Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  March 6, 2015 6:00am-8:01am EST

6:00 am
6:01 am
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
6:06 am
6:07 am
6:08 am
6:09 am
6:10 am
6:11 am
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
6:15 am
6:16 am
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
6:22 am
6:23 am
6:24 am
6:25 am
6:26 am
6:27 am
6:28 am
6:29 am
6:30 am
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
6:35 am
6:36 am
6:37 am
6:38 am
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
as so often is the case you have two choices you can curse the darkness or light the candle. at night we choose to light. we're mad as hell and we're doing something about it. i'd like to tell you a little bit of that. values matter training matters so we maintain programs with
7:00 am
scores of journalism schools as you see on the slides. and there are deans fellowships, knight chairs, new degrees, training in person and online. we funded hundreds literally hundreds of immediate experiments from prototypes from real-time news to open source community engagement platforms. we have turned mit's media lab and the pew research center to help us understand how people use information technology. we don't pretend to have a magic bullet. instead we work with the journalists who care about the present and the future. we funded news organizations whose missions day in and day out is to do outstanding journalism, like "texas tribune," propublica and the "voice of san diego." in the short term we've also given breathing space to 27 online news sites around the
7:01 am
country by funding 15% of their annual budgets. they have to survive. we financed tech incubators at "the philadelphia inquirer" and "the boston globe." tools such as document cloud by staffers, and right now we're in the middle of a project to create a new open-source community platform with the "washington post," "the new york times" and mozilla. we're still experimenting, the sliders up no-show so we've moved to more and smaller projects from left to right. the chart represents more than about $90 million in active grants during this four-year period of time which is a drop in the bucket compared to what google, microsoft or facebook might spend on development. and sure i wish these companies have spent their buckets on r&d when we were making 20 or 30% profit. but that was then in this is
7:02 am
now. and we should be as mad as hell and fighting figuring out what to do next. two other people who do that to help me do that are here tonight, i don't like to recognize them. our director of journalism program, and marty chairman of our advisory journalism advisory committee. [applause] most newsroom sadly are not particularly experimental. what you for tonight i wish were common. i think it's extraordinary. i congratulate the other winners again. is you don't take spare minute you can wave your future goodbye. if you are experimenting, please do more push your boundaries and let us know what you are learning. just know there is no road map. your path is made by walking with an open mind, the will to
7:03 am
change, to serve the audience, and remembering the true north star of journalism, for fair accurate, contextual search for truth. that hasn't changed. thank you. [applause] >> thank you alberto for that clarion call. we want to thank our dinner committee, and particularly our two very successful co-chairs, amos snead of story partners and bob defilippo. [applause] >> i'm going to take forever. [laughter] nothing this important it's done without the work of a lot of people, and so want to start by thanking all of you for being
7:04 am
here tonight. come on. [applause] for sandy johnson and the staff of the national press foundation has done amazing things again to get this done off the ground. so as co-chair i would like to thank the dinner committee for all of their hard work. and please hold your applause to recognize all the dinner committee members. and then please if you're on the committee, stand when i mention yearning. jeffrey birnbaum -- [applause] it's a simple instruction. [laughter] peter, politico, heather dahl thomas davidson, kathy guess kevin goldberg the green group matt holler, raymond karen's,
7:05 am
sean mcbride strategic indications and consulting. >> now that a given ball of the hard names i would like to thank six more people, andy polansky, joanna snyder, andrew schwartz jeffrey smith, greg with the u.s. travel rob starter. rob has a fan base here. sal e. squires, susan with c-span john with "bloomberg news" and agility with the yahoo!. i would also like to give a shout out to julie who made a really big contribution this year and three weeks ago welcomed a new child into this world and made the dinner
7:06 am
tonight. julie, thank you. may have a bob and i thank you to everyone on the dinner committee of thank you to all of us are answering our calls. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. the fruit of the dinner committee's work provides the largest source of unrestricted funds for training for journalists. this year we're going to abu dhabi to look at tobacco regulation and health issues. and assembly will take journalists to south africa to learn the latest on tv and diabetes. thanks in part to eli lilly. will also educate journalists on retirement issues in our 11th retirement program funded by prudential. and everything be a programmer adding an element of digital storytelling or toolbox training to keep our journalists abreast of the digital wave. we've got a slate of webinars coming up to make great use of our brand-new studio. will look at the less research
7:07 am
on predictions, bring in experts to explain the renewed uproar over vaccinations and the new outbreak of thanks to buy your. will provide a full day of training for paul miller fellows on digital tools in our studio. now i would like you to meet the hard-working npf staff. linda programs director. [applause] jenny studio and program manager. [applause] rena levine and are entering the semester. and jessica director of operations, and are diligent correspondent on this year's dinner details. [applause] >> we are making great use of our studio which opened in october, and you can use it, too. it is available for commercial rental. >> take care of yourself here.
7:08 am
we produce video content every week from this studio. thanks to a generous gift from evelyn y. davis and the apple and y. davis foundation. you can rent the state of the art video studio, pretty sure own high quality of you for your website, your newsletters. bring your content to live just as we are doing npf. our studios are at the box away on connecticut avenue in the heart of d.c. these. there's a brochure for npf studio work on your placesettplacesett ing. take it home and contact us for rental info. studio at the national [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, kevin goldberg vice chair of the national press foundation. [applause] >> thank you. hang in there folks. a couple of words left but you
7:09 am
do not want to miss them. the word captivating is one i really use when describing writing about energy policy issues. but that's before i read twilight of the great coming project a "bloomberg news" which takes a hard look at issues facing our nation's energy grid. it grabs you from the start noting that while the grid hasn't changed much since thomas edison been delightful, but quickly opining that it's also doomed to obsolescence. we don't and you will see why the npf judges were so enthusiastic about their choice of chris martin, ken wells and jim poulsen a "bloomberg news" as the winners of the 2015 thomas stokes award for energy writing. [applause]
7:10 am
>> thanks very much. thanks particularly to the judges and to the national press foundation. if i've woken up in a dream five years ago and think that i was being honored by and a ghost national news organization providing about your toes i would have killed myself last month i may fundamentally -- [laughter] i may fundamentally storyteller and my view is what's the story there? it's an amazing story. i am old enough i spent many of my years on "the wall street journal" advising the san francisco bureau in the 1980s when the mccall brothers running around buying up cell phone tower rights, and then we saw the first cell phone. it was the size of a suitcase. everyone said, who the hell wants one of those? and now every second grader in america has one.
7:11 am
i had the privilege of actually interviewing george mitchell who was the grandfather of fracking, and for 25 years everybody said nobody will ever be able to squeeze oil and gas out of those tight shale formations. and george mitchell got the recipe right and essentially change the energy world. this is where we stand at this moment, in my opinion in our opinion, on the utility paradigm. we reached the crossing and tipping point where suddenly there's this coalescence of things that sooner than we recognize can will change the entire world in a way that we see the world the way we see the energy world. we are lucky at "bloomberg news" because we have all these really smart beat reporters to every to go out and write these incredible stories about stuff that's breaking. what we finally did was we saw these connections, wal-mart is
7:12 am
going to solarize all of its stores by 2020 verizon is solarize in 1000 data centers. in this we understood that there were winners but who were the losers? will recognize the losers potentially could be the utility industry, and this is phenomenal because this is the most interesting thing that's happened since thomas edison invented the grid. so what we did was we took the helicopter up 5000 feet and began to see these connections. and then we discovered this report that said in a candid moment, we look like the airline industry in the telecom industry in 1975 and remember what happened to them. so this is our story. if you want to go online and read it, i think we've done a pretty good job of looking forward. i go home and i tell my family, oh, my god i'm writing about energy. it's the most interesting thing
7:13 am
in the world, and they say get another life or but it is. it's the story of the next decade, and hats off to my colleagues and my editors for doing this and thank you very much. [applause] >> je suis charlie, even those who don't seek -- [applause] even those who don't speak a word of french our family with his grace in recent weeks after the january 7 terrorist attack at the office of french magazine "charlie hebdo" left 12 people dead. all because of some pictures, right? of course not. because political cartoons are so much more. in part because of the strong and effective message they can convey to anyone in an instant. a strong and effective message describes the cartoons of clay bennett who has drawn five
7:14 am
cartoons a week for the chattanooga times free press since joining its staff in late 2007. his work is clean concise and to the point. simple to understand but not simple. our judges panel saw elegance, clear drones clear messages. the style is disarming and charming with a strong bite underneath. his humor is subtle and witty. ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to present the winner of the national press foundation 2015 clifford berry award for editorial cartooning to mr. clay bennett. [applause] >> thank you very much for that. first off let me thank the national press foundation for this wonderful recognition of my work. i feel very honored if not a
7:15 am
little out of place to be included in such a distinguished group of journalists. and i will see more dignified if only by association. next, i should confess that i always get a little bit nervous on occasions like this. i think my anxiety all stems from this experience i had when i was asked to speak before the texas press association in 2002. now, peers dramatization of actual events. when i went to fort worth, i guess i was expecting a group of liberal, you know, reporters and editors. i mean, i knew it was texas but was the texas press association. instead i was faced with a room full of very conservative newspaper publishers. from across the lone star state.
7:16 am
now, undeterred by the demographics of the group, i went ahead with my plan. after a short intro, the lights went down and let's see here the lights went down. to have a typical sort of liberal cartoon slideshow. welcome when the presentation was over, 20 minutes later and the lights were turned back up half the audience was gone. [laughter] i mean it was pretty humbling if not downright humiliating experience. i think even an optimist who still would've seen the room as half-full might have even been discouraged. the only comment i got afterwards that even came close to being a complement was when one of those publisher walked up to me and said well, that took guts.
7:17 am
[laughter] and i will take that as a compliment. now, my nerves aside, i'm pretty sure nothing like that will happen tonight. you guys, this is the d.c. after all, right? and you guys are a told the crowd. besides, we have blocked all the exits. with that in mind let's get this show on the road. so, i've been a cartoonist for as long as i can remember, and i've been opinionated for as long as anyone else can remember. so it seemed only natural that i would pursue a career in editorial cartooning. i chose this career path in the early 1970s during the heyday of the artform. and like most cartoonist of my generation, i tried my best to
7:18 am
emulate the artist who dominated the profession at the time. but unlike many of my contemporaries i just wasn't talented enough to do it. i had to fashion a drawing style that was more suited to my modest ability as an artist. now ironically it was my limitation as a cartoonist, not my skills as one that would determine the drawing style that would come to define my work. my approach to cartooning was also shaped more by my weaknesses rather than my strengths. caricature, for instance. i have never considered myself to be a very strong caricaturist. you might think that that would discourage someone from pursuing a career in the profession virtually driven by the art of
7:19 am
caricature. but i wasn't going to let a little thing like not being able to capture someone's likeness keep me down. i just had to figure ways to work around it. eliminating them altogether seemed like a good solution. so with time i would find ways to criticize public officials without detecting them at all. [laughter] eight cans yes. but still there are times when this job seems to demand that you draw a caricature. on those days i just do the best i can. now sometimes it works out all right. by the way the guy batting is president obama. [laughter] and yes, i do know he is left-handed, but he bats rights.
7:20 am
other times you can put in like a well-placed label that will clear up any confusion on your subject matter. [laughter] that's when newt gingrich was contributing, you know anti-gay-rights people. most of the time i just avoid drawing caricatures by addressing broader issues in my work. so another signature of my approach to cartooning is the visual nature of my work. with artistic influences that rang from "the new yorker" cartoons to charles addams, and the animated cartoons of warner bros., to the work of european and latin cartoonist. i've always had an affinity for cartoons with few or no words.
7:21 am
now, i may have followed the same path because i just love the visual purity and universal appeal of wordless cartoons. or maybe i just went this route because i can't spell. but regardless of the reason, the fact of the matter remains the fewer words i include, the less chance i have of dispelling one. now like this in, for instance. i only had to spell check three words in this cartoon. and this one, no words at all. chance of misspelling, zero. so once i develop a style that avoids the caricatures i can't draw and once i devise an approach that eliminates the words i can't spell i had to kind of established a general tone to my cartoons.
7:22 am
now, when i was, you know, here -- [laughter] now here i faced an obstacle. you see when i was first breaking into this business, there seemed to be two types of cartoonists in this field. those who went for the jugular and those who went for the funny bone to the only problem was i didn't really seem to comfortably take it to either school of cartooning. i've always had strong views, but i've never thought of myself as being shrill or malicious, and even though i have a sense of humor, you know, i'm not all that funny. you know, i think this speech tonight can certainly be proof of that. but eventually i would --
7:23 am
[laughter] eventually i would find my place somewhere in the middle. i guess somewhere in between going for the jugular and going for the funny bone, what would that be? like going for the shoulder or the biceps? that does really sound like a good idea. my one and only rule of cartooning is to try to make a cartoon insightful. now, if i can't make insightful, i tried to make it funny. if i can't make it -- [laughter] if i can't make insightful or funny, you know, make it timely. needless to say, i draw a lot of timely cartoons. this one was actually very time at a couple of months ago when i first drew it.
7:24 am
now, you might think i'm being kind of tough on myself, but hell being tough on myself might be all i have going for me. you see i've always had this terrible inferiority complex when it comes to my own work. i realize, after all, there are a lot of cartoonists working today who are better artists than i am and there are plenty of cartoonists who are funnier and more intelligent than me. so suffering as i do from such low cartooning self-esteem i've always tried to compensate for my inadequacies by a work ethic that borders on obsession. now, in light of that i would accept this honor tonight, but not as a recognition of artistic talent, nor as a testament to any inherent wit or wisdom.
7:25 am
i will accept this award on behalf of erotic insecurity and the hard work it inspires. in closing i would like to again thank the national press foundation for recognizing my work. i would like to express special thanks to my bosses at the chattanooga times free press for your support over the past seven years, and to my wife cindy for her incredible patience over the past 15 and lastly i would like to thank all of you who are still here for not walking out during my slideshow. thank you very much. [applause] thank you, clay. please join us in a post-dinner reception. it is in the jefferson room over there on this level. we will have live music and it is sponsored by pepsico. and on your way i invite you to
7:26 am
take a look at some of clay's cartoons are available for purchase with all proceeds going to the national press foundation. i appreciate you having you here tonight. thank you, and we will see you next year. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> by drucker of the "washington examiner" discusses hillary clinton's use of personal e-mail to conduct official business as secretary of state and that the controversy could affect the 2016 presidential race. ken walsh on his new book celebrity in chief but how celebrity culture has shaped presidential politics. "washington journal" live each morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks.
7:27 am
7:28 am
>> candidates cable public affairs magazine and the queens that can host a discussion on u.s.-canada relations. the 90 minute debate focus most on the keystone pipeline, climate change and domestic security. seatbacks peter van dusen moderated this event from the newseum in washington, d.c. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ hello and welcome to washington d.c. it's one of those chilly
7:29 am
mid-atlantic march evenings fitting it seems as we've come to the american capital to talk about u.s.-canada relations, and they are a little bit frothy these days. it's been a long relationship of respect cooperation and real friendship between two of the world's great neighbors but now it is marred by french and we are live this evening at the newseum on pennsylvania avenue for our latest seatback maclean's townhall. tonight we present keystone and beyond, the future of u.s.-canada relations. i am peter van dusen, executive producer of cpac a special welcome to our viewers also watching on c-span here in the trendy. over the next 90 minutes we will drill down on the state of the relationship between canada and united states. will look at the troublespots, the bright spots and also look at the road ahead. we will take some questions from the audience as well i hope it was when you can join the conversation on social media and
7:30 am
the hashtag cpac townhall. with me our bill owens senior strategic advisor. he stepped down in november as a democratic representative for new york's 21st congressional district, innocently that runs right up to the canadian voter so is very familiar with the issues. ryan bernstein is the chief of staff republican senator john hoeven of the dakota. the sender was to be with us this evening. welcome to we hope this interesting bit of the gary doer is candidate than in washington. is been ambassador to the united states since 2009, former premier of the province of manitoba. danielle drudge -- danielle droitsch is a director from natural resources defense council. and with us as always our paul wells political editor for maclean's and luiza savage washington bureau chief for
7:31 am
maclean's although in just a few days she will take up new position at politico here in washington. in a moment we will begin the conversation on the state of canada use relations but first let me take the next few minutes here to set the stage. >> sound like. >> perhaps it's a worn well joke in washington but the fact that open sport is being made of u.s.-canada relationship these days is telling. in a trading partnership with $700 billion a year, no one expects things will always flow smoothly but the list is piling up and so is the resentment. >> this is the president who simply has not got it, that candidate is important to the prosperity of the united states. it's frustration with the white house that clearly doesn't want to engage canada, to promote a
7:32 am
healthy economic relationship. >> we're supposed to be the best friend and the closest neighbor but instead we keep getting hit with these things and it's causing a lot of frustration. >> nothing has cause more frustration than the keystone xl pipeline. the $8 billion project to deliver canadian oil and oil from north dakota and montana to refiners on u.s.-gulf coast has now been held up for six years. the latest twist, a veto by the president to kill legislation from congress to authorize the project despite the impassioned pleas from barack obama's opponents to let's be fair to our canadian neighbors. they allowed us to build a pipeline across their land. we should allow them to do the same in ours. they are our best allies, chris friends, a great neighbor and so let us today pass this bill and bill the keystone pipeline spin there's a global oil market speed in the present isn't just sitting on a decision. he now openly and repeatedly
7:33 am
undermines the valley of the pipeline to america. >> it's not going to be a huge benefit to the u.s. consumers. it's not even going to be a nominal benefit. >> laura dawson is a former senior adviser on u.s.-canada economic issues for the is department of state. >> even if he doesn't like the pipeline companies been disparaging about candidate and the harper government has been disparaging about the u.s. >> president obama has said climate change is a top priority for him. he has taken steps that put the u.s. on its way to meeting its international climate commitments. however, under current policies, candidate will fall short. canada's pipeline case in washington might have been strengthened if the canadian government had introduced long promised greenhouse gas regulation for the on gas industry. prime minister harper is making it clear that will not be happening anytime soon. >> frankly mr. speaker under the current circumstances it would be crazy.
7:34 am
it would be crazy economic policy. >> then there's the project to build a second bridge linking detroit, michigan, and windsor ontario the busiest trade crossing between the two countries. not only is candidate paying the entire $4 billion up front canada -- of the new bridge and access roads in both countries canada is also putting the $250 million up front cost of the u.s. customs plaza on american soil because the obama administration refused to. the government of canada has been fabulous. to be blunt i think he was federal government needs to do a better job. >> as an american i think it's embarrassing that we can't fund our own infrastructure and i think it's equally embarrassing were asking canada to foot the bill and when it's all over and pay for, we want half of it. >> at least the bridge project seems to be going ahead. not so for a planned upgrade of a ferry terminal in british
7:35 am
columbia. it's on canadian soil but it is leased to the state of alaska. alaska want to upgrade the terminal using only the american steel in keeping with by american rules. candidate said no way, not on canadian soil, and threatened legal action. so when the two sides couldn't reach a compromise, alaska canceled the project. is candid and the u.s. cannot solve these smaller squabbles, what about the big stuff? >> and then there's the long running dispute over canadian and mexican beef and pork sold in u.s. stores. u.s. laws require those cuts of meat to be labeled with details on where the animal was born where it was raised and slaughtered. candidate says that cause its producers a billion dollars a year. the world trade organization has twice ruled the mandatory labeling is discriminatory. videos is appealing for a third and final time. candidate is threatening
7:36 am
retaliation. it is true that the u.s.-canada relationship is indeed by most countries in the world. and overall it's a good one. there's close to operation on border security while trying to speed up the movement of goods and people. although that progress has been slow to canadians and americans did fight side-by-side in afghanistan, and our allies again in the fight against the islamic state. but with the two countries focus on disputes, it's hard to imagine them working on so-called vision items big ideas that demand conversation cooperation and trust. >> i willingness to put aside short-term domestic sovereignty concerns in favor of larger whopper division, and i just don't see that vision anymore not in the canadian government and not in the u.s. government. >> at the end of the data has to be a personal relationship, personal chemistry between the two leaders, and we just haven't seen it for the past six years.
7:37 am
>> who can forget the promise in both countries when barack obama was first elected? now some suggest better relations will only happen with a change at the top maybe in both countries. >> all right. so that sets the scene for our conversation to a lot of ground to cover. will try to do in some sort of order work through some of these issues we've raised over the next 90 minutes or so and allowing for your questions as well but we'll start all of our panelists off that sort of the same spot and that is just what is in their view the state of the relationship. we've seen this primer that sets out one view. others may disagree but let's start there. paul wells let me start with you. what is the state of the relationship between candidate and the united states? >> the relationship between americans and canadians is fine. i'm going to philadelphia after my stop there for two days in philadelphia expect to be well
7:38 am
treated by my captors. [laughter] there's billions of dollars of trade back and forth. the two countries are working in parallel in russia and ukraine against a system against ebola. by the relationship at the top is frosty and that's not even my diagnosis but gary doer's predecessor says he is never seen the relationship between the two heads of government as cool as it is today. some people say that's just about a pipeline. but there's other evidence. the heads of government of the three country canada, u.s. and mexico used to meet every year and one of the three countries. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000. the last two times it was stephen harper start to host the summit, he council. barack obama has visited canada twice in six years as president. the last president to visit canada that rarely was richard nixon to decide that one trip to see gary trudeau was enough.
7:39 am
so there's a lot of evidence that this relationship is really not functional. there's lots of blame to go around. it's too easy for people who like the president to say it's harper's fault because he's a right-winger, or people who like the canadian government to say well, obama is lost in his own little world. but they are very similar. they are loners but they don't like to pick up the phone. they don't have a lot of colleagues internationally that they get along with. and that similarity of style and divergents of ideology is costing each country. >> trent one -- time on what is your view? >> it's interesting to decided it what's happening in the russian ship writ large of the $700 billion trade relationship to secure cooperation from intelligence cooperation. everything goes on between the two countries and to segregate that from what's happening at the top which is these two leaders who obviously are not rushing into each other's embrace. my question is been, what does that mean for the broader
7:40 am
relationship? and ask around and what i hear is along the lines of what paul said, they are not meeting. what does that mean? it means that they're not setting priorities for the relationship. they are not looking forward to the future and saying, what should our goals be going forward? which is what happens at the summit and a sort of kickstart the bureaucracies into trying to deliver things that can be announced. they're trying to set the next agenda going forward for the next few years. and so perhaps it's more a question of what's not happening in the relationship than what is happening. >> ryan, let's get your view on the state of the relationship. >> we think overall it's a good relationship with canada. coming from a border state we see it firsthand and is really the local people and the people between canada and the united states. they get along very well. culturally and everything else. but what we are worried about is
7:41 am
possibly the frosty relationship that the united states has with canada based on the keystone pipeline. we think that this could jeopardize the economic relationship that the united states has with canada. it's a global market out there and so the united states needs to compete globally. and what better friend and ally than canada to work with? so we know canada has other options for its economic vitality. so why not have that partnership be with the united states? i think unfortunately what we've gone through in the united states with keystone has affected the relationship. we don't want it to affect our relationship but i think long-term we need to work to put things back together and put things right. >> danielle droitsch let's get your views. >> i don't think america's any better friend than canada. we have lots of trade 300,000 people across the border every day, $2 billion in economic growth between the two countries every day. we have the shared border we have this extremely long history
7:42 am
of working together, fighting together to working across together on a number of issues for decades. but friends negative to talk about issues, and friends need to be able to discuss what really matters. one thing that we really got to think about is, last year was the hottest year on record. 16 of the last hottest years on record happened since 1997. we are now confronting climate change. we are dealing with blistering the droughts, rising seas floods. there's just a tremendous impact that we are experiencing, and the reason we are experiencing it globally is because of fossil fuels. and so we are having a difficult conversation about fossil fuels and that conversation is likely to continue. but the opportunity for the two countries to talk about how to confront that problem is really what i think the future u.s.
7:43 am
canada relationship can go. canada has a clean energy revolution going on right now. in the last five years there's been a doubling of renewable energy. there's been a 37% growth in clean energy jobs. we've seen a doubling of electric vehicle sales. there's a number of things happening. those same things are happening in the united states, if they have these clean energy economies that are growing. and the opportunity, eventually gets to the heart of the relationship because that is really what our administration is right now that clean energy opportunity how can we together confront this climate problem how can we together to confront clean energy. so i look forward to the beyond keystone part of this discussion because that is really where i think from u.s. relations perspective that we need to go. >> we'll get to that as well. congressman owens what is your view of the relationship? >> from my perspective, living in our from montréal, i don't
7:44 am
see any change in other citizens interact with one another. this is not a situation that really comes down, if you will to the grassroots. we have some governmental issues. we have some irritants that are going on but trade is increasing consistently. so it tells you that this is is largely ignoring what the media and the politicians are stirring up as a problem. for most people this is not an issue. the relationship continues to be very strong. people working together i think more and more. we are seeing increasing trade in our communities. so from my perspective i see this as something that we are focusing on at the political level but when you get down to business and people, people are very comfortable that we are still friends. >> okay.
7:45 am
ambassador doer you're batting cleanup. what is your view of the state of the relationships speak with first of all if i could get some advice people. don't worry about your own canadian sweater. it's the philadelphia arena. just some diplomatic political advice. listen, both countries i think we see especially in the united states, i would say in my biased way, it's a bit of a canada government from time to time. i think i went on my sixth crisis on shutting the border down in the last few years. and i think the country in the decisions that are made as a but it does describe our very very positive. i look at the scene saturday and i think that all of them are treated equally but there's different orders of government that deal with canada. it's not all the president. i am frustrated with him on the
7:46 am
keystone pipeline. i am disappointed in nebraska because we've had about three setbacks in nebraska as well. i also believe that some of the comments in the scene setter are acted out his inaccuracies on the pipeline. i think there were four pinocchio's this week were granted and bequeathed to him. to say that all the oil is going offshore to be exported was wrong, wrong to say it. is it was all coming from canada. who knew the north dakota and montana had been bequeathed by the present again to? of course it includes locking oil. -- occam -- bakken. will continue to what we've always done. we are not a surrogate for the company put its our job to get the facts out about this proposal. on the bridge i found the
7:47 am
president to be in most of the ways not all of them, to be helpful. and i found the biggest blockage to be both with the private owner of the bridge blocking in the michigan house and senate, and then with the michigan delegation appropriation of money. so we had to use a model to get a financing agreement, which is paid back by the users, both capital and interest. we got a presidential permit with a lot of cooperation from the white house. we got a waiver on the u.s. steel that is covered under buy america that goes back decades back to the good old days, which was brought in legislation ever got a waiver for canada u.s. steel to the white house. and yes it should've been paid
7:48 am
for by the textures on either side of the border. when we couldn't get that through the michigan delegation and the house of representatives, we had to the go back into the solution because this bridge has been talked about ever since 9/11. the biggest choke point between our two countries our trade and security, and sometimes you just have to have a can-do attitude otherwise it will be another decade before the somebody might be able to get it done, or the appropriation would, probably, taxpayers as opposed through a triple p. we did also get the cooperation of the white house on the operating cost of the bridge. you could have had a clip tonight, you could've had a keystone ended you could've had the president after the horrible shooting on october 22 reaffirming his solidarity with canada, reaffirming his commitment to working on border security and domestic security threats reaffirming the great
7:49 am
cooperation we have between our two countries by our member after 9/11 there was an urban myth created in the united states that all the terrorists came, that were involved in 9/11 came through canada. it still remains today and i am thankful that the president stood up and stood strong with canada at that time. it helped us deal with any threats on the border and there's a very strong statement. now, if you can just up with a pipe what i would be happier on this panel. >> we're going to get be on the panel beyond the pipeline, but we need to start with the pipeline. that's where the chief irritant is right now. it's what's making news in the relationship, so ryan, start with you. we know the president has vetoed this legislation coming from congress. what's the next move by republicans? when are we going to see another movie to try and legislatively
7:50 am
push this pipeline through? >> well, some. don't have to wait longer tomorrow we will vote on cody ford on the veto override. we have the first vote tomorrow to move this process called the cloture vote. we will get that. that will move forward and then that sets up the veto override. we need 67 votes. we are working very hard on that. we are still working at it, right? we are a little short at this point. we still have an image from democrats who joined us. we have 63 supporting us. last time with one republican missing so we think will have 63 a lease. we are working on a few others. the president said in his veto message the reason, one of the main reasons he was vetoing this legislation was that we were cutting the process short. so that's after six years he is claiming were cutting the process short. so we will continue to go back to some of the democrats who have said that this process needs to point out. this process has played out.
7:51 am
we've had several environmental impact statements all coming back saying that there's no environmental impact to the pipeline, that it actually lowers greenhouse gas emissions versus it not been approved. so we are going to make that argument to we will see how it goes on wednesday and thursday. after that i think it's been pretty clear from majority leader that we will continue to push this project. and we are going to look at other legislation. probably appropriation, maybe the transportation bill. the last time we did a highway reauthorization we got very close to we think it's infrastructure for the united states. supports 42000 jobs. so we think it could be the appropriate to put in the highway bill. >> who wants to jump in? where do we go with this debate and this process now? are we going, i guess a couple key questions. are we going to get a pipeline approval under this president or even decision under this president? let's start there. danielle, you want to jump in?
7:52 am
>> sure. can you repeat the question? >> is barack obama going to end up having to say and the despite the because of what happened in congress or do we risk not getting a decision at all while he is president? >> i mean, right now the president company, he's basically in the process that's been going on for a number of years -- you should let somebody else -- >> who wants to jump in? >> well i think for so we will see if we get the veto override. i think that's even for those innocent, that is really hard. the president was very cryptic in recent comments. he said it might take me a few weeks to make this decision but it might take me a few months. a lot of people say he will not decide at all before the end of his term so there's a lot of pressure on hillary clinton to take up the view that this
7:53 am
pipeline should not be approved. to me it's interesting, both the bridge story and this pipeline story, they raise a bigger issue here i think for the future, which is how does canada as a foreign country build infrastructure in the united states? i think if we look back at the 1980s the big thing in canada-u.s. relations was fighting free trade agreements how do we get this trade going? now it's going and now it is there. so how do we build that infrastructure? back in the '80s, you mentioned, paul alan gottlieb. he came to washington and he said look we are all dealing with the state department and the white house but what we really need to be doing is lobbying congress. he really change the way canada conducted diplomacy. he really focused on going after senators and congressmen and these issues that were for them were domestic issues but for us to have a huge impact. so now we are in this new stage and to build real things real
7:54 am
objects in real america, it's not about sitting down with depression or just the congress. it's about dealing with as we've seen land owners. whether they are ranchers in nebraska who don't want a pipeline on their land, or a private bridge owner in detroit, and in dealing with those local governments, though state legislators campaign contributors to give non-governmental organizations whether it's the nrdc and danielle and the climate movement or in the case of the detroit windsor bridge it was a tea party that was supposed to spin any money on this new bridge. so you all these players. it's so diffuse, originally diffuse but i think that's a very difficult challenge for a foreign country to come in and deal with diplomatically. so there have been a lot of proposals for how do we manage this. some people said we need a i national commission on infrastructure or some kind of development bank. i understand the state
7:55 am
department is looking at its own processes of how does it prioritize spending on cross-border infrastructure so that the most important trade ports are actually getting the money and not just the ones where a border congressman is able to get his project into a bill to get offended. how do we approach this anymore coordinate, rational way but in the case of the pipeline how do we deal with these issues before we're into a specific project where you're having public meetings in nebraska people from all over the country are coming in and focusing on this one project to play out a much broader national discussion? i see this as a broad challenge for canada for the years going forward. how do we build support -- trade supporting infrastructure in the united states? >> we haven't talked about the power of money in these different ability to raise money after the supreme court. there's a lot of money against
7:56 am
the bridge in michigan a lot of money. and there's a lot of money moving around for and against the pipeline. and so that's a broader discussion but it's quite different than even it was a 10 years ago. secondly, it takes six years to get a transmission line between one state and another state in the united states. one lawyer per megawatt to get a transmission line approved. and so when we are dealing with -- >> we have to proposals with come again with clean energy coming from québec to new england states. it's taken us four years. we did get a presidential permit. didn't lead to the news but on a hydro line from québec to new york state, and we're working on another one through new hampshire. these take a long time. the ability to work in the public interest against people
7:57 am
for and against something is really, really slow. and it's not just a quote war on government. as they say it takes that much time, even in canada the empire has no national grid. all the transmission lines go north and south. on the pipeline the state department said, and they have been correct that the pipeline is not built, the oil will come down on rail. they made their predictions three years ago and they met last year and they're right. there's 1 million barrels a day extra oil since barack obama has been president, more than any other president. it has come from canada to the united states. it's just getting there in the wrong way without building a pipeline, in my view. the state department said that if it's not built it will be coming down on rail and rail has higher commissions, higher
7:58 am
safety risks. the actual reported 28 deaths. they released that on a friday afternoon, very few people reported that, and a higher cost. when you look at those three liabilities one of them is to canada, the costs. the second, safety issue is to the americans. they just had a horrific accident in west virginia. that oil went through chicago and the third issue is higher in nation. say the president says no because people say you stop the pipeline, you save the planet, you are actually having hired a mission. so yes, it is bad for canada, but i would argue strongly that the united states is taking two of the three liabilities by saying in no. that's the right to do that, or the president the right but we have over 63 votes in the senate and 61% of the house, including my good friend of voting for the pipeline. >> let's jump to your good friend.
7:59 am
congressman, you're a democrat who supports the pipeline. i think the question everybody wants to know is will barack obama's president, one way or another is this pipeline going to get approved? >> i think it is less and less likely as time has gone on. and i think that from what i can see, that it is in my view unlikely that he will approve it. whether or not the congress can put together a piece of legislation and attach it to its we has no choice, if you will maybe a road forward. however, i would argue that what would be far more sensible here would be to come to an agreement where we have a trade off if you will, as an example i would talk about the senate immigration bill that we failed to act on. why not construct a deal if you will, that gives the senate bill
8:00 am
is dead on on immigration, something we clearly need, and also allows the pipeline to go forward. >> when you talk about the safety issues related to the pipeline, we have many pipelines moving north and south and east and west. there's very little risk, in my view, or increased risk in building another pipe line. ..


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on