Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150916

President and deferring to the leadership of the democratic leader in the United States senate, not only did this senator who made this statement indicate his approval of the deal, this senator voted to block an upordown vote on the deal in the United States senate. In other words, participated in the filibuster of this vote. So, mr. President , this debate is one that the American People deserve to hear. I know that the press, as they typically do, like to keep score and like to move on to other things. But this is one that the American People deserve to hear and its one theyve demanded. And, frankly, from what they know so far, they dont like this deal. 21 have said they approve of it. And rather than listen to their constituents, our friends across the aisle have decided to essentially move on, block a vote that prevents the kind of accountability that our constituents deserve and to move on to other issues. But with the future security of our country hanging in the balance, mr. President , we cant just move on. And we cant disregard the will of our own constituents or what common sense or our own investigation and inquiry tells us. This deal is an unenforceable deal. It ignores the fact that iran remains the primary state sponsor of international terrorism. It releases about a hundred billion dollars of money thats going to help finance terrorism, that proxy war against the United States and our allies thats been going on since 1979 when the Iranian Regime came into power. And then theres the bogus verification process. First of all, under the bill, under the agreement, 24 days noaa long with various appeals process, which is a process along with various appeals process which is a process only Rube Goldberg would be able to devise. And then theres the self selfmonitoring process. Its sort of like i call it, its like a selfie stick that the Iranian Regime is going to carry around where they conduct their own tests on their military sites and then they turn that over to the iaea, the International Atomic energy agency, at the front gate. Because the socalled independent Monitoring Agency will not even have access to the military sites where a breakout and violation of this agreement are most likely. Hardly one that gives you confidence that is going to be conducted with any sort of integrity. And then theres the dramatic change in u. S. Policy. Prime minister netanyahu, when he spoke to a joint session of congress a couple of months ago, said it used to be u. S. Policy to deny iran a Nuclear Weapon. But this agreement, as he correctly points out, paves the way to a Nuclear Weapon. Again, this is a not a rational actor on the international stage. This is a extremist regime, a thee cat i can regime thee cat i can regime driven by a desire to wipe israel off the map and conduct this proxy war against the United States and our allies as the primary sponsor of international terrorism. But then theres the final insult to injury, mr. President. Just as our democratic colleagues filibuster the opportunity to have any real accountability with an upordown vote in the United States senate, we learn that the Supreme Leader in iran has insisted that the Iranian Parliament have the final vote and sayso on the deal in iran. So try to fix that picture in your mind. The Iranian Regime, the main principal state sponsor of international terrorism, a theocratic regime determined to wipe israel off the map and conduct war against what they call the great satan, the United States, the Iranian Parliament will have a chance for an upordown vote but our democratic colleagues have blocked an upordown vote in the United States snalt. United states senate. That ought to be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about the United States senate and any sort of sense of democratic accountability. So its beyond irresponsible for our democratic colleagues to again deny the United States senate to do the very same thing that the ayatollah has said that the Iranian Parliament will have a chance to do, especially when they all supported this process by which an upordown vote would be facilitated. So later today, my colleagues and i will have another opportunity to move this bill closer to an upordown vote on the merits of the president s agreement with iran, and i hope the same senators who clearly supported a thorough review of this deal will join me in the very least in moving this bill forward so the American People can get the sort of debate that they deserve about the numberone National Security threat affecting this generation of americans and the American People can get the kind of accountability they deserve when it comes from their elected officials casting a vote on their behalf on such an important agreement. Mr. President , i yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from south carolina. Mr. Scott thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i have watched and wondered in amazement as the Obama Administration attempts to justify what is clearly a misguided gamble and a bad deal with iran. We saw the signs of how bad this deal is almost immediately. As during the same speech in which he announced the deal, the president threatened to veto any legislation that opposes it. Ive been a business owner, mr. President , and when you lead with threats, you typically are covering a really bad deal. Because when youre Building Support for your product in this case, the iran deal you dont tell folks that youre talking to that disagree with you that theyre crazy. Thats simply something you dont do when you have confidence in the deal. If youre leading with threats, youre showing your hand, mr. President , and the president is trying to bluff while holding a 2, a 5, an 8, and a 10. And, mr. President , we didnt even bring a fifth card to the table. I use a poker reference because thats exactly what the president of the United States is doing here gambling with our security. Gambling with israels security. And, frankly, gambling with the future of the middle east. He was also gambling that his National Security advisor, susan rice, would not admit that the iranian government would use resources from lifting the sanctions to fund terrorists. But as we saw on cnn, wolf blitzer she did. He was gambling that his own press secretary would not tell us that we should trust trust the iranian government because they would use quote common sense and use sanctions relief to help their economy and to help the iranian people. But he did. Even though since we have seen no signs whatsoever previously that the iranian government cares actually about helping the iranian people and their horrific record on human rights has only worsened worsened in the recent years. And the president is gambling that he could use International Pressure to convince people that he was on the right side of the issue along with russia and china. And that brings the deal to the United Nations before the u. S. Congress would somehow Show Congress that the deal was acceptable. Another bad gamble. But it didnt work. The longer we have to study the deal, the worse the deal gets. The longer the American People have to learn about the deal, the stronger their opposition becomes to the deal. Theres just not much good news, mr. President , as we look at this deal, as we look at the polling information 21 in opposition to the deal, the American People. And yet the president refers to those on the opposite side of the deal as crazies, referring to the American People, the vast majority of those folks around our country, so many of us, almost unanimously on the republican side and even some good friends on the left. As i said earlier, the president gambles with our security and weve seen how bad his hand really is. As i suggested, he has a 2, he has a 5, he has an 8 and he has a 10. A 2 because iran will be able to double their oil exports and, therefore, double their oil revenues, increasing by more than a Million Barrels a day. In other words, 15 billion to 20 billion of revenue to fund nefarious behavior in the middle east. Mr. President , thats more terrorism in the middle east. A 5 because without any question, in the year five of the deal, they gain access to more weapons as the weapons embargo is lifted. An 8 because in year eight of the deal, iran will be able to purchase Ballistic Missiles. And a 10 yes, mr. President , a 10. In year 10, iran can begin installing advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium. Simply put, this deal legitimizes Irans Nuclear program and guarantees a time line for iran to secure the bomb. If congress signs on this deal deal signs off on this deal, we can all take out a big red pen and mark on our calendars almost the exact day that iran will have a Nuclear Weapon. This isnt a republican or a democrat issue. Just listen to some of the quotes from my friends on the other side of the aisle. The joint comprehensive plan of action legitimizes Irans Nuclear program. Another quote whether or not the supporters of this agreement admit it, this deal is based on hope. Hope is a part of human nature but unfortunately it is not a National Security strategy. And finally, to me, the very real risk that iran will not moderate and will instead use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goal is too great. Mr. President , in what the administration would call an exchange for this, we see the economic sanctions will be lifted, arms embargo will be lifted, and iran will have more money and more dangerous weapons to route to groups like hezbollah and insurgents in iraq, both groups responsible for the deaths of Many American soldiers. Thats not just a gamble, mr. President. That is the wrong direction at the wrong time and the wrong deal, and absolutely, positively unequivocally not in the best interests of this country. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from missouri. Mr. Blunt mr. President , i am glad to be here and hear the comments of my friend from south carolina, senator scott. Made me glad that i get to sit by him on the senate floor and to hear the reasons and they are good and they have been repeated many times about why this is not a way forward for the United States, its not a way forward for the middle east. In fact, senator scott did a great job talking about what was in the deal. But what wasnt in the deal. What wasnt in the deal was nothing the president said would be there when the negotiations started. When the negotiation started, the administration said that iran would never be allowed to have Nuclear Weapons, that wed find out everything iran had ever done to try to develop Nuclear Weapons. That wed have anywhere, any time inspections. And that sanctions would only be lifted when Real Progress was made in those first three areas. That was the framework. That was what we were negotiating for. And, mr. President , none of those things happened. None of those things are in this agreement. I think the question that you and i and others in the senate are hearing from when were home, when were talking to people about this agreement is is one question is, is the Congress Giving away its power . How is it possible that Something Like this could happen and the congress, a majority of the congress couldnt do anything to stop it . And, of course, the other question is, or is the president giving away the power of the United States of america to lead . I think it is as clear from this agreement as it is so many other things that leading from behind doesnt work. A view that the United States of america is just any other country in the world is not a view that leads to a peaceful, more stable world. In fact, our friends dont trust us and our enemies arent afraid of us in a world where there is vast agreement. There are more potential bad things that could happen from more potential places than any time ever before. Thats not just republicans. Thats the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Thats the head of the National Director of intelligence. Thats the head of the c. I. A. They all come up with that same conclusion. And we look at the president s Foreign Policy, that this is just one symptom of, remember the red line in syria, that if the syrians do this, were going to do that . Well, the syrians did what we said we wouldnt allow them to do and basically we didnt do much of anything. In fact, what happened was that when the United States of america takes that kind of position and doesnt move forward, assad is emboldened. I think the latest number of syrians that have been killed by assad is now around 250,000 people. From chemical weapons to barrel bombs to every way they can think of to massacre their own population, a population that has been displaced in the millions both inside and now outside the country. So an emboldened assad. Russia, putin looks at this and before you know it, putin has taken control of crimea and putin has Russian Troops in the in ukraine. And this week, putin puts Russian Troops and tanks in syria. Every american president since president truman, whose desk im standing one of the desks president truman used as a senator on the floor is this desk right here with his name carved in it, president truman in 1946 did whatever was necessities whatever was necessary to force the soviets out of iran. Every other president until right now has done whatever was necessary to keep the russian influence in the middle east at a minimum, and theyre building a base right now, theyre unloading equipment right now, things are happening because they think, why . Because they think they can get away with it. The chinese, the asian pivot that chinese are build on an atoll in the sea in striking distance of the philippines, why, because they think they can get away with it. And the more were faced with this agreement, the more we look at the consequences of the agreement, the more we wonder about it, but why arent we able to stop it . One, mr. President , is no future president is bound by it. For weeks now on this floor and around the country, people have talked about the destabilizing impact this will have on the middle east and the world, and the only administration thats bound by it is this one. Its not a treaty. If i it was a treaty, as it should be, we would be voting in the senate on a treaty and twothirds of the senators would have to approve the treaty and the next administration would be bound by it as well. When president ial candidates say ill reverse this the first day, they absolutely can reverse it the next day. What policy is that to put place that has this kind of destabilizing effect without the sense the United States for the long term is committed to it. The president believes that by the time he leaves, every president would want to keep this but i dont know how you could listen to this and think that. It does dramatically change the middle east, neighboring countries dont trust iran, theyll want to have whatever weapons iran has and senator scott just made a point and made it well that you can circle the date on the calendar when iran is likely to have a Nuclear Weapon if this agreement goes forward, and more importantly, the hope that maybe the government will change, it might, but that wont change the neighbors from deciding they have to defend themselves. You know, if north korea wasnt bad enough, the 1994 agreement with north korea wasnt bad enough, they have a missile announced today, they have a better missile they were never going to have, if that wasnt bad enough, we have let the genie out of the we have let the jeanne out of the bottle. Iran is on 12month clock but it may not be 12 months from the day they say we are going into full weapons mode and 12 months from now we will have one. You will have three or four countries in a short time that will have Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Weapons capability right now. At the Munich Security Conference in 2014, a conference a handful of senators go to and i went and we were meeting with john kerry and he said they will not be able to do anything we know about because we will have monitors. And i see i dont believe that is true but even if it was you will not be able to contain enrichment. Once you let iran do this, other countries will feel like they have to do the same thing. There are well over a dozen countries that have Nuclear Power that dont do what we are about to let iran do. We have been able to control this because the world understood it needed to be controlled. This was another comment often made before the law was passed to allow us to do what we are doing today. Congress will have to be involved because eventually they will decide whether to extend the sanctions regime or not. The one by the way that went into affect in 2013 is on the books until 2023. So the ideal day for this congress to be involved was seven years after they left office. That would have been the involvement we had if the congress had not stepped up and said we will insist we get involved. The congress in 2006, took back some authority. This isnt the first one to Lose Authority to the president. We took back some of the authority the president had and put into law the sanction that have been imposed by the president at that and made them not just president bushs idea but a law, i was there when that was negotiated, and one of the things when we negotiated that was to insist that be codified, that pattern, and it did for all of the sanctions to follow, but the pattern the congress followed was a pattern where in every case since world war ii followed which is here is what we will do, what we believe the president and country should do and we will give the president National Security waiver authority. And that is the authority the president has decided to use without congressional approval, without changing the law but following the law he has decided he is going to wave the sanctions and the congress could weigh in in about 2023 if the president would have had his way totally. And so what are we doing here . The president of the United States is about to prop up the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. This is not an arguable point. No one argues iran is not the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They clearly look stronger at the end of this deal than they did at the beginning because they are stronger. The president of the United States is about to release billions of dollars that the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world can use for terrorist causes. With the support of the minority of the congress, and not only the minority, but it has to be one side. Not only is the majority against it, but the bipartisan majority is opposed to it. The partisan minority is blocking the congress from even having a vote while the partisan, bipartisan majority, wants to vote and they want to vote to disapprove this deal. Even the president could then veto the disapproval but the president wanted to do that. The president doesnt want this on his desk. I think i read the stories the other day when we, for the first time, couldnt get the 60 senators necessary to have the vote, it was like this and the vote assured the president s iranian deal will go forward. My concern is that by not stopping it it would look like the congress was for it. We may not be able to stop it but i can guarantee you the congress is not for it and anybody paying attention knows that. A question we could ask ourselves is would the congress and the country be better off without this poor substitute for overseeing Foreign Policy. This is not creating the democracy that should be created in a Foreign Policy. I think you could argue it is a weak response but why did it have to happen. I cosponsored the initial bill that required the congress to prove the deal. But of course the piece of legislation has to be signed by the president and senator corker and senator cardin finally came up with a piece of legislation would sign but it was almost always guaranteed to insure the debate would go forward. So would we have been better off without it . As i had people ask me, what are you doing . Why cant you get the Foreign Policy or the country under control . I wondered several times would we have been better off to go forward without it . It does seem to me the corkercardin bill produced a number of things. 60 days of debate we would not have had otherwise. The congress would have got to weigh in eight years from now. But we had 60 days of debate, well over 50 of the people of the country are opposed to Going Forward with this deal, only about 21 are for Going Forward, this process has produced bipartisan opposition to a bad deal. And senator cardin, a top democrat on the Foreign Affairs committee, senator menendez and senator mansion voting with the 54 republicans and 58 senators dont want this to happen. 60 of the house of representatives are opposing this agreement. The white house would have liked to have congress have its say almost a decade from now. Mr. President , we have had our say. We should have our vote. We have had our say. We should have our vote. We should be allowed to put this bill on the president s desk and if he wants to defend it, to veto and defend that veto, that is how this process should work. I hope there is still a chance that two more of our colleagues will step forward and say while i am going to be on the other side of the final vote i think the congress should vote. 98 members voted that we should vote to approve or disapprove the agreement. Lets have that vote, mr. President , and lets have that vote today. I yield. Senator from mississippi. Mr. President , i agree with the distinguished senator from missouri in every respect. I hope we get our wish to have that meaningful vote later today. I thought i would take a few moment do is explore a history lesson. Edmond burke once said those who dont know history are destined to repeat it. We find variations of this. Mark twain said history doesnt always repeat itself but it does rhyme. I think the history of events leading up to world war ii is an appropriate examine during de bait. It is important to explore whether the agreement of munich can be viewed by us and our allies. Munich has been sited in Opinion Pieces about the iran agreement. It has been mentioned on both sides of the debate in this chamber. Further more we have been cautioned, even scolded by various opinion makers around the country that we dare not make comparisons between munich and the current situation. In this view, even uttering the words chamberland or munich bring do is mind such painful memories from the dark past that we should not gothe there. I dont agree. We should look for parallels today. But those who may not have recently studied the years leading up to the second world war. Lets review the munich agreement. In september of 1938, hitlers aggression was fully underway. In spite the moment it was czech and four leader met in munich, germany in an effort to avoid war. That was hitler himself, french prime minister, italian dictator and britains prime minister. In an agreement they announced with much fanfare at the end of 1938 was nazi germany would be given control of the german speaking portion of czech. Hitler agreed to stop the advance and not make war. Against the backdrop of germanys resistance today, the was given in writing that there would be no more expansionist activity. We know upon this return to london, chamberland announced there would be peace for our time. The bold headline across the daily expressed displayed the word peace with an exclamation mark. A number of lives saw the false dream for what it was. Winston Churchill Rose up and made it clear he held the opponents of the agreement in high personal regard as many of my colleagues have also done already during this debate. Then he launched into a scathing, denunciation of the deal. Not to mention a trail of defenseless people. He went on to predict correctly that rather than preventing war, the munich accord could assure war. For millions around the globe, Winston Churchill was correct and chamberland was sadly mistaking. Tragically mistaking. Within months, hitler was at it again and seeing the rest of the area and setting sights on poland and beyond. I think it is appropriate to ask ourselves what would churchill said about todays debate and what would chamberland be saying if he could speak. In munich, britain and france abandoned an ally. Todays agreement has been reached over the objection of israel, our most reliable partner in the middle east. I must emphasize this is coming from the majority and the opponents. Virtually every point on israelis political spectrum. From labor and center left voices. Here is the new unanimous outcry from our israeli friends. Iran poses an existentitial threat and this deal makes us less safe and our friends and neighbors less safe. As the whole world watches the munich agreement sent a chilling message to the rest of the world about what could be expected from france and england. Today, our sunniarab friends in the middle east are mystified and dismayed by this iran deal. Understa understandably. Their public reaction is guarded and muted. Most are hedging their bets. Make no mistake. This is not the strong antiproliferation agreement they hoped for. This current deal and the munich deal are similar when we consider the history and behavior to the parties of the agreement. Like hitler, the current Iranian Regime has repeatedly demonstrated they have evil motivations and they cannot be trusted. Consider the most recent activities and announcements of the iranian Supreme Leader and his team. This has been made with a regime that leads cheers saying death to america. And believes in the destruction of the jewish state. The moolahs, the ayatollahs, and the people in charge of iran have shown no indication they are trustworthy. The ayatollah last month published a new book that makes it explicit that it is irans Foreign Policy to obliterate the state of israel. He called america the great satan last week and said israel would not exist in 25 years. Israel would not exist in 25 years according to the other party of this agreement. Embargos on arms and Ballistic Missiles are lifted in five and eight years allowing the biggest exporter of terrorism to build up weapons. Have we forgot iran has been cooperating with north korea on Ballistic Missiles for years . Of course the scene in 1938 is not entirely similar with that of today as has been pointed out. 77 years ago, nazi germany gave lip service to leaving the rest of the world alone. Wise people knew this to be a lie. The nazi dictator signed such a promise. Today the iranian dictatorship makes no pretense of abandoning its drove. The complete elimination of israel from the map. And this bad deal gives them the wherewithall to do just that. A 100 billion stimulus. The lifting of sanctions which the United States and our eager european allies agreed to will expand irans Gross Domestic Product by one fifth and release on sanction and missiles. In 1938, chamberland said peace for our time. We may wish harry reid been correct but such an outcome is so unlikely, the deal so risky not advised it was just a wish, but a deadly wish. In 2015, secretary john kerry has called the current deal a plan to insure that iran does not ever poses or acquire a Nuclear Weapon. Did you hear that mr. President . Not just for our time or decade. But never according to the distinguished secretary of state. Such statements have a familiar troubling ring. Such words could have been uttered in 1938. I wonder if followers ever said in defense of the prime ministers action. This isnt a very good deal. But what other agreement is out there. What other choice do we have . I am willing to bet some people said that. The other choice might have been to stand up against a murderous bully, to stand by a friend. Mr. President , this resolution to disapproval is not just an opportunity to sound off. It has not been about sending a message. This procedure was designed as the would be the only way to prevent iran from getting a weapon. There are 58 democrats and republicans who are willing to say officially to the president start over. We need nine more senators to step forward and say no. We are told the dye is cast and the votes are not there. But i would say there is still time to do better for the American People. The doubt has been expresses by senatored who will never the less provoke the president. Senator booker said we are le t legitmizing irans behavior. Senator coons, i am concerned. Senator bennett, none of us know and i have deep concerns. Senator wideman; it is big problem, dealing with an iranian leadership that wants nuclear enrichment. Senator peters; enrichment in iran is starkly against our procedures. The agreement could set a dangerous precedent. We need these senators to change their votes and the vote for the resolution of disproval. Senator bloomenthal said not the agreement i saw. According to senator jill brand concerns and senator frankin acknowledges it is not a perfect agreement. A harvard law professor and expert on the middle east and hardly a neocon, summed up the president s deal with iran his book the case against the hope is different from faith. Though, neither is on appropriate bases on which to roll the dice on a nuclear deal that may well threaten the security of the world. That may well threaten the security of the world according to the professor. He says it deal as currently written will not prevent iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons. In all probability, it would most pone the catastrophic event for about a decade while leg legitmizing its occurance. He said this is not an outcome we can live with. I appreciate people like the professor who have the courage to write a book and explain chapter and verse and page by page the legit reasons why this threatens the security of the world and why america should not be willing to live with this deal. I say we should hed head the warnings in history. There is still time to reject this illadvised agreement. There is time to get better results for the people. And better result for our future. Thank you, mr. President. And here we have live in los angeles, you see the uss iowa docked in the port of la. A few minutes away from the president republican president ial candidate donald trump who will talk about National Security issues. Once it is underway we will have it on cspan2. In the mean time, a portion of this mornings washington journal good morning. Could you remind viewers where we are as par as the story . What are the executives looking for on capitol hill in terms of Hillary Clintons email . The big thing people are watching and wanting to learn more about is where the fbi is. The fbi opened a probe into looking into how she handled classified information. This is not a probe. It is just to see if classified information was secured because of the home brewed email server. There are multiply probes going on capitol hill. Some committees want to know if clinton turned over all of the emails to the state department and want to make sure the record is complete. They are trying to find out her lawyers were the ones who looked through each email on her hom b home server and turned over but there is no outside verification she wasnt trying to hide something that could be potential embarrassing. They want to talk to the person who setup the server, who was else was involved, did anybody express concern about this since it wasnt something that was something that was regularly done. They tried to bring in the House Select Committee on benghazi and he took the fifth and refused to answer questions that could be selfincriminating. Who is he . He is her goto fixer who started on the campaign trail with clinton in 2008 and setup the server in 2009, faollofollor to the state department and left when she left. He has been in the private sector. His lawyer said he is not answer questions for the fbi. He is someone Everyone Wants to hear from. No doubt he has a lot of information that could help lawmakers in their investigation but this is like a very highly contentious issue. His you can see he doesnt want to come to the center of partisan fighting that is going on. It took him off the table unless he gets immunity from lawmakers which is another issue lawmakers are looking out to see if they should clear him from prosecution down the road to tell everything he knows. Back to the fbi, the topic of classified information, what is defined as classified and does any of the information ms. Clinton shared back and forth meet that qualification . Live on the ussiowa dock here in los angeles. Speaking at the rally here is our speaker. By god, here i am, pastor joel olsteen always begins with something funny on sunday morning and i would like to run this by you. I heard this yesterday and whether democrat or republicans i think you will enjoy it. Three washington, d. C. Teenagers are on the way to school and walk by the white house and there is the commander and chief out for a morning stroll. Off to the right they see a car and a collision course with the president. They came and threw him out of the way and saved his life. The president gets up, brushes himself off and says you saved my life. What can i do for you . One student said i would like to ride on air force one and the other said i would like to go to west point. And he said i can take care of those. But the third kid said i would like a plot at Arlington National cemetery and he said son, that is strange. Why are you in such a hurry . He said when my dad finds out i saved your life, he is going to kill me. The marines are not supposed to laugh at that. Before we continue, i am sure that everyone here agrees that Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest president s to every occupy the oval office. Do i sense we have some republicans here . As you know, president reagan was known as the great communicator with a terrific sense of humor and nobody loved to tell a story and nobody told a story better than he did. He loved to tell this one. The story about the sports announcer who invited the baseball playing friend for dinner one night. His wife was busy preparing dinner but the sports buffs were talking sports and oblivious to what was going on whoops, i missed it. In the middle of their chat the little baby began to cry and the wife says honey, will you please change the baby . And he said sweetheart, i am a ball player that is not my line of work. She wheels around and proceeds to do as mr. Reagan would do and said look mr. Ball player, you lay out the diaper like a diamond, second base on home plate, the babys bottom on the pitcher mound, hook up here and if it starts to rain you start all over again. Lets bring on the stage very important people. Jeanine stang, who will sing the National Anthem and the u. S. Marine color guard is already up here. Jeanine, would you up here, please . [applause] here to sing our National Anthem this is the lady known far and wide as the National Anthem girl for she has sang the anthem in all 50 states in the union. As jeanine sings the color guard of the United States marine core will be presenting the colors. [singing the National Anthem] usa usa ladies and gentlemen, please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [applause] with so many veterans in the audience, here is something i would like to share you might call this the definition of a veteran. Rather active duty, discharged, retired or reserved, a veteran is someone who at some point in his or her life wrote a blank check payable to the United States of america for an amount up to and including their life. We may not always agree with the wars our nation as waged or the policies our leaders have put in place or the doctrines they established, but those of you who wrote the blank check and served your country did what was asked without question and hesitation and if need be, were willing to sacrifice your life to insure freedom and keep america safe from danger whenever possible by fighting the enemies of freedom wherever required. It is you, the veteran, not the preacher, who gave us freedom of religion, it is you the veteran who give us the freedom of the press, it is you the veteran, not the poet that give us freedom of speech. It is you the veteran, not the Campus Organizer who gives us the freedom to assemble. It is you the veteran who was given the right to the fair trial, not the lawyer. It is you veterans, not politicians, who have given us the right to vote. That is the definition of a veteran. They are on their way. You are about to meet three very important people who will be standing at this podium tonight. The first is a former army ranger and Discovery Channel star of a show titled grateful nation, ladies and gentlemen, lets give a nice shout out to mr. Tim able. All the way. And a big shout out to the founder of veterans for a Strong America, major joel aaron, everybody. [applause] and you might call him our main speaker for the evening, republican president ial candidate contender republican donald trump. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] please take a seat. Go ahead and take a seat here. I am very honored to be here on the deck of the uss iowa joels home state and im honored to be here for many reasons. To be on board were so many veterans folks in uniform, who served their country and veterans for a stronger america. And right now myself i do a show called grateful nation and we celebrate their lives and tell their story but right now im so honored to be on the stage to introduce the gentleman behind me, joel because he has created veterans for a stronger america, vsa and let me tell you about joel. Someone that cares about america after the war in iraq started in 2003 joe arens dropped out of law school to fight in iraq. He knew that it was his generations time to fight, take a stand against terrorism and the global war on terrorism. As a First Lieutenant in the armys first cap division joel lorenz led a team of 30 infantrymen through the dangerous streets of baghdad from the late 2003 eric all the wins 2005 and during that time in iraq joel and his team are responsible for delivering justice to terrorists and keeping innocent iraqi safe and secure in their homeland. After returning from iraq joel knew that our politicians were not listening to our commanders and our troops on the ground. Which is why we are here today and why mr. Trump is here. [applause] dad is a man who cares about the armed forces and cares and wants to listen and help the veterans to keep us safe and secure in america. [applause] now for joel for his time in iraq he was awarded the bronze star and in 2006 major arens was named one of the 50 euros on the low bulwark terrorism by defense secretary don rumsfeld in 2006. [applause] now in 2010 he founded veterans for a Strong America and led the fight to ensure that our warriors on and off the battlefield are taking care of. Again, why mr. Trump is here. [applause] he is a native of iowa and its only fitting we are here aboard the deck of the ship named after his home state. We are here in beautiful long beach. We have people protesting it. I think we are doing something right here. God bless america. Major jolt errands. [applause] thank you. Welcome. Thank you everybody for coming out today. I really appreciated it and our team appreciates it. Let me just start with this. Do you hear those folks over there . We fought for their right to be there. [applause] we laid our lives on the line so you could calm, so you could be here, so they could be here. We fought for them and yet they told us we were supposed to be here today. Im proud to to be here. [applause] and i love being on the battleship iowa. I was born in iowa and i was raised in iowa. Its a fantastic honor. We have got a great guest here. Im going to get to that right away. I just want to say this and i will be very brief because i know you were not here to listen to me. In 2010 i started this organization because politicians are not listening to the veterans. Theyre not listening to the commanders on the ground. They are not listening to the military. They are not responding to us. 250,000 veterans died while waiting for care from the va. I get better care if i would have come over the order illegally then as a veteran. [applause] 25,000 veterans were permanently just enrolled from the va because of their paperwork sat on someones desk for five years. This is unacceptable ladies and gentlemen. Our military is being gutted. This president and this congress both Political Parties are responsible for the gutting of the military. 40,000 american troops that pink slips. This is not the time. This is not the time to lay off men and women when we faced the kind of threats we do in the world today terry today is the time to ramp up. Today is the time to build more battleships like this. Today is the time to ensure that we have combathardened ready troops available to fight for this country. [applause] you know what . We have hired, america has hired professional politicians to run this country for the last several decades. Six United States president s, six United States president s never served as never served in elected office before taking the presidency. Six of them. Im looking at the professional Political Class today, the people who were governors before becoming president , the people who were senators before becoming president and i have taken a look at the people who are running for office today. Former governors and senators. We have the kind of problems we do in this country with the va with benghazi in the gutting of the military because they dont have courage. [applause] i want a president that has the same amount of courage that our women and men show on the battlefield. [applause] i want a president who wants to take on the special interests to stop us from reforming the va. I want a president whos willing to take on the special interest to fight them to stop us from being able to get rid of sequestration which debts are military. [applause] i want a president who has the courage to do the right thing for our men and women. [applause] i want a president who will live up to the promise of lincoln when he said we will care for those who were wounded in battle. [applause] well folks im here to tell you today you were not going to get that courage with the Political Class. Its time to consider somebody else. It is time to say to ourselves do we really need a former governor . Do we need a current senator . Do we need a reform a former businessman . Do you we need somebody who has the proven track record of delivering results . Ladies and gentlemen because normally, normally this organization doesnt endorse in the primaries, we dont normally take sides. We step back and we let the Voters Decide that you know what . 2016 is too important to not take a stand. We took a stand in iraq my comrades. We took a stand in afghanistan. We take a stand in world war ii. We took a stand in vietnam. Our veterans stood up. They took a stand. Now its time for us to return the favor for someone who will take a stand for us. [applause] ladies and gentlemen i know not only want a president with courage i want a commanderinchief with courage. [applause] thats why tonight i am proud to stand here and introduce to you the man who veterans for a Strong America endorses to become the next president and the next commander in chief. [applause] please welcome, please help me welcome mr. Donald j. Trump. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, mr. Donald trump. [applause] thank you. [chanting] thank you so much. I didnt expect that. You know joel and the group called and they said would you come over and speak, im here for certain reason. Its called tomorrow night. So i got here and they asked a couple of days ago would have been possible to come over and say a few words and an endorsement from your group with so many veterans, hundreds of thousands of veterans i really appreciate that joel. I did not expect it. [applause] i didnt expect it and i didnt ask for it. I will say this, i am at the veterans 100 . They are our greatest people. They are being treated terribly. Not only the number of deaths which are obviously thats tantamount to whats going on is incredible but as of two weeks ago on wednesday, the vets had the longest wait in the history of the Veterans Administration administration. You go in and see a doctor you wait for days and days and its not going to happen. Its not going to happen. If i win believe me its not going to happen in one of the things i thought i would do, and i stress so strongly the Veterans Hospital obviously there problems and they are not properly run and when you have to wait long hours and long days and then in some cases have the doctor say im sorry im going on vacation, believe me it doesnt get much worse than that we are going to create a whole new system. We are going to take the system apart and if they are not doing the job that veterans are going to go to private doctors, private hospitals, public hospitals. [applause] and we are going to reimburse those doctors and hospitals and you are going to get the greatest service of any veteran in any country because you deserve it. [applause] thats going to be broken down into something thats going to be very special. Right now, and you know it, we have Illegal Immigrants that are treated better by far than our veterans. Thats not going to happen anymore. Its not going to happen. So joel i just really appreciate it. So im expected to be here. Its an honor. They dont build chips like this anymore folks. We dont do it this way anymore. I actually said what about recommissioning. Look at this thing, the largest guns in the world, the most powerful guns. I learned a lot about the iowa. By the way i was a great place for a lot of reasons. We have been treated so well in the state of iowa its been incredible. Number one in the polls and we love those people. They are great. This is a great ship, hot guys. This is a great ship and thats great ship enough to great state. I just want to say that we are going to come out with some plans in a very short time. We are going to be building up our military. We are going to make her military so big and so strong and so great. [applause] and it will be so powerful that i dont think we are ever going to have to use it. Nobodys going to mess with us. That i can tell you. [applause] and we are going to have a president who is respected by putin, who is respected by iran. You know, lets talk about for two seconds, lets talk about the iran deal. Now obama and his people call him the Supreme Leader of iran. Obama talks about the Supreme Leader. Im not calling him a Supreme Leader but he said the other day that after this rip off deal is completed he will never touch, do business with the United States again. We are finished with the United States. They are taking 150 billion. Its going to go right into Nuclear Weapons much sooner than you think. They are going to go and self police. They have got 24 day provisions and by the way what people dont understand is the 24 day provisions doesnt start, you know this right . It doesnt start her a long time before you get to it. The clock is ticking. It could take forever. Renee never get in there. It is one of the dumbest and the weakest contracts i have ever seen of any kind. [applause] so we are going to do things in this country right. We are not going to start deals where we have more prisoners over here and they are still there and we dont even ask them. One of them is there because he is a christian. We have a writer. The whole thing is absolutely insane. You know they asked the president and they ask the secretary of state kerry, you know ive been saying Hillary Clinton is the worst secretary of state in the history of this country, right . [applause] but its possible, the world blew up around her. It will up. The whole world is like a different place. Its possible that because of this deal made by secretary kerry who has absolutely no clue how to negotiate, it may be that hes going to supersede and i understand that he may want to run for president. He has no chance, like she has no chance so we are going to see what happens. [applause] we have many problems in our country. One of them is i took a tremendous hit when i brought up illegal immigration when i announced i was running for president and for two weeks i said Rush Limbaugh who is a great guy, he said he has suffered more incoming than anybody ive seen so what happens is you have now found out what illegal immigration is all about and i am so happy that im the one that brought it to the floor because believe me its a big problem. [applause] it is a big problem. So you remember for about two weeks i said boy this is tougher than i thought running for president and then you found out a there is tremendous crime. There are tremendous drugs flowing across the border, going to chicago and going to new york and l. A. , going all over country the drugstore in and the money pours out. Not a good deal. We get the drugs and they get the money. The drug cartels are going wild. They cannot believe how stupid our government is. They are making a fortune. The jobs command and the money goes out daily and i sighed as i was on the border. I was there and everybody sees it every day and we have the kind of people that can do something about it but we have no leadership, none whatsoever. So we are going to build a wall. [applause] and mexico is going to pay for the wall. [applause] believed me. You know a lot of politicians have said they are not going to pay. They dont know anything about it. They never read it first of all so heres the start. Heres the story. I said the other day to one of my people why does the United States. That deficit with mexico japan and china . Lets start with china. Almost 400 billion a year. Now if you are a company when you were losing 400 billion youre going to do something very bad. We have been losing hundreds of billions of dollars a year frankly for decades. Its not going to happen anymore. Its not going to happen anymore. [applause] in japan where there are massive shifts right here and they drop off the cars, they drop off thousands and thousands and thousands of cars, millions of cars and we sell them beef. We sell them beef and they dont want it because their farmers dont want our beef. They protested it and send it back. Its not going to happen that way anymore. Now with mexico, and i love mexico. Many many people from mexico that work with me and they worked for me and they buy my apartments in the same of china. Ive so many people that pay me millions and millions. What, my supposed to hate china because they gave me millions of dollars to buy an apartment . I dont think so. I have the largest bank in the world bigger than any bank in this country by many times. They are from china. The problem we have is that the leaders of mexico, japan china and every other country we do business with barter. They are sharper than our leaders. I love free trade. Do you need smart people. I have the smartest people in this country lined up. I know they are smarter. [applause] i have caro icon. I had the best Business Leaders and they all want to do it. They make the deals. Like me, they make good deals. Its a talent. You cant be a politician. I am fighting some very nice people even though im leading in the polls. But they are very nice people but they are never going to do anything with these countries. Theyre never going to be able to do it. Its an instinct. Its something thats special. They dont have it, believe me they dont have it. Its just going to be more of the same, so we are going to make our country so great. We are going to make it strong. We are going to make it powerful. We are going to rebuild the military. We are going to make it so strong. [applause] we are going to take care of our veterans. [applause] and in the end, in the end i want you people to look around and look at each other because this is going to be a special day. The other week, two weeks ago in mobile alabama 31,000 people showed up in a rainy, rough day. 31,000 people came to see us speak and we are talking about that in America Great again. Last night in dallas at the American Airline center, 20,000 people, the basketball arena of the mavericks. [applause] 20,000 people showed up and i want to tell you, it was a lovefest. Think of it, 20,000 people. There wasnt one heckler in the whole room. I kept saying theres got to be one. There were two words that used to be used a lot. Silent majority. They stopped using them. The silent majority believe me is back. [applause] and i think we can use it somewhat differently. I dont think we have to call it the silent majority any more. Because they are not silent. People are not silent rave they are disgusted with our incompetent politicians. They are disgusted with the people that are giving our country away. They are disgusted when they tell the Border Patrol agents who were good people and can do the job. They are disgusted when they allow people to walk right in front of them and standing there helpless as people pour into the country. They are disgusted. A woman who is nine months pregnant walks across the border has a baby and you have to take care of that baby for the next 85 years. They are disgusted by whats happening to our country and you are going to look around and you were going to remember who the people are that are here because we are doing something special. This is a movement. We are going to make our country great again, believe me we will make our country great again. I love you all, thank you very much. I love you, thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. We love you. Thank you very much. Now a discussion about ending the federal law banning the export of crude oil. House republicans have scheduled a vote later this month on repealing the 40yearold law. Senators heidi heitkamp, john hoeven and ed markey discuss the prospects for a repeal in the senate and how the change would affect the u. S. Economy. From the the National Journal, this is an hour and 40 minutes. As you probably know we will have the discussion about the significance of crude oil exports and Americas Energy policy. As you are aware that countries in the middle of a heated debate over whether the 40yearold ban on exporting crude oil should be lifted. Proponents argue will boost Domestic Oil Production stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Environmentalists are concerned it will only benefit the oil and gas industry. Some refineries fear this will raise oil prices. Others say this move could harm National Security so we will be having a lively debate this morning at todays event and we will hear from members of the u. S. Senate who care passionately about u. S. Energy policy in the different positions on crude oil exports. They will give remarks and participate in a moderated discussion with the National Journals environmental correspondent that i would like to invite jack gerard president and chief executive officer of the American Petroleum institute to the podium to deliver some oakland some opening remarks. Mr. Gerard. Thank you and thank you to the the National Journal. We are happy to be here today on an important topic. It looks like we have an overcapacity crowd today which is always good. We shared a couple of brief remarks Americas Energy future and the ban on crude oil exports obviously is a topic near and dear to our heart right now and i would ask you did think of three simple topics as we have this debate or discussion today and its potential impact on American Economy, American Consumers and on our National Security. The first i would ask you to think about is job creation. As poppy. As poppy talks. As poppy touch about there have. As poppy talks about there have been a friday of studies out there, the overwhelming evidence shows lifting the ban on crude oil exports is positive for the American Economy and one of those is in job creation. It is now projected we would create over three and a thousand new jobs by having an additional marketplace in the global arena. The second piece i would ask you to consider is the impact on consumers. We hear a lot of debate about what does this mean if we are allowed to export our products into the Global Marketplace and let the overwhelming evidence shows prepared by an studied by many from different philosophies including governmental entities is it ultimately would rebel result in putting downward pressure on the price of crude oil plus benefiting consumers and some estimates shows it would likely bring a barrel of crude oil down another dollar which would result in over 5. 8 billion dollars in benefits to consumers and lower costs. So it has a positive impact on the consumer. The last thing i think we should consider is the National Security implications. I know on the rsvp list today we have many of our friends and allies from around the world and others have testified on capitol hill pointing out how they would like to increase or enhance their relationship with the United States in the area of energy trade. As we look at the current debates surrounding the iran sanctions it very clear it appears that the president s proposal will prevail. Thus ultimately we will lift the sanctions on iran and allow them to export their crude. I find it hard to imagine that american policymakers would not do the same for american producers and allow us the same access to that girl Global Market that iran has access to same. With those three points we look forward to a lively debate. As the National Journal poppy and her team members have done so well put together a good Diverse Group and the opinion surrounding this but we thank you for being here today and thank the the National Journal and poppy for always a professional program and we hope you enjoy it. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you jack. At this time i would like to welcome moderator banned from the National Journal to the stage and introduced the honorable heidi heitkamp. Senator heitkamp is the Ranking Member of the subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and finance of the u. S. Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs. Serving since 2013 senator hyde campus the first female senator from north dakota and a former director of the dakota gasification plant. Ladies and gentlemen please welcome senator heitkamp. [applause] good morning. You are supposed to say good morning back. This is washington i know but you know most places thats what happens. [laughter] thank you so much for taking an interest in this issue. For participating in this debate and what i hope will be a good lively discussion. This is an issue that is not new to me. In fact this is an issue in my opinion that is i started talking about this before there was even a price decline. Why . Because fundamentally commoditys have to find their markets. If we are going to be successful in america, if we are going to be successful tapping and twoway mobile economy where 95 of all consumers live outside the United States of america we cannot irrationally restrict exports of anything and certainly in this world where we are becoming a dominant energy power we certainly should not be doing it in energy. Most of you know of north dakota is a state that is heavily dependent on commodity markets. We do two things we are known for. Number one we produce the highest quality Agricultural Products in the world than we produce, the secondlargest producer of crude oil in the country. They Pretty Amazing story so we are heavily dependent on a couple of things, dollar values which we dont talk enough about the me look at crude oil prices and we are also heavily dependent on exports. Now this crude Oil Export Ban was something that when you look at it its an anomaly of the 1970s when everyone was scrambling to respond to what surely was an Energy Shortage that threaten their economic livelihood. Draconian and drastic measures were taken including a ban on the export of crude oil. We realize that been made absolute no sense. Alaska lifted the ban and now we are in a situation where it makes absolutely no sense of United States of america in the lower 48. If we are in fact to do a couple of things so i just want, before i joined ben i just want to say i think ive built a reputation in this town for being pretty openminded, pretty willing to listen to arguments on all sides. I will tell you i dont think there is an issue in the United States congress where i cannot be on the other side of this issue. Think about that. There is absolutely no logic in that. There is no good Public Policy reason for not lifting the ban. Lets start out with consumers. Every legitimate report, every legitimate report, not reports done by specialinterest that are obviously experiencing some pretty impressive profit margins, every legitimate report tells you one thing about consumer prices. Eve or they will decline in this country so this is good for jobs. Its good for Energy Security. Why do i say that . If you artificially control the market, if you restrict the access to the market was going to happen to the investment . Where does the investment go . It go someplace else. Its not going to stay United States of america. The shale revolution is a restricted. If you look at the maps you know the shale oil is everywhere and that we have right now the access to the technology. We are getting more efficient and in my state more efficient in the industry and we know we need the lowest cost of shale. That energy selfsufficiency. I was recently at the Mccain Institute where tony blair talked and what he said was we were talking about stabilizing the world. He said the one thing that we need to do a stabilize the world as we tab Energy Security. Think about the soft power implications of an export lifting. Think about what they can do for our allies. Think about what we can do for National Security. We have got National Energy security that is benefited by exports. We have National Security and Global Security that is benefited by exports and we have consumers were benefited by exports and american jobs and american workers. Explain to me where the downside is. Explain to me why we have this policy continuing in i will tell you right now. There were two things. Number one, fear of the unknown. Fear that i will get blamed if gasoline prices at the pump increase. Even though thats irrational. I dont want to do anything thats going to upset this bonus that are driven by the drilling industry. So theres a fear there and we need to continue to have that conversation is lisa and i have from the very beginning talking about opening up markets and talking about what that means for consumers. And i think the second reason is they just dont want lower priced oil. They think if you produce more oil more oil will be consumed. I dont know what economic reports they have been watching in the last couple of months but certainly as we see it global wide slowing down of economies of china and india we have seen supply and demand economics 101. We have the mideast concerned about losing market share and now certainly the saudis are concerned about whats going to happen with iranian oil. We have the russians who have built their economy on 100 a barrel oil and we have the United States saying we want to participate. We want to be those good guys bringing Energy Security to the world. This is a policy that putin whose purpose has long expired and in todays conditions this is a policy for which there is no good reason to make change. And so hopefully we will have a lively discussion and be able to respond to some of questions that you have a thank you for inviting me. This is an issue that im passionate about. Going back to the fundamental principle nevermind anything that i just said. Think about if you are a manufacture of the good and we said no you cant export or if you were acorn producer and we said you cant export. Fundamentally the economics of this issue on a basic level even if we dont look at price and all the things that i said fundamentally is a policy that is deeply and i think dramatically flawed. So thank you very much. [applause] i just had a hip replacement. Before we get started with her conversation i would just like to remind the audience briefly that people can ask us questions on twitter and the hashtag is hashtag nj so without thank you for your remarks. You mentioned senator burkowski and your Work Together on this topic create i think its interesting partnership. Obviously senator murkowski and i share a lot of similar interests. Lets start with being from very rural states and every time i bemoaned the fact about how rural north dakota issue reminds me of how expansive in rural alaska so we have found an issue earlier on an issue that is near and dear to our heart which is the status of myth of american children. From the work we did and our understanding and our work in energy and i have a long history in north Dakota Energy whether its in looking at utility work that i did or really a long history in oil and gas. Talking about these issues and realizing early on even before the price reduction we have seen that this policy is not good policy. Gsa now this policy works in alaska and would like to see us continue to develop so i love working with lisa. I think that we have something they call the common sense pocket and the United States senate. We like to believe and it is true that we are least partially responsible for opening up government and its a group of us. Now over half are women that actually sit down and talk about issues and how we can achieve Common Ground in a bipartisan way. So that is the work ive done with lisa. She has been a great friend. Bipartisanship is something that has been somewhat elusive on energy. We of course had pretty sweeping bills in 2005 and 2007 and spent time, i think there was a large Bipartisan Energy measure. I mentioned it via way of asking to what extent do you think we will see some deals made on crude oil exports . In other words if legislation passes the senate would it be a standalone bill for senator pete mentioned the possibility of some kind of a compromise. What i would tell you is when we started over a year ago everybody thought we were crazy. This is an issue that is new to the congress. Nothing moves fast in the congress and in fact you might know nothing moves in the congress which may be a Fair Assessment of our Job Performance but certainly a new issue like this that is fairly complicated and the first goal last congress was to educate, educate, educate. We have saw study after study responding to the currents earned to move the ball forward and in when the time came whether works on keystone or iran approval act lisa and i would take to the floor and say hey this is an issue that is critically important. So i think everybody told me you were crazy to think this is going to happen in the shortterm but i kept saying i think we can get this done this year. If we are willing to respond to some of the concerns and if we are willing to come to the table and actually negotiate. I want to talk about was strictly called because it was a very modest bill and it somehow could not make its way through. I will tell you that the inclination in the congress is not to do we not to do we can do but try to do everything that we want to do as an individual. We are going to hang as much stuff on there to see before we collapse under the weight of all of those additional issues, we need to not let that happen with energy exports. I am obviously, lisa has a bill that went. I have a bill in banking and we have a hearing in banking. We are looking at the possibility of a markup. No commitments yet but we want to continue to build momentum and build support. I think the question is how do you balance that . To give you a for instance you saw senator heinrich expressed an interest in what lets look at what we can do with this concept. There is an openness and i will tell you i have a number of members that we have been talking talking to for over a year who are very interested in some kind of compromise on oil. Im glad you brought up senator heinrich. Senator Heinrich Aaron Burr said one possibility would be, you voted for the measure in the Energy Committee but he also said in order to get, think of recall reading something to get his full support he would need to see Renewable Energy provisions. Do you think there is an appetite in this city for their mobile of the crude oil export to either extension in the Solar Investment tax credit or some provision that would look at low carbon. You lose when you add those things to it and how you build a centrist policy. I think thats going to be the challenge that they have moving forward. And lets remind people we have extended the production tax credits and investment tax credits on a parttime basis. Highly disruptive Renewable Energy industry and how we have managed those credits. We give them at the very end and you probably will groan about this because most of you know senator conrad and senator dorgan was a tax i was a tax commissioner before he came to the senate so i have an understanding of how tax Planning Works and we are very disrupted in how we deal with tax policy. I think this is an opportunity to make an argument i think about production tax credits and investment tax credits in the context of certainty acrosstheboard to the Energy Industry and truly supporting and all of the above policy. So we are excited about the opportunity. I know there are number of people on the other side for which the production tax credits like sour peas but i think there still is an opportunity to build a Good Coalition in the middle and we will be looking at those issues as time goes on. Picking on that from him and would there be any specific policy items proposed beyond the investment of additional tax credit . I just told you that everything that moves and does everything on the wagon train we are mired in the muck, i am sure there is a possibility that could happen which is very divisive in the Senate Weather is looking at a number of other kinds of issues that people talk about. I think at this point when we look at the domestic drilling industry and we look at every report that we have seen and we look at how they have responded. I want to make this point how the Domestic Oil Industry has responded to the challenges. They have become more efficient in their foot prints is less and less. They are meeting those challenges but they have got to find their market. They have got to be able to have access in our markets. So i think that argument is pretty persuasive saying lets not let the purpose be the enemy of good. You mentioned Iran Legislation and we just had a deal voted on the senate that the white house and the other has struck. If we vote not to block the white house deal with iran has that changed the politics of exports in any way . It has been my discussion. And i certainly think there are a number of varied opinions about where the market has reacted to the potential of iran entering expanding their market shares. We dont know exactly what the price differential is that it gives us a window of opportunity here for a number of months before we see some sanctions lifted and therefore received the industry began its recovery if in fact they complete their requirements under the joint powers agreement. So i think it creates relief and for a lot of people who believe in changing the policy a sense of urgency. That will get this done sooner rather than later. Among the democrats that were supportive and there were many of course at the white house deal with iran do think that dissuade some of the same members of the caucus . If we are going to have the prospect of more iranians to think you are seeing a softening up of some of the deficits of opposition moving to crude oil . I would say yes. I dont know where Chuck Schumer stance on this. We have had a lot of discussions. When we started pace and the number of people from ati we sat down in our office and said okay and who should we be talking to. I gave them a list and they were like what . I said these are rational people and people to give economics 101. They understand what Energy Security means for our country and for our allies. And we should give them a talk talk at i would tell you that chuck was on that list and we spent a lot of time visiting with members that you may be surprised that i put on the list just because number one we are friends but i also know that they understand fundamental economics and for them a good rational logical argument is persuasive. Schumer of course he and coming to our credit leader do you get the sense that he is open to it . I dont know where chuck will be eventually. It depends on what the package looks like that i will tell you i believe senator schumer isnt that well aware of what the challenges are for this industry. And has expressed a willingness to continue to lift it. We have talked to some who have slammed the door shut and they say this will raise gasoline prices. Thats the last thing they want to avoid. Its really about we dont want any development of any fossil deals in any way shape or form and we are not going to adopt any policy that promotes domestic drilling. Fundamentally that is the argument and i can appreciate that. It doesnt make a lot of sense in my world but just say it what it is, that this is all about drilling another barrel of oil in this country and in the world actually. To clarify the opponents of the ban are using the proponents . Sure and against all logic is every legitimate report has told you two things will happen either stabilize prices soar while actually lower prices. And this is a fairly sophisticated audience and you are familiar with International Pricing of gasoline. This is a question i allies ask if in fact we really want to control gasoline prices by restricting exports and what a great restrict exports over find products . States of america has become the largest exporter of her fine products in the world. So its really about controlling prices do not down the supply of what we actually use which is gasoline but thats not what we are doing. As we plan those prices and equalize the prices we expect we will see downward pressure on it to busty prices and to their credit a lot of the refiners are doing a lot to upgrade their plants and their facilities. They receive the additional tax as a result of that price differential. There is Additional Capital to improve their plant and we can appreciate that but lets be honest about but the economic consequences are as an industry is in fact we let the ban. I did have one other name i want to mention which is Hillary Clinton. Certainly we have several republican candidates who have been very much in favor for moving to crude oil export restrictions. Clinton and unless ive missed something she has not weighed in on this in the sort of first portion of the Energy Platform that her campaign has begun rolling out. To support Hillary Clinton i believe. Have you had discussions with her about this and have any hopes despite all of the pressures coming from i guess im asking do you think clinton will be on board . Im happy that i what she thinks wont matter because we will get this done before the next election. Ive been focused on talking to my colleagues in making sure we are building bipartisan support in the jena band and ive been focused on continuing to educate from the secretary of commerce with disk secretary of the department of energy and the white house itself. The rationale and a good reason for lifting the ban. So i have now focused on the secretary of state who is running for president because i think at the end of the day im hopeful we will get this done sometime in the next few months. There has been some interesting action within the administrative level. Do you think, how far are you getting in the sense of i was at a conference in houston and secretary moniz said he flatly said i dont think the advocates for the Energy Industry and he the pointed out well of course u. S. Crude oil exports have fallen sharply in recent years where still importing on the order of almost 7 Million Barrels per day. Thats a lot of oil. Do you think you are making headway with the administrations . I absolutely do and in many ways both the secretary of commerce for lifting the ban on condensate by allowing the swap which was a letter with a lease and myself basically saying look mexico is a great market for us. It looked to see mexico achieved the status of canada. When we look at crude oil but thats an incremental step and i think both of those especially the secretary of commerce wellversed in economics 101 and she gets our rational this policy is. I cant speak for her but someone for background completely understands you dont isolate this commodity to just this market. I think probably the area of disagreement that secretary moniz was talking about was whether in fact we have a restriction on refining suite three. That has been one of the arguments which is the american refiners are basically built to refine heavier crude oil. It usually comes from venezuela. This is crude oil produced in the mideast and its classic kind of oil, Traditional Oil. Shale oil is light sweet crude. We think most of our refineries are east and west that results in interesting transportation challenges but we believe we have a restriction on the availability of introducing our crude into american refiners. That is where disagree with secretary moniz. I think he thinks that part of it is perhaps more saturated but its always tricky when you are speaking for someone else. Thats one of the things thats so adjusting about the Obama Administrations the smaller steps they have been taking could perhaps indicate some willingness to sign broader legislation. Thats what i think. So you do feel pic above is from the standpoint of balance of trade. Why would you restrict the commodity that is this valuable . Is up there in my mind with a policy that we have our lack of policy that we have put the exim bank. I want to scream this at the top of the hill. Do you get that 95 of all consumers live inside this country and if we want to continue to be the preeminent economic power in the world we have to look at exports. I dont care if they are commodity exports are manufactured goods we have to be competitive in that market if we are going to be successful longterm. Over a quick final question from me before we go to the social Media Questions i mentioned tea leaves. Have you gotten a sense from a frustration that they would sign your legislation . Ive had a lot of conversations including conversations with the president himself about this and i think every time we have those conversations we feel like we are building a little bit more understanding. I think at the end of the day the policies, the balance is going to be how we look at renewables. To clarify senator you think the white house would sign the legislation . You know who knows but im telling you that all of my conversations have been i think very directive at why this policy makes no sense and certainly have had a good and lively debate. Will thank you. I want to get to some of the questions we have coming in on social media. We have one here that says every lawmaker says they support u. S. Energy independence. What exporting crude oil make that take longer . No. In fact i think not exporting crude oil will basically kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I love this idea that if we restrict the market somehow investment will stay in this country. I mean think about that. You are a Global Company and you have x number of dollars and you know that if you drill in the United States of america you will not have access to the market. To emerging markets. Where are you going to drill and where are you going to invest . So the notion, it is counterintuitive i get up at the notion that allowing exports will in fact restrict their ability to be Energy Independent , i mean i think its economic folly and i will tell you one of the things that i say repeatedly and we need to always remind ourselves of this, we are not alone in this business. I get criticized, not criticize but i get teased because i found the little canadians who dont take this the wrong way but if you look at north america whether its offshore mexico or the shale that could be produced in mexico now that they are going to do constitutional revisions and the ability to do work in mexico when you look at whats happening in canada when we talk about Energy Independence and think we have to be talking about north american Energy Independence because certainly as relates to north dakota and canada or a lot of what we do is all crossborder. So we believe what happened tonight field when we sell co2 from the gasification plant literally the largest sequestration project in the country we sell co2 thats basically ejected in the wavering deal producing Traditional Oil. That Traditional Oil finds its way into the north american market. We see that with canadian oil coming down from the oil sands. I just want to clarify when i talk about Energy Independence i talk about north american Energy Independence and certainly with their great and friendly neighbors canada to the north. Another question coming in on twitter make the point the study we have been talking about shows with the export restrictions would increase u. S. Production productions of the questioner asked how would you address the air water and Health Impacts of this decrease drilling . North dakota is a place that is the secondlargest oil producer in the country. Also as a place where there are no areas. Our air is purer than any air in the country. Could we do it better with methane, absolutely. Could we do a better job with pretreatment and capturing capturing the natural gas liquids . Do you bed and industry stepping up in meeting those challenges every day. We need to do better but lets remember that even though we are the secondlargest oil producer in the country we have no area in north dakota and buy me look at, its kind of a folklore story, i was asked early on in a liberal setting about fracking and it was interesting because everyone wanted to protect me and i stopped and they i said do you know what it is . People think fracking is new. Fracking is not new. We have been fracking for years. Its new and horizontal formation. As long as those wells are and im all about making sure we have inspectors that are making sure its solid and we are facing a well there should be no