from california, mr. waxman for five minute. >> thank you very much bleaker still mr. chairman. when we first held a hearing on the subject a year ago there were press reports that coke industries would be one of the big winners of this pipeline was constructed and we asked coke industries whether this was true. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no. we were told there was no interest whatsoever in the pipeline. they told the canadian government they have a direct and substantial interest. something doesn't add up and i have before me a document. this is the application for intervenors status in canada. ..

>> mr. chairman, i'd like this document to be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> this document raises the issue that, the statement that coke industries was not involved is inaccurate because they are involved and they claim to be intended because they are installed, and that's what i think we need to get more information. now, the keystone xl tar sands pipeline poses substantial risks for americans. this would pump tar sands almost

2000 miles across the middle of america from canada to the gulf of mexico, even if the pipeline is rerouted around nebraska, sand hills, it will almost certainly still go through the ogallola aquifer endangering water supply for 2 million americans, their farms and businesses. the state department's analysis indicates a shifting of the tar sands oil from crude oil would increase carbon pollution, and the increase could be substantial. these are risks. they are real and they are serious. the benefits for oil companies are also real. they will finally be able to export tar sands to asia, port arthur is even a tax free trade zone. but the benefits for americans are a lot less clear. dr. jones, how many jobs with the pipeline generate according to the state department analysis? >> economic analysis and economic consideration is part

of the review we had been doing that was cut short with a deadline we faced, but the final in our middle impact statement we approximated based on the number of work crews that would be used to build a pipeline, the 5000, 6000 construction jobs would be needed per year. >> for how many are? >> for two years. >> the oil industry has been saying this would create 20,000 or even 100,000 jobs. they haven't provided any information to us supporting those claims or challenging your estimate. had the submitted information to you challenging year as a? >> we have seen many different estimates, the number of jobs that would be created with this pipeline. the job creation issue is a very complicated issue because -- >> has the oil company challenged your data and your claims because well, we've had a lot of challenges come from a lot of different directions, but we have, that is the number

we've gotten through -- >> let me get back to my -- as soon as my time is up that gavel is going to smash. the "washington post" claimed that this project will great tens of thousands of jobs. this was called the pinocchio challenge when this statement was made. i think the economy is recovering, you need millions of new jobs to reduce on the planet coming to the economy moving again. the president proposed an american jobs bill. instead, doing that legislation but considering legislation to ram through one pipeline. i think that's a pitiful excuse for a jobs policy. i want to ask you about the review, dr. jones, some of the transcanada for permit and the state department is still the relevant agency, you will need to assess the application in light of a new route. will you commit to examine questions about other questions

about addressing u.s. carbon emissions and climate change when you look at this question? >> congressman, should a new application be submitted, it will be reviewed without prejudice and we look at all the different aspects of the project. and as you mentioned, certainly greenhouse gases as well as economic considerations and other broader environment of issues, foreign policy, everything would be considered. and we would just do that in all fairness and transparency as we try to do with this process, and it would be a new application. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman for your generosity on the time pick at this art like to recommend the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes. >> i wonder i would like to yield one minute of my time to my friend from kansas, mr. pompeo. >> thank you, thank you. i sat here for a year and watch folks on the left of says that what are my constituents, coke industries. but then we reached a place

where they've asked a private company to come talk about whether they happen to benefit from a particular permit application. this makes no sense to me. we are supposed to good policy. we're not supposed to decide whether a particular company benefits or not. we can't understand whether coke industries benefits are not would be relevant to our decision. we should decide this is it in the american national interest. i would not for a moment suggest we should bring warren buffett into testified about whether his company and israel interest would benefit from this permit application. i have read he would be greatly benefit if we do not get that permit approved. i cannot believe that anyone on this committee would have their decision on whether or not to vote for this piece of legislation on whether coke industries or any other private company benefited or was harmed by this. this is not what we're supposed to be doing to the constitution tells us we're supposed to do good public policy, and we should not be making decisions

based on what whether want to be or or another benefits. i yield back. >> mr. sullivan didn't want you to go over one minute. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here today. it's taken you three years, no decision from my constituents are wondering about the another government is kind of slow, but when do you think you could make a decision? do you think 10 years from now? do we need to reapply? when do you think you could make a decision? >> congressman, women made a decision in november that we needed additional information, we put an estimate after that it would take probably the first quarter of 2013, but this time we recommend the denial because we didn't have the time to do that. >> these other departments, we heard from mr. barton about that. why are they so nimble and you are so slow? >> congressman, i didn't have a chance to respond to congressman

barton's comments, but we did not finish the national interest determination of consultations with other agencies, so i was not clear as to what kind of approval that was referring to because we didn't finish the process. >> ms. jones come on january 11, secretaries to hillary clinton made remarks calling iran's strait of hormuz's threats provocative and inspection also called the straight the lifeline that moves oil and gas around the world. according to the department energy about 15.5 million pairs of oil a day or a six of the global consumption passed through the strait of hormuz between iran and oman at the mouth of the persian gulf. the fact is that crude oil futures have risen 7.4% since december 16 on increasing concern that iran, opec's second largest producer, would close the passage in the face of pressure from the u.s., and european governments have been its suspected nuclear weapons program. in light of these national and energy security threats from iran, why has it taken three years for the state department

to review the keystone xl pipeline? and, do you agree that it is in our national interest for the united states to be more energy independent from regimes such as iran that want to harm our way of life and impose security energy threats? would you agree that much fluctuate oil prices to ensure our economic and national security is threatened by reliance on unstable source, sources of oil? and, ms. jones come as you noted earlier, secretaries sit hillary clinton is concerned about iran's provocative actions in the strait of hormuz, does the state department share the same concerns with our good friends and neighbors, canada, yes or no? >> on the canada thing. >> yes, we share 10 minute with canada to work towards, to work towards energy security, one of airs as part of our very strong bilateral relationship. and as you point out the whole issue of energy independence, energy security is a very important national priority, and

it was and is one of the considerations when pipelines are being reviewed. we did not have the opportunity to compete that review. we did not have a complete rout for the pipeline. that's the reason why we took the action, made the recommendation that we did last week. only partially defined this pipeline at this point. >> tease out xl pipeline is a game changer for any cash the energies he. the pipeline when fully completed can transfer a 1.3 million barrels of oil a day from alberta and north dakota to reside in the northwest and gulf coast but i believe it is in our national interest to move forward with this pipeline, and the state department's three-year delay in considering this pipeline is a national travesty. and i wish it would've happened a lot sooner. thank you, and i go back. this time on time on record as the gentlemen from texas, mr. gonzales, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. good morning to the witnesses. first, in full disclosure, i

support the building of the pipeline. and i also believe that given the proper timelines to look at all factors that eventually this application will be approved with recommendations. it is a matter of time and i will agree that time is of the essence and that we need to move forth with. however, not to rush it. we can still do this properly, and address all the concerns that have been mentioned by the two witnesses. i believe that it will lead to energy security. it is my understanding if we do this, if we do this, the total production out of canada and the united states will exceed the production of saudi arabia. that to me is energy security. i also believe it will result in more jobs in america, just nearly on the construction sector i also believe that it will lead to more jobs as a result of the united states

being an exporter of fuel. now, the only problem i have is the representation that is consistently made by members of this committee, and on the floor, that this is going to the benefit of the american consumer in lower gasoline prices. that is not going to happen. and the sooner they acknowledge it is a world market, and a leading export, the leading export for the united states, last year, according to a story that appeared in associated press on the last day of last year was fuel. fuel. and there's tremendous implications for the united states as a result of that, but as a result of world market forces and selling it to the highest bidder means that the american public is not going to be paying less for fuel.

and we need to continue to emphasize alternative means and fuels and hybrids and more inefficiency in conservation. the only real reservation i have is that replacing all our eggs in one basket, and it may be the keystone pipeline, and it is a distraction from pursuing more responsible energy policies that truly will lead to energy independence in this country, but in a way that is safe, it's cleaner, more efficient and cheaper to the american people. but this is part of it. i do believe that it is part of it. now, dr. jones, there has not been made any final determination on the applicati application. and is a clear from your testimony that the reason it has not been approved is that you have not been given sufficient time? >> yes, sir. that's the reason.

>> mr. wright, let me ask you. now, you, to your job, i asked my staff to look into your background. i think you've been with for since the inception of the department that you work with. >> 1979 i began at for them and it today is based, since 1979, your testimony today that what we're attempting to do, or the proposition to basically circumvent or introduce a new process at this point in time would not be workable in its present form, is that correct? >> well, my tesla is based upon my experience with the signing of natural gas pipelines under the natural gas act are given the strictures of the natural gas academic space with gas pipelines trying to extrapolate two oil pipelines, it does appear to be enough time as i mentioned for procedures to be followed with public notice, public comment, time allowed to do another appropriate study

under the national environmental policy act. this is not the first time congress is unhappy with basically one department and one agent to come and we try to transfer it to another. the other agency or department is telling us it's still not going to work with the wording of the process we are proposing. some hoping we are listening to help we can all be on one page, understanding if we do this properly and correctly it will be beneficial to the people of the united states in every respect. let's give it a time it is necessary. and with that i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> at this time a recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so many questions, so little time. things for you all coming. -- thanks for your coming. >> last night the president used a great phrase that was really coined by republicans a couple years ago, which is we need and all the above energy strategy. in fact, i was sitting with my friend on the other side of the aisle and i look at him and he goes, yeah, he should have

credited you for that phrase. all the above means all the above, nuclear, solar, wind, natural gas, crude oil, energy security. so we applaud him for that statement, based upon the definition. we had members, i want to continue, frame this debate. this is not a partisan debate by members of the house of representatives. in the first keystone bill pass, 47 democrats joined us in that piece of legislation but i think the vote was 279-147. this is not also a debate against business versus labor. because we had right at the same table you're at a strong group of friends from organized labor from the laborers to the operating engineers, all supporting us. why? they supported for job creation.

last night in the speakers a box we had the owner and manufacturer of pipe, has already build 600 miles of pipe from arkansas, which is not part of your job calculations of job creation. if you're just considering the people who are putting the pipe in the ground. you failed to mention the people who built the pipe. and the coke and the call that goes into steelmaking. nor do you consider the people who created the electric generators for the pumping stations. so that's where it's easy to say 20,000 jobs. because you know, we have built pipelines, you know how many people it takes for a mile of pipe. so just multiply that by 1700. 160660 i think it's the mileage. so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the job

creation statistics, and that's why organized labor, who is usually not real for me to the republican side, joined us, joined 47 mins of the democrat side, and was very, very supportive of this piece of legislation. so just on the record, another issue in the speakers box, i had to refinery managers from come close to my current district and that will be in my new congressional district, ray brooks from the marathon oil refinery in illinois. hundreds of jobs. and they are already using oilsands right now from the keystone pipeline. so we have done research on moving oil, crude, oil sands crude through pipelines. will already doing it. also in attendance was mr. j.

churchill, the manager of the conoco phillips company in wood river. the conoco phillips refinery for the past three years had a $2 billion expansion to be able to refine and craft this new crude oil. thousands of mayors of organized labor were on the ground in the worst economic times. that's why i'm proud to continue to talk about the brown economy. talk about energy security growing our country, and what my friend, mr. gonzález said, is absolutely correct. the brown economy creates more, better, high-paying jobs with great benefits and it does get the credit that it deserves. so for ms. jones, just, because i guess i should ask a question. did you know that, "wall street journal" january 4, that the

company so 40% of the oilsands interest what do you know to which country? >> no, sir i do not. >> china. do you know why? >> no. >> because they will not a controlling interest of the oil field so they can do what? develop it. in political speak, what is profound disappointment mean in state department, international relations speak? what does profoundly disappointing? >> it usually means exactly what it says. >> they are ticked off, i hear. in state department language they are -- i think the chinese are profoundly pleased. the canadians, our allies, are profoundly disappointed. i yield back my time in it i would like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm glad to know my colleague from illinois is not going to represent to refiners.

i still have three more up on you, so -- >> i'm going to work for more. i'm going to work for more. >> i'm also glad you are also offer the above. i know you tradition come from a cold very. mr. chairman, i realize this hearing is primary focus on h.r. 3540, the north american energy axis act. of a strong supporter of the keystone pipeline and had been from the beginning. we need is products and i hate to think that by stopping keystone pipeline from being built we are preventing the future production of the canadian oil sands. and mitigated author quality concerns associated with its production. in violent safety concerns need to be dealt with but without this product we will continue to feed money into countries that hate us for everything we stand for. having said that, i don't think we should be rewriting a long-standing process or one pipeline, which is why i do not support this bill and particularly the approach to last week's decision. but i do have some questions about the process, and use my

time to address it. ms. jones, the executive branch exercise over the pipelines, et cetera, for petroleum literally since the executive order in 1968, is that correct? with executive order from president bush, 13-3 37, admitted that authority associated that did not substantially alter the exercise of that authority with the delegation to the secretary of state, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> ms. jones, how many permits have been issued under this order since 1968 for pipelines crossing international boundaries? >> i know of three. >> i'm sorry? >> i know of three at this point. i'm not sure if that's accurate. >> okay. i guess because i have a district in texas and most of our pipelines would come from mexico instead of candidate, but it seems like to be a number of them that cross international

borders from mexico into the essays and, of course, canada. what is the average time these permits have taken? and it's my as other pipelines similar nature have been granted permits between 18 and 24 months. >> that's right. it's been about two years or so. >> okay. i know the state department issued a favorable environmental impact statement in august on the pipeline. and then he held several public hearings as far as the interagency review. i appreciate the state department a couple years ago granted my request or a hearing in eastern harris county, east of houston. actually it was in congressman post district that is right across the street from i believe that our constituents talk about it. you held at those hearings, and when you announced in november that you are delaying decision, you pointed to concerns raised by nebraska and about the pipeline going through sand hills. my question is on the language including in the payroll tax extension that allows for

transcanada, -- i understand the president's frustration at having to decide in a 60 day time frame, but given the favorable eis, 57 special safety conditions agreed upon by the operator and language allowing for the nebraska issue to be dealt with, why would you not able to make a decision in 60 days? because the average time was 18-24 months for previous pipelines. and this is been well over three years now. why wasn't 60 days enough time? >> congressman, but we did not have the information we needed, particularly related to alternative routes in nebraska. and since we did not have that come we didn't have all of the other related information that would go along with that route and that's a significant portion of the pipeline. so it was an arbitrary timeline, and we knew it would take more time for us to do the announcers in granted it was arbitrary but again previous permits have

taken 18-24 months. this isn't a longer pipeline that is under the original keystone pipeline because in indiana was much shorter. but it just seems like three and a half years is plenty of time, and to give so a 60 days and say okay, you done all these environmental studies, you need to make a decision, even though the pipeline i have to admit, my colleague from nebraska, mr. kerry, they have a different opinion, but there are pipelines crossing sand hills right now, could eis find that out? >> no, sir. we didn't see any oil pipelines crossing the -- there are six pipe was cut and i'm not sure whether natural gas are what product they have, but they are already six pipelines and understand this pipeline route would be in the easement that's already being used on other products. and so that's the frustration. mr. chairman, i know i'm almost out of time, in fact i am at a

better advocate will have a second round or not but i would be glad to see that the follow-up questions. i doubt that we are because we will be voting on the floor and they think is going to be a ceremony. >> i'd like to, like we always do, if we can submit questions because i didn't even get to ferc, but to the state department. >> sure. the chair recognizes mr. walden for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome our witnesses today. this is interesting but i've been reading through the -- i know you're all quite fun with it. on november 12, 1973, the united states house of representatives under democratic control to consumers sort of action in approving the trans-atlantic pipeline. on a vote of 361--- 18 that pipeline that the standards. senate to get up and approved it on a 40-49 -- 49-for anti, and then vice president spiro agnew cast the deciding vote. that pipeline continue. i was 800 miles of pipeline.

it brought oil out of the bay and is about that carried them had the arab oil embargo. president nixon at the time said we've got to do something about using america's energy reserves, and the pipeline came along. and was deemed approved by congress. so this is not an unheard of act to grant sufficiency. made in the state department, you've not been involved in one of these. i get that. as someone who represents a district that has 55% of federal land and have watched things over the years, i believe in the clinton administration there were circumstances involving forestry where i believe it was deemed to have been sufficiently achieved in a clean up down in texas after a wind storm. and i think even in north dakota, ma maybe south dakota after a fire. it's not unheard of. and the congress has done it before. i want to get onto the issues of jobs. in your final, it says that

there's $7 billion to construct a proposed project. we do have any disagreement on that number, do we? all right, 7 billion. and then you talked about the number of jobs, and in the reported talks about hiring of 5000, 6000 workers over the three year construction period. the related income benefits would be substantial. these are the words of the fbi yes, and would generate proposed project would generate $349.4 million total wages. that's in the feis. at the maximum construction workforce were 6000 people a total 419.289 in wages would be generated. you also talked about the effect beyond that. these numbers are only related just to the actual construction of the pipeline, correct?

>> yes, sir. >> and i was trying to find table 2.3 to get into the more localized because the five to 6000 jobs are not the only jobs related to approve of this construction of the pipeline, audie? >> that's right i didn't get a chance to speak to the indirect jobs. >> i'm going to give you that chance right now because i believe, i have a company, not high, there's a company in oregon that is building the pumps for the xl pipeline. could you talk to us, where would i find, not where, but tell me what the feis says relative to the total number of jobs, both construction direct, and all the indirect jobs associated where the president to approve this? what is your best estimate? >> we were in the process of analyzing the indirect jobs, and there are multiple models that people use. we did not complete that because of the timeline we were handed.

and we had speed is it's not in the feis, the final impact status because we don't have the indirect. we were looking at that through the national interest determination and engaging with other agencies. we have some rough estimates that are similar to what the applicant is thing in terms of -- >> and what would those be? >> i think it was approximate 35,000 per year. >> for how many years of? >> well, that's another point of discussion. one time i was extraordinarily long, and there's been a lot of confusion about using years versus particular jobs. but we did have -- >> housing in the executive summary of the feis does it say operations post project would also result in long-term to permanent beneficial socioeconomic impacts including employment, income, benefits resulting from long-term higher,

increase property tax revenues, and is there 140-point vibrant and property taxpayers will be generated. >> some of that is in the feis but there's only one piece of the announce and we did not finish the rest of it. we recognize that the economic impact is a very important consideration but we did not finish that because we do not have the complete route for this pipeline. pic my time has expired. >> at this time i'd like to does the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i just think the discussion over this keystone pipeline, the back and forth has been unfortunate, and it sort of mayors the discussions we have on energy policy in general. people talk about the need for us and all of the above strategy. but you here that says a lot. in reality and in practice this seems to always be an either or strategy on this committee when web energy debate.

for coal or if you're for oil, then you can't be for solar and wind, and vice versa. the reality is, we do need to do all of this is where going to have energy security in the country. and we need to pay particularly attention to the nascent technologies and clean energy that are slowly but surely over time going to start to replace fossil fuels because as we all know fossil fuels are not infinite supply. a supply that's going to go down and something is to take its place. it's not going to take its place tomorrow. it's not going to take its place in five to 10 years from the. but if we don't start making investment in clean energy now, we are going to be in trouble down the road. so we need to do that also. but having said that, it is in the interest, develop domestic supplies in this country and also to continue the relationship that we have with canada. this pipeline is a small piece

of that puzzle. and let's not delude ourselves as ms. gonzález said, that this is a silver bullet for anything. this is not going to lower peoples gas prices, and this pipeline will not, no longer having to buy oil from opec nations. that's just not accurate and we shouldn't make people think that that is the case. you know, there's going to be 800,000 tons of steel, height, and this project. i wish i could sit here and say that that steel is coming from the enemy of america. unfortunately, transcanada's contract with an indian multinational company, well spun corp. limited, and a russian company, to manufacture the steel pipe for the keystone xl pipeline. as someone coming from pittsburgh where we still make steel, and head course at u.s. steel, i would feel a lot better about this project, too, if just one little drop of u.s. steel was being made in this pipeline. it's unfortunate that it isn't. having said all of that, i think

that probably what it did in this application more than anything was the politics that has been played when we passed the payroll tax at to put this 60 because of put his gun to the president's head and said you have to make this decision in 60 days, and it is just pure election year politicking that has been going on on this issue. i agree with mr. gonzalez that eventually, after the environmental reviews are done with this and we make sure that we have a route that environmentally safe, and all these things are checked, that this project should move forward. but not until we do that. and i don't think we are there yet. this legislation in front of us, from a good friend of mine, lee terry, whom i have tremendous affection and respect for once again imposes this artificial deadline of 30 days and takes this out of the hands of the state department to an agency that does gas pipelines but not oil pipelines but i think it's a misguided effort. so with the time i have left i

do want to ask a couple questions. secretary jones, i know we had planned earlier to have the nebraska eeg with us today, but for whatever reason, mr. lynn is not a pairing today. but i know his testament and he lays out a timeline for his state and he intended to fall to establish this new move to nebraska and complete any necessary environmental reviews and allow for public comment. mr. linder said in a statement if this were done on an aggressive schedule a new route could be approved by october of 2012, at the earliest. ms. jones, does the state department deeply that the 60 day timeline laid out in the payroll tax bill has allowed for a complete recommendation from the state of nebraska on the new route for the pipeline? >> no, sir. we do we do need the time that mr. linder had put out in his estimate. we have talked to both the

department of environmental quality as well as to the applicant. and as with the time that came in from all of us were within the same branch. >> thank you. has the state department ever recommend a pipeline the international interest without having the entire proposed route before the? have you ever done that before? >> no, sir. >> was there any indication that the state of nebraska will be able to complete a modified route proposal by february 21, 2011, which was the deadline imposed in the payroll tax act? >> no. no, sir. and that is why we felt we could not go forward. >> thank you. did this lack of a complete route proposal, i see my time is expired, thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. dold, i'm trying to get to everybody before have to go to vote because we're not going to be the comeback. thank you. mr. terry is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i have great affection and respect for my friend from pittsburgh. just to add some clarification, i think it's about 60-65% of the steel in this pipeline is u.s.

steel. in fact, that toshiba is mentioned that the the reason why mr. linder is near is because our state department, dr. jones objected to him being on the panel because it was beneath them to have a state official. so that's why he is not here. and that -- >> to my friend yield for just one second? >> i have a lot of questions. there's an e-mail chain verifying. >> i will talk to you afterward. >> i may have put a little editorial to it. but let me just a that i am profoundly disappointed that the state department objected to mr. linder being on the panel. and, therefore, he is not. now, for the record, i would like to introduce a media note from the state department, april 15, saying in conclusion, the is department, state

department expects to make a decision whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of 2011. another one making the same statement of march 15, 2011. executive office of management of budget from the white house saying the same thing, that they're working, the state department, at all will have all of the information they need and will be able to make their decision by december 31, 2011. i would like to submit those for the record. then the point here is that we are using the state of nebraska as the excuse to delay the decision until after the election. i don't think it's any coincidence that the state department, the entities feel like they would be in a position

to make a decision within about 60 days after the election. i think the point, or they sit in the first quarter of 2013. it's certainly flies in the face of all of their previous statements. and i read from a quote from environment news service, i don't have a date hand on it, but it is after the nebraska legislature met. kerri-ann jones and assistant secretary of the state said, quote, i am confident that the department and nebraska authorities would be able to efficiently work together in preparing any documents necessary to examine the alternative routes the state of nebraska that satisfies the federal laws in any state law of nebraska. so they were all set and ready to go with the state of nebraska.

now, if mr. linder would have been allowed to participate in this hearing today, but for the objections of the state department, he would have said on december 1, 2011, we contacted the state department to begin to explore the process of entering into an m.o.u. between two agencies which would outline responsibilities and to find a schedule. we received the first draft of the agreement from the state department within the next two weeks in exchange comments to which what we consider to be an executable document which we submitted to the state department december 2011. no further progress had been made on that front but i think it's odd, or interesting, that the state department in the middle of december 2011 decided that they were not going to work on this project anymore, and then come in here and say they don't have enough time. in the legal field there is a

doctrine of clean hands but you can't be the one delaying it and didn't object to the delay. they i also submit for the record the actual language of the bill that was signed into law that created the nebraska exemption. let me wait for just a second on that one, because as i understand from reading your report to congress, you were objecting because not later than 60 days after the enactment of this act, the president, activity sector is the, shall grant a permit under executive order 1337 for the keys of xl pipeline to give said many times in your testimony in answers today i'm dr. jones, that it is that 60-day requirement, the absurdity that damn. darn. [laughter] but yet there is a nebraska exemption in here that specifically said that's carved out in the 60 days for nebraska

doesn't run intel all of the reports are done and certified by the governor. darn. i killed. >> sorry, we are going to have some those. dr. burgess, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. jones, let me, according to some information that i have, october 15, 2010, secretary of state clinton said she would decline to keystones permit. on october 31, 2011, white house press secretary, over a year later, white house press secretary jake carney stated the fact is this is a decision that would be made by the state department, house within the state department the very next day present obama said the decision would rest with them. in the state, the presence

announcements last week to reject the pied piper he said he accepted the state department recommendation to do so. so everything seems to be pointing to you guys at the state department. so can you tell the committee who it was that made it was the one who made the call, made the decision to reject keystone xl? >> congress can come based on the back, the payroll tax cut act, which had specific language into the regarding what you come with the president needed to do it in a time, we, the state department the state department, recommended to the president -- >> who is we? >> we is the deputy secretary through the secretary, to the president. >> and that person, the name of that person is? >> to bernd. >> bill burns was the one who made the decision. in the know, he recommended to the president that this decision be taken and the president decided.

>> did the white house exert any influence over the state department's recommendations? >> no, sir. >> mr. chairman, it seems to me there's an individual there that is missing then from this hearing today that perhaps we should ask if we should be able to submit some questions to the individual. you know, we all know state department ever taken us what's going on in the street or moves. -- the strait of hormuz. i was in iraq in august, and although our military presence now there has wound down, they're still a big state department footprint in iraq, isn't there? inbox or where i was, there isn't that what of the largest state department operations, and the reason, my understanding the reason is because that's where iraq kind of narrows down going to the gulf, and all of the oil flowing from southern part of the country will go through basra for pipelines to go through the.

so the state department helping you to large presence there. i don't get it. why do we have to have, i mean, the jobs are there. but i would rather have the pipeline through taxes where yet, we could be hard to do is sometimes what we're doing a party do with what people in the middle east. so just food for thought, let's build this pipeline where, why make it hard on ourselves? why make it hard on the country? we need american jobs, american energy. this seems so straightforward. mr. chairman, i would like to yield some time to mr. pompeo because, or you could? mr. terry, did you get to finish everything you need to do is? >> generally. >> generally. [laughter] >> i will back to you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from washington state, mr. hensley, for five minutes. >> thank you. my understanding is there's a potential that some of the

product that would flow through this proposed pipeline could be exported. it could be used and consumed by other countries rather than consumers of the united states. in this, under this bill, with the united states government be able to assess the impact of that export on consumer prices in the united states at all? >> congressman, i assume you mean the bill that is proposed your? >> yes. >> i can't answer that question as to that bill would approach it. that consideration was one of the considerations in the national interest determination that we were in the process of doing when we're given his timeline. and didn't have a route to really analyze to make, have an informed decision in xo i guess the question is, if we, right now my understand is this product is being used by american consumers into gas tanks in their cars. if it goes to the gulf and then it is exported, other people

around the world will be bidding on it and we will be bidding against them for the gasoline when we consume it domestically. in other words, there'll be another person who will be bidding on the product in the export market. i think that has the potential to affect the price we pay at the pump, because now we are competing for the same product with someone else who might be bidding more which then drives of our prices, potentially. now, i don't know the answer to that question but i just wonder, under this bill, with the u.s. government says that as part of this decision-making process? >> i would say as part of analysis part of the overall national interest analysis, economic impact it would probably be something that would be assessed. >> thank you. >> does the gentleman yield pakistan's? >> yes.

>> i tell you what. we have a vote on the floor. we will not be able to come back. where a lot of people still wanting to ask questions, some going to get everybody three minutes in the effort to try to get everybody. so mr. bilbray come you're recognized the tremendous. >> thank you very much. what is your experience with these cross-border issues? >> i've been at the state department since august 2009. >> okay. some of us that have more than a passing interest in cross-border come and my mental problems. let me just say, this is a 1700-mile pipeline. we have 2,000,300 miles of pipeline in this country. how much jurisdiction does the state department have over that 2 million plus pipe? >> the state department is involved only information across international boundaries. >> okay then, any environment the impact obviously looks at the impact of the no project

option. what is the emissions that would be created -- first of all let me back it. what's the ability for canada to bring trucks a cross-border? >> i don't think i can answer that question. it's pretty unrestricted. okay, so the no project operations on pipeline is trained or truck across the area. what is the total emissions annually if we went to that option rather than using the pipe i? >> i couldn't to i couldn't to be that number but i do know that in the final environmental impact statement there was some analysis done that if the pipeline wasn't built, it was likely that other modes of transportation would pick up and continue to move crude. >> and wouldn't consider the fact that not only would those both train and truck them be putting out emissions but those are diesel emissions which have been categorized as a toxic

emissions above and beyond what dioxin lexi also point out that trains are three times more dangerous with fatalities many pipeline, at that trucks are i think the leaders, almost 87 times more dangerous than a pipeline? so my question is this. did you consider the fact that the no project option or denial or delay, but then i would end up having more emissions total that we reflect the use of truck entering? >> the denial that was taken last week was based on the fact that we didn't have the time to do all of the analysis. let me just say, i am very happy to see you approve, the president approved a cross-border agreement with a private company to be able to operate airports across the border. the fact is just because the gentleman who is financing it is a billionaire from chicago, i'm not going to attack that agreement. but i would ask when you get

this agreement, the consider the increased emissions and the global impact of mexico's air operations that would operate in relationship to this border crossing to approve that the present approved, just -- >> go ahead and finish. >> i wasn't involved with that. i can't respond to the. i can go back and get more from the department. >> thank you for proving that project. >> thank you, mr. chairman but i appreciate you having this thing. thank the witnesses for coming. i think what irritates me, what irritates a lot of people that are concerned about the economy, giving they can't back on track and green jobs is that the president made a political decision to throw away 20,000 american jobs, and to hurt our relationship with canada, who is a strong, strong friend and made one of the best friends of america. in the world. canada have been trying to get this project done for over three

years. is it true, ms. jones, the canada submitted their applications for this keystone xl pipeline back in september 2008? >> transcanada, the company submitted and, yes, that you said at the table and the president has said this time and time again he didn't have enough time. you have had 40 months but if you look at the original keystone pipeline because this is a separate piece, the original keystone pipeline was approved back in 2008 after less than two years of review. it doesn't take 40 months to do a project like this. and so at some point in time yet to decide whether you're going to cut fish or cut bait. that's what congress decide in a bipartisan way. it's not a partisan issue. it's not a house versus standard issue. we agree come republicans in democrats, house and senate, said mr. president, stop giving this project for political purposes, make a decision, yes or no. unfortunate he used y'all because y'all back in august of last year y'all said this is

something y'all should do. hillary clinton back in 2010, the quote was we are inclined to do so when asked about approving the keystone pipeline 2010. and then you go through the timeline and then you get to august of last year were y'all came out with report and you basically said this is something that we should do. we don't see any real problems with the keystone pipeline. i would use exact, there were no significant, there would be no significant impact. that was state department on to some back in august of 2011. and what happened after that? what happened after that is in november, on november 7, of 2011, environmentalists went and had a rally at the white house. there'll hannah got arrested, real famously, got arrested, a bunch of radical environmentalists went and said mr. president, don't approve the keystone pipeline. they threaten his reelection. and gee whiz to within three days after this rally by radical entire middle as the president then reverses course and said

will push the decision for keystone until after the election. he's the one who gave the arbitrary debate. not because of environmental reasons, not because of political reasons because he was getting beaten up by radical environment those who didn't want this thing approved adult so he said i will kick the can until after the election and maybe this will go away. and canada said we can't wait this long. china wants to participate with us. but instead the president said no, we don't want the job, let china get that on. now goes to go to the statement by the prime minister of canada who said they are profoundly disappointed with this decision. it's hurt our relationship and hurt our national security. >> we are down to three minutes because we're both on the floor and running out of time. you are recognized for three minutes. >> we've been repeatedly told we need to get over the concerns of our pollution and if i'm because the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly middle eastern nations. transcanada's allocation for its permit even states the proposed

pipeline will serve the national interest of the message by providing a secure and reliable source of canadian crude oil to meet the growing demands of our refineries and markets in the united states. however, some have questioned these assertions of energy security benefits signing plans like gulf coast refiners with whom transcanada has entered into long-term sales contracts to we export diesel and other fuels made from the keystone crude to latin america, europe and beyond. in fact, nearly all of these refineries where the keys to include be sent to are located in port arthur, texas, which is designated as a foreign trade zone. this means that if these refineries the export diesel or other fuel they wouldn't even have to pay u.s. taxes on these exports. earlier this month canadian prime minister stephen harper said that when you look at the iranians threatening to block the states -- straits of hormuz, i think that industries how critical it is that supply for the mistakes to be not american.

but in december when i asked the president of transcanada whether he would agree to ensure that the oil and refined products to hear in this country instead of re- exporting a comment he said no, sitting right at the stage. in other words, if the permit for this poppe is legislated mandated by this bill, deny states may just be, the middleman for ship being products made from some of the dirtiest crude oil on earth to foreign markets around the world. secretary jones, does the process of the administration followed to determine whether keystone xl was in the national interest allowed for issues like whether the project would reduce depend on middle eastern oil speak with yes or. that's one of the consideration when we look at energy security. >> think of it if the republicans had forced the admixtures to deny the permit because it wasn't given enough time to review it, the administration could have issued a permit that required the keystone oil and fuels to be

sold only in the united states, isn't that right? >> i'm not sure of that but we can -- >> you could restrict it be that no, we have to study it. i don't think we can restrict exports but that is something we continue to study be made that could be in the national interest to is that correct, to keep the oil just a quick we would have to study it with regard to export. >> no, could he be in the national interest to keep the oil hear? >> it would certainly be a consideration but we are unable to study all about it because we never got a chance to look at that. for both ms. jones and mr. buy, does the legislation provide ferc with atari to issue a permit of has a requirement that oil of fuels has to be sold in the u.s.? does it contain a provision? >> i did not see that. >> did you, miss joe? >> no, i did not to make the mistake i think this is a pipeline out of the estate and into other -- >> the gentleman's time has expired that i thank the chair. we have to go down to two men is because we have like four minutes left on the floor number

312 people still have not voted and though everyone to get an opportunity to say something. two minutes but i will be quick, i promise that i appreciate the witnesses time today but we all know the keystone xl pipeline, 20,000 jobs, energy from canada as opposed to mid eastern oil. national security and energy security but as a former navels aviator, right through the strait of hormuz, i have unique perspective on iran. we all know that iran has threatened to close the straits. stopping 30% of the world's supply of oil from getting to market. and i can expand upon this enough, but that is a very real threat. the streets are narrow, about nine miles wide in some places. and they are shallow. if a vessel with, vessels, they

would be blocked for months if not years. in fact, three of our 11th nuclear powered aircraft carriers have been deployed to the region because our commander-in-chief, our president sees a threat as real. but state department has a history of approving new pipeline in the interest of national security because of political tensions. most recent examples is the alberta clipper pipeline in the midwest part of the nested. this is another canadian pipeline. let me read you a section from the record of decision for the alberta clipper pipeline. this i quote, department of state has determined through review of the alberta clipper project and application that the alberta clipper project which of the national interest. in a time of considerable political tension of the milk producing region country by providing additional access to the approximate stable secure supply of crude oil with minimum

transportation requirements from arriving -- which we have free trade agreement that further augments security of this energy supply. why is the situation now different? surely, yes or no, ms. jones, is the situation now more dire than the situation was when we approved the alberta clipper pipeline, yes or no? >> energy security is still a major priority for this country and his administration. however, we did not reject this project on the merits but it was an issue that we did not have time. those considerations you raise would be considered if we had the entire route and if we had the time to conduct a process that we feel the american people need to have for this type like. >> time has expired. >> with all due respect, you change your mind in october. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just some quick questions and perhaps if you could just respond, ms. jones come in writing to us rather than take

time. .. can you also respond, please to the editorial that was in the investment business daily back on november 16th in which the editorial board

there is trying to, is, suggesting that there could be a link between the railroad systems and this decision, especially given that it is a political decision. we all know that. anyone who would postpone this until after the election is already crying out this is a political decision. so since they're linking it to two major individuals, global figures i would like to understand your response back to that. or perhaps even the person that made the ultimate decision to cancel this project because it wasn't based on the, that the time frame. we understand that. and i think the american public is going to come to understand that. thank you, if you would get back to us in writing. >> mr. gardner, you're recognized for two minutes. >> is job creation the number one national interest? yes or no? job creation is the number

one national interest? >> yes. >> does this pipeline create jobs but the number is under debate. >> yes or no question. you denied the pipe plan? you recommended not moving forward with the pipe plan. >> we denied it based on time given. >> number one national interest so you acted at odds with the number one national interest? >> we were reviewing the jobe situation. >> you turned it down. that is fine. i want to go back to the mountain of paper, final environmental impact statement from august 2011. eis identified a particular route as preferred alternative, yes or no. >> yes. >> among the other alternatives you considered no action alternative, yes? >> yes. >> the final eis concluded alternative was better than not building a pipeline at all yes or no. >> there was more to that. >> considerations department of state does not regard the no action alternative be preferable to the proposed project. that is from final eis thank you. reason you concluded that

all things considered transporting oil pipeline in state-of-the-art pipeline is better than shipping some by rail truck an cargo ships, better than shipping from the middle east, yes or no? you have to agree with that, better -- >> yes i do. as part of energy security. >> if we delay this, the white house delays we run of the risk of no pipeline at all? your delays run of the riching of no pipeline? you said jobs are number one national interest. yet you said to the white house we don't want to do this. >> we have to work with the pipeline where we have the route and do a comprehensive -- >> you said jobs are number one national interest you said no to this. these delays risk killing pipeline. you will end up with no pipe lynn which is the not prefered interest, prefered alternative as the department of state already said in their final eis. so if you do this, you're going to have none of the job you're going to kill the jobs. you will have none of the energy and china wins. >> mr. pompeo. two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do it in one minute.

miss jones are you lacking any information that you were constrained for time about how this impacts a particular private company? that is, are you interested how this might or might not affect any particular private company? >> no, sir. >> relevant to your decision at all? >> no, sir. we're looking, issue the route through nebraska and all impacts that possibly could have. >> no testimony how any private company would be impacted would be irrelevant to your decision-making process? >> we're looking at route as we had explain. >> great, thank you. one last same. mr. waxman suggested because koch industries filed intervenor before the canadian national energy board that suggested they must have have a financial interest in this transaction that is just false. this notion they have an interest there has been shredded. there are many, many intervenors including sierra club of canada who i don't think has financial interest in the keystone pipeline. alberta federation of labor. commune, energy, paperworkers of canada. this is silicon september. i want to make sure the

record reflected mere intervenor status makes no indication this company has interest in the pipeline. i yield my time, mr. chairman. >> mr. griffith, recognized two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sitting here curious. state department talks about studies in nebraska. isn't your job supposed to determine impact, what international impact or relationship with your friend in canada? >> because we have the authority for the permitting, -- >> i understand you have the authority for the permitting but you've got all this done by the agencies that would normally do that isn't your job as the state department to focus on the relationships with our foreign friends and not to be interfearing in internal decisions made by other aim sis? >> our job in this situation is no look at the entire pipeline for the impact it could have the on the country. >> so everything these people did was worthless? >> to sir, that is important analytical information. >> why did you have to redo it all? >> we don't have the route, we don't have the route through nebraska. >> i really believe that

this was a political decision. you're not supposed to comment on that. i understand that. but i believe that you had the president and political con dry with labor versus radical environmentalists. and he had to delay until after the election. that's what i believe. that's what i believe the evidence shows. i'm not asking for a comment. i would say to you more oil refined in the u.s. particularly coming from a closer supply means more jobs in the u.s., more profits in the u.s., more taxes paid to the u.s. and more u.s. supply available. all of those things i think are good things. and because you're from the state department i would say, that we have damaged our relationship with a good ally and close neighbor and friend and to me, that seems counter it purpose of the state department and all of this would indicate that everything that you all are doing is counter the interests of the united states of america. i yield back. >> that concludes today's hearing. i want to thank the two witnesses for being with us today. and the record will remain open for 10 days for

additional documents and some questions were submitted to you all. we were appreciate you all getting that information back to us. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> well as this hearing comes to a close, quick reminder you can see this hearing again in its entirety and all other congressional hearings related to the xl oil pipeline in our c-span video library. go to c-span.org. very quickly our live coverage will continue at 2:0 eastern today as a senate homeland security subcommittee looks into management issues at arlington national cemetery. investigators found people buried in the wrong place, unmarked graves and misplaced headstones at the cemetery. a day after his state of the union address, president obama takes his economic message to several key political states. over the next three days he will travel to iowa, arizona, michigan, nevada and colorado. c-span will have live coverage of his stop this afternoon in cedar rapids,

iowa. that starts 1:00 eastern on c-span. meantime most republican presidential candidates are campaigning in florida which holds its primary this coming tuesday. former house speaker newt gingrich is speaking this afternoon in cocoa, florida. he will talk about the u.s. space program. see live coverage of that at 4:30 eastern c-span >> a look now at president obama's state of the union address delivered last night to a joint session of congress. it lasts about an hour 15 minutes. it will be followed by the republican response by indiana governor mitch daniels and congressional reaction.

[applause] [applause]

[applause]

[applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause]

[applause]

>> thank you. kaupe chaup [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. members of congress, i have a high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you, the president of the united states. >> thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you.

thank you. thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you. please be seated. mr. speaker, mr. vice president, members of congress, distinguished guests, and fellow americans. last month i went to andrews air force base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in iraq. together we offered a final proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought and several thousands gave their lives. we gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the united states safer and more

respected around the world. [applause] for the first time in nine years there are no americans fighting in iraq. [applause] for the first time in two decades osama bin laden is not a threat to this country. [cheers and applause] most of al qaeda's top lieutenants have been

defeated. the taliban's momentum has been broken and some troops in afghanistan have begun to come home. these achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and team work of america's armed forces at a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. they're not consumed with personal ambition. they don't obsess over their differences. they focus on the mission at hand. they work together. imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. [applause] think about the america within our reach.

a country that leads the world in educating its people. an america that attract as new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. a future where we're in control of our own energy and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. and economy built to last where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded. we can do this. i know we can because we have done it before. at the end of world war ii when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. [applause] my grandfather, a veteran of patton's army, got a chance to go to college on the

g.i. bill. my grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on earth. the two of them shared the optimism of a nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. they understood they were part of something larger. they were contributing to a story of success that every american had a chance to share. the basic american promise that if you worked hard you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college and put a little away for retirement. the defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. no challenge is more urgent, no debate is more important. we can either settle for a

country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of americans barely get by. or we can restore and economy where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules. [applause] what's at stake aren't democratic values or republican values but american values and we have to reclaim them. let's remember how we got here. long before the recession jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. technology made businesses more efficient but also made some jobs obsolete. folks at the saw their

incomes rise like never before but most hard-working americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't and personal debt that kept piling up. in 2008 the house of cards collapsed. we learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. regulators had looked the other way or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior. it was wrong. it was irresponsible. and it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt and left innocent, hard-working americans holding the bag. in the six months before i took office we lost nearly four million jobs and we lost another four million

before our policies were in full effect. those are the facts. but so are these. in the last 22 months businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. [applause] last year they created the most jobs since 2005. american manufacturers are highering again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. together we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion and we put in place new rules to hold wall street accountable so a crisis like this never happens again. [applause]

the state of our union is getting stronger and we've come to far to turn back now. as long as i'm president i will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum but i intend to fight obstruction with action and i will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. [cheers and applause] no, we will not go back to a economy weakened by outsourcing bad debt and phony financial profits. tonight i want to speak about how we move forward

and lay out a blueprint for and economy that is built to last. and economy built on american manufacturing, american energy, skills for american workers, and a renewal of american values. this blueprint begins with american manufacturing. on the day i took office our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. some even said we should let it die. with a million jobs at stake i refused to let that happen. in exchange for help we demanded responsibility. we got workers and automakers to settle their differences. we got the industry to retool and restructure. today general motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. [applause]

chrysler has grown faster in the u.s. than any major car company. ford is investing billions in u.s. plants and factories. and together the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs. we bet on american workers. we bet on american ingenuity and tonight the american auto industry is back. [applause] what's happening in detroit can happen in other industries. it can happen in cleveland and pittsburgh and raleigh. we can't bring every job back that's left our shore

but right now it's getting more expensive to do business in places like china. meanwhile america is more productive. a few weeks ago the ceo of master lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. [applause] today for the first time in 15 years, masterlock's unionized plant in milwaukee is running at full capacity [applause] so we have a huge opportunity at this moment to bring manufacturing back. but we have to seize it. tonight my message to business leaders is simple. ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. [applause]

we should start with our tax code. right now companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. meanwhile companies that choose to stay in america get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. it makes no sense. and everyone knows it. so let's change it. first, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. [applause] that money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like masterlock that decide to bring jobs home. [applause] second, no american company should be able to avoid

paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. [applause] . .

so my message is simple. it is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in america. send me these tax reforms, and i will sign them right away. [applause] we're also making it easier for american businesses to sell products all over the world. two years ago, i set a goal of doubling u.s. exports over five years. with the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we're on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule. [applause] and soon, there will be millions of new customers for american goods in panama, colombia, and south korea. soon, there will be new cars on

the streets of seoul imported from detroit, and toledo, and chicago. [applause] i will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for american products. and i will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. we've brought trade cases against china at nearly twice the rate as the last administration, and it's made a difference. [applause] over a thousand americans are working today because we stopped a surge in chinese tires. but we need to do more. it's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. it's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized. tonight, i'm announcing the creation of a trade enforcement unit that will be charged with

investigating unfair trading practices in countries like china. there will be more inspection -- [applause] there will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. and this congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over american manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like russia. our workers are the most productive on earth, and if the playing field is level, i promise you, america will always win. [applause] i also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the united states but can't find workers with the right skills. growing industries in science and technology have twice as

many openings as we have workers who can do the job. think about that, openings at a time when millions of americans are looking for work. it's inexcusable. and we know how to fix it. jackie bray is a single mom from north carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. then siemens opened a gas turbine factory in charlotte, and formed a partnership with central piedmont community college. the company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. it paid jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant. i want every american looking for work to have the same opportunity as jackie did. join me in a national commitment to train 2 million americans with skills that will lead directly to a job.

[applause] my administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. model partnerships between businesses like siemens and community colleges in places like charlotte, and orlando, and louisville are up and running. now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers, places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing. and i want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help that they need. it is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

[applause] these reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. but to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier. for less than 1% of what our nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning, the first time that's happened in a generation. but challenges remain. and we know how to solve them. at a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers. we know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of

a classroom by over $250,000. a great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies, just to make a difference. teachers matter. so instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. and in return, grant schools flexibility, to teach with creativity and passion, to stop teaching to the test, and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn.

[applause] that's a bargain worth making. [applause] we also know that when students don't walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. when students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. so tonight, i am proposing that every state, every state, requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18. [applause] when kids do graduate, the most

daunting challenge can be the cost of college. at a time when americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in july. [applause] extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars, and give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years. [applause] of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. we can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition, we'll run out of money. states also need to do their part, by making higher education

a higher priority in their budgets. and colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. recently, i spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that. some schools redesign courses to help students finish more quickly. some use better technology. the point is, it's possible. so let me put colleges and universities on notice. if you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. higher education can't be a luxury, it is an economic imperative that every family in america should be able to afford. let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge. the fact that they aren't yet american citizens. many were brought here as small

children, are american through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else. that doesn't make sense. i believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. that's why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. that's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when i took office. the opponents of action are out of excuses. we should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. [applause]

but if election-year politics keeps congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country. send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. i will sign it right away. [applause] you see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. that means women should earn equal pay for equal work. [applause]

it means we should support everyone who's willing to work, and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next steve jobs. after all, innovation is what america has always been about. most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. so let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. both parties agree on these ideas. so put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year. [applause] innovation also demands basic research.

today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. new lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. don't gut these investments in our budget. don't let other countries win the race for the future. support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the internet, to new american jobs and new american industries. and nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in american-made energy. over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, i'm directing my administration to open more than 75% of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.

[applause] right now, right now, american oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. that's right, eight years. not only that, last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. [applause] but with only 2% of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. this country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of american energy. [applause] a strategy that's cleaner,

cheaper, and full of new jobs. we have a supply of natural gas that can last america nearly 100 years. [applause] and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. and i'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. because america will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk. the development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. and by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped

develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock, reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground. [applause] now, what's true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. in three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned america to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of americans have jobs because of it. when bryan ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. but he found work at energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in michigan. before the recession, the factory only made luxury

yachts. today, it's hiring workers like bryan, who said, i'm proud to be working in the industry of the future. our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. some technologies don't pan out, some companies fail. but i will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. [applause] i will not walk away from workers like bryan. [applause] i will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to china or germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. we've subsidized oil companies

for a century. that's long enough. it's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. [applause] pass clean energy tax credits. create these jobs. we can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. the differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. but there's no reason why congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. so far, you haven't acted. well, tonight, i will. [applause] i'm directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes.

and i'm proud to announce that the department of defense, working with us, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history, with the navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year. [applause] of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. so here's a proposal. help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and america will have less pollution, more manufacturing, more jobs for construction workers who need them. send me a bill that creates

these jobs. [applause] building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair america's infrastructure. so much of america needs to be rebuilt. we've got crumbling roads and bridges, a power grid that wastes too much energy, an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural america from selling her products all over the world. during the great depression, america built the hoover dam and the golden gate bridge. after world war ii, we connected our states with a system of highways. democratic and republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who

built them to the businesses that still use them today. in the next few weeks, i will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. but you need to fund these projects. take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. [applause] there's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble burst. of course, construction workers weren't the only ones who were hurt. so were millions of innocent americans who've seen their home values decline.

and while government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief. and that's why i'm sending this congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates. no more red tape. no more runaround from the banks. a small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust. [applause] let's never forget, millions of

americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. it's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. no bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. an america built to last insists on responsibility from everybody. we've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. that's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. [applause] rules to prevent financial fraud or toxic dumping or faulty medical devices, these don't destroy the free market. they make the free market work better. there's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly.

in fact, i've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my republican predecessor did in his. [applause] i've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. we've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. we got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill, because milk was somehow classified as an oil. with a rule like that, i guess it was worth crying over spilled milk. [laughter] [applause] now, i'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a

federal agency looking over his shoulder. [applause] absolutely. but i will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the gulf two years ago. [applause] i will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. i will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men.

[applause] and i will not go back to the days when wall street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. the new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose, getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, or start a business, or send their kids to college. so if you are a big bank or financial institution, you're no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. you're required to write out a living will that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail, because the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again. [applause]

and if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices, those days are over. today, american consumers finally have a watchdog in richard cordray with one job, to look out for them. [applause] we'll also establish a financial crimes unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people's investments. some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there's no real penalty for being a repeat offender. that's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing.

so pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count. and tonight, i'm asking my attorney general to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. this new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many americans. now, a return to the american values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy. but it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future. right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working americans while the recovery is still fragile.

[applause] .. but we need to do more and that means making choices. right now we're poised to spend nearly one trillion

dollars more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2% of americans. right now because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle class households. right now warren buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans? or, do we want to keep our investments in everything else? like education, and medical research, a strong military and care for our veterans? because if we're serious about paying down our debt we can't do both. the american people know what the right choice is. so do i. as i told the speaker this summer, i'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in

the long-term costs of medicare and medicaid and strengthen social security so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors but in return we need to change our tax code so that people like me and an awful lot of members of congress pay their fair share of taxes. [applause] tax reform should follow the buffett rule. if you made more than a million dollars a year, you should not pay less than 30% in taxes. and my republican friend tom coburn is right. washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. in fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions.

on the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year like 98% of american families, your taxes shouldn't go up. you're the ones struggling. [applause] with rising costs and stagnant wages. you are the ones who need relief. now you can call this class warfare all you want but asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? most americans would call that common sense. we don't begrudge financial success in this country. we admire it. when americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes it is not because they envy the rich. it is because they understand that when i get a tax break, i don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit

or somebody else has to make up the difference. like a senior on a fixed income or a student trying to get through school or a family trying to make ends meet. that's not right. americans know that's not right. they know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other and to the future of their country and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. that's how we'll reduce our deficit. that is an america built to last. [applause] now i recognize that people watching tonight have differing vies about taxes and debt, energy, health

care but no matter what party they belong to, i bet most americans are thinking the same thing right about now. nothing will get done in washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that because washington is broken. can you blame them for feeling a little cynical? the greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. it came from a debate in washington over whether the united states would pay its bills or not. who benefited from that fiasco? i've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between main street and wall street but the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad and it seems to get worse every year.

some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money and politics. so together let's take some steps to fix that. send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of congress. i will sign it tomorrow. [applause] the let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for congress can't lobby congress and vice versa. an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of washington. some of what's broken has to do with the way congress does its business these days. a simple majority is no longer enough to get

anything, even routine business, passed through the senate. [applause] neither party has been blameless in these tactics. now both parties should put an end to it. [applause] for starters, i ask the senate to pass a simple rule, that all judicial and public servant nominations receive a simple up-or-down vote within 90-days. [applause] the executive branch also needs to change. too often it is inefficient, outdated and remote. [applause] that's why i have asked this congress to me the authority

to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so our government is leaner, quicker, more responsive to the needs of the american people. [applause] finally none of this can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. we need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction. that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas. i'm a democrat but i believe what republican abraham lincoln believed. the government should do for people only what they can not do better by themselves and no more. [applause]

that is why my education reform offers more competition and more control for schools and states. that is why we're getting rid of regulations that don't work. that's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program. on the other hand even my republican friend who complain the most about government spend having supported federally-financed roads and clean energy projects and federal offices for the folks back home. the point is we should all want a smarter, more effective government. while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical difference this is year, we can make real progress. with or without this congress, i will keep taking actions that help the

economy grow. but i can do a whole lot more with your help. because when we act together, there is nothing the united states of america can can't achieve. [applause] that's the lesson we've learned from our actions abroad over the last few years. ending the iraq war allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. from pakistan to yemen, the al qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing they can't escape of the reach of the united states of america. [applause] from this position of strength, we have begun to

wind down the war in afghanistan. 10,000 of our troops have come home. 23,000 more will leave by the end of this summer. this transition to afghan lead will continue and we will build an enduring partnership with afghanistan so it is never again a source of attacks against america. [applause] as the tide of war recedes a wave of change has washed across the middle east and north africa. from tunis, to cairo, from is a nye to tripoli. a year ago qaddafi was one of the world's longest-serving dictator. a murderer with american blood on his hands. today he is gone and in syria i have no doubt that the assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can not be reversed and that human dignity can

not be denied. [applause] how this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain but we have a huge stake in the outcome. and while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. we will stand against violence and intimidation. we will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings, men and women, christians, muslims, and jews. we will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets because tyranny is no match for liberty. and we will safeguard america's own security against those who threaten

our citizens, our friends and our interests. look at iran. through the power of our diplomacy, a world once divided how to deal with iran's nuclear program now stands as one. the regime is more isolated than ever before. its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions. and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. let there be no doubt. america is the determined to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and i will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. [applause] but a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible and far better. and if iran changes course

and meets its obligations it can rejoin the community of nations. the renewal of american leadership can be felt across the globe. our oldest alliances in europe and asia are stronger than ever. our ties to the americas are deeper. our iron-clad commitment, and i mean iron-clad to israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. [applause] we made it clear that america is a pa sefk power. and a new beginning in burma has led to a new hope. from the coalitions we built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we have led against hunger and disease, from blows we've dealt our

enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example america is back. anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that america is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn't know what they're talking about. [applause] that's not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. that's not how people feel from tokyo to berlin, from cape town to rio where opinions of america are higher than they have been in years. yes, the world is changing. no, we can't control every event but america remains the one indispenszable nation in world affairs.

as long as i am president i intend to keep it that way. [applause] te our budget. to stay one step ahead of our adversaries i have already sent this congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber threats. [applause] above all, our freedom endures because the men and women in uniform who defend it. [applause]

[applause] as they come home we must serve them as well as they have served us. that includes giving them the care and the benefits they have earned, which is why we have increased annual va spending every year i've been president. [applause] and it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our nation. with the bipartisan support of this congress we're providing new tax credits to companies that higher vets. michelle and joe biden have worked with american businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. and tonight i'm proposing a veterans jobs port that will help our communities to hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that

america is as strong as those who defend her. [applause] which brings me back to where i began. those of us who have been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. when you put on that uniform it doesn't matter if you're black or white, haitian, latino, native-american, conservative, liberal, rich, poor, gay, straight. when you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you or the mission fails.

or you're in the thick of the fight you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind. one of my proudest possessions is the flag that the seal team took with them on the mission to get bin lauden. on it are each of their names. some may be democrats. some may be republicans. but that doesn't matter. just like it didn't matter that day in the situation room when i sat next to bob gates, a man who was george bush's defense secretary, and hillary clinton, a woman who ran against me pour president. all that matters that day was the mission. no one thought about politics. no one thought about themselves.

one of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. it only succeeded he said because every single member of that unit did their job. the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control. the translator who kept others from entering the compound. the troops who separated the women and children from the fight. the seals who charged up the stairs. more than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other. because you can't charge up those stairs in the darkness and danger unless you know that there's somebody behind you watching your back. so it is with america. each time i look at that flag, i'm reminded that our

destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. no one built this country on their own. this nation is great because we built it together. this nation is great because we worked as a team. this nation is great because we get each other's backs. and if we hold fast to that truth in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great, no mission too hard. as long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward and our future is hopeful and the state of your union will always be strong. thank you. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> greeting from the home of super bowl iv 6. the status of loyal opposition imposes on those out of power some serious responsibility, to show respect for the presidency and its occupants, to

express agreement where it exists. republicans tonight salute our for instance, for his aggressive pursuit of the murderers of 9/11 and for bravely backing long overdue changes in public education. i personally would add to that list, admiration for the strong family commitment that he and the first lady have displayed to a nation soarly needing such examples. on these evenings presidents naturally seek to find a sunny side of our national condition but when president obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave, he must know in his heart this is not true. the president did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in america tonight but he was elected on a promise to fix them and he can not claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse. the percentage of americans with a job is lowest in decade. one in five men of prime working age and nearly half of all persons under 30 did

not go to work today. in three short years an unprecedented explosion of spending with borrowed money added trillions to been a unaffordable national debt and yet the president has put us on a course to make rateddally worse in the years ahead. the federal government now spend one of every four dollars in the entire economy. it borrows one of every that it spends. no nation, no entities, large or small, public or private can thrive with debts as huge as ours. the president's grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than than sped economic recovery. he seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars. in fact, it works the other way. a government is big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class and those who hope to join it.

those punished most by the wrong turns over the that three years are those unemployed or underemployed tonight and those so discouraged they have abandoned the search for work all together. no one has been more tragically harmed than the young people of this country, the first generation in memory to face a future less promising than their parents did. as republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life's ladder. we do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have-nots. we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves. in our economic stagnation and indebtedness we're only a short distance behind greece, spain and other european countries now facing economic catastrophe. but ours is the fortunate land. because the world uses our dollar for trade, we have a short grace period to deal with our dangers. the time is running out if we're to avoid the fate of europe and those once great

nations of history that fell from the position of world leadership. so 2012 is a year of true opportunity, maybe our last, to restore an america of hope and upward mobility and greater equality. the challenges aren't matters of ideology or party preference. the problems are simply mathematical, and the answers are purely practical. an opposition that would earn its way back to leadership must offer not just criticism of failures that anyone can see but a positive and credible plan to make life better, particularly for those aspiring to make a better life for themselves. republicans accept this duty gratefully. the roots back to an america of promise to a solvent america that can pay its bills and protect its vulnerable start in the same place. the only way up for those suffering tonight and the only way out of the dead end of debt into which we've

driven, is a private economy that begins to grow and create jobs, real jobs, at a much faster rate than today. contrary to the president's constant disparagement of people in business, it is one of the noblest of human pursuits. the late steve jobs, what a fitting name he had, created more of them than all those stimulus dollars the president borrowed and blew. out here in indiana when a business person asks me what he can do for our state, i say, first, make money. be successful. if you make a profit, you will have something left it hire someone else and some to donate to the good causes we love. the extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. it must be replaced by a

passionate, pro-growth approach that break all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills. that means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. a pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. it means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years. there's a second item on our national must-do list. we must unite to save the safety net. medicare and social security have served us well. that must continue. but after half and 3/4 of a century respectively, not surprising they need some repairs. we can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near

retirement but we must fashion, a new, affordable safety net so future americans are protected too. decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. now we can't. so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need the most. the mortal enemies of social security and medicare are those who in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead americans that we should change nothing. listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode and take the american economy with them. it will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years. it's absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. there are smart ways and dumb ways to do this. the dumb way is to raise

rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system. choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. the better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth. it is not fair and it is not true for the president to attack republicans in congress as obstacles on these questions. they and they alone have passed bills to reduce borrowing, reform entitlements and encourage new job creation. only to be shot down time and time again, by the president and his democratic senate allies. this year it falls to republicans to level with our fellow citizens about this reality. if we fail to act to grow the private sector, and save the safety net, nothing else will matter much. but to make such action happen, we also must work in ways we republicans have not

always practiced, to bring americans together. no feature of the obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some americans by castigating others. as in previous moments of national danger, we americans are all in the same boat. if we drift, quarreling and paralyzed over a niagra of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other categories. if we fail to shift to a pro-jobs pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have. as a loyal opposition who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and sole vensy is our ally and our friend.

we will speak the language of unity. let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net and reopen the door to the stairway upward. any other disagreements we may have can wait. you know, the most troubling contention in our national life these days isn't about economics, or policy at all. it's about us as a free people. in two-alarming ways that contention is that we americans just can't cut it anymore. in word and deed the president and his allies tell us that we just can not handle ourselves in this complex, perillous world without their benevolent protection. left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids. why unless they stop us, we might pick the wrong light bulb. a second view, which i admit some republicans also seem to hold, is that we americans are no longer up to the job of self-government.

we can't do the simple math that proves the unaffordability of today's safety net programs or all the government we now have. we'll fall for the con job that says, we can just plow ahead and someone else will pick up the tab. we'll allow ourselves to be pitted one against the other, blaming our neighbor for troubles worldwide trends, or our own government has caused. 2012 must be the year we prove the doubters wrong. the year we strike out boldly not merely to avert national bankruptcy but to say to a new generation that america is still the world's premier land of opportunity. republicans will speak for those who believe in the dignity and capacity of the individual citizen who believe that government is meant to serve the people rather than supervise them. who trust americans enough to tell them the plain truth about the fix we are in and to lay before them a specific, credible program of change big enough to meet

the emergency we are facing. we will advance our positive suggestions with confidence because we know that americans are still a people born to liberty. there is nothing wrong with the state of our union that the american people, addressed as free born, mature citizens, can not set right. republicans in 2012 welcome all our countrymen to a program of renewal that rebuilds the dream for all, and makes our city on a hill shine once again. thanks for listening. good night. >> well, it is about an hour and 15 minutes ago the president began his third state of the union and right now we are about 100 feet from the current house of representatives chamber where he spoke and we are in the old house chamber known as statuary hall. this is where the media has gathered to get reaction from members of congress. in fact this area served as

the house of representatives meeting area until 1857 when the current chamber came into use. in fact five presidents have been inaugurated in statuary hall. james monroe, james madison, john quincy adams, andrew jackson and millard fillmore. now it is used as a galary of statues from each state. we're live on c-span2 to get reaction to the president's state of the union address from members of congress and we're going to begin with a member from texas. a democrat. eddie bernice johnson. what did you think of the president's speech? >> i thought it was one of the most bipartisan speeches that i have heard and i appreciated the fact that he did make a strong effort to bring us all together. and of course i enjoyed hearing the emphasis on the importance of science, and technology and training and education and those areas

because that is one of my strong interests. i also appreciated the fact that he emphasized our infrastructure. i serve on transportation infrastructure to create jobs. and so i was very pleased with the speech and i'm ready to go for the work for the things he called for and i hope the rest of us will be as well. >> congresswoman, you represent texas and what about his talk about oil and his turn down of the xl pipeline? >> well i do think it is time for us to move away from just oil and as he indicated we have got to look at all of the above when it comes to energy supply. and we must separate ourselves from foreign oil. i think that it is time for us to be serious about it. it is important for our national security and it is important for our future and for our environment and for our jobs for the future. so i really agree with it. and i have made no bones about it. >> eddie bernice johnson,

democrat from texas. thank you for being here on c-span to get some reaction. we're joined by another democratic member, jan schakowsky. democrat from illinois who is joining us now in statuary hall. first of all, congresswoman, can you give us an update on your senator mark kirk at all? >> obviously we're all just pulling for mark's speedy and full recovery. we're hearing it will not be just days. it will be longer than that he is getting terrific care. he is strong and basically a healthy person and so we're hoping that he will make a full recovery. >> the president, our last guest, eddie bernice johnson talked about the president's bipartisan speech do you agree with that? >> what he did, hold out a vision what america is like when we all do work together. he talked about the military and the successful missions when people don't divide along part sawn lines -- partisan lines or along any lines.

that they work together for the benefit of the country. then he outlined a number of specifics many of which has been supported in a bipartisan way before. who could be against bringing manufacturing back home. he spent a good teal of time talking about how we can create jobs. by giving incentives to businesses right here at home rather than tax breaks for those who move jobs overseas. about training americans for the jobs of the 21st century. so i think, yes, it was an appeal that on simple things, on basic things we can work together and we can do it now. we don't have to wait until the election. >> representative schakowsky, your speaker john boehner, speaker of the house, had a guest from illinois, representing marathon petroleum in his box with him regarding that he was involved with the xl pipeline. i want to get your reaction to that. >> well, first of all the president did say he believed in all of the above

energy strategy. that, yes, we should double down on clean energy but he also talked about how we have expanded the use of oil over the last few years and reduced our reliance on foreign oil. look, what he did was say that that, for now is over. that the xl pipeline is not going, is not going to happen now. i don't know if it will be revisited with a new route but, clearly the energy sources of the future are the new technologies that he mentioned that we should develop. >> jan schakowsky is a democrat from illinois and a member of the energy and commerce committee. we're live here in statuary hall getting reaction from members to the president's state of the union speech. thank you, congresswoman. thank you very much. and now joining us is glen thompson, a member of congress from pennsylvania. republican from pennsylvania. congressman thompson, what

did you hear in the president's speech? >> will i herd the president lay out a vision. and actually much of the vision i share. now, what i heard in terms of the pathway he would take i take some disagreement with. let me say first of all i really appreciate how he started his speech thanking our soldiers, our military for the job well-done and all of the involvement over many years in iraq and recognized their sacrifice. i thought that was outstanding. >> where do you disagree specifically with the president when you say you didn't necessarily agree with his approach? >> many different areas. you know, largely, it was a, it was a lot, there is a divide between speech, word, action and leadership and i just have seen inconsistencies from the things that he laid out. i'm hoping, actually, that he will stay true to me the things he talked about. when it comes to the economy and tax reform i'm all in favor of tax reform. for me i would just eliminate all the deduction

shuns and lower the marginal rates for everyone. but the president really, what he talked about was taking and fostering a culture of divide and envy in this country. that is not how our country is, has become successful. we want to encourage everybody to excel and do well and achieve the american dream. we shouldn't punish them and penalize them once they do. >> congressman thompson, where is your district in pennsylvania? >> pennsylvania 5th congressional district. 21% of the land mass. 17 counties. my home is in the center of the state but the district goes due north of the new york line. >> thanks for being with us on c-span in statuary hall. we're pleased to have joining us now, senator ben cardin. long time viewers of c-span will remember him as congressman ben cardin. he has been senator for several years. a democrat of maryland. senator, what did the president say tonight that perhaps you disagreed with? >> well, you know i thought the tone that the president

set was the right tone. he really challenged us to get the job done. he has taken action as he can as president but he pointed out we can get more done working together. he is clearly focused on creating jobs. it was clearly phobe discussed on how america can be competitive in manufacturing, training our workers, dealing with our environmental and energy needs. i thought it was a speech that i fully supported and thought america can agree. let's get the job done. >> we saw several pairs of senators walking in together, democrats and republicans making a statement they were sitting together. who did you significant wit in there? >> i sat with roger wicker, republican from mississippi. it wasn't just symbolic. the two of us work together and we want to work together to get things done for our country. i think it is a clear message that we want to rise to the occasion in 2012. we know it is an election year. there is plenty of time to get the business done. >> the economy, energy,

education, financial enforcement were some of the things that the president called for. several of those were legislative proposals including the senate passing a rule, 90 days up-or-down vote on nominees. is that possible? >> i think that will be a real challenge for us to get that done. i think the president is absolutely right. i stood up and applauded on that action. the senate has the responsibility to vote on the presidential nominees. we can't routinely deny the advice and consent. i think the president is absolutely right. time to exercise our responsibility and vote on issues. a lot of issues he talked about was fairness. the people most well off need to step up also. i thought he really did try to bring us together and say let's do things right and fair. that includes the senate taking up his nominees. >> senator ben cardin joining us here in statuary hall, following the president's state of the union address. >> my pleasure.

>> we are live 100 feet from where the president gave his speech in the current house chamber. we are now in the old house chamber, known as statuary hall. this was the house of representatives up through 1857 is when this was used. we're getting reaction from members of congress on the president's speech and now joining us from california, democrat, judy chu. congresswoman chu, we saw you stand up when the president started talking about more green energy, right? is that when you stood up? almost only one. you were the first one on your feet. >> i was real enthusiastic about it. i think he wants to transform our economy into the jobs of the future. it was really great to hear him talk about his commitment to that. >> when you think about your home state of california and what the president had to say and what the congress can do, where do you see enbp fits for your state? >> well, we are a state that certainly could benefit from the investment in clean energy. he talked about being the

innovative, the innovative economy and california has always been on the cutting-edge. we certainly could use much more emphasis on that. and of course, we need to make sure our workers get the skills they need so we have a productive workforce. >> was there any point in the president's speech where you disagreed with him? >> i thought he did a masterful job hitting the right points, especially points that have to do with bringing manufacturing back to america. >> your colleague, gabrielle giffords was in the audience of the did you get a chance to speak with her at all before? >> i unfortunately was fairly far away but i was so inspired to see her come back here and i am going to miss her as a colleague. >> judy chu is a democrat from california, a member of the judiciary committee. thank you for being with us. and now, well-known missouri name.

well-known missouri political family. russ carnahan, is a democrat from missouri. and of course he is now a member of congress, representing what area, congressman? >> the st. louis area. st. louis, missouri. >> so when you think about st. louis and what the president had to say tonight, what did you hear? >> the most important thing i hear back home from people every day and what i heard from world war ii veterans group recently that in their great time of challenge that they pulled together the country. they set their differences aside. they did great things, tough things. that is the kind of spirit the president called on tonight. we want to see things happen. he said he will work with congress where they will. with not he will work around them. we should work with him to get big things done like investments in transportation infrastructure which is huge. st. louis being in the middle of country and seeing our auto industry back. that are big things for the

people in st. louis that i represent. >> congressman, both of your parents served as senators. do you think they would have thought that, that the spirit in washington is like president obama described it, broken? >> it is broken. and i think people see it every day in the way this there so much division and dysfunction here. we have great, tough things to do to get this economy to continue to grow, to fix a lot of things that still ail this country. this is a spirit we need to tap right now. >> do you see that spirit in the house of representatives currently? >> not enough. it is the worst i have ever seen it but there still is some good idealogue back and forth between some democrats and some republicans but we just need more of it. to get things done in this country. >> russ carnahan, member of congress from st. louis, a democrat. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> hello. >> senator frank lautenberg, democrat of new jersey.

long-time senator. they will put you in place here in senator, in statuary hall. we appreciate you joining us. sir, you spent a lot of time in washington. >> i have. >> would you agree with the president that it has gotten worse? >> oh, yeah. i've been here 27 years and the division between the parties has gotten wider, deeper. and he was a call to arms. listen, stop monkeying around with this. let's get to work. put it on my desk. let me sign the bills. give us the money to do these things. so the infrastructure, immigration, take care of it. education. that is where we have to invest. be proud of what we do in this country and make product here that we eggs selled on in the country. i thought it was a good, stand up, straighten your spine and get on with it america. i thought it was a good speech. >> so when the senate comes into session tomorrow will the spirit of the president's speech carry over? >> the spirit may.

i hope the boxing gloves will come off. he said something very important about that. don't delay these things. don't obstruct progress. obstruct progress because the party differences. this is no time for that. we're in a situation now where we have lost power. we've lost opportunity. we're ever more dependent on foreign oil. so it was a good call. it was the leader speaking up and i thought really did a good job. >> so if you run into senator harry reid tomorrow or senator mitch mcconnell, what will you say to them? >> well, probably more loquacious with harry reid than i would mitch mcconnell. but i would encourage mitch mcconnell. i think they're obeying party discipline. wrong time for that kind of stuff. we have to get on with it. i'm a survivor. i'm one of two world war ii veterans left in the senate and the g.i. bill, meant the world to me.

and it changed. i started a company with two other guys employing 45,000 employees. adp. why? because i had a chance to get education my folks couldn't paid for. my father died while i was in the army. get on with it. let's get started. >> do you think you pay enough in taxes? >> no. i don't. now i'm not going to volunteer to be only one to increase my taxes -- my tax bill voluntarily. i remember a time. i don't want to get back to ancient history, but we had a tax on excess profits during world war ii. when companies were making lots and lots of money and they were told they had to kick in more. we were at war as we've been. we lost thousands. and the in the middle east and we have, companies have to carry their fair share. they can't be standing on the sidelines and say, you know, pay the bills and let the executives, the top take the cream off and leave

nothing but steal milk at the bottom. not a good idea -- stale milk. >> so to go back, you senator lautenberg and daniel inouye are the only two world war vets left in the senate? >> that's right. i'm senior in age a couple months. and he is senior in bravery with the congressional medal of honor. >> final question, your governor in new jersey, chris christie is getting a lot of play politically. what's your relationship with him, he being a republican. >> cool. i try to give my phone number a few times but i think he loses it. we're not in touch unfortunately. i would like to be. we can do a lot. at one point in new jersey we had $6 billion reserved for a fun nil. it was going to take, take 22,000 cars off the road. put 44,000 people at work and the governor decided to abandon it. it was not good judgment in my view and these things have a way of lasting.

>> senator frank lautenberg, democrat of new jersey. we continue our live coverage here on c-span2. from statuary hall where the members of congress come after hearing the president's speech and representative david scott, democrat of georgia is now with us. >> yes. >> congressman scott, listening to the president's speech and thinking about the house of representatives, what issues do you think that the house could work on bipartisan, in a bismart un -- bipartisan way in the next month or so to get done? >> first of all it was a brilliant speech and delivered with such feeling and articulated just right is the kind of speech american people not only wanted but really needed

going forward. shows where we've come from in a difficult time and he laid out a great course going forward. as far as the partisanship and bipartisanship i think the first area we wan work with really will be a year-long extension of the payroll tax for 160 million americans. to be able to fix the doc fix on there and be able to help those who have gotten, with unemployment needs and veterans effort especially in working with the tax breaks for those companies that will hire veterans. i think those are areas we can work with. the table has been set for that because it was a bipartisan effort. if you recall, with the senate, the republicans in the senate leading the way, th