00:00Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Johnny Oshesky. Johnny O, as David Gurra likes to call you,
00:05it is apparently an acceptable thing to call an elected representative. He serves on the
00:11Foreign Affairs and Small Business Committees. Sir, thank you for joining us. I just want to ask
00:15you, you know, I'm hoping you're getting more information than we are about what is in this
00:19MOU. Are you getting any more information? And could you share any of it with us this morning?
00:24Well, good morning. And Johnny O is always welcome, both for you all and my constituents.
00:28But, you know, this morning I have to report. I'm sorry to say that I don't have
00:33more information than what's being publicly reported. And as a member of Congress, as a
00:38member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I'm actually getting very little information about
00:42the MOU. I've seen nothing. I've heard nothing from the administration or from my Republican
00:48colleagues as to what it might actually include. This is now the 40th time, though, the president
00:53has announced a deal or a deal for a deal. So you can color me skeptical that we might
00:59actually get this done. I'm really worried when I see that Iran is questioning whether
01:03or not the deal is finalized or when they're going to sign it. So unfortunately, I don't
01:07have any information I can share that's already that's not already been publicly reported by
01:11you and others.
01:12We see the president upset with comparisons to the JCPOA. I want to look at the other side
01:17of that coin. And I wonder if you as a Democratic congressman are at all cheered by the fact
01:22that what might be agreed to here is something that at least in broad strokes resembles that
01:26deal that was put in place by the Obama administration.
01:29Absolutely. Look, the JCPOA was not perfect, but it certainly put constraints on the Iranian
01:35nuclear program. And it would be a really big shame to go through all of this process
01:40of having prices up at the gas station, the grocery store, having lost service members
01:45and having spent tens of billions of dollars to not have something as good, if not stronger
01:50than what we already had with the JCPOA. We got to remember that President Trump came
01:55in, tore up that agreement, which actually accelerated the nuclear program in Iran that led to this
02:01moment. So I obviously want to see a deal. I don't want to see Iran become a nuclear capable
02:07country. And so obviously, whatever deal we do have has to have constraints around those
02:12nuclear ambitions. The president is heading after this spectacle.
02:18Well, 80th birthday party. 80th birthday party, a cage match on the South Lawn. He will then head
02:24to the G7 in Avion. It's a tense time with European leaders. And this comes on some reports,
02:30especially in The New York Times, about the U.S. pulling forces, pulling assets out of Europe.
02:36The Times is reporting this includes, in addition to those troop movements that we've heard coming out of
02:40Germany, they're reducing F-16, F-15E fighters, maritime reconnaissance aircrafts and missile
02:46launching submarines from the region. Do we know why that's happening? And are you concerned about
02:50U.S. pulling out of European security? Or is the president right and Europe should be doing more to
02:55protect itself? I think both things can be true at the same time. Europe and other countries around
03:00the world obviously should be investing more in their national defense. And I see a lot of our
03:05allies are doing exactly that. So I think in light of that, we should be strengthening our resolve with
03:11our partners. We have to remember that 9-11 was the only time the mutual aid defense clause of NATO
03:17was invoked. And those allies came to our defense and aid when we were in our biggest moment of need.
03:22So I actually think that we should continue to push these allies to invest more in their defense
03:27spending and their capabilities. But that should not come at the expense of our partnership
03:31and being a presence alongside those allies. Can I ask you a kind of off-the-wall question here? I
03:37know you
03:37represent the second district, and that includes Baltimore County, part of Baltimore City. And we've talked
03:41so much about the Strait of Hormuz and the difficulties that that's placed on global shipping. I know Baltimore
03:46to be a massive port in this country. And I'm wondering what you're hearing from your constituents just about
03:52the ripple effects of that prolonged closure that we've seen over the last 100-plus days, how that's affecting
03:57business in your neck of the woods? Yeah, look, the Port of Baltimore has had record years, and I'm proud
04:02to represent the Baltimore area. Fortunately, we have not seen significant impacts in terms of that
04:09kind of maritime traffic. But what I can say is my constituents, like Americans across this country,
04:14are being absolutely crushed at the pump. They're seeing increases at the grocery store through things
04:20like fertilizer. They know that we've spent tens of billions of dollars. You know, Congress and my
04:25Republican colleagues couldn't find a way to fund the health care tax credits, but we could spend
04:31tens of billions of dollars with no problem for a war. We have billions of dollars for bombs. We have
04:36nothing for basics. And I think my constituents are frustrated that they see this war being exercised.
04:43We're not seeing a conclusion to it. It's as unpopular as both the Iraq War and the Vietnam War.
04:48And as that's happening, you mentioned the UFC fight. I mean, this is one of many instances where
04:53President Trump has actually enriched himself over $4 billion, including buying oil companies when
05:00the stocks were dropping over a war that he controls, basically. And he can sort of set the
05:05terms of when his stock portfolio goes up. And I think that that's frustrating for people who are
05:11struggling to pay their bills. When you look at what the president says he's trying to get done
05:16quite quickly, you know, he wants to sign by today signaling from Tehran that that's not going to
05:20happen. But it could happen in the next couple of days. Although our colleague Josh Wingrove just
05:23talked to us from a very, very empty venue in Geneva. So not clear if this is happening on the
05:28ground. Could be a virtual signing. We don't know. But one of the things the president said in his
05:31true social message was the strait will be immediately open following this. I want to get
05:36your take on that, because one of the things we've been talking a lot about here is being
05:40nominally open and functionally open are two separate things. And whether or not these shipping
05:44companies, these maritime officers and crews are going to be willing to take the risk to go back
05:49into this strait, given the unsureness and durability of this agreement, especially that
05:54it's got a second tranche and a whole second thing to be worked out 30, 60 days from now.
05:59Yeah, I think that's a very real concern that you raise there. And I don't want to speak for
06:04private business as to what decisions they'll make, what business decisions they will or won't make.
06:08Obviously, we want to see that traffic reopened. But this agreement is just getting us back to a place
06:14where the strait was open prior to the war. And if the agreement actually holds, we still have a long
06:20way to go in terms of conversations around sanctions, conversations around the Iranian nuclear
06:25program. And so I am going to hold my breath over this one, because I just unfortunately, I've seen
06:34this president say things time and time again, not just about how short this war will be, but about
06:39lowering costs on day one, about releasing the Epstein files, about having Mexico build the law.
06:45I mean, it's sort of been lie after lie. So it's hard to take the president at his word on
06:49any of
06:49this stuff. But again, I am rooting for success here. I want to see it as an American. But I
06:55just,
06:55given the president's track record, I'm having a hard time really buying into that this is going
07:01to come through this time. But I'm hoping it does.
07:03Got about a minute left. We're nearing the end of the Supreme Court term, about 20 other opinions we're
07:07waiting on here. You've put forward the Robe Act, suggesting there should be term limits on the
07:11justices. We heard Pete Buttigieg, former secretary, talking about that this week as well. Is it
07:16gathering steam, as you see, at the movement to place those limits on these justices?
07:20Absolutely. And I welcome Secretary Buttigieg's support. I know Governor Beshear recently came out
07:25in favor of our proposal. And so we're really seeing not just national figures, but this is something
07:31overwhelmingly supported by Americans of all political variety. Over 75 percent of Democrats,
07:36Republicans, independents, support these term limits. For justices, we're seeing these rulings
07:41that are undoing decades of precedents while there are incredibly awful ethical lapses by our justices.
07:48I don't think our founders envisioned justices serving 25, 30 years. It was actually much less.
07:53Yes. And so this is a common sense reform I hope we all can get behind.
Comments