUSTER: Chris, look, I agree with the speaker in the sense that...
CUOMO: You think it's stupid to say that this situation had to do with infrastructure when you're hearing exactly that from the NTSB?
SHUSTER: No, Chris, what I believe is this accident did not have anything to do with money. It had to do with a failure on either the operator's part or the equipment's part. Again, it did not have to do with money at all. It has to do with -- one of those two things that caused this terrible accident.
CUOMO: You're saying money, because that it's not just about giving more money. I understand the political advantage in that. What I'm saying is do you think this could have been prevented if the infrastructure that we could have in place was in place, or do you think that's a stupid question?
SHUSTER: I think the infrastructure was in place. The tracks, from what all I can tell from the NTSB is that the tracks were fine.
CUOMO: The PTC is not functioning there. It's not in place. It's not working. You know that, Congressman.
SHUSTER: Chris, it's not functioning because they haven't got the technology in place.
CUOMO: I know. I'm not saying why it's not functioning. I'm saying it's not functioning, and if it were functioning, this would have been avoided. Why won't you accept that?
SHUSTER: Chris, that has nothing to do with money. It has to do...
CUOMO: I never said it did. I never said it did. I'm just trying to get past the politics of it.
SHUSTER: You kept referring to -- you kept referring to the speaker's statement.
CUOMO: Because he said it's a stupid question. And you won't say whether or not it's a stupid question, because you want to talk about money. And that's the politics of it, not the practicality.
SHUSTER: Chris -- Chris, I don't want to talk about money. I want to talk about reforming Amtrak. We have produced a bill in the House, significant reforms. Let's reform Amtrak and then let's start talking about money, if there needs more. Are they going to be able to spend it wisely?
I'm not making this a money issue. It sounds like you're making it a money issue.
CUOMO: I never even said the word "money," but I understand why it's on your mind because you're down there in D.C., and you guys are fighting over the budget. I get it, and I appreciate you being on the show. We're going to stay on this story, because the whole point is to avoid these situations, if we can. That's got to be the goal. So thank you very much.
SHUSTER: And that's why we need -- that's what we need to do with reform, and Amtrak reform bill we've passed in the House and is sitting in the Senate today.
CUOMO: We're with you. We'll stay -- we'll stay on it, because this matters. And we're going to try and push through the politics along the way. Thank you very much, Congressman Shuster -- Mick.
MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Always a challenge to push through those politics. All right, Chris, thank you.
Kind of a rough week for Jeb Bush, stumbling over questions about the Iraq war. Perhaps now a definitive answer from him about whether he would have authorized the invasion, had he known then about the failed intelligence.
CNN's Dana Bash is here with us with the details. Hey, Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, there. Well, I've been talking to sources inside Jeb Bush's world. And they get it. They know that he stumbled in a major way, and they had to try to put it to rest.
So after active discussions inside his campaign in waiting, Bush went out there yesterday and gave it a fourth try.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BASH (voice-over): The end of a long week for Jeb Bush. Closing with an explanation Thursday night why he may have fumbled answers about the Iraq war.
JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I'm not going to go out of my way to say that, you know, my brother did this wrong or my dad did this wrong. It's just not going to happen. I have a hard time with that. I love my family a lot.
BASH: Earlier in the day, a fourth attempt at answering that question, "Knowing what we know today would he have invaded Iraq?"
BUSH: We're all supposed to answer hypothetical questions. Knowing what we know now what would you have done, I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq.
BASH: Bush offered that clarification without even being asked. Days of mixed messages about his Iraq position such a problem it was actually being discussed on "The View" on the television right above him as he spoke in Arizona.
JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, ABC'S "THE VIEW": He's between a rock and a hard place.
BASH: The confusion stems from this on FOX Monday.
BUSH: I would have. And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody.
BASH: This on Tuesday.
BUSH (via phone): I don't know what that decision would have been. That's a hypothetical.
BASH: And this on Wednesday.
BUSH: Given the power of looking back and having that, of course anybody would have made different decisions.
BASH: Even Bush supporters scratched their heads, baffled that someone named Bush, whose brother's legacy was marred by invading Iraq based on faulty intelligence, was not better prepared to give his position. Jeb Bush's GOP opponents, free of his family ties, are eager to show
they can finesse it, especially Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush's protege.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I do not believe that, if the intelligence had said Iraq does not have weapon of mass destruction capability, I don't believe President Bush would have authorized to move forward.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: On that key question of why Jeb Bush wasn't prepared to answer the predictable Iraq questions, a Bush adviser insists to me they did go over it. He was prepared, but he simply got tripped up when, he in his words, misheard the question, "knowing what you know now."
But, you know, obviously there are lots of other questions from the previous Bush administration he's going to be asked, guys, right? Whether or not he supports the bailout, whether or not he supports what the president, his brother did on Medicare and so forth. So presumably, there's a lot more of this kind of stuff to come.
PEREIRA: All right, Dana, thank you so much for that.
BASH: Thank you.
[07:15:03] PEREIRA: We have some breaking news for you in the unrest in central Africa. The U.S. embassy in Burundi is closed today. Non- emergency personnel and family of staff have been told to leave the country. This after the military of generals behind an attempted coup in Burundi were reportedly arrested. Gunfire erupting in the capital over the past few days, following an attempt to overthrow the country's president. Political infighting has sparked fears that Burundi might plunge into epic violence and civil war.
CUOMO: All right. We've fixed our technical problems. So let's get back to former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, about North Korea.
So Governor, these reports that 400 or 500 executions have been done under the hand of Kim Jong-un. Do we believe those reports? Or is there a chance that this could be hyped to make him seem powerful?
RICHARDSON: No, there's credibility to the reports. Whether it's 500, that's uncertain. But certainly, the defense chief has disappeared. He's either been purged or executed.
And I think it shows some instability in Kim Jong-un's regime that he's being challenged, that he's got serious, serious opposition, especially within the military, the defense chief. The military is the most important entity in North Korea. They have the nuclear weapons. They have the missiles. They have over a million men in arms. So this is a serious challenge to his leadership what is happening.
But the second thing, Chris, that is happening is, it's showing Kim Jong-un's inexperience in dealing with a crisis. By purging, by executing, by creating a climate of fear, I think he is undermining himself. I think he's putting himself in a situation that he's not only going to be challenged again and again, but that he's going to create some internal opposition that in the end could topple him.
CUOMO: So what do we do about it? We keep hearing all these troubling things, and we worry because he has the nukes and the instability in the region. But what can be done?
RICHARDSON: Well, I believe our policy is called strategic patience. We basically wait things out and say to the North Koreans, "If you want to have a dialogue with us, the United States and South Korea and others, then you have to reduce or eliminate your nuclear weapons."
I think because of the instability there, because there may be 20 weapons, we have those men, 28,000 Americans there, I think that we need to talk to North Korea. I think we need a dialogue through the Chinese, through the six-party countries. Find a way to see where this man is coming from.
I think we've done this with Iran. What -- I believe the nuclear negotiations are moving in the right direction. I'd like to see more. We did this with Cuba. We went after bin Laden.
I think this is an opportunity to move forward in a very crucial part of the world, northeast Asia, which is a tinderbox. And it's a tinderbox caused by the instability of this leader, who also has nuclear weapons and appears to be heading in a very dangerous direction.
CUOMO: And Governor Richardson, I remember over the years you saying, as difficult as it is, as offensive as what happens there is, having a channel of communication is the most important thing to change. And that's something that we're still struggling with today.
Thank you for joining us and putting up with all these gremlins that we dealt with today. And I wish you the best for your weekend.
RICHARDSON: (AUDIO GAP)
CUOMO: Mick.
PEREIRA: Gremlins still having a little bit of a party right there at the end of the segment. Great conversation with the former governor.
Well, Iran is stirring up trouble in the Persian Gulf, firing on a commercial cargo ship for a second time. Why such aggression? And what can be done to stabilize the Gulf? We'll take a look.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:20:40] PEREIRA: Good to have you back with us here on NEW DAY.
Tensions on the rise after Iran shoots at a Singapore-flagged oil tanker. It's the second time they've targeted a commercial cargo ship. What's going on here? Bobby Ghosh is with me. He is a CNN global affairs analyst and, of
course, the managing editor at Quartz. We're here on our giant map. Sort of walk through what went down here. And we can actually play the animation to show this.
We know that the Singapore -- Singapore-flagged oil tanker entered the Strait of Hormuz, was told to pull over by Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats. Tanker didn't respond. Those boats then opened fire, firing shots across the bow. We understand it was first a warning shot and then opened machine gunfire. Ultimately, the UAE's Coast Guard came to the aid of that oil tanker.
We see that scenario. What's going on here? Why this -- it almost looks like muscle flexing.
BOBBY GHOSH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes. The Revolutionary Guard that sort of commands a number of vessels in that area sometimes operates almost independently of Iran. So it's a little hard to know. They have their own slightly different political agenda. They represent, in some respects, the hard line in Iran.
While the Iranian government is trying to negotiate with the U.S. and with the world powers about nuclear deal -- about this nuclear deal, there are elements within the Revolutionary Guard that don't really want the nuclear deal.
But then you have to kind of look at the specifics of this case. This is the second time, as you pointed out.
PEREIRA: Yes.
GHOSH: A couple of weeks ago there was another cargo ship that was registered to the Marshall Islands that the Iranian Coast Guard sort of surrounded and kind of hustled a little bit. It turned out that that had to do with some sort of a commercial dispute. There was a complicated legal issue. We kind of need to see a little more about what's going on here.
PEREIRA: But I've got to wonder, because they're saying that this incident...
GHOSH: Was.
PEREIRA: ... was almost like a maritime hit-and-run. That this boat, the Alpine Eternity, it hit some sort of oil platform owned by the Iranians, and they said, hey, if you don't -- and then took off. They said, "If you don't come talk to us, we're going to come and take the boat."
GHOSH: Yes.
PEREIRA: Are they using this guise of maritime disputes or financial disputes for something, I don't know, more sinister or another agenda, even?
GHOSH: Look, they stand to lose as much as anybody if there are major incidents in that Gulf. Iran's oil exports all -- more or less most of it goes through that -- through the Gulf. They don't benefit if international shipping gets nervous about sending their vessels into that space.
PEREIRA: Good point.
[07:25:05] GHOSH: But it is true that five boats, live fire at a ship, that does seem like a little overkill. That does seem like muscle flexing to some degree.
PEREIRA: It really does.
GHOSH: And then the UAE sends in their bigger Coast Guard ships. This is either -- in a situation where, let's remind ourselves, stuff is going on in Yemen. Iran is essentially, through its proxies in Yemen, at dagger's edge with the GCC, the Gulf countries. This kind of flare ups, there's a potential for things to get out of hand. And that's something that Americans and people all over that region will be warning about.
Let's calm down, everybody. Let's not be shooting guns at ships, even if there is sort of a dispute. There's got to be other ways to resolve that dispute than sending fast-moving boats into the water and taking, really, pot shots at an unarmed vessel.
PEREIRA: At an unarmed vessel, a commercial vessel...
GHOSH: An oil tanker.
PEREIRA: Right, of all things.
So here let's talk about the U.S. involvement. We know that recently, very recently in fact, the U.S. has stopped escorting commercial ships through the area.
GHOSH: Yes.
PEREIRA: Do you think that the U.S. is going to have to reconsider that position?
GHOSH: There's going to be pressure to do that after this incident. So the -- the escort service was provided after the previous incident with the Marshall-Islands-registered ship for about a week or ten days.
PEREIRA: Right.
GHOSH: U.S. sort of naval vessels provided escort for American and British ships only. Not for all vessels. But now that this has happened, now live ammunition has been fired, there's going to be a lot of pressure. The 5th Fleet is over there.
PEREIRA: The 5th Fleet is over there, but the question then becomes, because we know all of this is happening with the backdrop of these ongoing nuclear talks with Iran going on right now.
GHOSH: Yes.
PEREIRA: So this is a delicate proposition. Because you said there are different -- if this Revolutionary Guard is doing their own thing and sort of ruling the high seas with a different kind of fist than the people that are at the table having these talks, this is a very delicate negotiation.
GHOSH: It is indeed. And of course, we've heard just recently Saudi Arabia say, "Well, if Iran is allowed to have nukes then we want them, too."
PEREIRA: "Then we want them, too."
GHOSH: "We all want nuclear technology." There's a lot of heated rhetoric in that region right now. And there are too many different pieces, balls in the air, if you like. The last thing you want at this stage is some rogue Revolutionary Guard unit deciding that they want to sort of move the needle in another direction.
PEREIRA: Yes.
GHOSH: And going half-cocked into the -- into the situation.
PEREIRA: Which it appears this is what it might have happened here.
GHOSH: It might very well be. And that's something to be worried about.
PEREIRA: Bobby Ghosh, always good to have you here to talk us through what we see on the map.
All right, Chris, over to you.
CUOMO: All right. It is accountability time for what just happened in Philadelphia, and we've learned that the first lawsuit from Train 188's accident has been filed by an Amtrak employee who suffered extensive injuries. Is this the road to making things better? We'll take it on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
