substantive infuse on the table -- issues include the trade deal now been is one of those. on the one in your president obama who has extended a lot of his personal credibility negotiating his tpp and actually you have prime minister trudeau who has yet to officially endorse it. what are the politics of that and why would canada be reluctant to support something? is it because of the change of political administration in canada? >> i think there are couple of things going on. the first is that the trade deal to tpp was negotiated by the previous government and there was a sense in which there have not been a lot of public discussion about it. there was a promise made by the liberals reelection campaign that they would go out and consult. so the trade minister is doing exactly that across the country. and canada has as you know signed the tpp, joined the signing ceremony in new zealand i think there are some issues that people are concerned about

and there will be some pressure to see whether it's possible to get some signed letters on a couple of key issues where to intellectual property, and probably also relation to indigenous people. >> john, you cover the complete and we are now in the midst of our teachers presidential campaign and you have the concept of free trade under attack in both parties right now from donald trump on the right and from bernie sanders on the left. you have a sense when you call it a new kind of nationalism or a moment of the least economic nationalism here in the states. what does the new progressivism look like i'm can't decide what's is the also do you think more of a political hide running against free trade as a principal? or is it a very pragmatic thing in the way stephen just laid out? >> i think we will hear more of that this week. i suspect, i was on the white house called us with this gesture was very much this is obama's top priority. he will push for i think for

justin trudeau to say something quite positive on it. the problem is in canada the indeed be on the left is anti-free trade. the conservatives negotiated the tpp and the agreement in your. the liberals have traditionally been probing the middle and supported trade agreement like nafta. i suspect those of us would give to have made a commitment to consult and there is a growing feeling that on pharmaceutical costs, on even some of the automakers i think this would open up kind of to japanese cars. so there is a movement against it. the liberals in canada have become experts at length all sides of every issue. they wanted to pull out of their fighter jets out of the against isil but they still want to be part of the war. that maneuver was repeated on a number of occasions. and i think for the most part they got away with it.

but sooner or later to come to one side or the other on tpp. i think we may see them coming down pro- >> sort of the cost as admission to the state just because he wants to get certain things and do things like softwood lumber that we make it a little bit of quid pro quo your. >> award the politicians don't like to use but i will ask you senator about quid pro quo. but i will ask you how much do you think there is a possibility that here in the u.s. support for the tpp goes away based on the 2016 election result? >> i don't know because i think mitch mcconnell has made very clear that's going to be something that would be considered after the election i think people think it will be considered in the lame duck so you could basically have the same congress, a congress that had already passed the tdk, which needed significantly more votes than the tpp.

i think time will tell prevent others to look at the tpp and is not the number one thing on people such an director as we we focus on this crazy election time for one of the candidates was alone in the race talked about building a wall to canada, as you know. but then he had to get out spirit we are building a wall to keep the americans coming up north spirit that is your cup senator, a wall against -- >> governor walker was asked about that. it was interesting from an american-canadian viewpoint because come into my steadily sabotaged people in wisconsiwisconsi n and others, pretty focus on the. that thought it was a pretty bad idea. they started to think how you would build it through the lake and other things and what would happen and practical concerns. ivory coast to the fact that after 9/11 when we think of some of these border issues and some of the work that the prime minister wants to do, after 9/11 there was of course a need for some changes.

what i remember first coming into office we were always talk about the passport card and the northern senators of the northern states of the u.s. tended to be much more trying to make congress work, very cognizant of the security concerns but always cognizant of also making congress work. so we got a pretty much taken care of. we now have some opportunities to make the infrastructure better between the borders, where we have some really busy intersections where we were trying to bring trucks in, and possibly investing some private money in some of the border control areas. that's a possibility we are doing that on the mexican border. the exciting news with our airports that filing to canada, eight of them has precludes which will allow people to fly the american airports. roy blunt and i passed can remember the "washington post" noted was the only bill that passed in the months, a bill on

getting luggage prescreened to canada. out of the canadian -- >> to donald trump know about the? >> i don't know why i'm even bringing it up spent canadians are worried about this. >> seriously come on not joking. >> the whole question of the border and having freedom of commerce across the border is an issue that the think is going to be a major topic. >> somewhat answer to this was, number one, whe wing walker brot that up there was a lot of fortified faces in the northern states, and i don't think it helped him much. then the second thing is that discounted the fact that the american people still want good relations with canada is that all our moves slowly but surely have been to try to build the kind of security at the canadian airports so we're comfortable having people fly at a airports already. maybe we hope to expand them. i will say very soon. some of the other work that can be done including that crazy

situation with the windsor detroit bridge. we are finally, the people in michigan and in canada have moved to build an additional bridge. i've been to the bridge. i know what a mess it is and it's time to build an additional bridge despite the opposition of the person that's been making money off that abridge. >> we are going to have a whole conversation later tonight on this question of border security especially in the context of a much greater number of refugees from syria that canada has agreed to accept compared to the united states pick the of the conversation later on is about energy. i don't ask each of you, this is seen as a major plank in the trudeau campaign, the idea we will campaign on clean energy but it's a huge shift from the previous prime ministership and yet at the same time a macroeconomics of energy have changed pretty dramatically with the pledge in the price of oil and gas. how do you all see that changing

and possibly having real repercussions on the u.s.-canada relationship? >> the plunge in the price of oil, the economic change right now. >> tumbling purely because of the economy. our economy is on a dual-track because the dollar has tumbled. our manufacturing industry and export are doing relatively well take a sense of the is picking up. the oil price is hurting. trudeau's promise to make all kinds of changes as far as climate change and that's run into problems. you often think i prime minister has a lot of executive power. they are limited by because addition, which if set to one taking your federal regulation

on carbon tax. >> we just had a first ministers meeting of all the premiers and prime minister and they couldn't agree on moving forward with a clear policy around a bottom to carbon pricing. so that's going to be a major political issue for candidate going forward and you know i'm sure we've had great trouble in building any pipeline. notches because of keystone but even within canada to get energy to market. so there is going to be a continuing pressure on others in this time of transition. the government committed i'm sure to moving towards cleaner energy, reducing our carbon imprint. but at the same time that's a decade-long transition. in the meantime we've got to figure out how to deliver product to market. >> do you see there's a risk to the canadian economy if the united states were to elect a republican president, regardless of donald trump, and the strategies between the two countries speak was it's amazing

we have such a coalescence right now of interest and value. who knows whether that's going to happen going forward. frankly, even the leading democratic candidate right now mrs. clinton is not as though trade as i think the canadian government would like her to be. so i think we are going to see some accommodation having to happen, no matter whether it's a democrat or a republican spin on the energy front there's been a lot of talk with the three countries again, with mexico, talking but electricity transmission pipelines been working on that together. i think both countries have a lot of work to do with climate change but this election was something of a referendum on that. there were a lot of canadians who want to do something about climate change. there are a lot of americans want to move on it and we want to move in a way that isn't going to be devastating to our economy, that's for sure. that's what it was a difficult for the comparison with president obama came in.

i do we want to get the renewable electricity standard done and we were one vote short before attending. the decision was made that school for cap-and-trade. because of the economy at all the pressures on the economy it was a difficult time to do it. while trudeau is coming at a time when the economy is a little more stable. >> i take issue with a a little bit. the economy is not in recession but it's a growing -- the oil price issue to the our real fiscal constraints on this government. he came in saying we would have modest deficit. borrowing modest amount although interest rates to build public infrastructure. the problem has been we've seen those deficits going from 10 billion, probably coming in at 30 billion the next fiscal. the public is less onside. he also said we will be back in balance within four years in the first maybe a debt to gdp ratio would fall over the period but

none of those things are going to happen. i think he's found out campaigning is much easier than governing. >> obama can get in -- >> it's still a longer honeymoon that what president obama had. >> you mention actually and i want to ask stephen about this, canada's role in the world. to talk about how this transfer is fine if the difficult issue to navigate. you want to pull out canada's fighter jet president in the war against faces but at the same time still get credit for being a part of this coalition. that's a needle fable thread this week. what you think about both the specific security role in this global campaign against faces but more generally, do you see canada as looking more inward as the result of this change in government? >> in fact i think the opposite. i think the government intends to look more outward, and i think there's a lot of impetus behind the. i think canadians, that was part of the election campaign.

having said that there's a long-term secular trend. are develop assistance internationally, our commitment around defense has been going down for 20-225 years but it's not just the harper government. there's a big change that has to take place and i think it can't just be imagining candidate will be back to what it was in the '60s, liberal internationalism in peacekeeping. that's not the world we live in today so there will be some hard choices about defense investments they need to be taken, procurement. whether or not we will make increases to our overseas develop assistance and that what level. it's going to be really quite dramatic i think some of the decisions that have to be taken. >> when you look back in wales, candidate pledged t 2% with othr nato countries on national security. when you look at some of these major issues, afghanistan, and was proud of the role and being

by our site and working there, still getting some funding. not as much troops in iraq, still haven't been on the front line, working with hundreds of traders. strong on ukraine. and then the fourth thing i would mention is look at the decisions which i wholeheartedly agree have to be made. it's just a gesture, the worldwide gesture that trudeau showed when he went to the airport and treated -- greeted those refugees. that was broadcast the world over. the numbers show it. they are now forecast to get about right now they'v they dont 25,000 syrian refugees. we are forecast to do about 10,000 this year and a pledge to cut it up to 35,500 by this year. i would agree that the discussion in the campaign, but

also that moment at the airport just signified a different approach to the rest of the world. >> there's a lot of symbolism with this government and that was first among them, the refugees. the realities begin, there's the defense review this year. we've already pretty much the same a platform that is going to be confident defense, humanitarian aid, of the four horsemen of the apocalypse will be more suited to fighting famine and war. there's just not enough money in the pocket what all the stuff you want to block and keep the forces doing what they been doing up to no. >> we done a horrible job of procurement for a long time so there's lots of ketchup athletic. >> you called it a gesture. you called it symbolism. >> it's not symbolism when is 25,000 real people with the projection to be 35 or 50. i call this a simple in that it meant something to but if you just do the simple antidote to the action.

>> can the u.s. a government match that? >> i think the u.s. government should be stepping up their game in bringing the refugees. we have to do with the fed, the right way but the fact that canada has taken in the refugees i think shows that we should have the ability to do this and should find a way. >> and other gesture the trudeau government made right away was to announce that 50% of its captive would be women. the first time they had the intent. we've never had anything like that was in the u.s. senate or in the cabinet. should the next president of the credit make a pledge to 50% female cat speak with i don't think the next president will do that. i think we show by what we do and example. i would love to see it happen. and let me say if it's a woman president then that's one big position that's taken by a woman. >> so that counts as extra seats spent it's like a super big delegate. >> we are not doing so well in female members of parliament.

it's like 30%. >> that's higher than the u.s. congress for short. >> the other thing that are not talking positioned about of the women in senior cabinet positions have been quite impressive. >> we are almost out of time. i like in each of your predictions for what they take we will have from this week. is this going to be about justin fever puts anything substantive out of the week speak with i agree if you think it's going to be around trade and infrastructure related to trade. >> agreed. >> they will be singing kumbaya. a lot of gloss a not so much the substance spent are they going to be planning to build that wall? >> i don't think so. >> donald trump says the wall to mexico will have a door. will the wall to canada? >> awol so trucks can go through spin this has been a terrific conversation. i'm really appreciative you

kicked off this today, and i look forward to we ever really robust group of people around. senator klobuchar, i could particularly thank you. you labored 1 tenures on this issue. you get to a big weekend. >> i actually am the only senator that we foun have foundt action had my swearing in party at the canadian embassy. true story. just wanted to again send a message that i think is being sent to our whole country and the world this week that this is our number one trading partner and as those proud banners were displayed on the canadian embassy for years, friend, partner, allies, they put that in our capital to send a message because that doesn't always happen for the rest of the world. even when we help countries in the world they sometimes don't want to admit that we worked together. candidate has gone the other what and i think it's good to be a great way to celebrate that relationship to has been a long time coming. so thank you. >> well, thank all of you come

and thank you, and thank you. [applause] >> thanks so much, susan. high everyone. i'm thrilled to be here tonight and to continue this event with conversation got a topic that is no doubt hot on the agenda for prime minister trudeau and president obama's state visit, that is energy and climate change. i'm along the shore, energy reporter for political. for welcome our panel's this stage just a quick reminder to join the conversation on twitter using hashtag a new agenda that i'll have a tablet with the on state and i will be able to poll questions from twitter to ask our great panelist who without further ado i will welcome to the stage. please join me in creating

mr. robin sylvester, president and ceo of port metro vancouver. mr. greg dotson, vice president of energy policy for the center for american progress. gitane de silva, senior representative to the u.s. for the government of alberta come and anthony smith, director of the natural resources defense council and the project. well, thanks for being here and let's get started everyone. one thing that struck me in today's initial announcements on energy and climate change was the oil and gas industries involvement. and specifically on the question of nothing. president obama has made a commitment to cut methane by as much as 45% over the next decade, and candidate is expected to meet a pledge. but there's some hurdles involved i'm hoping we can turn first to greg to address. what more do you need to see other than the space levels from the two governments on methane?

>> i think that there's so much common ground between candidate and the trend that there are potentially many areas for them to work together on. methane is one but as you look over the past few years with a highly integrated automotive sector. we have come increase we connected by policy where we have a mission strayed happen among provinces. california, we are increasingly connected physically as our great is connected with cross-border transmission lines. there's no 30 of them and what that is resulted in a sort of a robust and growing trade in clean energy. this is a promising set of areas i think for the leaders to engage in. fortunately for the last few years they've been totally obsessed and the national conversation has been controlled by keystone xl. i think we're in a situation that project is behind us.

we have prime minister trudeau's landslide election in october. we can turn the page and i think working forward on methane is a really good example of where the countries can work together in both cases you're the situation version of the federal government will have to work with their states and provinces to get it done and that could be a series of rule-making spear its earliest in the united states spent anthony, how about you? you've made methane a major point of contention what is hoping to see to translate these promises into reality? >> certainly we have seen, i would say that there have been asked commitments to harmonize the u.s. and canadian approach to methane. we are hoping to see something that's closer to the 40-45% reduction by 2025, something that may hint at measures to deal with existing sources of methane. that would be more ambitious than what's on the table. it is part of, nothing is going to be part of the solution when it comes to the u.s. and canada

meeting the climate targets. but it's not going to be the only part. there's a much broader, broader range of opportunities when it comes to electrification, electric vehicle policies. a new approach to looking at projects and policies to make sure that we incentivize the clean energy that we need, to build a clean energy economy that we need to transition into and begin to slow down the expansion to some of the higher carbon rod checks spin i'm glad you mentioned that because the next topic is what exactly we should use to judge a project the you guys often refer to the critical climate test as the benchmark. as the reporter who covered keys to ask over five years i heard d climate test a lot and got me frustrated and what does that mean? we've seen some great principles on what that would look like.

i'd like to turn to gitane first, wendy's and just talk about a climate test they're referring to alberta and oilsands first and foremost but all sorts of energy projects. so from your perspective do you think a climate test should be applied? what would that look like? >> alberta understands we can't continue to increase our emissions with a limited in november we came up with a plan that has four elements. one of those is methane, a commitment to reduce emissions by 45% by 2025. another what is an economy wide price on carbon. it comes at $20 per ton in january 2017 and increases to $30 a ton and 2018 to win fully implement and will cover between 78-90% of alberta's economy. that's a huge step. we've instituted i got on emissions. we know we can't grow our emissions without limit but we believe we can continue to grow the economy while driving down the emissions. we will phase out coal fired

electricity. 40% of our electricity comes from coal and will phase out the emissions from coal by 2030 replacing two-thirds with renewables and a third with natural gas. 30% of our electricity will come from renewables. with the election of a new government in alberta the new government in ottawa that there's real change coming out of canada. >> when it comes to the doctor climate test, a benchmark, a model for future emissions and a two-degree world as we said in paris and is that something you could see being integrated maybe just on the provincial level or on the national level speak with if the government has changed its process for energy projects going forward, looking at upstream initiative expectations we will take into that to demonstrate the steps for protecting and reductions in emissions that we are making to the reality as well that resources are find a way to market now. they're going by rail. and the building of a pipeline this is really lead to greater r

conditions or the displacing of reducing emissions in a pipeline is an option. >> absolutely. for our audience and those who didn't follow the paris talks to closer to the united nations climate discussions focus on what it would mean to avert a two degrees celsius temperature increase, mainly with site visits is the tipping point for climate change. we talk about this climate test that's what's in our mayor looking ahead. greg and anthony if you want to jump in on what gitane said what they test would or could look like. >> i would say i think the government of alberta deserves a lot of credit for the steps they're taking. it's making up for lost time. the oil sector is going through an amazing an historic change right now and i think there's real questions about how much of affairs resources they will be difficult into being different parts of the world. i think the key thing that paris

will do is it will help to get countries on the same page about where we are headed. once we understand that and policies flow from that than i think a lot of this is certainty will creep out to everyone. >> i might add i would also great alberta made a strong step forward with her climate plan. i might push back a little on the idea that a climate test would simply be a means of focusing on one province or sector. there are really opportunities in the u.s. and canada that are broad in terms of long-term infrastructure decisions in which the climate test can provide decision-makers with a roadmap for determining whether a project or policies economic a consistent with the two degrees celsius scenario or not. just as a bit of background on how we see that working, right now we looking at long-term planning, we rely on models that assume five to six degrees

celsius warming and those sorts of models for economic, for markets assume much higher robust prices for fossil fuels. moving forward after paris, one of the necessary steps to provide decision-makers with the tools they need to make decisions that are in accordance with their commitments in paris is to begin t tomorrow at what a two degrees celsius environment, market does for global prices, for fossil fuels and clean energy. that may well be, that may create decision-making dynamics where clean energy projects become more economically viable than they would in a six-degree celsius world were as for may become less viable. >> a very important point. century mention the entire scheme of energy projects let's go back to 10,000 feet starting with gitane. what are the main oliver both

you expect from the u.s. came to meetings this week on the topic of energy? >> i think it's great for small their meeting. it's been like 19 years, that's fabulous. the prime minister has had a meeting with all the premiers where they spent the day talking about climate clean energy innovation and how we can move or together as a nation to justify our economy is so integrated to come up with some common goal. for alberta to take the steps we did, alberta is that taxes as candidate ever asked of those types of policies, we would love for a major competitor in the us to take the same steps we've taken to have an economy, to take the steps on the think of those types of things. we are very much lik like everye else anxious awaiting to see what happens andover does great opportunities for us to pursue some real partnerships either at the national level or at the state level. ..

level. >> and you bring in anthony, does a fabulous answer to narrow the debate. president obama is to your (-left-paren what concretely deep as expected these commitments to actually be carried out before the president leaves office. >> i wouldn't underestimate the value of reaching an agreement. that is very important for the next administration. underneath that, there are important steps to be taken. i think that the ticket is an area that is right for collaboration, both canada and the united states are conditions. the arctic is twice as fast as the rest of the planet. there's lot that can be done addressing black urban, collaboration on arctic science would be a tremendous step forward for the two nations. a lot can be done there. i wouldn't underestimate just the value of the two countries working together another international foreign p.m. international aviation

transportation market mechanism to address aviation is important. if they are working together on the north american amendment is very important. i also reserve the right to be surprised because i think what you have here are motivated leaders that want to get things done. when that happens, i'll be watching as everyone will be to be surprised. >> absolutely. oftentimeoftentime s we learned being on the same page can be enough as tuesday. >> i agree with greg on that point. i might refrain that to us but can be done this year. in many ways the administration in the u.s. is moving forward in many areas where it has authority to regulate carbon and methane emissions. to some extent, the administration still has plenty of room to run on climate and further establishes legacy.

>> absolutely. turning to rabin here come you provide what you thought was an amazing case study about the underground challenges of transitioning to clean energy. if you could tell the audience what you encountered airport switching to shore power, for instance, apply these general principles. >> a couple examples. trade is obviously critical to both our economies and moving products. having said that, large energy users. so the framework that we established, which i think is unique being a cross-border nongovernment (-left-paren mark strategy was a collaboration between ourselves and tacoma and the ports there to try to set goals for carbon reduction and quality improvement, recognizing at the end of the day the air flows across the border easily

and we all want to impact in a positive way. this is a collaboration set up in 2007 that declare common goals for carbon reduction and put in place a process of every five years to an inventory of the system in each port and report publicly how we were doing. the big advantage there was a transparency and accountability and also clear common goals. what that led to allow for each port to achieve those goals in its own way and to prioritize different projects. one of the projects both us and seattle have put forward a shore power as you say and for both washington and d.c., we are fortunate we have large quantities of power, plugging into the electorate grade alongside the crew shape, that means they can switch off and draw power from hydropower. the challenges of course that

means investment will change. many bishops to invest, invest them in the sure structure. we need to work with the significant amounts of power and getting all those things to come together as now as easy. so it is essential to really have the common goal and to recognize that while they may compete with each other to get the cruz ships, we don't want to be competing on the environment or the other factors. having a standard environment. commercially, you need long-term predictability for major private sector investment. >> true. you hear that a lot. >> the more we create an environment that gives us the best. one final example. another thing we have done proactively is what we call a retroactive program we have the reduction for the fees when ships come to port for ships that use more than the legal minimum in terms of protection. if he or shore power, burning cleaner fuel, and they get a

reduction. that is helping us meet these clean energy targets. that itself has recognized and endorsed as one of the global practices. >> area interesting. hearing what robin is dealing with comic aside our other panelists more and up about some of the coordination now that they're on the same page about general chronicles? the >> i was a public private coordination is a big part of this. i think one of the pieces here is that the transition to a clean energy economy is going to require getting the policies right to ensure that industry has the right incentives to ask dan to make long-term investments in the project that will both lower carbon emissions and build economic growth. we have seen that play out in

both canada and the u.s. to some extent, but there is no question that there's many more opportunities for that to play out on a much larger scale. >> absolutely. a big aspect of this urgency factor that you just got, i encounter is an energy reporter and cross-border infrastructure and really the full work year. as we learned during the years of the keystone debate electric projects, natural gas project, oil projects are divided between three u.s. agent these. the system is a bit different but that's a great conclusion. folks working on these issues and have trouble keeping a straight themselves. i am interested in anyone's thought on whether that system can or should be changed to make it more simplified. >> we saw the legislative proposal in the last two years to try to integrate decisions into one decision-maker. i personally don't see a lot of benefit to doing that.

typically electricity providers are not competing with oil companies. they really are different sectors. so what i would tend to focus on rather than the purity or procedural reform is to focus on what is the outcome. the outcome that we should want is to lower emissions and that is how we should be tested. >> i would agree with greg on that. not to throw out the hobbyhorse, but to some extent that is why we need to consider away within the infrastructure decision-making processes in a consistent form, both private sponsors and continue to understand exactly the criteria this project is going to be judged on. that is does this project make sense in the context of our commitment and i think that

would provide quite a bit of uncertainty. >> style on this approval processes -- [inaudible] >> from a public policy as per spec is, the industry wants that. the public wants that. inoperative, 25% come from that. it is important to us and to industry and most importantly people need to have confidence. the federal government in canada is making changes. shut a major operator down. i think people felt very assured by that to know that the regulator would act. regardless of how the system is structured, people need to have faith that it's doing the job is about to do. >> absolutely. judging from what greg anthony said cap alberta has some stories on the ashley lately which is one thing i want to ask you about. here you have the taxes of

canada as he so aptly point out to you assert me not there yet. so if you could describe it a little bit more in terms of how you see that sort of setting the bar. >> other's perspective is a price on carbon of some form is key. however, we also realize that we are very blessed. we think it is we can achieve a lot of reduction because our mission is cut. look at other jurisdictions. for them to make that final push will be harder. the way canada works is to make a plan for them. we do believe strongly each

jurisdiction is to take action we are pleased to have a partner in the federal government because he can have the national coordination and then have the binational coordination. it will lead to greater prosperity and environmental outcomes for the entire economy. >> -- the tax revenue is used to offset the raise, so it's sort of a notion for the business that her. there are still some carbon intensive industries which have grappled with that tax. they would add code that it was some form of national or transnational framework that keeps it at a playing field competitively is important. >> erases a great follow-up to japan. as far as i know, we are not quite sure what sort of energy investments will receive the funding tax will generate.

>> the intention is for revenue riot to use fun things -- finding things to more innovative technologies and also helping low income families adjust in those communities heavily dependent on the coal industry to make that two more renewable sources. >> absolutely. you don't see necessarily on the oil industry doing carbon capture or any sort of cleaner projects there. >> to start a huge investment in alberta. there's $1.2 million invested and there's a couple projects up and running. a big project just came online in november. we have a climate change emissions management fun now and alberta, so prior to our economy wide carbon, something called the specified gas emitters program. a large point industrial service paid a fee if their emissions

were over a certain bar. one new approach as opposed to each individual point source having to reduce emissions based on his oracle are now going to a sector wide performance standard. so those industries that are performed better than the average pay a lower amount for longer. so it is a very strong incentive to industry and sufficient as possible and some of the fun will go into finding clean technology initiatives where they need a bit of a boost to take some from the scale to commercialization. >> very interesting. toot check the carbon question over to you and ask what you think this might tend to america? >> we are at a really exciting transition period. not just the united states, not just north america, but the planet as a whole. in british columbia there's a $30 tax. in alberta we learned about the

$25 carbon tax. manitoba, ontario, québec cabal decided to do emissions trading. they linked their system of california. we actually are now legally connected in ways related to climate change. the northeastern states have a cap and trade program. the united states right now, one third of our economy lives under a price of carbon. 25% of the population lives under carbon. in mexico we have a $3.50 per ton price on carbon and obviously it is happening in china, happening in european unions and around the world. we are ready. now where our children will go up in a world with the assistance growing together in some way. >> another political debate is still occasionally relic about the idea that as you rightly point out any of us are living under. the canadian and american political debates have gotten sharp on this.

anthony, how can this week actually help eliminate the portrayal? >> one part is concentrating what is before us with both clean energy strategies and climate, the reality is many of these policies actually build economic growth. we've seen that in the night stays and there's opportunities in alberta to develop the clean energy industry that will create jobs and academic development. moving forward at the 20,000-foot level, we are at a stage where a new conversation will begin. it is really focusing on all the opportunities to train the u.s. and canada is to build a deeper integration as they both move forward to meet their terrorist targets. i think that will be the continual goal moving forward is is this solution package and none of to bend our emissions

curve to meet our 2025 and 2030 targets. i think that is going to be an iterative process for which this week is the point, but perhaps not the endpoint that makes any sense. >> absolutely. which brings up the power of symbolism. both the u.s. and canada for folks like myself in the media have a lot of statically non-about whether the targets can be met. the analysis starts in our newsroom to crunch the numbers. as you guys pointed out earlier, it is incredibly important with pretty similar, almost identical climate agendas right now. how do you suppose the leadership navigate the challenge of the .biz targets a promise made and the question and look at how important it is simply a meeting on these issues and that we agree. >> well, certainly the high-level simply as a meeting

of two of the top 10 emitters playing an important symbolic role. the fact that we are a bind and aspiration is critical. i was day, you know, our targets are ambitious, but we have little doubt that these are amenable. if you look at many of the steps that have already been made, they are likely to bend the curve in ways that madeleine hasn't shown yet. of course, we are seeing a dramatically different energy environment that energy environment that in some ways is doing us favors by reducing emission projections. i think another way of putting it as a consequence of not meeting these targets would be substantial. potentially much more catastrophic than any cost of meeting them. we are finding that the policies

that we need to meet these targets actually build the economy is and will position in both canada and the united states to compete in a world transitioning clean energy. >> if i could add on the canadian side, the prime minister met last week to talk about canada's plan on climate change. if you read the declaration that came out of that, yes there's the aspirational moment in a very clear series of deliverables in between. they are setting up for working groups to a specific minister under a specific timeline and the report will be made public. that is important is you have to have these steps and you have to be transparent. you could change her mind about the way in terms of how you get from a to b., but it is the element of keeping people engaged and the work of the decisions you are making. >> that's a very important point. everyone wants transparency, actually the press.

>> gray, any thoughts on this? >> i think one final point i would make his these two leaders are different points in their careers. i think the prime minister deserves tremendous credit for what he said and what he is doing. he has been in office for six months and i think he had to work very fast and did so successfully for the paris agreement and now we are just a few months past that. so i think that we will see a lot of conversation, a lot of infrastructure capacity building and lots with that happening in canada in the recent years. i think that emphasizes the importancimportanc e of the upcoming election and the united state that he continues to have a partner that will agree with them on the policy goals. >> from industry to. >> i think it comes back to more of the common roadmap can be

created. it gives the space in amongst the other. if we get lost in the differential approaches, we probably don't achieve as big of a cause we can get to. recognizing the differences in a common direction. >> absolutely. we are running low on time. i am very curious. hearing your thoughts about how this might affect the kind of dead. we don't really know what kind of democrat or republican will be here in 11 months. >> certain a canada, but we believe it's your decision to make. we always have and we always will and there's always these that are more pro-canada on the democrat side and on the republican side. we will watch with great interest in the coming weeks and months and take it from there. >> admirably evenhanded. with that, we read of time. i want to thank our panel for

being here. thank you in the ideas. your insight has been great. and now, for a final conversation like to welcome back luiza savage, political director of events. >> thank you, everyone in thank you for staying with us this evening were final conversation. we will be talking about the refugee crisis and the implication for border security. without any delay or bike to welcome to this page are esteemed panelists. alan bersin for international affairs and the chief diplomatic officer for the u.s. department of homeland security. laura dawson is director of the canada institute at the woodrow motion center. and trina levin at the bureau population of refugees at the department of state. commissioner gil kerlikowske at the customs and border protection. thank you for being here.

[applause] so six months ago, the trudeau government was elected on this very ambitious promise of taking men and resettling 25,000 syrian refugees. last month, that mission was announced to be accomplished. previously, canada taken 20,000 refugees per year. this is not only a big increase, but in the context of the u.s. comparison, and that would be like taking in almost 250,000 refugees into the united states. there have been a lot of questions raised about what that really means for this country. i would like to discuss today how does policy being implemented in canada, how that compares to the united states refugee policy, what it means for u.s. border security and what kinds of new border policies are immense we can expect to emerge between the

prime minister and president this week. i would like to kick it off with laura. you have testified to the united states than it explaining the refugee policies. can you tell us in a nutshell how these refugees are being resettled, where they are going and how they are being fêted. >> sure. to start with, the most important thing is this is a very low risk group of refugees coming to canada. this is something like 60% women, 20% children. these are folks who have been in a refugee camp for a long time and there is a rate deal of preventing that goes on to begin with. what tends to happen in the government system. first by the u.n. high commissioner for refugees and they come up with a short list in the private system, a similar shortlist takes place at once they are shortlisted, immigration officials can

involve and there's a lot of vetting communication, and action checking security helps the medical records. all of the canadian checks are checked against american lists, automatic process until allah the eyes are dotted and t.'s are crossed until every check is verified, nobody gets on a plane. it's not like they are bringing you to canada and waiting to see whether they make a secure process. it is all done before they leave wherever they happen to be. >> how are they finding homes? >> well, there is a public and a private program. with the public program, the government system was owned and the private program -- private community groups, church groups are helping to sponsor the refugees. it is about two thirds of the government program, one third of the private program.

i should mention you say it's a big number and you are right. it absolutely is, 25,000. but the communities have gotten really involved. there is taking this initiative very seriously, very personally. if you look at canadian history, and post-world war ii, post-uprising in hungary. there is a canadian tradition has taken in large numbers of refugees, people in need and integrating them in the communities. >> tell us a little bit about the political context. because it is really hard to imagine a scenario here as a political leader making such a big selling point where it is so controversial. my understanding is in canada the controversy has been more about doing it fast enough or well enough. is that correct? >> that seems to be the case. this has really challenged canadians to define the kinds of people they are, the kind of people we are and that canadians

are welcoming and that canadians value diversity and canadians provide a safe to people in need. i think it is the tipping point. i may have been the photo in the media, the tragic photo of the toddler on the beach. canadians saw that in their hearts were broken. they said no more. we are going to assess. we are going to do what we need to do to help syrians anyway we can. >> earlier this evening, senator klobuchar said she thought the united states could do more. can you tell us what the united states is doing, what your strategy is some refugees and also, how does that number gets that with the 10,000 versus 25,000? >> banks. asking about the strategy leads me to want to talk about the overall program and getting into resettlement. our overall focus is supporting

refugees overseas where they are so they can return to their countries once war has led them to flee has ended. so much of our effort goes overt these. the united states is the largest funder of refugee programs overseas in syria and the regional balance of the outbreak of the fighting there, we put $5.1 billion. we support international argument nation such as icrc, ngos by the dozens in supporting refugees both inside the area. that is internally displaced. inside syria and countries around it. they are looking at how we can expand that the port so we have better education programs for all the children there and take

in the refugees to expand employment benefits for refugees. the united states is the largest reseller and the world since our program started in 1980. we brought in 3 million refugees in the united states. we have a consistent and measure program. the last three years we brought in 70,000 a year. that is more than all other countries put together. refugees resettled through the system. this year we plan to bring an 85,000 next year we are looking to go up to 100. i'm back on the series will be 10,000 -- at least 10,000 this year more next year. with the public that our program started and the syrian program started and we are on a good track to bring in a lot of syrians over the next few years. because the program is somewhat measured and carefully laid out,

and we do have a history of starting slowly with new populations. when someone enters our system, it is usually 18 to 24 months before they come out the other side. so if you looked at this year in numbers here, they are not as high as canada's. but if you look over the next few years, you will see our numbers grow and improve. we've been working over the past two years to demonstrate that and show you that i'm not just blowing hot air. we brought in 140,000 iraqis in the last eight years and we've brought in 140,000 out of malaysia and thailand in the last 10 years. we bring in refugees and we will continue to. the last of the number was set out. i'll give a very quick answer. the president had about every century in a message to

congress. >> what happens when these various governors to come out across the country'smain rebel by many syrian refugees in our state. what does that mean for you? does that mean you have to avoid the state and find somewhere else to send them or is that just politics? >> politics in the state are pretty polarized right now. we hear from both sides. what we do hear from local communities has great support and those are people that are important for us in recital in refugees. we obviously have had some pushback from sam's dates and governors. but it is a federal process in britain in recycling them. we do depend on the support of local communities. we don't want to send people into hostile areas, but we haven't run into that. most local communities we work with almost 300 around the country are welcoming. so the short answer is no. >> can we pull back length for a moment because we are talking about 10,000 here come the

25,000 there. there's been more than a million refugees that have arrived in europe. it was just an article this week that the united nations high commission on refugees said that europe could explode into widespread violence on account of this crisis. is there any effort to canada and the u.s. are involved to do something bigger? it is great to resettled 25,000 refugees, but is there a strategy here? >> resettlement has never been the center of a refugee strategy. our strategy has always been to support refugees for they are and that goes the same with responding to the european crisis. our belief is we can make the situation better for refugees in the country's to which they first flat. they are less likely to take dangerous trips to other places. resettlement for us is always something we do for the most vulnerable people out of that population.

what typically focus on people with medical problems, families led by women, rgb tk says who cannot cope with the local communities, things like that. it has not been for us away of resolving the refugee crisis. >> at the obama administration and its platform in the world, are you arguing -- are you telling europe anything about how you think they should be dealing with this crisis? is there some kind of a concerted effort or is it just as ad hoc patchwork we see in europe for some countries are welcoming refugees, others tried to keep them out. but is the approach to this crisis? >> so yes, we are in constant contact with our european colleagues. we let them know how we think they should be working the issue. we do provide a little bit of support in the balkans and we don't see europe as an aid recipient. there was no massive program

underway. we are encouraging you to have a unified policy and to deal with refugees in a good and humanitarian manner. there are also some law-enforcement order controlled areas along with enabled areas we enabled areas where work done with europeans which are particularly in my opinion. >> well, i would like to turn to assistant secretary bersin. there has been obviously a lot of concerns aired here in the u.s. about what potential security threat and refugees can save. .. not on the

ground. it is done in a variety of ways. the flow of refugees into the

united states has been ongoing for 35, 36 years so this is a process that has been in existence. granted after 9/11, and in the context of the i still -- isis threat we are to -- the processes that we break to bear all the resources, the data we have with regard to these terrorist risks and criminal risks. what we have done in the context of the canadian situation is implore the robust information practices between our two countries, strengthened considerably since the border. as laura explained, all the refugees who have been brought into canada being checked

against not only canadian database es but us database eats. we have automated the exchange of biometric data, and a federated search of battle holdings in the security sense and in real time, the spot to canada with regard to derogatory information we have uncovered. having said that, much of the data we hold comes from data gathered by military as your comments suggested in iraq and afghanistan. and other ways in which we share with partner countries around the world. to the extent we do not have that data against which we shut graphic names and place of birth

or biometrics, then in fact you are operating within the unknown and we can get into ways in which we deal with -- >> how do you deal with that? >> as the head of cvp, how do we actually use intelligence assessments to search in a big data way for certain indicators that have been brought to our attention by intelligence, you can reduce the pool of potentially high risk visitors or refugees and take action accordingly. it is not as precise as a list of high risk persons against

which you vet incoming biographic or biometric information. >> commissioner, that was a hand off to you. can you talk about what changes if any you brought to border security policy in light of the 20,000 refugees taken into canada? >> we have had this great working relationship with the government of canada. he initiated a number of outreach efforts. with the new government we believe many of those are come into fruition so our ability to share information with the royal canadian police and other agencies, my counterparts at the security agencies is very very good. when you explain and laura explained how people are being

vetted, it is very thorough. you think about the refugee vetting process in the united states, if you were truly intent on doing harm would you come to the country, not even get into the country, but spent the next two years after submitting your fingerprints and photographs and subjecting yourself to incredible numbers of interviews etc. is that the way you try to enter the country if you want to do harm? it is always taken out of context, not out of context but taken out of perspective of director comey, they always preface their comments, if you are thinking about -- that you could be concerned about more so than a refugee, it would be a home grown terrorist, someone radicalized in this country, not somebody come ing in. >> you said this process on the

us side takes two years, we are talking 25,000 in a matter of months. does that raise any issues on the us side, how are you coping with that in terms of border security? >> laura made partial points in this area, they are not taking young loop blue of a fighting age, could be more concerning, taking families, secondly the population they are drawing from our people who left syria for quite some time. it isn't exactly as if someone crossed the border and is taken quickly into canada. canada, the explanations that have been given to me, is doing a thorough job, and as the assistant secretary said, sharing and exchanging

information with us. >> turning to the meetings coming up this week, a long process of making the process -- for a while it was focused on security post 9/11 and we realize it is also a commerce issue and economic issue and from your department, you worked hard to facilitate trade. what do you see as a potential outcome of these talks that would move forward on border management? >> without wanting to steal the thunder from the prime minister and the president, announcing a number of developments. it has really been, it is fair to say, radical transformation in the way in which canadians and americans -- there used to be a debate about thickening or

thinning the border but after 9/11 it became thick because of the preoccupation with security. what we have worked out is an understanding that the old dichotomy between trade facilitation and security is a false dichotomy. the notion you have to lower your security to speed up trade across the border has given way to a more sophisticated view that recognizes we do risk management, make assessments together of customs and border protection, the cbs a makes judgments about the degree to which there is a risk presented for any passenger or cargo. having done that, you are in a position to expurgate lawful trade and travel. if it is judged low risk, as travelers, you are a low risk

traveler and we expedite your movement across the border back and forth from canada to the united states. that permits our resources, enforcement resources to focus on remaining travelers who are either high risk or higher risk or travelers about which we lack sufficient judgment to judge whether they are high risk or low risk. that perspective as i said, revolutionized the way in which we move ahead. the old thick and thin rhetoric has given way to this notion that we can have both, by making the haystack smaller by moving lawful trade and travel, we facilitate the finding of a needle in a haystack which is higher risk. >> without stealing the thunder, what can we expect? exit/entry agreement out of

these meetings? more data sharing? what are you looking for? >> let me defer to the commissioner. the issues that have been talked about, entry exit, clearance, enhanced information sharing, all of those we should expect will be the subject of announcements during the course of this. >> explain what this would mean. >> entry/exit means the ability to exchange information. we talked about visa overstays which is a significant issue. we don't really have a biometric exit system. for instance fingerprints. people come in on a these a but we don't always know did they leave, did they leave on time?

we need to exchange and do more of that information. there will be greater exchange of information. >> if you are an american leaving the united states, driving into canada canada will turn around, give that information back to the american government to say this person is -- >> it is important for us citizens and foreign nationals that are here. >> it will cover us citizens. canadian coming into the united states will have a record come ing in and out. >> what we have been doing the last couple years is the commissioner suggested third country nationals, more americans have been exchanging information. when you cross the bridge detroit into windsor, we used the canadian entry. it is good evidence of a us exit. we have been doing that at all of our borders for the last

couple years. whether or not that is extended will be announced by leaders in weeks. >> the issue has been around this plan for privacy. talk about the concerns about holding this up. >> there are concerns about privacy but my mom lives on the border. she thought you were tracking this stuff. she had no idea she could fill her back seat with purchases because nobody knew. so this is something most canadians and americans believe is routinely tracked. now that the rubber is hitting the road and we are systematizing and institutionalizing it, a newly elected government wants to review the process to make sure

it is protecting canadian and us privacy rights to be sure it is done correctly. no new government wants to inherit a policy from a previous government and not kick the tires. that is what is going on in canada rather than any significant red flags being raised. >> what are your best predictions for what the leader will announce this week? >> i am big on entry/exit. i think that is doable. that is something the president would like to see. kick the box beyond the border program that he actually launched. the canadians are really motivated towards cooperation. >> i would like to go back to the issue of refugees. one detail about the canadian program is interesting and different from the us program and that is the role of private individuals in sponsoring refugee families.

also your own personal experience. >> approximately one third of the canadian sponsorships are private programs. the private program existed for years. this is church groups, community groups but any group of canadians that want to get together and can come up with money to support a family of four for a whole year can find housing and help with education and everything they need to get settled and established. canadians are no different from americans. they get a little nervous when there are new people in the community and no one knows where they come from. as soon as they go to their first hockey practice, in school with the kids, as soon as they dig out of the first blizzard, that makes them canadian.

this canadian private sector, private group sponsorship is really important way of integrating into the community. i was involved in the united church of canada sponsorship program and floored by the level of commitment volunteers put into not just getting folks to canada, not just senior citizens from ottawa figuring out an interpreter who communicated with someone but also once they were in the country, the health, getting kids to doctors appointments, dental appointments, making sure the kids learned to skate and got the sports activities. all of the things we take for granted as part of daily life these community groups help to encourage. we talk about radicalization. the best way to prevent radicalization is to get kids to schools, families and community,

get people involved in activities, it is embedded in these communities. >> i wonder, is this getting better or worse? when you step back and look at the big picture? >> we resettle our cases, our refugees through public/private partnership. refugees in the us will be settled by one of tween 9 ngos. we are proud of how we work with ngos and other groups of refugees. is it getting better? it is not getting better. 60 million people are either refugees or internally

displaced. that is the problem today. the system has worked for a long time, since world war 2 roma, overwhelmed with not enough money or resettlement help. that is how the world community is focusing on conferences which culminate in a summit president obama is holding on the margin of the un general assembly, focusing on increasing the amount of money, countries that are communicating and the number of resettlement cases worldwide, and the countries they first fled. we will work for a way to focus on these issues to know more about the numbers, no sign what is going down. >> what is come ing out on the issue of refugees that will come up on the conversation? >> i am sure it will. the leaders in the refugee world for years, what you will see is

a commitment to the conferences over this year and working out improvement of the humanitarian system so we can all do more with the help of other nations. >> as a final question i would like to ask the commissioner about the wall. what goes through your mind when you hear the debate about a wall, whether it is with mexico or canada? be change there is a lot of rhetoric as the vice president indicated in a recent meeting with mexico, not who the american people are. the record simon talked about as far as the refugee record, all of us who are native americans are immigrants. everyone is an immigrant in this country. it is part of our history, our culture. it has traditionally been in america, the underside of the

fact we are all immigrants. i wouldn't take that to suggest that the majority of americans think we need a wall that is high and mighty from san diego to brownsphil. gil kerlikowske can attest we have walls in different places to assist insecurity of the border, but the notion of a wall to wall people out is inconsistent with who we are as americans and our history and tradition. i would pass it off as a rhetorical device in an overheated electoral campaign. >> i think it will be a beautiful wall. >> we have 18,000 border patrol agents on the southwest border, more than we ever had.

we have ground testers, unmanned aircraft. we have tethered radar, cameras, apprehensions on the southwest border are lower within the last year than almost any time in the last week in years. there was a time, we are below 400,000. there was a time we apprehended 1.6 million people come ing across that border. from tucson to el paso to san diego, they have crime rates the rest of the united states are envious of as to how safe those border cities are and anyone who has ever visited the border would realize how impossible it would be to build a fence or a wall given the terrain and the incredible cost. >> it would be impossible to build on the northern border or

both? >> i think it has only come up once but we have over 2,000 border patrol agents, we have great cooperation. it is as alan said, part of the heated rhetoric unfortunately going on right now. >> once you get the wall through the great lakes, the rest is easy. >> thank you for a wonderful panel and thank you all for being with us tonight. i want to thank see abc for the program. everyone, thank you for joining us. and those in the room, we have cocktails for you. thank you all who joined on the live stream on c-span2, we look forward to seeing you at our one other wonderful political event. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, i know you are so busy.

[inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate is in recess for their weekly party lunch es. back for work on a genetically modified food labeling bill. yesterday majority leader mitch mcconnell filed a motion to limit debate on the bill, that is expected tomorrow unless a timely agreement is reached. here our earlier debates on the measure. >> from montana. without objection.

>> we are in morning business. is it appropriate for me to be talking at this time? is it our side of the isle? >> senator is recognized. >> thank you, mister president. many of you know in my real life, i am a farmer. i know where my food comes from and how it is made. it is not true for most americans. we are going to be dealing with a bill called the dark act shortly. the dark act does not empower american consumers in the package of food they are about to buy. it doesn't give any information when we are dealing with genetically modified ingredients, i was always told the customer is always right. if you are a good businessman

you listen to your customers. in this particular case, the customer has a right to know. they expect it because tween 9 out of twee 10 consumers want labeling for genetically modified foods. some of the folks in this body are not listening to customers, not listening to their constituents. they are listening to the big corporations that want to keep consumers in the dark. we cannot let that happen in this body. transparency in everything leads to better accountability and gives more power to average americans. it is true when we talk about food. free markets work when consumers have access to information. the united states senate should not be in the business of hiding information from consumers. let's be clear.

what the new dark act sponsored by the senator from kansas does is tells the american people that we in the senate know what is best for you and quite frankly whether you want this information or not, you are not going to get it. how does the dark act do this? it blocks states from enforcing their own laws so we can throw states right out the window. second, it would hide the information behind 800 numbers. if you think this is labeling, giving the consumer a right to know what is in their food, you are wrong. this is a game. for the mom who wants to know what is in her child's cereal or soup or bread, there may be a bunch of different 800 numbers out there. i don't know about you but when it comes to phone numbers, the older i get the harder it is for

me to remember. or stand in a grocery store i'll and scan each product with a smart phone if you have a smart phone. if you have cell phone coverage at that location. frankly in rural america in a lot of places we don't. that is going to be the label. unbelievable. the fact is, if folks are so proud of gmls they should label them. they are saying you could voluntarily do it and voluntary standards are no standards at all. if they were standards, we would see superpacks tell us why you are spending. we don't know that. we don't know that in our elections which puts our democracy at risk and we know

meg know about our food if this dark act passes. there are 64 countries out there that require gm oh labeling, china, russia, saudi arabia. not exactly transparent countries but they are requiring labeling. vermont passed a labeling law that will go into effect in july, connecticut, this past -- numerous states require things like farm raised or wild crop. even regulates firms like fresh and fresh frozen. some proponents of the dark act say folks from california defeated it when it was on the ballot. yes they did. let me give you some figures. in washington, more than $20 million were spent in opposition to the labeling law. about $600 of that came from washington residents according to the washington post.

$7 million was in support of that campaign with at least 1.6 $.6 million of that $7 million from washington residents. in california the opponents of labeling, labeling our food with gmos spent $45 million. month center spent $8 million. supporters of labeling spent $7 million. let's be clear. when people have a choice to vote and get the facts, they want their food labeled. this dark act does exactly the opposite. it is bad legislation, it does not empower consumers. it does not empower the american people. it does what the title of this bill says, keep them in the dark. that is not what the u.s. senate should be about. we need to defeat this bill through the cloture process or later on. this is bad, bad policy.

i yield my time to the senator from oregon. >> my colleague from montana answer a question. i appreciate your presentation. this dark act 2.0, it says to the states that they no longer have the right to respond to consumer's interests in providing a consumer friendly label that alerts them to genetically engineered ingredients. but it does not replace that with a federal consumer friendly. is it right that the federal government takes away this power from states which are, if you will, places of experimentation and creativity and does nothing at the national level, overreach of the federal government to q

>> you came out of the state legislature in montana. quite frankly much of the work was done at the state level, we follow their lead. this bill does the opposite. it prevents states from labeling for genetically modified foods and replaces it with a voluntary act, voluntary labeling system. nobody will have the technology or the time to investigate. so you are right. this tells vermont and maine and connecticut and many other states, tween 9 of 10 consumers one genetically modified foods labeled and replace it with nothing. proponents will walk out and say no, there is going to be a qr code or an 800 number. that simply does not give the consumers the ability to know what is in their food.

i can't tell you what happened this weekend when i was home. my wife ran in the grocery store, grabs what she needed and came out and we zipped home. people don't have the time to look. unless it is sitting right there and they can see it and that is what your bill does. your bill gives the consumer the ability to look at a package and know what is in it and that is what we should be fighting for. we should not be fighting to keep people in the dark, we should be fighting to let people know so they can make good decisions. if you have good information and it is true, you can make good decisions. for parents to buy food for their kids, they should have the information to make good decisions. it is a right to know what is in your food. >> i would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from montana. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. i picture an individual going

up, i will use these papers as examples of food products? i have three bags of rice and i want to look. i can scan the ingredients list of these products to see what they contain. in five seconds. if what is required of me is to pool out my phone, dial and 800 number, work my way through a phone tree, talk to someone who may or may not know what i am calling about, maybe i am getting a busy signal or a message which says our phone lines are very busy but we will get to you in 25 minutes estimated, how long will i have to stand versus the five seconds it takes if there is a symbol or indication on the ingredients panel, how long will it take me

standing in this aisle of the grocery store to find out if these products have genetically engineered ingredients? >> you said it. for the people who just explained the process you go through, that is not a label, that was not transparency. needless to say i think these are a pain in the neck. if i wasn't in this body i don't think i would have one. there are a lot of people who feel that way. i have to spend money and get a plan to determine what is in my food? not everybody has the resources to have one of these. due to folks who are poor? they deserve to have food they want to eat, they deserve to know what is in it but they know they have that capacity. what about folks in eastern washington or all of montana? there is often not that service.

it does not make sense. you are replacing, trying to replace what vermont is doing with nothing and that is not fair. it is not fair to consumers. the consumer is always right. they are. a fact of business. we ought to be listening to folks. that is why we have single digit approval ratings in this body. we need to listen and we are not listening in government. >> are you saying the whole idea presented in dark act 2.0 about putting a phone number on the package so someone can call companies is a sham? >> bogus. it is worse than nothing. at least if you have nothing you know what you have. >> a second option is before this body which is a quick response code, now you have a smart phone that could take a picture of the quick response code, take you to a website to get information written by the

very company that controls the product you are looking at, not some third-party. i picture that is taking just as much time and complexity and impossibility for the ordinary person as the 800 number. this requires you actually have a data plan to be able to get to a website, a smart phone, ordinary cell phone, and it reveals information about your self when you go to the website. you are giving up your privacy. is the code option being discussed a sham? >> absolutely. it is as bogus as the 800 number. you have to have the phone, the service, that often isn't the case. quite frankly what we need is what your bill does, tell folks

what is in the package, take three letters that says what it is, very simple, that people can understand, they don't have to jump through all these hoops. proponents of the dark act says it costs a lot of money. budweiser makes a beer labeled for every nfl football team in the country. christmas time they put santa claus on and the standard stuff. it is all the same price. companies change their labels all the time. the fact that we are replacing common sense, your bill, which is what we should be taking up and passing it because it makes sense, gives consumers the right to know what is in their food, with something that may have a number or code is crazy. it is crazy. in the arguments that folks are using for keeping people in the

dark, simply are not factual. >> in the dark act 2.0 that has been put in the floor there is a third option, beyond the 800 number or a code, the third option, door number 3, a company can put something on social media, which means i assume insta graham, facebook, if i am a customer in the store and these products, i want to find out if they have genetically engineered ingredients and there is no 800-number or qr code, how am i to know that? >> you don't. by the way, there are three doors here. it is like let's make a deal. number 1, 2 and 3 for the

american consumer. this makes no sense to me whatsoever. it is confusing, it keeps the consumers in the dark. we are going to try to promote something like that in the united states senate? it doesn't make any sense to me. >> the majority leader put this bill on the floor. it is not done through a committee hearing because this is a new creation we have seen for the first time last night. furthermore it has been put on the floor the night before one of the most important primary days of the presidential election. strategically scheduled if you will so that the news networks

are busy with florida and ohio and illinois and two other states, pay attention to this egregious proposal to take away states rights and consumers rights, we had a pledge, the majority leader coming in here, due process, things would be considered in committee, things would be fairly considered on the floor with an open amendment process. has this dark act 2.0 gone through committee process? is it getting a full opportunity to be heard on the floor? motion to close debate was filed within seconds of it being put on the floor last night. is this a true opportunity for the american people to wrestle with a major policy decision taking away states rights and consumers rights? >> know, in a word, no. of all the choices we have out there that we do every day, food

is one of the most important choices we make. it is what we put in our body, gives us power, gives us intellect, gives us the ability to do our daily jobs, work, be successful, support our family. quite frankly, this bill, the timing of it is curious, this bill does none of those things to help move families, people and society forward. it just keeps you in the dark. which is disturbing. like i said in my opening statement, in the united states senate, should be above this. we should be empowering people, not taking away their right to know. >> it isn't like the right to know some detail about how your car was manufactured. it is about food you put into

your mouth. the food you feed your family. what your children consume. i was very surprised to read this from a scientific study that two thirds of the rainfall samples in mississippi in 2007 and 2008 compared glycogen -- >> debate from earlier today on the food labeling bill, they will resume debate on the measure, live coverage on c-span2. report. the clerk: house message to accompany s. 764, an act to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college program act, and for other purposes.