evening. the rachel maddow show start now. >> nerdly uncomfortable wasn't a segue to me, was it? >> no. nerdly self-assured and deeply comfortable. >> obviously. >> that's what i'm talking about. >> thanks, man. appreciate it. thank you for joining us this hour. the first time a presidential debates was televised was 1960. that 1960 debate is probably still the most famous american presidential debate of all times. right? thanks mostly to the fact that richard nixon was famously -- in that debate and, therefore, a little shifty looking and john f. kennedy looked cool, calm and collected under a layer of powder foundation. that first debate was filmed in the chicago studios of cbs, but it was a join production and it was jointly broadcast by all the tv networks at the time. that was to say landmark political moment in our country. 70 million americans watched

that debate. illustrate changed the course of history. interesting note for that night. that night, there was a third candidate who thought he should be there on the stage with nixon and kennedy. and that third candidate pushed very, very hard to get himself on to that stage. obviously, they ultimately did not let him into that debate. but he did succeed in forcing the tv networks to give him some semblance of equal time. is his name was lar daly. he was a perennial candidate who ran basically for everything for 40 straight years, never won a thing. but in 1960, when kennedy and nixon got all the airtime, lar daly convinced the fcc that he, too, should get equal, free television time. and they ended up giving it to him on the jack parr show on nbc.

warren uncle sam, smoked a cigarette the whole time he was on the show, you want a sandwich board where you can write to him for more information or to send him campaign donations. lar daly. he was the first official pain in the butt of american televised presidential debate. from the very first one. it was a huge thing for everybody and ignoring everyone and making it all very awkward. the jack parr studio audience, that night that he got his equal time on nbc, the jack parr audience booed lar daly. and they heckled him throughout the audience. parr complained that he had to have this man on his show. lar daly didn't give up and he told the fcc that they hadn't given him enough time to be

truly equal. he demanded a further 22 minutes of television time during that election, if that election was going to be fair. lar daly was his name, perennial county and a real pain in the butt. this year, i check every day if he federal election website to see who has officially filed the paperwork to run for president for 2016. we've posted the link so you can do this yourself, as well. the link is at maddowblog.com today. you can check every day and there really are new ones every day. as of this evening, the number of people who have filed official paperwork to run for president of the united states for 2016, the number as of thyme tonight is 305. 67 people have filed to run for the republican nomination. 46 people have filed as democrats. 84 independents. seven libertarians. there is one perpendicular, i thought of lar daly saying he runs for the nbc part party.

it turns out nbc stands for the natural born citizen party, so there's somebody running on the natural born citizen ticket. and god bless the federal election commission. you can click through and you can see everyone is filing papers in addition to their name. one of the people running for the republican party is named holy savior or -- ole -- ole savior is from minnesota, filed a handwritten declaration that he or she is running. and this person has clearly -- look at the signature, clearly been practicing the signature to make it just perfect in preparation for signing all the bills into law that they will sign into law as president ole savior. this always happens. a zillion people always run to file for president, whether it's perennial candidates like lar daly or optimistic ole savior like this guy from minnesota. it's a little jarring to see all

of those zillions of people, more than 300 of them listed alongside the more familiar names that are running but they all get filed alike. there's rand paul on this list right between eugene roselle hunt jr. and wanda gayle duckwhat would. they're all running. marco rubio's papers are filed right next to jefferson woodson sherman and someone named princess kadijah jacob-fambro. the name of her party is from one alien to another alien, lil wayne. princess kadija will be running her campaign from san francisco, naturally. anyone can run for president. anybody can run. every year, just about everybody does, to a certain extent. several hundred people run.

when it comes to actually running an orderly campaign, and doing things like setting up major debates, the major parties have had to deal with this to a certain degree, right? princess kadija is probably not going to make it into the presidential debates this year, no offense intended. more systemically figure out a way to make sure only the candidates with any conceivable viability make the cut and get into the primary debates. in some years, it's a larger number of conceivably viable candidates than in other years. the other cycles, we have had a few viable candidates. in 2008, the democrats thought they would have a pretty good chance of takes the white house after george h.w. bush and dick cheney. a lot of potentially viable democratic contenders. that year, there were as many as eight people on stage on the democratic side, and that included people like barack obama and hillary clinton, but

dennis kucinich. there was a guy on stage named mike gorvelle pup might remember him as the guy that did that one amazing campaign ad where he didn't say anything, he stared into the camera for a long time and threw a rock into a lake and walked away. that was his whole ad. mike grovelle, i miss you. that same year in 2008, republicans had ten people on the stage for their debates. it does make for a crowd debate stage, but there is a reason. there's a small reason to err on the side of inclusiveness. in -- here is a cautionary example. in january 2008, the fox news channel hosted a republican primary debate in new hampshire. for that new hampshire debate, fox news designeded to not invite texas congressman ron paul.

this debate was after the iowa caucuses that year and ron paul had just done really well in the iowa calkis. but fox news still didn't allow him to be up on that debate stage in new hampshire just a few days later. and they did invite new york city mayor rudy giuliani even though he got about 3% of the vote in iowa. ron paul got 10% and they didn't let him in. and that decision by fox news in january of 2008, that decision by them to exclude ron paul from that debate led to this memorable scene in the streets of milford, new hampshire, where an angry mob, literally an angry mob of ron paul supporters spotted people who they thought were fox news employees in the street and the angry mob literally ran through the streets casing the fox news people screaming fox news sucks, fox news sucks.

>> fox news sucks, fox news socks. fox news sucks. fox news sucks. cautionary tale, right? that is not a scene if you want to see if you are the fox news channel during the republican primary. people chasing your employees or people they thought were your employees yelling fox news sucks. fox news four days later, four days after that milford, new hampshire debate, hosted the next republican presidential debate, as well. they cleared learned their lesson and the next one four days later in south carolina they made sure they included ron paul. fewer angry mobs that way. so it's important, right, that anyone with any perceived viability gets to be seen in the process. right? gets into the debate. sometimes that results in very

large debates, right? you don't want ole savior and princess kadija in there. that's like you couldn't get lar daly. if you have to stretch to nine, 10, 11, 12 candidates so you can get ron paul and dennis kucinich and jim gilmore and all these guys in there, basically, the tendency has been to do it, right? that's how our system works. err on the side of inclusion. that's how our system works. until now. because this year, there is a real problem if this is going to continue to be our system. the system cannot hold this year. in the last cycle, 2012, the republican party thought they had a pretty good chance of making barack obama a one-term president. they thought they had a shot to beat him. they did not. part of that they blame on their candidate, mitt romney and the general election campaign that mitt romney ran. but the party believes they had a flawed process in 2012 that

led to choosing their nominee and that hurt the republican party's chances overall of beating president obama no matter who they chose. specifically, they think they had too many debates in 2012. the republican primary in 2012 involved almost two dozen debates. 23 debates by most counts.. and they started really early. the first major republican primary debate for the 2012 election was four years ago today. it was may 5th, 2011, they started really, really early and they kept doing them. they did almost two dozen debates and after the republicans got beat in 2012, part of their self-diagnosis of what went wrong is they had too many of these debates and it turned the primary process into a salacious reality show that made everybody look small and fringe and divisive and petty. and so the republican party in year decided, i think, not without reason, that they wouldn't make that same mistake again. so for the 2016 cycle, the republicans announced early on

in january that the official republican party would have an official republican party sanctioned short list of debates. they said any candidates who participated in any debate that wasn't on that official short list would be punished in the process. everybody can only do that short list chosen by the party. there would not be too many debates again this time. democratic party followed suit. democratic party followed there would be six democratic primary debates in total, down from 26 in 2008. the democrats set that same rule where no candidate can do a debate that isn't on the short list until they want to get punished on their primary campaign. they stepped in and said we're not going to have this again this year. democrats are going to do six debates, republicans are going to do nine debates. in the democratic debates, so far hillary clinton and bernie sanders are the two declared candidates.

it's widely assumed jim webb, martin o'malley will get in. there's a little drama there. on the republican side, though, they have a problem that calls into question the whole modern system of how we pick presidential nominees. because nobody has any idea how the republicans are going to choose who they let in their debate stage. who they let on there and who they exclude. and yes, i get it that every year a million people run. there really are more than 300 people running this year. the filings are what laborious. there are always a zillion people technically running. but every year, it's pretty obvious where the tiers are, right? it's pretty obvious where the princess kadija's, one alien to another alien, and who is conceivably viable for the nomination. fox news ron paul notwithstanding, right, as to

who makes the cut. usually you can tell. this year, how are you going to tell? this year on the republican side, the conceivably viable list has at least 22 names on it by my latest count. granted, it's a subjective count, but i don't think it's crazy. if you take the list of people not heard of making it into the debate, you've still got about 22 people. let's consider this for a second, right? mike huckabee, officially joined the race today. he won iowa in 2008. won eight states altogether that year. it was a big surprise to democrats that he didn't run in 2012. a lot of high level democrats thought mike huckabee had a really good chance of winning the republican nomination in 2012. mike huckabee has potential viability as a nominee. mike huckabee is officially in as of today. he joins ted cruz and rand paul and marco rubio and ben carson and carly.

ben carson may not be a household name nationwide, but he does have support among the republican conservative base. carly fiorina made a credible bid for a senate seat in 2012. she's never technically held public office, but she's making a serious bid. up on the list, there's the rest of the obvious list, right? jeb bush, scott walker, rick perry, chris christie, bobby jindal. south carolina senator lindsey graham has been a character for decades making more and more noise about making a serious run. ohio governor john kasich is talking about running. rick snyder of michigan is making similar noises about running now.

he will come in at about the same tier as john kasich. mike pence of indiana did have a bit of a national setback with his anti-discrimination stance last month. he is a prospect for the presidency. i understand because i know you that you laugh at the prospect of a donald trump candidacy, but donald trump, believe me, is actually hiring campaign staff in multiple early voting presidential states. and donald trump polls surprisingly well among likely republican voters. this year, the role of tim pawlenty will be played by george pataki in the sense that to the outside world he is a bit of a snooze fest, but governor pataki is well respected and well connected in republican mainstream politics. john bolton, the angriest ambassador ever, another candidate who has a donald

trump-esque laugh factor outside conservative politics. but he has a permanent seat on the fox news channel. he will be taken seriously in many republican circles, particularly foreign policy circles. even old jim gilmore is back, former governor of virginia. you will remember as the friendly potted plant on the republican primary debate stage back in 2008. looks like jim gilmore will be running again. add to that list former governor bob erlich. peter king both of whom have been doing the rounds in iowa and new hampshire and attending candidate forms and giving speeches. without trying too hard, you get easily to 22 perspective republican candidates, none of whom braid their beard hair or call themselves princess. that's 22 noncrack pot names.

22 names. which of them get cut out this year? none of them would have been cut out in 2008 or 2012. if you rank them individually, rank them against would who did make it? seriously, how are they going to decide? time magazine's squeak miller reports today that the process is already under way quietly between republican party officials and some of the tv networks that are supposed to be airing the nine republican debates this year. typically, you use a polling threshold to decide who makes it into the first couple of the debates. but with this many people in the wedding, honestly right now nobody even know who to poll on. should they be polling on donald trump? should they be polling on john -- what was that? that was what laborious. john kasich, is anybody polling on -- lindsey graham? will they start?

if he declares he's running for president, will they poll on him? a polling threshold depends on the preferences of the pollsters in terms of who they put on the list. and the more people they put on the list the less likely any candidate will hit any reasonable threshold. the nbc poll that came out last night, a great poll, the answer not sure beat out both rick perry and carly fiorina. carly got 1%. rick perry got 2%. not sure got 3%. does that mean rick perry and carly fiorina shouldn't be allowed into the debates? that seems hard to believe. today in "time" magazine, squeak miller reports the prospects we have for the republican candidate, one metric the party is considering using for who gets in the debate and who doesn't is money, fund-raising.

ech. which maybe is practical politics in terms of who might have a chance of getting into the white house, but it seems somehow fundamentally wrong that the literal size of your campaign bank account will determine whether or not people are loud to consider you as a candidate for public office. running for president is a process that has always been very democratic and a little nutty. but this year poses a challenge that has never, ever been faced before and i have no idea, absolutely no idea how they are going to solve this very present problem. more. mine stopped hurting faster! neosporin plus pain relief starts relieving pain faster and kills more types of infectious bacteria. when you pick any 3 participating products get a free all better bag.

so interesting failures in television news, i was just talking about former virginia governor jim gilmore and we randomly started showing a picture of kanye west which is what laborious. sometimes producing visuals for the tv is hard. i have no idea how that happened. it's not like there's going to be khan yeah west news later on in the show.

i don't even know. sometimes making visuals for tv is hard. on a normal day in normal politics. therefore, pity the poor television producers who are going to have -- presidential campaign this year who are going to have to show pictures look like this, all of the viable presidential candidates and potential presidential candidates on the republican side, all the folks who have real support or real name recognition or real experi necessary are the serious republican contenders, 22 in all, enough to have two opposing football teams and kan kanye west will be micked in among them with nobody understanding why. would gets to stand up on the stage for the debates? how is the party going to choose? and if that process is under way right now, what are they considering for whittling the process. jim miller is reporting on this subject.

it's knight nice to have you on the program tonight. thanks for having me. thank you for having me. >> am i wrong that kanye west is running? >> it's news to me. we're at 22 running, so 23? why not? >> how about what factors they're considering for this short-term, difficult problem they've got about who gets to be in the debates? >> the obviously one is polling for the top tier, those who at 5%, 2%, 13% in the republican vote, your jeb bushes, scott walker, rand pauls, even ben carsons sort of hit that threshold. people like them, people know where they are. when you have ten counties below 5% in the margin of error and they're below that -- they're either at 1% or 2% or at zee oregon almost negative in a way. that's not how polling works, obviously, but they could statistically be at zero. so it's not possible to know what their support is.

the parties are looking at and these networks are looking at money, so how much money they've raised, how many individual donors they have. how many members of congress have endorsed them or sitting republicans or sitting office holders. usually the way these work is that they decide who they want on stage and then they make the rules sort of to fit that, they sort of back build the rules to justify who they want on stage. >> i want to come back to the money question in a second. because i think that's important and i think it rubs me the wrong way and i'm not sure why. so i want to come back to the details on that in a second. on the polling issue, what seems to me to be new this year, there's always a question of what the polling threshold is in terms of getting into the first couple of debates, before there are any primary results to go on which seems like a better metric, this year it seems like there is something new because there are so many nonobscure but not top tier candidates but there's a question as to who even makes it into the polls, right? i'm not sure we have a good

sense of what john kasich poll numbers might be. mostly because you can't blame pollsters for keeping more than 20 names off their list. once you start polling on 20 things, it's very unlikely that anybody is going to come in above 3% or 4%. >> exactly. for pollsters, if you want to put 22 names in a poll, people are going to hang up on you. the polls, both you and i respect are the ones that are live dialed. there's a human being on each end of the call and your list of names and what's your favorite ability of jim gilmore? people are going to hang up and don't want to give over two hours to a pollster. so it's hard in terms of that. but then you're dealing with that number of people and the margin of error at 3%. they're all going be clustered together at some point. >> on the possibility of them using money as a metric, it does feel sort of anti-democratic. to consider that even though we

know money is part of a candidate's viability, are they talking about campaign donations or is it donations to super pacs in support of a candidate or, you know, other interest groups that seem to be pushing for that candidate? i mean, measuring money and politics is a pretty inexact science right now. >> exactly. it's not entirely clear yet, both sort of the party and the networks are being tight lipped about this process for those exact reasons. they don't want to reveal too much about that process so that people don't influence it. but one of the things that can pick you up is they're potentially shying away from the bulk dollar amount raised to demonstrating support from individual contributors both nationally and potentially in the early states. you need, you know, x number of dollars raised from y number of donors across the country. and thereby being you can't get just one big check from a super pac donor and say that's the extra support that brought you into the debate. you can actually develop a

grassroots network. it's hard to collect a $2,700 check. it's easy to -- it's relatively easy to collect $2,700 checks. a lot harder to collect a heck of a lot of $100 checks. that's sort of the test of viability. if you can't get those $100 checks, how do you collect the $500 checks you need to go up against the rest of the republican primary? >> that's right. people are giving them $100 million and that is a whole other -- squeak miller, political reporter with "time" magazine, thanks for your reporting. >> thank you for having me on. >> i do think this is -- it's a sleeper issue not because people don't pay attention to the debates, but because i don't think people realize this vetting is going on right now and i tell could be determinative in terms of who the field of candidates is. lots more ahead. stay with us.

today, jet blue announced they will be doing weekly flights from new york to havana. the first new flight from new york announced since president obama relaxed our relationship with cuba after a half century long standoff. so now, when everybody you know in new york starts mysteriously coming down with the flu on friday, keep in mind these new friday afternoon flights to havana start up in july. you can blame jet blue when that starts happening this summer. today, jet blue included this photo in their jet blue daily news, which is the employee

newsletter they send out to their crew by e-mail. it shows presidential candidate hillary clinton with them on a flight she took today. hillary clinton did not go to havana today, but she did go back somewhere today to make a big change from hurry political past. big news from secretary hillary clinton tonight. that's next. stay with us. happy anniversary dinner, darlin' i'm messing up every dish, pot, and plate... ...to show my love. ta-da! all this devotion only calls for a little bit of dawn ultra. now even more concentrated. just one bottle has the grease cleaning power of two bottles of this other liquid. you still got it, romeo. a drop of dawn and grease is gone.

november 15th, 2007, seven

democrats vying for the 2008 democratic nomination for president and they had a debate in the great state of nevada. this is one of those debates where the moderator ran part of the debate like he was taking attendance. he went down the line asking every candidate the same yes-or-no question. no explanations, just yes or no. >> do you support driver's licenses for illegal immigrants? >> if we don't have -- >> in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, do you support driver's licenses for illegal immigrants? >> no. >> senator obama? >> yes. >> senator clinton? >> no. >> senator obama? >> yes. >> senator clinton, no. the day before that debate, senator clinton issued a statement on that issue. she said, coat, as president, i will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people. that was eight years ago. now times have changed. former secretary of state

hillary clinton does think that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to get driver's licenses. and tonight, back in nevada, she went all in on the immigration issue. not only embracing that change about driver's licenses, but going right at the entire republican field on this issue saying that she supports what president obama has done already on immigration and if she were president, she would not only fight republican efforts to bring those policies back, she would keep going. she would extend them a lot, by executive action if necessary. >> we can't wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship. now, this is where i differ with everybody on the republican side. make no mistakes, today not a single republican candidate announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. not one. when they talk about legal status, that is code for second

class status. i will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put dreamers, including those with us today, at risk of deportation. and, if congress continues to refuse to act, as president i would do everything possible under the law to go even further. there are more people like many parents of dreamers and others with deep ties and contributions to our communities who deserve a chance to stay and i will fight for them. >> i will fight for them. secretary clinton back in nevada tonight, calling out the whole republican presidential field for none of them supporting a pathway to citizenship for immigrant families. how much republicans have slid back on that issue over the past few years. this is starting to get exciting. watch this.

why weigh yourself down? try new aveeno® sheer hydration. its active naturals® oat formula... ...goes on feather light absorbs in seconds... ...keeps skin healthy looking... and soft. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results.

so we barely rarely get a cabinet secretary on this show. but that's what we've got tonight for this interview. seriously. stay with us.

that's next.

on monday last week, the southeast got pounded by severe thunderstorms, pulsing rain, winds up to 70 miles per hour. a mess. in the midst of that big storm, a local news reporter in elmwood, louisiana, captured this scene. he parked his news van near a restaurant and ran inside. he kept the camera on his dashboard rolling. look what the camera captured. keep your eyes on the train rolling across the track at the top of the screen. do you see that? look at that. the winds from the storm knocked toss train cars right off the track, right off that trestle bridge the train was paging over at the time. amazing. incredibly, nobody was hurt. that happened last monday in louisiana. that was monday. this is tuesday in roswell, new mexico. two freight trains, one carrying sand, the other carrying

molasses. unlike that train that got blown off the bridge in louisiana, someone did get killed in this. two crew members jumped to try to save their lives when they realized the collision was going to happen. one of those two crew members who jumped was killed. that same day, we got brand new images of a big train accident that happened in north dakota. this is the view from a train carrying cars full of grain. that was traveling through the town of castleby, north dakota. you can see a train coming from the opposite direction on an adjacent track. here is the view from that train just before it hit the train it was speeding towards, just before it slammed into a derailed car that had tipped over from the grain train on to the adjacent track. you can see the other train is about to hit that one car that has tipped over and slumped on to the adjacent track. this is the result of that collision. the fireball that lit up the sky

over north dakota, that fire in north dakota burned for days. the engineer called 911 after the crash happened as he was running away from the burning locomotive. the train started blowing up. the 911 dispatcher asked the engineer if she needed to call the local fire department. the engineer responded, quote, you need to call every fire department. in that case, in that north dakota crash, the reason it was not the same kind of accident as though those other ones is because of what was on board one of those two trains that collided. one of those two trains, not the grain train, the other train was carrying highly flammable crude oil. for more than a year now, as one oil train after another has blown up across the country we have been expecting new rules telling the oil industry what to do to make the oil trains safer. now they have finally arrived.

transportation secretary anthony foxx just announced new rules governing oil trains at a press conference in washington. what he unveiled is a 395-page order that covers everything from how thick the walls of the tank cars needs to be to how fast these oil trains are allowed to move through communities to the types of braking systems they trains must have now. it's a tough, far-reaching, expansive order from the obama administration about this vexing new problem we have on the rails with all these oil trains now. but the order does not go nearly as far as many people had hoped. for example, that oil train derailment and explosion in castleton, north dakota, involves a decades old car called the d.o.t. 111. we've talked about the failures of that specific kind of car. the d.o.t. 111 was involved in a fiery trail derailment in quebec which wiped out near half the center of that town. under the new rule, that train car which has a repeated record

of failure, that specific train car can stay on the rails until the beginning of 2018. three more years with those things. this is the tank car model that the oil industry upgraded to. it's called the cpc-123 2. it's seen here going up in flames and dumping its load into the river in virginia. it was involved in explosions in illinois earlier this year. under the new rule, that specific tank car involved a nose derailment can stay on the rails even longer. it can stay on the rails until april 2020. both of those types of cars do have to be retrofitted to meet a new standard, but they can stay on the tracks for years in the meantime. one other things to note, after that oil train disaster in lynchberg, virginia, last year, the transportation department requires the oil train industry give information to local communities about when large

quantity oil trains like that are moving through their area. that requirement led to a whole state of local nurse articles over the past year about how many oil trains are moving through your particular city or town. they were able to inform the public about that .get that information because states were forced the turn it over from the freedom of information act. the oil industry tried to prevent that information from getting out, but the states had to mostly comply with those records request and, therefore, we got all that local news. now the new rule says that that information does have to be shared with first responders, but it will no longer be available to the public. the new rule says the information is proprietary to the companies shipping the oil. releasing it publicly could pose a security risk. now you're no longer allowed to know what is shipping through your town and when. there is a lot of good in these new rules. this is the first time the federal government has tried to do anything this big and this permanent to fix this problem. but is this it? is this all we're going to get

inspect this as a potential solution seems a lot smaller than the existing problems. transportation secretary anthony foxx joins us live next. every day, brian drives carefully to work. and every day brian drives carefully to work, there are rate suckers. he's been paying more for car insurance because of their bad driving for so long, he doesn't even notice them anymore. but one day brian gets snapshot from progressive. now brian has a rate based on his driving, not theirs. get snapshot and see just how much your good driving could save you.

our nation's transportation secretary anthony foxx just announced a long awaited new federal rules aimed at making trains less likely to derail and blow up in a town near you. joining us now is our nation's transportation secretary, anthony foxx. thank you for being with us

tonight. >> glad to be with you, rachel. >> i know you saw my introduction a moment ago and i'm delighteds, as a person who worries about these things, that there are new federal rules. i am worried that they are federal rules that leave what seem like very dangerous tanker cars on the rails for three or five more years without much improvement. >> well, rachel, the first thing one has to realize is that our department doesn't control whether things move. we control how things move. and one of the challenges we face here is that, you know, you could see more of this stuff moving on your highways if we don't tighten up our tank car standards. we think this is the right rule for the right time right now and we're moving this rule as quickly as we can, prioritizing the least safe tank cars firsts, prioritizing the crude oil movements first and making sure we're doing everything we can to get these cars in the marketplaces as quickly as possible, but we also have to

recognize that they have to be made and they have to be retrofitted and we've got to make sure we account for the time that it will take to do that. >> the least safe cars that you are considering there, the oldest standard, the d.o.t. 111, was it within your power, was it under consideration to ban them from carrying crude oil in a shorter term basis? they're going to be on the rails until 2018. >> to be clear, we are banning them. it is just that we have to cycle them out of the market. and to also be clear, you know, if we took them off the marketplace tomorrow, we would see more trucks carrying this same crude oil and that also presents dangers. so the reality is, we have to deal with the fact that this stuff is moving and we have to do everything we can to make it move as safely as possible. and our rule is calibrated to get there faster than many manufacturers think they can get there in terms of the tank cars. >> one of the rules that i

didn't expect was about the information that people can get access to and that local media can get access to about high volume oil trains rolling through their neighborhood. as far as i understand it, the general public is going to have less access to that information now under the new rule than they do already. why was that change made? >> well, one of the challenges we face with the current order is that first responders weren't getting access to the comprehensive information they need and they weren't getting that information as directly as they needed to. so this rule correct that issue. and, again, while a time of the information will be classified information for security reasons, to the extent that the states and the local governments desire to produce more information to the public, they will have some discretion to do that based on whether the information is classified or not. >> i want first responders to

have all the information they need .more, but i also feel like this is a political issue. obviously, there's a lot of politics around the safety of pipelines and the national issue of the approval of the keystone pipeline. you've raised the issue of the safety of this stuff on the roads. we've been talking about the safety of this stuff on the rails. people have a lot of strong feelings about this as the united states has started moving more domestic oil around and all these methods. it's just the public has less access to this information, that's going to affect not only what we know and what we might do to keep ourselves safe, but the level of public discourse around this, isn't it? >> look, our goal is to ensure as much transparency as possible. there are a lot of other equities at play here, including the security of the material that is moving. and some of that actually belongs to some of the other federal agencies in terms of their discretion to classify information. but to the extent that information does not pose a security risk, of course, the

state and local governments will continue to be able to disseminate that information as they choose to. >> transportation secretary anthony foxx. mr. secretary, i appreciate you taking time to talk to us. we cover this a lot. having the chance to talk to you about it is a real privilege. >> thank you. >> i appreciate it. it's interesting, look at what i see as some of the weaknesses of that rule, the oil and the railroad industry see this new rule as far too draconian and they've announced they're going to fight it. it will be interesting to see as the administration fights for this rule. with all of its weaknesses, they're going to have to fight for it against very rich industries who say it's pushing them too much. there will be a big fight over this big, big money way. lots more ahead, including a much nationwided diversion concerning where you are allowed to put your mascara, that story is next. are you so congested... it feels like that brick's on your face? try zyrtec®-d to powerfully

clear your blocked nose and relieve your other allergy symptoms. so you can breathe easier all day. zyrtec®-d. find it at the pharmacy counter.

i love this guy.

>> i've got from 279 pounds all the way down to 235 pounds and the weight is going off even faster. and it wasn't just in my weight loss accelerated. my muscle mass increased. my stamina, my energy levels exploded. >> god bless alex jones and his stamina and his exploding energy levels. well, the rest of the world may look at alex jones, the internet guy and see just a regular joe selling his free black helicopter male vitality possession. i for one want to know if he's selling belly hair mascara. look, before, after. before, after. look at the torso transformation. if body hair mascara is the next survivalist frontier, i want to know if i should order it now. but alex jones, the king of internet conspiracy theories has been on to an actually big story this year, globalistic, and that story is become ago very funny

national joke right now, but it's also getting to be very touchy and important national politics. and we're going to have that report for you exclusively here tomorrow night. welcome to wednesday, may 6th. right now on "first look," the fight of the century. now, floyd mayweather and manny pacquiao are slapped with lawsuits. and the federal approval to get drones to enter our air space. a bizarre beautiful accident as a tree falls on kids at a playground. bono and his u2 bandmates rock grand central station. that and much more as "first look" starts right now. good morning. i'm dara brown. it was a $400 million