Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150109

Having this archaic policy that wouldnt allow cuba to join the hemispheric unity. Now that we will i think when he goes to this conference, next summit in panama, hell be welcomed. Because now well be able to unify this entire hemisphere. You may think its a small island but the significance of being able to bring in 11 Million People and make them like the rest of the people in this hemisphere, when you think about it, as we go out and compete against the world we have every type of agriculture that there is in the world, every single thing is grown in this hemisphere. We have more ability for producing electrons than any other hemisphere in the world. All of the solar, all of the wind all of the hydro all of the oil. I mean you name it. Every possibility of producing energy exists. If we could just unify this whole hemisphere and this is what these president s are all talking about is the hemispheric energy policy. We wouldnt need a drop of oil from any other part of the world. We could send electrons all around the hemisphere. We have no wars in this hemisphere between countries. We speak the entire hemisphere can speak in three languages, portugese, english, and spanish. A Little French from quebec and all the rest is in our languages. So the opportunity to unify and by bringing cuba into the tent and opening up all of these new i think tourism is in my district the most asked question. Every time people hear about me going to cuba, how can i go . Why cant i go . I have very close professional friends saying if i go illegally will i get caught . I said, probably not. Heres how you do it. I think the battle and id love to hear my colleagues, the battle is going to be in congress because you have a really small minority of interests, cuban americans who, by the way can go to cuba without a license. Any cuban american can. Cuban american members of congress can go. You cant. They can send money to their relatives there. You cant. Their relatives in cuba can now invest. We cant. So there is almost theres almost an interest there that i hope some of you in the press will look into about conflict of interest with members of the house and senate who want to restrict others from getting the privileges that they now have. But its going to be a fight. As they say, i think that the conservative viewpoint is going to be a the politics is going to be motivated by the agriculture interests who like the governor pointed out have already made contact and their states and their ag interests, their business interests already know what the opportunities are and theyll have to pressure their Congress Members and senators to follow through on being able to implement this incredible announcement of the president. So i i mean, you please, the point there that well gain market share that weve lost actually thats gone down because of fewer the financial hurdles that our countrys had, fewer hurdles for other countries, and cubas shortage of hard currency and perception that the u. S. Policy will not change, so now those days are over. The currency will be an issue. But i think well make it. So my advice or recommendation is that were going to internally start a new cuba working group. We have that when missouri congresswoman joann emerson, we had a working group an equal number of democrats and republicans. We had a lot of policy. It was very difficult to move it. Because leadership from the cuban americans in congress were adamantly opposed to doing anything. Were in key positions and could use procedural those things will still be possible but you can overcome them by the will of the people and politics of america. This is grass roots politics. The American People want to go to cuba. Business people want to do business in cuba. They have to voice that, use their political voices to show those members of congress that indeed we ought to follow through in legislating accordingly. Thank you very much for and this ag coalition is absolutely essential to making the policy work. More essential than any other thing. That and the Financial Institution that have an interest in opening up credit and business exchanges and being able to use credit cards in cuba and things like that are going to be the two most motivating forces to be able to change american policy at the congressional level. So congratulations on this new year. And theres exciting new assignment that i think is going to make it work well to serve both in congress and report it very well in the press. Thank you. Our next speaker is representative kevin cramer from north dakota. Mr. Cramer, we know you here you are. Thank you very much. We are absolutely honored by your presence today, sir and very much looking forward to your message to share with the usacc. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, as a means of introduction, let me start out by saying this is a big week for me and at this moment i can its doubled in important importance as i look out among you. The keystone xl pipeline its a big deal. Kind of fun i have to admit. A little easier for me to talk about things like pipelines given my background as a former Energy Regulator. But this is a little different. Its also a big week because my friend rodney davis is here as well who represents the Congressional District in illinois that is home to the Illinois State university, the Football Team thats going to lose to north Dakota State University saturday in the championship game. Thats another matter all together. Its a big week. You know, i dont really know, frankly, how i ended up here. But i suspect it has something to do with fact that among the initial choir, the initial pushback from republican members of congress to the president s idea, one voice out of north dakota said, i dont know. It doesnt seem that dumb to me. And so here i am. And actually, prior to being an Energy Regulator in north dakota i did have the depreat honor of serving eight years in the cabinet of governor ed shaffer. I was his tourism director for 12 years. Dont snicker. It was the least visited state in the country. But today i walk around washington without a coat on. [laughter] i spent the second term as eds director of Economic Development in finance and became very close. Now, when ed told me he was moving me over, we should call him secretary here, shouldnt we . Secretary of agriculture in this town. From tourism to Economic Development and finance i said, governor, what i know about finance you could tap into a small thumb ble. He said, i understand that. Thank you very much for your confidence. But he said, we dont need a banker. We need a marketer. We need someone who understands markets. Someone who understands how to sell a product, sell a place, sell a state, sell an idea. And so that was my training before becoming a regulator. The reality is that while north dakota is represented in this room and certainly represented by your coalition and congratulations on forming it. It is a fantastic idea. As you know, this town moves based on good information that is presented to members of congress and then more importantly strong persuasion from the people that elect members of congress. And you all know how to do that with the coalition. Ive got some advice as well i think sam sums it up quite nicely. But, frankly, what moves me and what motivates me and really what caused me to come out early with support for the idea of trading with our neighbors 90 miles off our coast and normalizing relations to the degree ta we that we should and can. Well talk about that in a little bit. Not so much about the peas and lent ils and beans and corn and wheat and potatoes and products we grow in north dakota. I understand that theyre interested in other products like rice and things that arent grown in north dakota. But thats good. Thats a great outcome. We have the opportunity, you know, in the early window and the early first half of the 2000 decade in north dakota to sell about 30 million worth worth of peas and durham and spring wheat. So we know a bit about it. Were excited for the opportunities. But the real excitement to me is the opportunity to influence an oppressed country for liberty, the opportunity to spread democracy. The opportunity to do what farmers do naturally and that is feed hungry people. If the result of spreading democracy is we sell more of our commodities to a hungry world, thats awesome. Thats awesome. Thats trade ought to be part of diplomacy. Trade ought to be part of democracy spreading trade out to be a part of influence and persuasion. Thats what trade is. The economics are the other benefits. I dont apologize for them. Im grateful for them. So thats what drives me. The fact, you know, i think there are some things that tend to be overstated on all sides of all issues. Weve had a week of overstating issues on all sides. Is cuba a big market compared to china . No. But it is 11 Million People. Right . They are 90 miles away right . They are people that are already inclined to want to be like us to the point that some want to be us. Thats pretty cool. We have a running head start. Geographically intellectually, culturally. We have an opportunity that should not be squandered to spread liberty spread democracy, and to sell products. We have to look out for some things for sure. Nobody is naive enough to think were just going to open it wide open and somehow be the only beneficiary. I mean, north dakota also grows sugar beets. We are very familiar with the importance of fair free trade in our hemisphere and the importance of what happens when its not adhered to by our partners. So we need to keep all the protections in place as well. Thats why i think, and this is a heavy lift, but thats why i think incrementally we can make the case to our colleagues based on the spread of democracy, based on the Economic Opportunities for our farmers as well as others, manufacturers, intellectual developers, you know, who knows . Imagine the infrastructure opportunities that maybe, you know water pumpers in north dakota and texas might have in a place like cuba as they rebuild and build to meet the demands of the current century as opposed to the last one. There is no end to those opportunities in my view. We still have we have to have a relationship for that to happen. We can do it with a short leash and test it incrementally. We can open it up little by little and provide assurances to those colleagues of ours in both the house and the senate that might not be inclined to go all in. I get it. But ive learned in my short time in congress that persuasion does not happen quickly. Almost nothing happens quickly. Almost nothing happens. But thats another issue all together. My advice besides congratulating and encouraging you is to go into this coalition of your group, the coalition of congressional supporters, go into it with us arm and arm with good advice, back and forth, to provide political encouragement and cover when necessary. Thats a real part of our work. And then to of course help us be persuaded and be persuaders. And you can do that providing good information and of course grass roots backing, back home. Thank you for the opportunity. Its an honor to be with you and certainly to be with my colleagues in congress. Thank you. Congressman cramer reminded me of actually a compelling point. Both the u. S. And cuba are members of the world trade organization. Cuba offers most favored nation status to every other w. T. O. Member so even if we do begin to loosen restrictions, its actually going to take our ability to get permanent normal trade relations, normalizing the trade relationship to get us on equal footing. At the moment every other w. T. O. Member is getting preferential access to that market. Thank you very much, congressman cramer. At this point i would like to welcome congressman rodney davis from illinois. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Im glad my colleague from north dakota is still here today. I have to differ with his opinion on whats going to happen at the f. C. S. National championship game this year. What he didnt tell you is hes actually going to provide me with bison jerky once my Illinois State hits north dakota license. Thank you, kevin. It is an honor to be here but im here because of a prism of experiences i had because i had a chance to travel to cuba. In 2005 as a staffer for another member of congress, i went to cuba. I saw the conditions that the cuban people live in. Many who opposed lifting the embargo agree with me that i, along with them, dont want to see the castro regime continue. I want to see communism lifted in cuba so the cuban people can experience the same freedoms we experience here in the United States of america. We just differ on how to go about doing that. And from my personal experience from an agricultural state like illinois, i believe that opening more trade with Agricultural Products, hopefully most of them from illinois, and then the rest of the states like north dakota, and others, i believe increasing the trade that we already have with the cuban nation is going to allow america to invest in a cuban economy that is going to free the cuban citizens from the conditions that they live under now. The district i represent in Central Illinois has a very rich tradition in agriculture from agricultural manufacturers Food Processors like kraft in champaign or our Farm Progress in decatur, illinois, agriculture makes my districts economy run. Ive also seen first hand how manufacturing jobs in my district are supported through trade. Im somebody who has long before the president announced his prospective changes in policy to cuba has advocated for more normalized trade relations with the cuban people. So his actions didnt get me here today to talk about this issue and, frankly, i am not somebody who supports trading prisoners in regards to further ideas. While i am ectatic that mr. Gross is home, i am not ectatic that this administration decided to release others to make that happen. Frankly, i think that could encourage more americans being used as collateral and i do not think that was a good idea. Long before that happened, i think the cuban people will only experience freedom through american investment. American investment is what we have an opportunity to put forth. Illinois Agricultural Products are essential to this trade and these opportunities. Illinois is the number one producer of soybeans. Illinois is number two to my birth place iowa, in corn production. Illinois farmers are responsible for 8. 3 billion in total ag exports. In my state, my district relize upon trade relations to actually sell our products and create our jobs. And feed the rest of the world. But we cant compete with competitors like brazil argentina, and europe under the current policy conditions. Thats why im standing here today to hopefully see those remedied. By improving trade relations and bringing cuba a nawaz the Global Economy and lifpblging them again to the American Economy cuban citizens will have the opportunities that i saw first hand they need. After 54 years, i think a new approach is needed. Thats why i stand here in favor of increasing trade relations with our cuban friends, our cuban citizens, and our friends. By releasing the cuban people from isolation and opening their country to our ideas and our products, the castro regime will no longer be able to use the United States as a scapegoat for the failed policies of communism. I thank everyone for being here today. I appreciate your support for this idea. And i wish everyone success in the future in opening up opportunities for all americans to help the cuban citizens through trade. Thank you. Thank you for your bold leadership, your words of wisdom. Next we will hear from a longtime supporter of u. S. Agriculture as it relates to cuba. Senator rand, we know youre not here just for today. Youre here for a history of leadership on this issue. And we welcome your leadership and were looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much for the chance to be here and to visit just briefly about this issue. I was somewhat offended by your emphasis on the words long time but it actually is the year 2000 so nearly 15 years ago we offered a successful amendment on the house floor carving out an exception for food medicine, and Agricultural Commodities from the embargo. It was a very contentious circumstance with lots of discouragement by some in charge from offering that amendment. And i remember the outcome of that vote. 301 to 116. 301 house members 116 to 116 house members said its time for change in the policies with our countrys relationship to cuba. A majority of democrats and a majority of republicans both said that day that its time to do something different. In kansas, and i said this on the house floor previously, in kansas, well try something once and we dont always expect it to be successful the first time. We might try the second time. Maybe even a third time. But i would tell you that cansans have enough common sense and are smart enough to know that after trying something for 54 years you ought to try something different. And if the goal of u. S. Policy is to change the nature of cuban citizens and the relationship with their government, what weve been doing has not worked. And its not surprising it hasnt worked because its a unilateral sanction. When we dont sell agriculture commodities, manufactured goods, when we dont trade with cuba, its not that theyre not getting agriculture commodities or manufactured goods. Its just that theyre buying them from someone else. Kansans and americans are smart enough to know when youre there by yourself all youre doing is harming yourself. Of course in a state like ours and we can go through the litany of agriculture commodities that we produce, the list is long but when wheat, for example, is not sold to cuba, its not that theyre not buying wheat. Its that theyre being purchased from some other place, our competitors. Generally canada, european union. We are a natural supplier of agriculture commodities to cuba. The cost of transportation from europe to cuba is about 25 a ton. The cost from a port in the United States is 6 or 7 a ton. There is a natural opportunity for us and we ought to take advantage of that. So ive been at this issue for nearly 15 years. I will admit to taking a leave of absence for the last couple years. I announced in the Appropriations Committee after previously offering the amendment that was successful again in the senate Appropriations Committee. Two years ago i said im done. Until alan gross is released and im pleased to say that is accomplished and im pleased to be involved in a very active way to see one there are no more alan grosses held in captivity in cuba but the change in policy by the United States is Something Congress and any administration ought to embrace. It just makes sense. [applause] were at work. I started on this issue as somewhat selfinterest in agriculture, in particular kansas agriculture. I would say in the time we engaged on this topic it became clear it is something even more noble than the trading relationship, that selling opportunity. Its about changing the opportunity that cubans have in relationship to their government. I happen to believe a growing economy, greater standard of living creates the opportunities for the cuban people to make demands upon their government that otherwise theyd be spending their time trying to figure out how to put food on their family table. If we can have that relationship, economic relationship that americans can travel to cuba, if cubans can come to the United States, as the my former colleagues in the house have indicated this morning, i think there is a noble calling of trying to make the world a better place for all citizens of the world including those who live in cuba. So common sense says we ought to do this. And in fact our morality says that we ought to do this. Lets make the difference. Lets make the change. And i think this is a congress that has the ability to do that. I would encourage the Treasury Department to alter their regulations. Redefine when the cash up front has to be delivered. Remind them that they can do that without congressional authorization. I would encourage them to go ahead and change the regulations back to the way they were for several years in which a bank can issue a letter of credit and lets begin this process of developing that Economic Opportunity for american agriculture with cuba today. And then members of congress will work on the broader issues of how we alter the statutory provisions related to the embargo. Appreciate the folks here today. Its an honor to be here with my colleague senator klobuchar. I look forward to working with her and others to make certain good, common sense policies prevail and american agriculture causes are advanced and there is greater prosperity on farms across the country and that the cuban people have a better shot at a better life. Thank you very much. Good common sense and morality are drivers. We certainly appreciate the words of senator moran. Our next and last speaker from the hill is senator klobuchar. Senator, we know you to be one of the most thoughtful policy people on the hill. You weigh the complexities of an issue you think about all sides and all stake holders and you put good policy in front of politics or party. We really appreciate your bipartisanship and support on this. We also know that in 2010 you were a leader in responsoring a bill to advance trade relations with cuba. And so this is a natural fit for you and we appreciate that youre here to show your leadership. Thank you. All right. The last speaker. What does it say . What is it they say, everyone said everything but not me or Something Like that. So i am excited to be here. We finally had our last vote of the day. And so time to get to work on some of these really important issues. I appreciated what senator moran said as well as the other people that were here. I think he sees this as a bipartisan issue with a lot of support and its moving forward. I want to acknowledge representatives from minnesota. Cargill, the countrys largest private company, one of the sponsors here. And one of the of the reasons a minnesota based company, that our unemployment in our state is down to 3. 7 . Why is that . Its a lot because of exports, a lot because of agriculture production. We are number three for sweet corn number two for hogs. You didnt guess that in the country. And number one for turkeys. A fact to remember for the weekend. I have spent my day hearing people complaining about the weather in washington today. I think what is it, 20 degrees. Tomorrow in minnesota it is going to be 33 below zero wind chill so the minnesotans are here to bask in the sun. We think it is very warm here. I also appreciate all the work thats gone on with this policy with the administration and all of the businesses and agriculture interests that for so long have been advocating for a change in policy. I can tell you i see the strength of exports in our state. I saw it throughout the down turn where we kept our head above water and it was a lot because of the fact that we have companies from 3m to cargill that believe in that Global Market and believe that it means jobs in america. And we see cuba as a market of 11 Million People. 11 million new customers that can buy American Products and to me that means jobs in america. American agriculture has been at the forefront of advocating for common sense policy, changes that would promote congress with cuba, and revive a relationship between cuba and america, which everyone in this room has now just this past weekend, the Minneapolis Tribune featured the story from fairmont, minnesota. One of three farmers who travel to havana in 2002 to watch the arrival of the first u. S. Grain shipment to cuba in 40 years. Despite that commercial opening over a decade ago, we have not made the kind of progress we should make. Agricultural experts to cuba grew to nearly 700 million in 2008. But they sank below 300 million last year. Export restrictions prevent them have continued to hobble growth in the market, and the embargo prevents humans from obtaining food we take for granted in our country. As one human rights activist wrote, it is impossible for cubans to buy staples like eggs or cooking oil without turning to the underground market. Rationing forces people to stand in line for hours for things like poultry and fish. On the 50th anniversary of the cuban government in 2009. It provided families with an extra half pound of ground beef, but that beef wasnt u. S. Beef. The event was sponsored by the venezuelan government. I say it is time that americans stopped taking credit for the hamburger to venezuela. We have new opportunities. Today we have begun our path that i think is the right path. The process to jumpstart our ties with cuba is a positive step forward. Increasing travel and commerce between our countries will create new Economic Opportunities for American Farmers and businesses, and will help improve the quality of life of cubans. 11 Million People. That is a big market for American Goods and american jobs. Like the members of congress that are spoken today, i have long advocated for modernizing our relationship with cuba. I led a bipartisan bill to make it easier to finance exports to cuba. The bill was led in the house by ranking agricultural chair colin peterson. My home state of minnesota, as i mentioned, is big in exports. We exported 20 million products to cuba in 2013. With the president s action alone, the Minnesota Department of agriculture estimates that exports could increase by another 20 million. Increasing agricultural exports and promoting normal commercial relations with cuba will also help ensure that cubans can provide for their families. It will reduce the fear that comes with struggling to just get by. The growing community of cuban Small Farmers and coops need advice and assistance to aid in the transition from large state owned Agricultural Enterprises to a more entrepreneurial system. U. S. Agriculture can help develop a new generation of cuban agriculture. But the success of this policy shift and the potential for openings does not hinge solely on the u. S. The cuban government must take serious steps to reform politically and economically. We need to see substantial improvement in the cuban governments respect for democracy and human rights. It must free Political Prisoners and to stop arbitrarily arresting people for political speech. It must take steps to liberalize the statecentric Economic System if it truly helps to benefit from the growing interest in commerce with the United States. Democrats and republicans can Work Together in the new congress to support a common sense relationship with the u. S. And cuba. You just heard that from senator moran, and you are hearing it from me. This is not a partisan issue. Members on both sides of the aisle recognize that continuing along the same path with respect to cuba has not achieved our objectives, and has hurt americans by restricting travel and Business Opportunities abroad. Even in the depths of the cold war, attorney general robert kennedy, one of castros most fervent opponents, soft to rescind the travel ban noting that the band was inconsistent with traditional american liberties. I know many of our colleagues have concerns about the shift in policy, and i hope we can have a robust and substantive debate. But Congress Must avoid obstructive actions like blocking the confirmation of ambassador to cuba or the funding for diplomatic activities. Instead, congress should conduct reasonable oversight to ensure that our policies are enhancing our economic interests in expanded commerce and travel and cultivating new Political Freedoms in the country of cuba. 50 years of the embargo and travel that have not secured the cuban interest. It is time to try a different approach. I thank you all for being here today. Im sure you are glad this is your last speech from someone on the hill. I look forward to the good changes that are starting to take place. I especially look forward to working with senator moran who got on the commerce committee. I have been on that committee for a long time, and i hope they will see action out of the commerce committee, in addition to Foreign Relations and the other committees dealing with these issues. I look forward to working with all of you, and taking a practical approach that will be good for the people of cuba. Good for the people of the United States, and good for the people of minnesota. Thank you very much. [applause] you hear the words common sense and practical. While the senator said this was the last speech from someone on the hill, today, yes, but not tomorrow. We will be hearing more and more from our representatives and senators on the hill about this policy. This is just the beginning. At this time, we would like you want to get a little comfortable. We are going to call our Industry Leaders to make a few comments, and we will then engage in an interactive q a with the press. We thank the press for taking the time to come and hear us and let us tell our story. We do believe that the story will again telling itself, but nevertheless i call my colleague and vice chairman paul johnson to facilitate the discussion with Industry Leaders. Recognizing that time is short, we will jump right in. Starting with betsey ward, president and ceo of the usa rice federation. I will go quickly, and start by talking about rice and cuba. The cuban market for rice is not theoretical. It is real, large, and compelling. Cuba is the second largest importer of rice in the americas. There was a time, a long time ago that cuba was the number one export market. Anyone visiting cuba knows that rice is the mainstay of their diet. Present in nearly all cuban meals. Annual per capita consumption is one of the highest in the world 200 pounds. Compared to the u. S. , which is 27 pounds a year. You understand the cuban saying that it cant be called a meal if it doesnt have rice. They grow about 400,000 metric tons a year, but to meet high demand they import 600,000 metric tons. Our industry has been pressing for open trade and travel with cuba since the mid1990s. We were the first u. S. Commodity to reenter cuba in 2001. We continued to sponsor trade missions and participate in forums here and in cuba. We did have sales during the early 2000s. We sold 64 million in 2004. Our sales have fallen to zero starting in 2009. Our loss has been vietnams gain. They are the primary supplier of rice to cuba. We think its a loss to the cuban people as well. They are forced to eat an inferior product that traveled 16,000 miles to get to them. It is less than 700 miles from havana to u. S. Rice ports. We know the cuban people prefer u. S. Rice. When i travel there and we were selling rice there, when consumers learned u. S. Rice arrived they would line up for hours to get a chance to get some. The stores couldnt keep our rice on the shelves. Given the cuban preference for u. S. Grown rice and the obviously just a goal advantages rice farmers enjoy, we can quickly displace lowquality asianorigin rice and capture more than half of this market within five years, once any and all restrictions are lifted. Im thrilled to be here today and proud to be a member of the new coalition and be so many steps closer to free and unfair free and fair trade with cuba. Thank you. Thank you betsy. Alan tracy, president of the u. S. Wheat association. Thank you. In 1988 excuse me, 1998, some of our members, particularly the Kansas Wheat Commission and the north dakota Wheat Commission and others paid a visit paid for a shipment of flour to be donated to cuba. U. S. Wheat facilitated that shipment, went to cuba and help to the millers use it. They were ecstatic. It was just 20 tons of flour but the bakers used it so much more suited to the 100graham roll that is a standard part of the diet, well behind rice but a standard part of the diet. They wanted to have it. As soon as the legislation allowed them to begin exporting in 2002, the donation had been to the Care Affiliates not to the government, by the way. Once we began to make sales we moved up to about half of the market, just under half of the market from 2004 to 2008. Down to about zero in 2011. Longterm, the prospects are that it should be about a millionton market. They import nearly that much. To put it in perspective, we should be able to garner 80 to 90 of the market, as we do for the rest of the caribbean. Its simply logical. They like the product. In todays dollar terms, thats about 250 million a year. To paraphrase year after year , that adds up to real money. We recognize there is a lot of work to do, but we welcome this first step to us and the real meaning of the step by the administration as it puts them in favor of fostering trade rather than frustrating it. We look forward to the lifting and changing of some regulations that are currently in place that caused the decline. The cube instantly got frustrated with having to deal with us, and our competitors found their way in again. Thats again the first step. We long called for the elimination of the embargo including in the journal of commerce in 1999, i believe it was. So we look forward to working with the coalition on behalf of u. S. Wheat producers and the logical and sensible relations with the people of cuba. Thank you. Thank you. Dale moore with the American Farm bureau federation. Thank you, paul. One of the things we have a lot of details about, we have honorable folks that talked about how important opening trade with cuba is. When we look at this, i dont think there is a Farm Organization or Commodity Organization or ag industry sector partner that hasnt had on their books for sometime the importance of lifting this embargo. We fight these unilateral embargoes on somebody different fronts over so many different years. This one has stuck around far too long. As my boss said when the president made this announcement , he said, do you have any idea what our talking points are on cuba . I had to admit this was not an issue that we had on the radar. So it was a very pleasant surprise right before christmas. Its something our farmers and ranchers across the country appreciate, the effort to get this process started. As you saw a little bit ago, it is great to see the bipartisan effort on the hill rolling to help us make this a reality on a broader sense. I can add anecdotes and stories but ird have the one minute signal in the corner of my eye. Thank you very much. Thanks. Next the president of the u. S. Hide and Leather Association representing the north American Meat institute. We were told moving up here to cut our speeches down to minute from four and trying to figure out the most important thing to say in one minute. Its difficult. You think it is all important. But the meat and poultry industry, one of the primary goals of the coalition is to increase the Economic Prosperity of the cuban people. But when i what people dont realize is how much of a benefit that will create for our own industry. The goal offers a direct benefit to u. S. Poultry producers especially. Cuban consumers seek to add higher value Animal Protein to their diets. One of the first products the newly minted middleclass consumer buys in the World Economy is additional Animal Proteins with additional income. Cuba is a real market for u. S. Poultry. Despite existing Financial Burdens under the embargo, u. S. Poultry exporters established a substantial foothold in the market. Through october of last year the u. S. Exported 128 million 128 million of poultry meats to cuba. A high of 160 million in 2012. This is a real market for us already. But frankly these numbers could be better. Finally, we think is important for our industry to see what is on the horizon in terms of expected future gains. With the expected future expansion of tourism and hospitality, the meat and Poultry Companies are in position to supply those industries with the highquality products they will need to Service Foreign visitors coming to the island. This will have implications for other markets as well, especially if they receive european tourists or tourists from tpp countries that might be looking to u. S. Meat and poultry for the first time. We want them to know if they are visiting cuba, they are eating texas ribeye or iowa pork tenderloin. So thank you. Last but not least, the president of cargo americas. I will try to not confuse being the last speaker with the keynote speaker. I will keep my comments brief. Senator klobuchar talked about the farmer who was in havana for the discharge of the first shipment to cuba. He was with cargo when they sold the corn to cuba. After initial success and sales early and mid2000s, unfortunately we saw business drop automatically out of the u. S. Going to cuba. The reason is that the United States agriculture does not compete on even footing. A year ago, or three or four years, maybe, i had the opportunity to work in mexico. Mexico is a net deficit producer of agriculture. When mexico imports commodities, the majority comes from the United States via oceanbound vessels, the port of veracruz. In the last four years, 95 of corn that mexico bought has come from u. S. Farmers and the u. S. Gulf. Cargo has offices in the Dominican Republic. Over the last year, half of the corn that the Dominican Republic has imported came from the u. S. Sadly today, the u. S. Is not competitive selling corn to cuba. We are not competing on even footing. We have a long history of believing in and supporting open and free trade. That comes from 150 years of experience doing business in 67 countries and seeing the benefit free trade and open markets can bring to people and peoples lives. Around 20 years ago, when trade relations change with vietnam since then, we have seen the power of free trade, not only for our business, but for our customers and two entities, where we work and do business in vietnam. Last year, we completed work on building the 70th school for children in vietnam. Sadly today, we dont have the opportunity to help communities and customers thrive in cuba like we do in other countries. This wont change without broader action. Therefore, we are supportive of changes to the law to help u. S. Article to compete in cuba. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, this is the moment where we will open up for questions. So please feel free to say who you are and who you are affiliated with, and please make sure you make use of the knowledge of our Industry Leaders. We will start with the first question. Sorry, we have a roving mic. Rich edson from fox business. To build on something senator moran said he talked about trade relations. Do you get the sense that the administration can do more than it already has done unilaterally, or are we at a point where it really is up to congress to liberalize this . I know that there are a number of regulations that have been in place they have figured out where most of the strings end that they can start pulling on. I am an agriculture guy. So that limits my ability to interpret treasury rules. I would say, though, that the president having made this decision, made this announcement, i figure he is pushing the envelope about as far as he can in hopes that it sparks action on the hill, which clearly it seems to have done. I think they can do things administratively, and one is establishing banking relationships with cuba. That was something in his announcement. That is helpful. You dont have to go through the third bank. The issue of payment in advance right now, cubans want to buy from us, but they have to pay for it before it even leaves the United States. You can tweak that so it is not paid until it gets to cuba. Fundamentally, the issue for us is our ability to compete with other suppliers, the availability of credit. That is Something Congress will have to address. We cannot offer them credit, and so our competitors can. And they dont have a lot of cash to spend on goods. I think that is really a congressional action. Regulations do have force of law. We have to comply with regulations. Trade thrives uncertainty, so we need to have that clarified as much as with asthma defective and useful change as the administration can foster on its own. I dont think we have that yet. But the greater step is to allow for the full normalization of trade relations, to allow all the changes we envision to go forward, both in trade and hopefully eventually in the relationship with next the cuban government. With the cuban government. Next question. In a similar vein. Do you expect, how quickly do you expect treasury to come up with regulations . A final regulation, or do you expect and to propose a notice of change that could take a while before the actual change takes place . We would expect they are moving swiftly. We dont have answers on specific dates. My guess is they would follow the law and allow for a Comment Period. But our guess is that they plan to move swiftly next question . I encourage them to do an interim final to allow the time for comment and allow the change to become effective immediately. Are you going to establish an office in washington to coordinate activities . How will this be managed . This is a effort where we all have our offices. We meet when we can. But essentially we are a coalition. We dont have an office. No bricks and mortar. But that means we will be out there. Any other questions . Yes. One other one. The u. S. And cuba and trade and Economic Council suggested that one reason trade or sales to cuba have been so popular is they have been on cash. In some cases when cuba has bought from other countries, they have not paid on time. He wonders whether it is a good idea to extend credit to cuba. What are your views on that . I just add that will be up to the individual companies involved. What we would seek would be to have the ability to offer terms more favorable than we currently have. It isnt so much the credit for my standpoints as all the hoops they have to go through in order to open the line of credit. They often have to go to a european bank, which opens a line of credit in the United States. Obviously our competitors dont have to do that. There are restrictions on the ships themselves that call on havana and later call to u. S. Ports. Those have increased the shipping costs. These are the kinds of things we would like to see fixed. But again, this is a first step. We dont expect to have our full trade relationship restored overnight. It is a very important key step to have the administration be fostering rather than frustrating trade. The next question. Amanda becker with reuters. In this Comment Period at treasury and commerce, i wondered what your plans were, how actively you will be submitting positions or information to let them know what you have at stake in this. Yes, yes, and yes. And yes. We have already come to establish different working groups and are working on solid recommendations. Any other questions . Ok. With that, let us thank you for your time and attention. We know time is limited here in washington, and you have spent a good portion of your afternoon with us. Let me reiterate something i said at the start of this conversation. 54 years of unilateral sanctions is an experiment that has gone on for way too long. We certainly appreciate the comments of our political leaders when they talk about common sense and being practical. Our association is about common sense and being practical. It is about, as senator klobuchar said the 11 Million People 90 miles south of the coast. It is those 11 Million People who deserve an opportunity to move up the rungs of the poverty ladder. We dont believe we can do it with just singular agricultural trade flows going south. What we believe is that for greater openness and normalization of relations that allows not only u. S. Agriculture but other american businesses across manufacturing, medical technology etc. To take advantage of that opportunity in the markets, and to help the cuban people begin to grow their incomes and enhance their standards of living. So we are very much about a holistic approach, and we will be using our voice with the u. S. Congress, which we believe is for the most part bipartisan on this issue. In fact, we do believe we have the majority of congress believing in this commonsense approach. Not only the majority of congress, but also the American People. The American People want a different approach to cuba, and thats what the u. S. Agriculture coalition is offering. So thank you very much. With that, we conclude our public lunch. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] florida representative and former Foreign Affairs Committee Chair and rihanna rose layton with proposed changes to u. S. Policy changes to cuba. House remarks in five minutes. Thank you so much mr. Speaker. The recent concessions by president obama to the castro regime mark a drastic the part youre from one of the most consistent tenets of the United States foreignpolicy and traditional American Values. It sets a dangerous precedent for other world regimes to emulate. The pardoning of convicted cuban spies follows an illadvised exchange with the taliban, in which rhetoric emerging from the white house suggest justifies actions has been unnervingly similar. The course of policy in caving to terrorist demands makes the u. S. More vulnerable, and we set we see those repercussions manifest across the globe. Venezuelans jumped at the opportunity to request an exchange of a convicted criminal in the u. S. For the freedom of prodemocracy leader, who made oral has jailed in venezuela. This is not a way to protect National Security interests. This is a way of putting them in jet jeopardy. When we equate unjustly imprisoned americans to terrorists, we set a dangerous precedent. The cuban regime has already signaled strongly that it will not unclench its fists, despite recent developments. On december 30th, 13 days after president obama press announcement the cuban regime arrested nearly 60 activists seeking to express themselves freely. This, in addition to the arrests of more than 200 activists on human rights day. Hock that is rich. Just seven days before the announcement normalizing relations. Yet, the administration probably and openly accounts the promise of yet unproven release of 53 dissidents as a major breakthrough. In reality, the net result will mean hundreds more in castros gulags. Rebel castro will arrest moore an minute month. This shows a failure of the administration plus argument and proves there is no intention by cuba to move in the direction of reform or freedom. Instead, president obama has created an atmosphere that emboldens the regime to continue its violent tactics with no concern of consequences from this white house. We must not forget that cuba not only poses a threat to its people but also threatens us here at home. Cuba must remain a state sponsor of terrorism because it has not changed its terrorist ways. In 2013, cubit was caught helping north korea even a Un Security Council resolutions and sanctions by shipping arms and munitions to the kim jongun regime. At a time when many in congress are trying to punish the north korean regime for its Cyber Attacks against the u. S. , we cannot forget that those rogue regimes help north korea, like the one in cuba. The castro regime continues to thumb its nose at the u. S. By harboring fugitives such as new jersey state trooper killer joanne chessamard and a bank robber, and many others who have fled u. S. Justice for the shores of cuba. These are just a few of the reasons, mr. Speaker why the Administration Must reexamine its relationship with castro and impose strict sanctions, not operate concessions for all of these transgressions. Just like a zebra cannot change its stripes, the castro regime cannot and will not change its antifreedom terrorist ways. It is our duty to support democracy and be a voice for the 11 million cubans oppressed throughout the island. By appeasing dictators, we have disappointed people all over the world who are struggling to achieve freedom. And the white house has betrayed core American Values and principles the respect for human rights and the right of people to choose their own destiny. As the first cuban americanborn member of congress, who went from being a political refugee fleeing the oppressed castro regime, to a Senior Member of this cherished body, i would fight tooth and nail to ensure the cause of freedom and democracy in cuba is not forgotten. Until the oppressive yoke of tyranny installed by the castro brothers has been lifted and the regime has been replaced by a Representative Democracy like the one we have here in our cherished nation, i have a moral obligation to freedomloving people everywhere, and i will not ever forget that responsibility. Thank you, mr. Speaker, for your time. Coming up next, representative jim himes of connecticut discusses the democratic edition agenda for the 140 congress. Then the Senate Natural Resource Committee markup of the keystone xl pipeline bill. That is followed by Speaker John Boehner on the president s threat to veto house legislation on the health care law. The keystone xl pipeline, and wall street regulations. Friday, a workshop on lobbying strategies and the regulatory process. We will be live from the American University public appear Affairs Institute for a forum featuring faculty and prevent professional lobbyists. Starting at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. Friday, president obama invites and Vice President biden traveled to knoxville to talk about the economy. The president is expected to announce an initiative to help americans afford college. Coverage starts at 1 20 eastern on cspan3. This sunday on q a, author did clear talks about the birth of a nation, its direction of slaves after the civil war and the efforts of William Trotter to prevent the movies release. Part two of the movie, after the war, reconstruction, is really the heart of the protest in the sense that this is where the blacks are appalled at the portrayal of free slaves. This is a scene showing what happens when you give former slaves the right to vote, the right to be elected, the right to govern. The scene in South Carolina legislature, the where the first and primary order of business is to pass a bill allowing for interracial marriage. Because, again, in griffiths seen, black men are solely interested in pursuing white women. Author did glare on the controversial story behind the birth of a nation. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on cspans q a. Next, a look at the democratic agenda for the 114th congress. Representative jim himes of connecticut was the guest on thursdays washington journal. This is 45 minutes. Host congressman jim himes is at our table to take your questions. He is a democrat from connecticut, vice chair of the new democrat coalition, and he also serves on Financial Services and intelligence over in the house. Lets begin with action on the house floor yesterday. This is the Washington Times this morning. Four months after they joined republicans in tweaking the law, they voted on it yesterday. What would this bill have done and how did you vote . Guest it was the second day of the congress with very strong republican control. You had the failure of the bill on the floor, which was odd to odd procedurally. This was a bill that basically took 10 or 11 i think tweaks is probably the right word. They had things that had been debated and actually passed him as the article points out come in the last congress. Minor adjustments to dodd frank. So it for example, doddfrank says anybody who uses a derivative derivative, oil companies, farmers, the endusers, people who use derivatives to protect themselves against movements in the price of grain or oil, they would have to do something called post margin, that is, put up money to make sure that if there derivative becomes less valuable, it would be ok. For a long time we have talked about not making the endusers post margin. That was one thing that did not did receive a lot of bipartisan report. But yesterday interestingly, did not. I cannot explain why the republicans let it fail on the floor, but the atmosphere is very different. There is a Strong Movement out there that any adjustment to doddfrank of any variety is gutting dodd frank and its a bad idea. That prevent us from looking at this very large legislation, which i helped write and and in support of and say, look, we got a couple of things wrong here and we should think about tweaking it. We are not in the congress in the frame of mind where we can get that done these days. Host you voted yes. Guest i voted yes on the legislation. Host you were one of just a few democrats to do so. Guest one of 35, but in the last congress, that number was Something Like 75. Yes, there were some oaks that folks that look at this and thought differently about it. Host here is a tweet from Elizabeth Warren. She said, great work nancy pelosi and Maxine Waters and House Democrats to block the gop from delaying the vocal role for the biggest wall street banks. Guest that is a bit of a mischaracterization. I was hearing yesterday how this is repealing the book role, and ending the volcker rule. And it gets boring quickly, but in reality what this did and its important that we focus on what this actually did rather than using broad brush strokes. In reality there is something called a coo, a collateralized loan obligation. It is a pool of loans that banks have made two companies, Small Businesses to other companies. Under the vocal rule, banks have to get rid of them. This legislation gave them another two years in which to get rid of these clos. This el owes are a very small part of the overall number of securities out there. This thing just said, you have to get rid of these, but you have two new rules. I am a big defender of the rule. This was, again, falling in the category of a tweak, rather than any fund a fundamental damage to the rule. Host is there tension in the Democratic Party over what on floor unfolded on the floor yesterday, those that are rallying against wall street and anything that might benefit them, and then those like yourself, maybe those that see a need for wall street in our economy . Guest there are always tensions within the Democratic Party. It is the strength of the Democratic Party. Come look at the Democratic Party on the floor. You will see lots of women latinos, africanamericans straight people, gay people. We are an immensely diverse body, and that is our strength. Yes, there is different is of opinion about Financial Regulation. My own view is that, any body of regulation, whether we are talking by how clean our air and water is can how fast we can drive on the roads, we find our balance. We need Financial Services. A lot of people are still angry at them. Me included. We need then to never do what they did in 2008 when the financial industry to down the economy, but we also need them out there making mortgages and lending to Small Businesses and providing people opportunities to save for college. My point of view is that we should seek that balance. There are people out there who say you know, many hundreds of pages of dodd frank should not in any way, shape, or form be touched. And if it is touched, it is probably to the advantage of the banks. That is a fair point of view. Doddfrank is still rolling out and we are still looking to see how it will affect the industry. What i hope we can do is get back to the world where we seek that balance, rather than continuing what is understandably still an emotional debate. A lot of people feel the banks got bailed out and are doing just fine today, an emotional debate. There are many people who feel the banks got bailed out and are doing just fine today. Countrywide mortgages, no prosecutions, there are many people who feel the banks got away with it. That creates emotion and its difficult to seek the balanced regulation of that industry. Host is the Democratic Party alienating wall street . And does the party need wall street in order to win elections . Guest what the party needs is the support of the American People in order to win elections. Ive spent some time talking to our Political Leadership and we look at what happened last november, and there is no conclusion other than the fact that we did not get quite enough people on board as far as taking a majority. In fact, much the opposite. That tends to be the discussion. Again, what we need to do, job one, is to figure out how to make sure this industry, which love it or hate it, is critical to the health of the American Economy, that it is vibrant and innovating and providing capital to americas families and the businesses but that it is a , lot safer than 2008. Host as you know, Elizabeth Warren speaking before labor groups yesterday. I want to show you a little bit of what she had to say and get your reaction will stop [video clip] pretty much the whole Republican Party and if were going to be honest, too many democrats, are talking about the evils of Big Government and calls for deregulation. It all sounded good, but what it was really about was tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant International Corporations to do whatever they wanted to do. Turning them loose to rig the market and reduce competition. Turning them loose to outsource more jobs. Turning them loose to load up on more risks and then hide behind taxpayer guarantees. Turning them loose to sell more credit cards that cheated American Families. In short, turning them loose to do whatever juiced shortterm profit, even at the expense of working families. Host Elizabeth Warren yesterday. Guest that was a pretty good description of the lead up to 2008, to the financial meltdown. She is absolutely right, there was strong bipartisan consensus in the early parts of 2000, even in 1999, strong bipartisan consensus against regulating the financial industry. Fact, there was deregulation. Taking away the glasssteagall regulations that had been around since the 1930s. And because of that, you saw unbelievably toxic mortgages. You saw something that was insane, which is the entire Derivatives Market unregulated. And that, of course, led us to aig. Elizabeth warren and her description of what happened before 2008 is accurate. Senator warren suggests that the intent was to allow for shortterm profitability of the banks. You think of the people in the bipartisan consensus back in the 1990s, and i would be a little less hesitant to suggest that they were acting that evilly back then. People like bill clinton certainly the republicans in the senate, they thought if you deregulate, these industries will thrive and we want our industries to thrive. But that was a mistake at the time, no question about it. Host does that hurt any chance of now former secretary of state Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016 . All of us in Public Service i dont recall exactly where she was, a senator after that deregulation in the 1990s. She was the first lady at the time. That is a separate issue. Her in iraq vote comes up. All of us have a record in Public Service service that can be scrutinized. That is fair fodder for the next election. Host we are talking to jim himes, in his fourth term. He resents the Fourth District in connecticut. And before that, worked for Goldman Sachs. In maryland, democratic caller go ahead. Caller thank you for your comments and your remarks and your beliefs. Can you do us a favor . Can you please explain to the American People the two parts of the house rules package that was discussed on tuesday . The one part about the dynamic scoring and the other about the Social Security disability. I think the American People dont understand what the republicans are talking about, and the need to know how this is going to affect us. I appreciate you, happy new year. That is a cspan watcher. Guest thank you for asking. This will escape notice of people do not talk about it. Dynamics coring, anytime congress does anything that will affect the budget or the deficit, the congressional budget office, a group of nonpartisan referees, republicans or democrats they figure out how much it will cost the government over time and how much it will affect the budget. We need to know how much things are going to cost. Traditionally, this has been done not using dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring says, lets look at how it affects the economy as a whole. There is a very out there that if you, for example, dramatically cut taxes, the economy will grow. Fewer taxes are in fact better for the economy, but taxes are necessary for funding the military roads, schools. There is a theory out there that says if you cut taxes a lot, the economy will grow, and because it is growing, you will get more tax revenue. History has not proven that to be the case. This idea that tax cuts pay for themselves has never been shown to be true. The republicans have said, lets take into account this idea that the economy will grow, and therefore maybe we will collect more taxes. My objection to this, and economists debate this, it seems to me, and republicans count themselves as conservative, but we must be as conservative as possible in estimating how much the deficit will increase or the affect on the budget. Whatever else it is is not a conservative way of dealing with it. Nobody ever really knows what the effect on the overall economy 17 trillion worth of the economy, it is hard to predict what the effect will be. What they try to do that is they get answers that are ill over the map. Why do an analysis with answers that are all over the map, and washington be in washington, they are likely to cherry pick what answers suit them best . It is a less conservative way of estimating. There are some things at the republicans like, that this idea that if we cut taxes enough, we will get more revenue. History has proven that this will not work. Host it will not show the loss of revenue accurately . Host guest lets say they everybodys income taxes in half. It would create massive deficits. We saw that during the bush administration. Their theory is, if we cut taxes, the economy would grow three and a half as opposed to join a half percent. If it is growing at three and a half percent, you have more gdp therefore more tax revenue. They say, lets count that additional tax revenue that comes from a bigger economy. But that is extremely hard to predict. It therefore makes for a much more uncertain estimate. Dynamic scoring. I told you, host lets move on. Dripping springs, texas. Caller i was thinking about football coaches who do a terrible job, they get fired. We have both republicans and democrats who have done terrible jobs in the past two years leading their parties. And they get rehired. You want to know why . Because they break the legs of anyone who votes against them. That is world war ii. We won against germany and japan. What did we do afterwards . We helped them rebuild. We said, we will make sure you can recover and get back to a stable economy. And we did that. With republicans, especially john boehner if you vote against him, he will break your legs. You will never get another chairmanship in anything at all. That is disgusting. The same thing happens with democrats. Harry reid and nancy pelosi have done terrible jobs. Host your response . Guest he is talking about how some people who voted against him no longer found themselves on plum committees. It is transactional, leaders must organize their parties. If you get in the face of the leader, there is likely a price to be paid. This is not just politics, this is any human endeavor. I like the way brian says this. I watched the movie lincoln, and what i loved most about lincoln in the movie is, after the civil war, the most painful experience we have ever been through we think we have polarization now. His address, with malice towards none and charity to all, that bound the nation together at the time. Washing washington would Fund Function better if we could remember and stop attacking each others motives, if we could stop using a lot of the most extreme language. You hear a lot of moral language around here, like, dynamic scoring. That shows how bad the republicans are. If you could look back, there is a debate about everything out there. And there should be. If we can make the dialogue a little bit caller and more focused palmer and more focused, we would benefit. Host the headline is, jim himess wall street ties kept him from leading a democratic committee. Explains. Guest this is largely speculation, who runs the campaign arms of the two parties is the decision of the leadership. I was one of three or four people rumored to have been considered at the end of the day. The leader chose my good friend to run the committee which was terrific. There was speculation that because i represented a district that is very heavy in Financial Services, because it is one of the i wanted a few former bankers and capitol hill i have taken an interest in finding the balance in regulation. I tend not to view Bank Regulation in terms of good versus evil. I tend to view it as something technical, where we should find a balance. There were those who said, look, a guy who lets put it this way, who is not going to enter into a very aggressive approach to the banks, a more emotionladen approach to the banks, we do not want to see him on that committee. That is the origin of the story. At the end of the day, i never came down here to lead a party or to spend most of my time on politics. We have a lot of issues in this country that we have to deal with. They are lengthy, and the opportunity to continue working on those issues as opposed to working on the politics is, i think, a good thing. Host you are vice chair of the new democratic coalition. What are you pushing for . Guest a group of 50 democrats in the house, we are on the younger and. We come out of entrepreneurial communities. We are interested in what we can do to it thens innovation. Advance innovation. Venture capital, all these things that go into creating innovative businesses. How can we fix education . We are interested in all the things we can do that help the more entrepreneurial growthoriented part of the economy, which is what provides the opportunity in the future. Host are you the new blue docs . Guest we are a caucus within the Democratic Party, but the blue docs, blue dogs, they tended to be socially conservative. I would not draw a comparison we are a diverse group. If we agree on one thing, we tend to be focused on what leads to more entrepreneurialism and innovation. That is what we are most comfortable with. Back to the call. Steve in parker, texas. Hi, steve. Caller good morning. I have a suggestion for republicans and democrats, the if that everyone of them should have to serve six months with enough money to exist for two months, it would be spread out through the population from the ghettos up to the middle class, have them go out and try to look for a job and try to maintain a living expense to where they could pay for their insurance on their cars and groceries and houses and everything, and take that and make them stay there six months. Whether they get a job or not, with no financial help from anybody. They might get a realization of what the American People are going through. Guest steve makes a wonderful point. The president is traveling the country, making the very fair point that the economy is doing a lot better than it was doing in 2009 when he took office. What he is not saying so much, is that the economic recovery, which has been dramatic and strong wages have not gone up in a very long time. I think steve is right on. Those are us who are fortunate enough to have been elected to serve our constituents week by definition have a job. We have a decent pay package. All too often, it is easy to forget where you came from. I sit in the house of representatives. One thing thats nice about the house is that it draws people from all backgrounds. Multimillionaires, folks who do not have a dime to their name. Everything from veterinarians to insurance executives to lawyers. It is a diverse group. But steve is right, there is no substitute. You dont just read about the pain that is out there, but that you feel it and act accordingly. Host democratic caller from georgia, hi shirley. Caller good morning. I have a comment about the Keystone Pipeline. You see all the struts lined up with the pipes. Are those pipes americanmade . And the second point i would like to ask if the pipeline ran from mexico to canada, would you before it . Thank you. Guest i dont know the answer to that question, whether the pipes are americanmade or not. I sure hope so. But i honestly dont know. The Keystone Pipeline, it does not run from mexico to canada. I think what surely was getting at was if we dont get to use that oil we are talking about being taken down through the United States to the gulf of mexico or it could be refined and exported. The interesting thing about the keystone debate is, it is been going on for five years. In that time, where oil prices are today, dramatic decreases in oil prices. That is a good thing for most americans. We have very expensive gasoline where i come from in connecticut. It is probably down to 1. 50 two dollars. That is putting more money into americans pockets. They are out there spending it helping the economy recover. One thing that cheap oil will do, is, it will probably slow our transition towards cleaner more Sustainable Energy. Dont get me wrong, we are not becoming energy independent, we are not using domestic gas and oil, it will help our Manufacturing Base come back. It is funny, when gasoline gets cheap, people buy bigger cards. Several years i worry that cheap energy is going to slow the progress towards more clean and Sustainable Energy sources. How do you consider the keystone bill today . Yes or no . One thing i am a know on is a a no on is circumnavigating the legislative process. Congress should not be looking at individual projects and saying clearly this should go forward. There is a reason for the regulatory process. Is a reason for the regulatory process. A lot of oil is moving across very sensitive areas. Important wilderness areas in the united dates. Running this massive hype line through a lot of communities in the process of those communities weighing in is a good process and it will yield an answer of yes or no. I oppose 430 five people in the house of representatives, many of whom know absolutely nothing about the area of what we talk about here, making that decision on behalf of the regulator spirit i am likely to be a no on this particular effort not because necessarily keystone is a bad idea, but because i do not happen to be a pipeline expert nor do i live in the area affected. I think regulatory process should run its course. Host texas, rocky, republican. Caller thank you for your service. I want to revisit what we were talking about went down on the house floor yesterday. It is incredulous to me that the second day, actually the first day of a full house session that the Republican Party took up going right back to where we were in 2006 with and derivatives. Elizabeth warren is 100 correct on the way she is approaching this wall street issue. I am sad to say i have been a republican for 48 years, and i do not agree with anything that john boehner and Mitch Mcconnell are trying to do as far as wall street is concerned. We would really appreciate if people would legislate for the people, and not for big corporations. Guest i appreciate what rocky said. Having voted in favor of this bill, i would say it is not a gutting of dodd frank, and we can debate whether it was a good idea or not. Rockys larger point i could not agree with more. At a time where we should be dealing with immigration reform, a very big and challenging topic , when too Many Americans are still out of work, when we are facing terrorist threats in a very uncertain Global Situation as we saw in paris yesterday, that the very first thing republicans would do is make what i would characterize as a bunch of changes to our Financial Services regulation, is in substance a bad idea. As rocky a republican from texas indicates, a terrible political idea. Why not deal with issues that politically face americans sitting around the kitchen table, around spurring the economy more around our schools . Why not do that . I agree that the fact that was the first substantive bill is teen. And probably not focus on the problems of day today americans. Before congress closed its books, there was a large ease of legislation that went through and it also included a provision to what its critics say diluted dodd frank. As he said, you are the author of the legislation. You voted for that. Can you explain what happened there and what it could have done . Guest this is part of the overall lets step back and remember what we were talking about. We were talking about the budget of the federal government, the spending bill. The fundamental western around that legislation, we could come back to the derivatives, there were very controversial things inserted into the bill on which i think is unfortunate. The fundamental question was were you going to vote for a budget that would for the first time in a long time be a budget for the federal government, budgets are all too rare on capitol hill or were you going to say no to it and risk one of two things. Either a Government Shutdown or what we call a continuing resolution, lets just keep spending money at the rate we were standing at. I was not willing to vote no on a budget that was an ugly compromise admittedly, but which was a compromise. I have been listening to my constituents for years now saying, go work with the other party and compromise. Some people do not like a because you do not get everything you want there is anyway, i was happy to vote for a bill that represented congress coming together to get something done. It was only a year before that the Government Shutdown for a in days because compromise would not occur. A bunch of eggs were dangled onto the bill which i think was unfortunate. Some alteration to derivatives regulation, and there was also an awful increase in the amount of money that individual amways could give to the parties taking us again another step in the wrong direction on financial reform. The derivatives they was something that actually received strong bipartisan or word. 17 democrats voted for along with a lot of republicans in congress, which basically said thanks could not buy for their own accounts, but could trade certain derivatives on behalf of their clients that would allow their clients to hedge risk. This was an area i felt was reasonable. And a lot of democrats and republicans thought it was reasonable, that got converted into the gutting of dodd frank. That is in no way shape or form true. There are minor changes, but the language immediately becomes this is a complete gutting of dodd frank, which is just not even close to reality. Host los angeles, independent caller. Hello. It is interesting you say it is for the constituents, because my understanding, i watched it yesterday, my understanding is that the small things that were for the people is that it was going to actually be larger than it was when it actually almost brought us to our knees in the 80s, was that it was going to be up 10 rather than the smaller percentage that it was and that it almost just completely floored us last time, and then also, that when they actually gave the percentage to the vehicle in the company last time i am sorry, i am a little emotional right now him and i cannot think of you the name, the people, with actually completely worthless stock those people actually lost out on their retirement and everything, and that the people, the companys, they did not lose anything the actual owners or whatever, but the people who worked, they lost everything and that the wording in these yesterday on the congress floor, the congress that they actually barely shot it down was that they were actually going to increase all of these things and that it would actually not even need our voices to gamble with the peoples money. Host i will jump in at that point and have the congressman respond. Guest i am not 100 sure what she was asking. I think she was probably refrain to Financial Regulation again. Just to him him just to tie this back, often it is framed as what is good and that for the banks. The Financial Service industry trying to do well themselves and make money, but the role in the economy is to provide capital for people to go to school to buy houses for businesses to grow. Lets take an example from yesterday. What was probably one of the more controversial areas, and there is reason for controversy said that what we were talking about earlier, basically just fools of loans that people make to that 100 person business, making parts for helicopters or whatever, that the banks should have two more years before they have to get rid of those loans. Banks are in the business of making loads, but in this case the rule was that they do not get to make loans on securities. It is a good rule and at the end of the day was weaker than it needed to be, by giving two more years or banks to get rid of this paper, you could argue that makes them more risky. What were talking about here, these loans in no way shape or form in any way contributed to the meltdown of 2008, which was largely about mortgages. The banks, they would argue, if they are required to get rid of the loans, it would be harder to make the loans in the first place. That is a legitimate point that may be true. The reason this is interesting is not because it is good or bad for the banks. In some cases it is good in some cases it is bad. The idea is that if uaes that restriction a little bit, it may keep more volume, mori vividly in that lending business, which at the end of the day, the capital goes to the corporations and businesses making car parts and employing americans, and allows them to grow. That is really what is at heart here. Host the vocal rule would do what . Guest it is a very important part of dodd frank which basically says to the banks, you do not get to gamble, you do not get to invest, if you are a bank, because banks can draw on insurance and the Federal Reserve window, they are unique businesses. You do not get to gamble, you do not get to go out there and buy stock center of it is in golden anything else, in the expectation that the value of that will go up and you will make honey. It is a very good idea. There are businesses that do that here and hedge funds and asset managers. There are businesses in the business of doing that. Inc. s should not be in that business. That is a good idea. And banks should not be in that business. That is a good idea. Should they get rid of them in six months or one year or four years, whatever the final answer was there. That is what we were talking about. All right, indiana, democratic caller, welcome to the conversation. You are on the air with congressman jim himes, democrat of connecticut. Caller i have been a democrat for 50 years or better. I am 69 years old. I have been a democrat ever since i have been able to vote. I remember when the savings and loan debacle happened. If i read and remember correctly, there was over 700 criminal prosecutions because of that. The wall street bill we had in 2008 and 2009, they had nobody held accountable. I heard you say you was not a blue dog. I do not believe you are a blue dog either. I believe you are a republican disguised as a democrat. You say that vote did not hurt dodd frank. No youre just chipping away a little time until you get back. I do not know why anybody would vote for somebody who would work for Goldman Sachs because your interest is big money, big this mess, big business, big banks. I will take my answer off the air. Guest look like every other form of regulation, we want to balance our Financial Regulation. Rodney is absolutely right, it is a stain on the history of the country that a meltdown that was our worst than the savings and loan meltdown, where there was accountability for a lot of people who committed fraud in savings and loan, but in this case in 2008, there were no prosecutions. Outrageous behavior and no prosecutions. The reason largely was a lot of the awful behavior, remember what happened, mortgages got sold to American Families with people knowing these mortgages would never read be repaid, and these mortgages, you had an expanding thing. A lot of that behavior at the time was not illegal. That is the reason for dodd frank. Dodd frank did dramatic lee positive things and said to big banks that if the regulators think youre doing dangerous things, they can force you out of the business and break you up if they want to. It gives authority to the Federal Reserve and other regulators to actually, bear stearns and lehman brothers, nobody at the time new who had the authority to work the businesses out. It is now clear. It created the soup the Consumer Finance protection bureau, a terrific organization out there making sure toxic mortgages never gets old to young families again. It brought this incredibly large and complicated Derivatives Market into a regulated environment. Those are monumental and positive achievements and will make for a safer Financial Services market. Now again, where i disagree with rodney here is, like every other form of regulation, you name it whether were talking about speed limits or whether you wear your seatbelts, or the air quality or the Water Quality you find a balance which protects the american public, but which allows this is to grow and innovate and in this case provide credit to folks who want to buys by their houses, and finding that balance will not happen if we say we will not engage in a debate about exactly how we regulate the Derivatives Market. We need to engage in that debate and it would be helpful if we could without the kinds of personal attacks we can see. If you wander into the debate with anything other than the point of view that banks need to be hammered, that you are not acting in the public interests. I understand why we are where we are. There is still as rodney indicates, a lot of emotion around this. A lot of people including me are angry that there was not sufficient accountability in the industry. That does not mean we should aggregate our ability to try to regulate this as well. Host is Elizabeth Warren the best face for the issue . Guest she is terrific. She understands the industry far better than most. In the clip you played, she accurately characterizes what led up to 2008. I think we do need voices in the party pointing out that the industry has a lot of power on l, a lot more power than other industries in many cases but that does not mean we should not be working hard to make sure we balance this regulation. Remer there are a lot of entrepreneurs and people going to banks saying, please lend me money so i can retire and send my kids to college. That function is important and we need to make sure it is not compromised. Host lets go to our line for republicans, jeff in georgia. Youre on the air. Go ahead. Caller yes. I am enjoying this congressman any sound like a decent guy. I do not know if he is familiar with this website, but a great article today, 10 things that proceeded the last financial crisis are happening again. I wanted to point out three of these, which are we which we are all and join, the oil has crashed under 50 a barrel. Osi met have it was way before the 2008 crash. The last time that happened was before the two thousand eight crash. Before the crash of 2008, which has happened again. To jim, a different picture is painted in almost everyone else on the hill and the financial industry apparently, and he thinks everything will work out but that is just not happening and Everybody Needs to get off the koolaid and read those articles and i would love to hear your comment on that. Thank you. I have Never Associated the crash of 2008 with the Energy Market. The meltdown we saw in 2008 was clearly related to the Housing Market. God awful toxic mortgages got sold, tanks acted irresponsibly. To be fair, they were not the only ones. The regulators missed the boat. All kinds of things i do not think were related to the Energy Market area as someone who helped write dodd frank and who has defended dodd frank strongly, dodd frank you could probably criticize and say it is not perfect. It is not perfect. And that is coming from someone who helped write it. It will also probably not forever regulate financial meltdowns. We have been watching financial meltdowns since there was a financial industry, going back to the bubble and hundreds of years ago. It took very important steps forward, though, in terms of making the Housing Market more rational and regulating derivatives, doing all of the things we talked about. While i cannot tell you that trouble in the Financial Markets will never happen again and nobody can a that, what we can say about dodd frank is that it took off the table most of the irresponsible if not all of the year responsible behavior that led to 2008. What we worry about now is not a repeat of 2008 but what is the next bubble . Second 2000, it was internet stocks. Everybody had an idea for a Company Worth 2 billion and that bubble deflated their it is not so much 2008 were worried about, but the next bullet we do not see that we should be worried about their it dan, an independent. Hello there. Good morning and thank you for having me on. Im glad to follow up that last phone call. I am in that guys boat. It feels like we get a lot of stories out of washington, and when you open the screen a little bit and actually do a little homework, there is a whole other world out there. I have got a couple of important questions. One, jim, were you at Goldman Sachs in 2008 . No. I left Goldman Sachs 12 years ago in 2002 to spend five years working for an Affordable Housing nonprofit route looking to build Affordable Housing in our lower income area of the country. Caller i ask that you probably do not need to do a little homework, because it seems as though most of the people there are being blackmailed not to speak or something. But on september 11 in 2008, in the morning, there was a run in the u. S. Treasury, and this is confirmed i ben bernanke, Paul Kanjorski said it live on cspan the morning what happened. Nancy pelosi just repeated it when she was upset on the house talking about the budget resolution that passed, the only way that this attack could have happened on the peoples banks, the u. S. Treasury, is from the big ask themselves. Ok . So our treasury was attacked on september 11, 2008 there it we are running out of time with the congressman, so go ahead and jump in at this point. Have you heard the comments before . Any number, since 2008, there have been any number of problems in the market which were not necessarily related what happened in 2008, the run on the treasury, i do not recall those specific circumstances, but we have the crash, we remember that. The market dipped hundreds of points and was driven by the automatic trading we see a lot now. I am not in any way implying that the banks behavior has changed utterly and completely and now theyre acting fine, we saw the libor scandal, where banks were manipulating the libor rate, we see insider trading. It is still an industry like any other where people behave have a. Let me add to that this tweet that says, are you concerned that city added 9 trillion to its last quarter . There is a difference between the libor scandal and an increase in swaps business. People need to remember that derivatives is a scary word and it brought down aig and some of those to riverdance were so confident awful that nobody understood them, derivatives are also what farmers use to smooth out the costs the business is used to smooth out energy costs. The folks selling things in japan used to not take the and risk. In addition to be dangerous stuff, it is important to the functioning of our economy. My larger point was that dodd frank is a huge step in the right direction, making a lot of behavior not a legally 2008 illegal and therefore it is not happening today. The lesson is that not that everything is fine and we do not need to be vigilant. There is a reason we have the Federal Reserve and this whole alphabet soup of regulators. That is a very important and very potentially dangerous industry that needs to be regulated and watched carefully. That is what we should be stri and the challenge to speaker boehner. Then congressman Keith Ellison of minnesota on his legislation to bolster dodd frank Financial Regulations. Washington journal we will take your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. President obama and Vice President biden travel to tennessee to talk about the economy. Live coverage starts at 1 20 p. M. Eastern. Here are some of our featured programs. Saturday night at 10 00 the pitfalls of group decisionmaking and what to do to avoid them. Sunday afternoon at 1 00, the college series. We talked to professors on the influence on hiphop on politics and u. S. Come amid efforts to cure malaria during world war ii, and on cspan 3 the Anderson University professor uses abraham lincolns life to understand the views of white americans on race and slavery before and during the civil war. Sunday afternoon at 4 30, a discussion on margaret sanger. Her legacy and the influence race and politics had on the Birth Control movement. Let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. Call us, email us, or send us a tweet. Join the conversation like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee voted to move the Keystone Pipeline bill out of committee thursday. The vote was 139 with one democrat joining gop senators to advance the bill to the floor friday. President obama issued a veto threat against any Keystone Pipeline legislation. This is two hours 15 minutes. Senate energy and Natural Resources committee on markup, regarding the keystone xl [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] the committee will come to order. The committee will come to order. It is good to be together. The first hearing of this 115th congress. I welcome our new members to the committee. It is good to see such great attendance. It is also nice to see a packed house. My prediction for this new year is that energy will be a subject , an issue, an area that will draw great attention. Its not only is important here in this congress, but it is important to our nations economy, it is important to our nations security and it is an issue that we will take up in this Committee Issues that will be front and center moving forward. I am pleased that we have got an opportunity today to talk about energy in a Broad Perspective but recognizing that we have members that have other issues in front of them, other committees that they will go to. I want to give you just a brief outline of how i would like to conduct this hearing this morning. I would like to lay a little bit of the groundwork here for where the committee will proceed in this congress. Not going on too long, but giving you as Committee Members my focus, my perspective. Obviously, this is a business meeting, taking up the keystone xl pipeline, and we need to process that. There have been a couple of amendments presented by members. I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to get through the business portion of this meeting. What i also want to make very clear to each of you that i want to extend the courtesy to you to make your statements, your comments not only about the keystone xl pipeline and the legislation before us, that the committee itself and perhaps your interests with that. I just wanted to lay that out to you that i would like you to know that this is not just an opportunity for me as your chairman to have the microphone and to my partner and ranking member, senator cantwell and to each of you as well. With that said, i will tell you that i am extremely honored to be the second chairman murkowski for this standing committee. It is quite an honor and a privilege to me. I have been a member of this committee since i came to the senate. It has been my number one priority, when you come from a producing state like alaska that is understandable. But it has also been an extraordinary opportunity to come to embrace all aspects of the energy sector, whether it be trying to figure out how to deal with Nuclear Waste and disposal issues, how we move towards a more Efficient Energy system, how we work to build out our energy if the Structure Energy infrastructure and our energy grid. There is so much of that is included in this energy sector. It is not just the Natural Resources that we deal with. It is the other aspect of our portfolio here within this committee. Sometimes people forget that the public lands piece is huge particularly those of us in the west. The territories. We have a senator from hawaii who has a who has joined the committee, and i welcome her. I also recognize as someone from the other noncontiguous states, hence our territories get overlooked. We have jurisdiction over them and we will not forget them. I do again thank you for the opportunity to help direct our Energy Agenda for these