Rep. Torres on SCOTUS, Congestion Pricing, and More

[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good Monday morning, everyone. Hope you had a good weekend. Hope you didn't get flooded out last night. Maybe you had some outdoor fun before that as the air quality got better this weekend. Maybe you went on your first date with Bill de Blasio or Charlene McRae, whatever. It may only be July 10th, 2023, but make no mistake that 2024 election year politics are well underway. The Republican Party announced over the weekend, did you hear this, that the first vote, the Iowa caucuses, will for the first time ever be on Martin Luther King Jr's birthday, the Federal holiday January 15th. In case you're thinking, "That's rich, the overwhelmingly white conservative end of affirmative action celebrating Iowa Republican Party scheduling their presidential caucus on King Day, is that to increase turnout with a white grievance hook?" No, the Iowa Republican Party chair Jeff Kaufmann says it's doing that to honor the memory of Dr. King. Maybe, but the Associated Press also quotes Kaufmann saying the committee had not considered the possibility of the caucus falling on MLK day before reaching their decision. Which is worse, purposely holding the Republican caucuses on King Day or forgetting it was even a thing? We report, you decide. As for those Supreme Court decisions at the end of the term, New Jersey's Democratic Governor Phil Murphy said on Meet the Press yesterday on NBC that yeah, he hates them, but that doesn't mean his party should run on adding justices or imposing term limits.

Phil Murphy: Yes, as painful as this radical court has been taking away rights and freedoms, I'm in the camp that you play within the rules, then I have to say that's a tough conclusion given the extremity of whether it's LGBTQ decisions, abortion, student loans, affirmative action, one gut punch after another. I think you still play within the rules.

Brian Lehrer: Governor Murphy with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. What can the Democrats do? What can colleges and employers who value diversity do? What can Americans struggling with student loan debt do within the rules the court has laid down? We'll talk about that and more now with Congressman Ritchie Torres, Democrat from the Bronx, his 15th New York congressional district often referred to as the poorest by income in the country. Torres is on the House Financial Services Committee, among other things, and is one of the first two openly gay Black men ever elected to Congress, along with Mondaire Jones in 2020. At least two of those Supreme Court rulings are relevant to groups he belongs to. Congressman Torres, always good to have you. Welcome back to WNYC.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Always a pleasure.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start on those Supreme Court decisions. The court decided six to three that taking race into account to build a diverse class of college is unconstitutional. How much do you agree or disagree?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Look, the Supreme Court's decision is a tragedy for America as a multiracial democracy. The loss of affirmative action is going to lead to less diversity in higher education, which will mean less diversity in every facet of American society because higher education is a pipeline into the leadership of our society. The decision undercuts America as a multiracial democracy, and I find it appalling that Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, would dismantle a program that enabled him to be a student at Yale Law School and ultimately a member of the Supreme Court. It's the cruelest irony.

Brian Lehrer: You mentioned Thomas, but a New York Times article on Thomas this weekend, I don't know if you saw it, or you might know this already, noted that he believes that after he graduated from Yale Law School, he wasn't getting the offers from the high-paying law firms he really wanted to work for, he didn't want to go into the judiciary apparently, he wanted to work for a high-paying corporate law firm, but he wasn't getting those offers. He says, according to the article, because they saw him as an affirmative action applicant, who therefore wouldn't be as qualified as the white applicants who had the same education. Thomas argues, beyond the constitutional questions that the court ruled on, that affirmative action can add a modern kind of disadvantage to Black Americans' ability to compete in the workplace and they'll be better off in the long run without it, and therefore, be seen as more equal to other applicants with the same qualifications. Are you aware of that argument from Clarence Thomas, and do you totally disagree with him on that, given what he says his life experience has been?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: His life experience is that he was appointed as the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and then became a judge in the DC Circuit Court, and then a justice on the Supreme Court, and a former student at Yale University. His life experience would demonstrate otherwise that affirmative action can create opportunities for people of color in a country that has a long and ugly history of racism. Clarence Thomas purports to be a champion of a colorblind America, but the term colorblind has become a code word for turning a blind eye to race and racism and pretending that race no longer matters in America.

Brian Lehrer: The court did say that applicants could write in their essays about how race has affected their lives and admissions offices could take that into account as part of considering people as individuals. Have you thought about how big a loophole that might be? Should every strategic applicant of color include something like that in their materials? Since everyone is affected by their race in the context of this country, everyone can theoretically say how.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Look, it speaks to the incoherence of the court's decision because on one hand, the court said you cannot check a box identifying your race, but on the other hand, the court said it's perfectly fine to communicate your racial lived experience in an essay, but then the court proceeded to state that that cannot be an indirect path to affirmative action. The logic of the decision is all over the place. It's a mess. What's most frustrating for me is the double standard here. The far right in American politics has long been on a crusade against affirmative action, but there's never been a similar crusade against legacy admissions. Unlike affirmative action, which seeks to advantage the historically disadvantaged, legacy admissions is affirmative action for wealthier white students, it privileges the already privileged. I've never seen the far right take legal action against legacy admissions, so why the double standard?

Brian Lehrer: Is that something that you all in Congress can address, banning legacy admissions as a disparate impact, racially discriminatory practice?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: To my knowledge, Congress has the authority to ban legacy admissions. My colleague, Jamaal Bowman, has legislation to that effect, which I fully support, and it is presently the subject of litigation, but it's long overdue. Legacy admissions is far more destructive and has no place. The universities admit that it's all about fundraising, it's all about reinforcing privilege.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, any reaction to the Iowa Republican party holding the Iowa caucuses for the first time on MLK Day next January. Do you find that racially provocative in any way?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: It speaks to the Republican notion of colorblindness that Republicans are not even aware of MLK's birthday.

Brian Lehrer: You're referring to that line that the AP quoted the head of the Iowa Republican Party as saying that they were just looking for which Monday in January they were going to do it, they didn't realize that was even Martin Luther King Day.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: The Republican Party is an Orwellian universe, the Republicans often pervert the legacy of Dr. King to undermine everything that Dr. King fought for, and I just find it galling.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we welcome your comments and questions for Congressman Ritchie Torres from the Bronx on living with the Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action, student loans, and denying business services to LGBTQ people. We'll also get into congestion pricing in New York City, crime, housing, anything else relevant to the Congressman's work, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or you can text us at that same number, 212-433-9692. We're not on threads yet, so don't go there. We're considering whether to join. [chuckles] Congressman, how about the court allowing the wedding website designer to refuse gay couple customers? The Court held that it's her right not to be forced to publish in effect a religious position that's contrary to her own belief apparently that gay marriage is a sin. Can you see it in the context of free expression?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Well, one of the greatest threats to LGBTQ equality is the weaponization of the First Amendment, both the free speech clause and the Free Exercise Clause, the religious liberty clause. As far as I'm concerned, the First Amendment means protection from discrimination, it does not mean the freedom to discriminate, and if the court continues to reinterpret the First Amendment as a license to discriminate, it's going to have implications far beyond the LGBTQ community, it's going to undermine civil rights laws for every protected class and at every level of government. Suppose for a moment the petitioner in the case Laurie Smith had a sincerely held belief that interracial marriage was wrong and refused to create websites for interracial couples. According to the logic of the Supreme Court, she would have a First Amendment right to discriminate against interracial couples. That, to me, is absurd, and since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have recognized that every American should be protected from discrimination in the public marketplace when it comes to the provision of goods and services. We're witnessing the Supreme Court reverse a for civil rights principle under the pretense of protecting free speech.

Brian Lehrer: How about the court allowing-- I've seen the shoe on the other foot argument too in support of that decision, like how about a progressive wedding website designer asked to publish a swastika or a Magga symbol for a couple who wants to hire them to do that and get married in that expressive content? If you were the website designer asked to do that, maybe you'd want the right not to as well, or don't you see it as equivalent?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: The difference there is that it does not implicate a protected class. Since the Civil Rights Act, we have special protections for classes of Americans who have historically had to face discrimination. That's a legacy that we've honored since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is now being slowly dismantled at the hands of the Supreme Court.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe it's worth reminding listeners what protected class means because I think this goes to a ongoing liberal conservative divide that's many decades old about what the civil rights laws, for example, call protected groups in general. Do laws guaranteeing equal rights to specific groups rather than just everybody as one large group, specific groups who've been discriminated against in the past, amount to special rights that give them more rights than the straight cis white majority or to men who had all those extra rights in the past?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Well, protected class simply means that all Americans are protected from discrimination in certain categories in matters of race, sex, in the case of employment, gender, identity and sexual orientation, religion. It's not only racial minorities, we're all protected from racial discrimination in matters of housing, employment, and public accommodations. I worry that's beginning to erode because of the Supreme Court's reinterpretation of the First Amendment.

Brian Lehrer: On what you said before about legacy admissions, here's a text from a listener who writes, "Howard University, among other HBCUs, has legacy admissions. Ending that limited policy will not solve the problem of creating opportunities in diverse student bodies, it is a false of objective." What do you say to that listener?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Howard University is a historically Black college, so even without legacy admissions, it would have ample Black representation, so I don't quite understand that argument.

Brian Lehrer: Steven in Harlem, you're on WNYC with Congressman Ritchie Torres. Hi, Steven.

Steven: Hi, thank you for taking my call. Mr. Torres, on the top of my head was how proud I am of you, why that applies, I don't know. My question is about the Supreme Court, thank you. If they're not going to add justices to balance this out, it seems to me they're going to go for more regressive and more [unintelligible 00:14:04] policies, possibly even after contraception that was decided in Connecticut in the '60s, which goes to privacy issues which is so fundamental of what we thought we had in place. That's my question. Thank you for taking my call again.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. Congressman?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: No, I agree with the caller. It pains me to say this, but I see the Supreme Court as one of the greatest challenges to democracy in America. I find it deeply troubling that the most consequential public policy questions of our time, whether it be gun safety, abortion, affirmative action, are being decided not by elected representatives, not by the President or by Congress or by governors and state legislatures, but increasingly by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is increasingly operating as an unelected super-legislature that's bound by no code of ethics. That's not the form of government that was envisioned by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton famously said that the judicial branch is supposed to be the least dangerous branch of government, and in many ways, it's become the most dangerous.

Brian Lehrer: It is interesting about no code of ethics. People have been following these stories recently about Justice Alito and Justice Thomas and the money and the gifts they take from wealthy donors who have ties to groups that want to influence the Supreme Court. Apparently, it's okay because they have no official code of ethics for the Supreme Court. If people want to challenge, it would have to be in some other way. We heard Governor Murphy in the clip earlier denounce all the same Supreme Court decisions that you're denouncing but oppose trying to add justices or impose term limits. He said, "No, we still need to play within the rules," suggesting that those are rules that have been sufficiently enshrined to not be challenged. I'm curious if you have a position on court reform, either because you think it's the right thing to do for justice, or in the context of 2024 election politics. It might look to some like because Democrats don't like recent decisions of the Supreme Court, then they're trying to change the rules, pack the court, whatever, it didn't work for FDR in the '30s, so there's a right and wrong aspect of this and the political aspect.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Well, I respectfully disagree with the governor. It's well within the rules for Congress to modify the size of the court. Congress has the authority to do so, and it's been done at various points in American history. It's part of the checks and balances of our system. It's well within the rules. You're free to disagree with it, but it's a mischaracterization to claim that it's outside the rules or that it's unprecedented. There's ample precedent for it. As far as the politics, we saw in 2022 what was supposed to be a red wave became nothing more than a trickle. I'm convinced that the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade set off an overwhelming public backlash that did a disservice to Republicans, and that cost them what could have been a traditional red wave election.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Radwan who says he is cycling through Terrytown. Radwan, you're on WNYC. I've heard of car phones, are you on a bike phone?

Radwan: Actually, I was cycling, but now I'm walking. Let me remove my headphones.

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead. I'll take that opportunity to say that on, Friday's show, I happened to mention the pleasure I had cycling across the Tappan Zee Bridge up there between Tarrytown and Nyack, but I neglected to say that one of the things you can do if people want to take that as a no-car local excursion because you can take your bike on the train to Tarrytown is there are good places to eat on either side of the bridge, so that adds to that day. Anyway, there you are on your bike in Tarrytown. Radwan, go ahead.

Radwan: Thank you very much for taking the call, Brian. I happen to have a personal experience, which made me and my daughter cheer the Supreme Court decision when we heard about it. I'm an immigrant from Morocco. Since I came here, worked very hard, three jobs non-stop, seriously pushed my daughter to reach her full potential. In high school, she gets A's and et cetera, and then we learnt about affirmative action. Then, we were told that sometimes colleges, even though you are qualified, they will pick the person based on color. It was very disappointing because here we are in the US where we're supposed to look beyond color and we are all equal, we are now faced with a very discouraging event that might happen. Why am I saying this? Because the federal government, they consider people like me, even though I'm from Africa, they consider us white, so we don't have a category in the federal government that qualifies us to be Middle Easterns or minorities, so we are actually, in fact, minority, I feel I'm a minority, but we fall into this group of a huge pool of supposedly privileged white people, and this puts us at a disadvantage. For me, naturally, I would cheer any decision to remove all color and remove all legacy, all family names, and let's level the field. Let the best win, just like sports. That's my comment.

Brian Lehrer: Congressman, talk to Radwan.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I'm not aware of anyone who considers African immigrants white, so I just respectfully disagree with that point. There's a misconception about affirmative action. There's not a single student in the country who has been admitted solely on the basis of race. The Supreme Court back in the late '70s prohibited the use of racial quotas. The court held that race could only be one factor among many. It could never be the sole factor in admissions.

That was the practice for decades before it was recently overturned by the Supreme Court, is race is one factor among many, but it's not the only factor. There are far more qualified students to go to a college like Harvard than there are seats available for those students. I just feel like there's a misconception that students are gaining admission for the sole reason of race, and that's just a mischaracterization of how affirmative action operates.

Brian Lehrer: Not for the sole reason. It's just a factor that can be taken into account. I think the caller is right as far as the US Census is concerned. People from Middle Eastern, Arab backgrounds have no box to check on the US Census. They wind up getting considered as white on the census. Now, if they have a box for race and he's Black from Morocco, then maybe there's something there. To that extent, he's right. I think the census said they're going to change that in the future. To that extent, he's right. I guess the question is, would a college not consider somebody from his family's background a meaningful addition to the diverse class that they're trying to build?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: The racial identification is not coming from the college or from the government. It's coming from the individual. You as an individual identify yourself racially. It's your choice. If you're a Black Moroccan, you have every right to identify as Black and to fill out that box, whether it's a census application or a college application.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I don't know if there's a box per se in college applications that mirrors the census or it's more inclusive in that way. Radwan, thank you for your call. Happy cycling, and please keep calling us. 212-433-WNYC. Is Radwan's lines clear now? 212-433-9692. We'll continue with with Congressman Torres. We've gotten through two of those three Supreme Court decisions. We will talk about student loans after the break, but also definitely about congestion pricing in New York City, which I know the Congressman has been talking about. I see we have a couple of callers on that. Andrew in Queens, we see you. Jack in the East Village, we see you. Hang in there. Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Congressman Richie Torres. Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Congressman Richie Towress from the Bronx as we talk about the recent Supreme Court decisions and more. Before we go back to the phones, Congressman, how about student loans? Republicans had argued that the Biden debt relief program took from non-college working Americans, and most Americans do not have a college degree, so they would say took from most Americans, to subsidize the better-off minority who do. How do you see it?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: First, it's not the place of the court to decide policy disputes. That's the role of Congress and the presidency, so even if [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: Right. No, they say that the President overstepped the powers of the executive branch. That was the court's reasoning. Go ahead.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: The conservatives on the court claim to be textualists, yet ignore the actual text of the statute. At issue is the Heroes Act. The Heroes Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision to protect borrowers affected by a national emergency". The text did not say some provisions. It did not say most provisions. It said any provision, and it did not simply say modify, it said waive. Waiving and modifying means canceling the terms of student debt. The court ignored the plain text of the statute in order to reach a politically desired conclusion. Here's what makes the decision dangerous. Even though the court claims to be textualist, it struck down the president's student loan program based on what is known as the major rules doctrine or the major questions doctrine. The major questions doctrine appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution. It's purely an invention of the Supreme Court. The court is applying the major questions doctrine to limit how Congress legislates and to limit how the executive applies the law. I see it as a power grab by the Supreme Court.

Brian Lehrer: On the policy question, though, Republicans had argued, as I said, that the Biden debt relief program took from the majority of Americans who don't have college degrees to subsidize the minority who would typically be economically better off who do. What do you think about that?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Quite the opposite. The plan was means-tested, and it provided the greatest amount of support to those who were eligible for Pell grants, which are the lowest-income college graduates, particularly those in places like the Bronx. It was a largely means-tested plan.

Brian Lehrer: You know what? Half our board, half our caller board is people calling in who want to talk about congestion pricing, not the Supreme Court, which is, I know, something you've taken positions on in the past and that we had on our list to talk to you about today. Interesting, we were starting with all these heavy national issues, the future of our country, and I have callers from four boroughs now, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan, all calling in on congestion pricing. I'm going to let a caller launch this part of our conversation. Andrew in Queens, you're on WNYC. Hi, Andrew.

Andrew: Hi, Brian, and hi, Congressman. Thank you for taking my call. I live in Queens. I used to live in Brooklyn. I know what the traffic is like coming into the city, and I know this seems like a small issue compared to the other topics that you were discussing, but it has a direct impact on my community, just from pollution alone. I'm concerned that what's going to happen is we're going to then get inundated with commuters coming in and then parking everywhere. We don't really have any parking spots to accommodate the cars that are already here. I'm wondering what the city, and obviously, I don't even know if Congress can do anything about this, but to think about how do we remediate that, maybe even how do we accommodate parking? Because we're going to get inundated with it, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with this policy. That's my question. I'll take the response off the air. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Andrew, thank you very much. Do you have the same concerns about parking for your district in the Bronx? Remind people what your basic position on congestion pricing is, and if it's evolving as it comes closer to reality.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Look, I have been a supporter of congestion pricing on principle, but I had concerns about the environmental impacts, and those concerns have since been addressed. The Governor's plan is going to make $155 million worth of investments aimed at addressing environmental impacts, particularly in the Bronx. Not all the details have been ironed out as far as fees and exemptions. The environmental impacts on issues like parking are not going to be fully known until we have a fully ironed-out plan, but what we know broadly is that congestion pricing will lead to less traffic congestion, less air pollution, newer greenhouse gas emissions, it's going to fundamentally improve public health and combat climate change. It's going to save public transit. It's going to save the MTA, which is the lifeblood of our city and which has been plagued by decades of deferred maintenance and disinvestment. Is it a perfect plan? No, but it's a net good for the future of our city.

Brian Lehrer: Now, you were on the show last year saying some of the same things you just said, but also expressing deep concerns about the impacts potentially on the people, especially who live in your district along the Cross Bronx Expressway, because at least one version of the congestion pricing plan that was being considered at the time projected that there would be more truck traffic, not lot less, along the Cross Bronx Expressway, and that could mean more air pollution, more asthma, more negative impact on the people of your district. Have those concerns been allayed by recent developments?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: What I said to both the governor and the MTA chair is that I will support congestion pricing as long as there's mitigation of those environmental impacts. The plan includes $155 million in investments aimed at mitigating environmental impacts. There's about $20 million for EV charging stations, $20 million for clean trucks, $15 million for the replacement of refrigerated truck units at the Hunts Point terminal market. Those refrigerated truck units have some of the dirtiest fossil fuels, and replacing them could reduce particulate matter pollution by as much as 90% in the immediate area. There's $10 million to improve outdoor air quality, $10 million to improve indoor air quality within schools, $20 million for Bronx Asthma Clinic. I feel like all of those investments and many more are more than enough to mitigate whatever environmental impacts emerge from congestion pricing.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. Of course, for those of you who don't know, congestion pricing is that there will be a fee, and I think even the exact dollar figure of the fee for what kinds of vehicles and what times of day has not been set yet, but even within the zone driving into Manhattan below 60th Street, there are some opponents like apparently Jack in the East Village, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jack.

Jack: Hi, thank you for taking my call. I'd like to say first, this is not going to be an environmental panacea. The air is not going to miraculously change in New York City. Parking's not going to be made any easier. It would be nice if that were the case. This is one thing. This is a tax for the MTA. Your previous caller-- I don't understand that. I can see how routes might change where drivers might try to avoid a route to avoid a fee. What I want to really know is, what is the nuts and bolts of this? What does it mean cars entering Manhattan south of 60th Street? Does that mean bridge and tunnel? If you live in the East Village, as I do, and you need to drive, are you going to be taxed for that? What about commercial vehicles? I have a small art moving company in Manhattan and I have to make my schedule. I can't just go straight up and straight down Manhattan. My schedule varies. I could go in and out of Midtown three or four times a day. What will happen with that? Can't we work to have commercial vehicles exempt? Can't we work to have Manhattan residents exempt? If you live in Manhattan and your car is registered in Manhattan, why should you have to pay a fee to drive your vehicle in your borough?

Brian Lehrer: To go home. Jack, a lot of people have asked that question, and Congressman, I don't think that part has been ironed out either, right?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: It has not been ironed out. The latest development is approval from the federal government, so the state finally has the authority to move forward because of approval from the federal government. Those details have not been ironed out. People are still free to advocate for dynamic pricing or for exemptions, the MTA is soliciting feedback on those issues.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for your call, Jack. We will see. We have a related text from a listener who writes, " What is going to prevent the West Side Highway from becoming a traffic and pollution festival with people trying to avoid the fees coming into the city?" Because I gather the plans, as they stand, would not tax you until you get off the highway.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I think it's hard to answer those questions without knowing what the fees are going to be, what the exemptions are going to be. Are there going to be unintended consequences? That's true of every plan, but overall, in the aggregate, there's going to be a reduction in congestion, and a reduction in air pollution, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and that's a benefit to New York City. I know it's been described as a tax, but the fact is that our city cannot succeed without public transit. Public transit is what drives economic growth in New York City. If the money for much-needed capital improvements in our public transit system is not going to come from congestion pricing, where's it going to come from? There's a $15 billion capital program that has to be funded. Where's that money coming from if it's not coming from congestion pricing? The critics of congestion pricing have no answer to that question.

Brian Lehrer: We've got a few minutes left only. Let me touch on one or two things pertinent to the district that also have national implications. We've talked before, you and I. We've all been through so much since 2020, obviously, with the pandemic and inflation in January 6th, and the spike in crime, and the asylum seekers coming in such numbers. I think you're in a safe election district for next year. We've talked before, you and I, about how the expanded child tax credit during the pandemic's emergency phase cut child poverty in half nationally. You said that was true in your district as well, so I'm curious, do you see poverty going up in your district now that that has expired, even though unemployment is also going down?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Poverty has risen everywhere in the United States. The greatest achievement of the Biden administration was the expansion of the Child Tax Credit, which to your point, cut child poverty by 50%, and the expanded Child Tax Credit was left to expire in December of 2021, which was a tragedy for families with children. Ever since then, the historic progress toward reducing poverty has been reversed. I'm introducing legislation with Rosa DeLauro and Suzan DelBene to restore the expansion, and there are a number of Democrats like myself who will not support any tax benefits for corporations unless the tax benefit for families and children are restored. That's our position.

Brian Lehrer: How's crime in your district these days? How are you feeling about Mayor Adams' anti-crime strategies? Much of City Council, as you know where you served for a long time, is pretty angry at him over the new budget, which adds a little to the NYPD while taking some from many other agencies that deal with conditions that feed into crime, but you've been clear while in office that you do not support the Defund The Police movement, so how is crime itself in your district, South Bronx?

How are Adams and counsel doing on the issue of balancing crime and criminal justice, in your opinion?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Look, I genuinely believe that both the council and the mayor are doing the best they can, but there's a limit to what you can do at the city level. There are larger forces that do drive the crime rate, and one of them is the availability of guns. Even if the state and the city have the strictest gun laws in the country, as you know, guns can easily cross state boundaries, and the federal government has yet to legislate federal standards of gun safety. Wherever you have more guns, you're going to have more gun violence. That's a problem that has been compounded by the Supreme Court.

Brian Lehrer: Well, there we leave it. There is so much more we could talk about, but we have Congressman Ritchie Torres on the show from time to time, and obviously, millions of other people who also come on with their views on whatever issue, but for today, Congressman Ritchie Torres, Democrat from New York's 15th Congressional District in the Bronx, thank you so much for joining us. We always appreciate it.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Always a pleasure.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.