For starters, I don't parrot talking points; I've been writing about energy security from my own perspective for many years. As for exports, only a small portion of shale production is currently exported. Under existing regulations, the only allowed destination for it is Canada. Such exports averaged 120,000 bbl/day last year, or only about 4% of current light tight oil produciton. In energy security terms, rising LTO production--much of it carried by rail--accounts for about 60% of the roughly 5 million bbl/day reduction in US net oil imports since 2008, with the weak economy and energy efficiency gains accounting for the rest. Meanwhile, the small quantity currently exported still contributes to economic security, by reducing our trade deficit by around $4 B/yr, on top of the $120 B or so attibutable to the portion used here, which backs out imports essentially barrel for barrel.
As for reducing the speed of oil trains, that is already happening, under the voluntary agreement with DOT, as mentioned in the post. You also seemed to suggest that shippers ("the industry", presumably the oil industry) determine speeds and other operating procedures. That's no more the case than you determing the speed of the trucks used by UPS or USPS when you mail a package. The railroads and their regulators make those decisions.
As for your comparision of the pre-2011 DOT-111 tank car situation to an automotive recall, that's a matter of opinion, but I find the analogy weak. It's clearly desirable that the cars provide more protection for highly flammable cargo, but at least as far as I've seen the older cars haven't been found to be defective in the sense you suggest. Or did I miss that?