MSNBC "The Ed Show" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Good to be here.

SCHULTZ: What is your response to that answer right there on "Meet the Press" from yesterday.

NADLER: Well, I obviously don"t like profiling and I certainly don"t like the patriot act and I certainly don"t like the torture that"s still been unpunished. I must say, I also don"t like the automatic application of these scanning machines. When you have real reason to suspect a person of something, then maybe you can use them then. But they"re too intrusive. And I also worry about the radiation risk, frankly specially for frequent fliers, I don"t want to think it"s right to expose people to constant radiation.

SCHULTZ: OK, do you want to stop the pat-downs or is this where we are in America right now in a deterrent?

NADLER: Well, I"d like to find some alternatives to the pat-downs. Those pat-downs are extremely invasive of privacy, and extremely not irritating, it"s not enough of a word, to people especially people who are sensitive. They touch all the private parts of a person. They"re very invasive.

SCHULTZ: Do you want them to back off? Do you want the TSA to back off?

NADLER: No, I"d like to see them use alternative technologies, for instance, trace portal detectors which are being used in some--in some areas and I also know that these machines were rejected after a four-year try out at the Heathrow Airport in Britain. I think you have to have a balance between security and privacy.

SCHULTZ: OK.

NADLER: And I think that this is a little off of the balance.

SCHULTZ: But congressman, is the media hype in this, two percent of the people get patted down. Two percent. Only 44 percent of Americans fly.

NADLER: Well, I don"t know if the media"s hyping it, but fact is anyone who apparently, the procedure of some of airports now is that anyone who refuses the body scanner will get patted down. And I think we ought to find--before we go whole hog in this technology we"ve got to find some.

SCHULTZ: Do you know exactly how much radiation is--people are being exposed to exactly how much radiation and shouldn"t the government be able to make a determine whether it"s harmful or not?

NADLER: Well, I"ve always taken the position that any radiation is harmful, the only question is--and that there are no safe bottom limits that, it"s all a question of statistics.

SCHULTZ: Yes.

NADLER: If you expose 20 million people to minimal safe radiation, somebody will develop cancer, maybe only one or two.

SCHULTZ: But congressman, what about the outrage from the public? The way their, I mean, the comments are here on talk radio, there"s a big conversation in America that it"s too intrusive, that it"s humiliating. Did the White House do and did the TSA and the counterterrorism people, and this is exactly where this is all coming from, they say they need to do to it to thwart attacks but did they not--did they not care about the public reaction and just go ahead and do it?

NADLER: I think.

SCHULTZ: Didn"t they have the foresight to see that there would going to be some people pushing back on this?

NADLER: Obviously, they didn"t have the foresight to anticipate the level of the response. And you see this in bureaucracies all the time. It"s not surprising.

SCHULTZ: Well.

NADLER: And I don"t think that it was in the White House. Because I think that it was in the bureaucracy of the TSA.

SCHULTZ: Isn"t it a bigger issue that the cargo gets on passenger planes and screened.

NADLER: Yes.

SCHULTZ: I mean, isn"t that really what we should really be concerned about?

NADLER: Ed Markey and I sponsored legislation to say that 100 percent of the cargo that goes on airplanes should be screened.

SCHULTZ: And where is that legislation?

NADLER: Well, it"s beginning to be implemented. I sponsored legislation which passed, which said that you shouldn"t be able to put any container on a ship bound to the United States without it being screened.

SCHULTZ: And it would seem to me that the conservatives, the country, would be concerned about unscreened containers on passenger planes. What"s wrong with government?

NADLER: Well, that was interesting because that was a partisan vote and never understood why but in 2006, it was defeated on the party line vote with all of the Republicans voting against, in 2007 it passed on the party line vote. And the Bush administration never wanted to implement it, and this administration"s being slow to implement it.

SCHULTZ: That is the under-covered story in this whole mix it when it comes to safety. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you.

NADLER: You"re welcome. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source