if i tell you that there are terrorists around the world plotting to kill us and that they have one common characteristic, it is not belonging to rotary. [laughter] and yet, when you listen to this administration, they have literally blocked every federal document from discussing honestly what threatens us. that is how big the gap is. [applause] this is a president who's destructive patterns are almost beyond imagining. take one example. he recently vetoed the keystone pipeline. now, think about it. he did it to appease the left wing environmental extremists, but think about what we're up against. here was an opportunity to have oil come through canada to the

united states down to houston to provide jobs for the next 50 years processing the oil and sending some of it to get jobs in the courts, the refineries, jobs building the pipeline. heat weakened our energy supply. it did not stop the oil from getting out. the canadians are looking seriously at a partnership with china to build the pipeline due west of vancouver. imagine american president so destructive that he forces canada into a partnership with china because they're more reliable than the united states, i would have thought it impossible. it goes against our deepest interests. we have a national security and

an economic interest in developing energy security. we want to develop the maximum amount of new oil and gas because it will drive down the price of gasoline, which has doubled under obama and is continuing to go up because he is so deeply anti-american energy. it creates jobs and it lowers the cost of gasoline. the second reason is because i want us to become completely independent from the metal least -- the middle east. [applause] no american president should ever again bow to a saudi king. [applause]

crowd: newt, newt, newt! >> people say to me, how you do all this? i will show you. of course you can do it. i need your help on tuesday to then receive the nomination. when we win the nomination, we will run as a team like we did with reagan and in 1994. this means we need to replace bill nelson with a conservative. people say to me, how fast will things turn around. house start -- how quickly people invest in new jobs? on election night, people will

start making decisions to create new jobs. because we will run as a team i will ask them to first repeal obamacare. [applause] i will ask camera because i have not helped pass something that resembles it. we will also repeal the dodd- frank bill which is killing banks. there is a brand new report out today that 1000 small banks will close in the next two years. it cripples a small business and it had been driving down the price of housing because it creates federal regulators who

are against making loans on housing. you create jobs, help small business, and start raising the price in one act. third, i will ask them to repeal sarbanes oxley which has had no product and has increased the cost of american jobs. i would like all three of those past and i would like to ask the members of our team to work on passing all three by the time i am sworn in on january 20th. on january 20th, i will sign all three on the first day of the presidency as a sign of the change in washington.

on at the inauguration day, two hours after the inaugural address, a series of executive orders. all of them will have been published by october 1st so everyone will know what is coming. the first will eliminate all of the white house czars. [applause] and let go to newt.otrg us know if you think we should do. my goal is on the first day, about the time obama rides back in chicago that we will have dismantled 40% of his government.

i for debated in the reagan campaign and we had the first event in history where we brought the team together and we won six seats by a combined total of 75,000 votes. we went to work by the help of the american people. tip o'neill was the speaker of the house to. we passed the reagan program. by august, we had signed the growth that enabling us to create 16 million new jobs during his presidency. there have been two stagnant increases, and i am facing reality. i could make speeches all day long. if i could not get a signature, and none of it became law.

bill clinton had a reality. if they could of schedule a vote, nothing would become law. we had a mature adult understanding that the constitution only works when you have people putting the country for two are willing to work together to find a common solution. [applause] child poverty declined. working family incomes went up. the first tax credit in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history, and we ended up with literally 11 million new jobs and 2.4% unemployment. by the way, i want to shake your hand as soon as i'm done speaking. someone who is 90 years old and comes out because there that

committed, that grateful. grateful.t [applause] this is the support that will make the difference. thank you for being here. i will come see you in just a minute. when we were formed welfare, cut spending, cut taxes, cut people back to work, the 1997 balanced budget act led to four consecutive years of a balanced budget, the on the four in your lifetime. that is a sign that we can get big things done if we know what we're doing and we work together.

we really believe this is the most important election of our lifetimes. we believe we are at the crossroads. if you just take the list of what i just gave you, with all due respect to governor romney, there is an enormous difference in our understanding of how to run the nation and how to actually get things done in washington. [applause] this is a very hard, complicated business. we have had three years of an amateur and we understand it does not work very well. we need someone willing to change washington, someone who knows enough about washington to change it. both are necessary. now, i know you have seen all sorts of articles about the washington establishment coming unglued and we have had three consecutive polls show me

leading by a significant margin nationally and they became unglued. let me tell you. they should be. i am not running for president to manage the decayed to the satisfaction of the establishment. [applause] i and are running for president to make the wall street elite and washington elite happy. i want to change this on behalf of the working people of the united states of america. [applause] i do not believe wall street can give enough money to run in of negative ads to hide from the truth. we have badly served the american people. in's be clear about this -- both parties. [no audio]

[applause] that that makes them uncomfortable, answer is, "good." i want you to know that if you help me, if you get on facebook, your e-mail come talk to your friends, we are so close to having great things happening. i was grateful last night that herman cain flew in to embrace me. this is a grassroots movement against the establishment. as of tomorrow, michael reagan will be campaigning with me. that should tell you that when romney suggested i was not a regular republican. nancy reagan said in an in 1995

that michael will be here tomorrow to prove to every doubting person that i am the legitimate heir of the ragan movement, not some liberal from massachusetts. [applause] i am honored that governor palin wrote a very powerful op-ed this week and went on top of the very strong statement. i'm grateful for her and her husband, todd, for endorsing me. i think that is another step. [applause] let me be clear. the road we are embarking on is challenging. it is more challenging if we win. being serious about taking the greatest, most complex country

in the world and moving it back to the right place is a big job. i am not here to ask you to be for me. if you are for me, you will vote, go home, and say, "i sure hope newt gets it done." i need you to be with me. i need you to be with me every day for the campaign and the presidency so that together we remind congress what we are trying to get done together. we remind the governor and the legislature together. we remind the city council, school board, together. what i thought was fascinating this week was, when i talked about the future i outlined vision of the space program as dynamic and as exciting to get young people to study math, science, and engineering to recreate the excitement we tell in the 1960's. is got ridiculed by two of my

friends running for president. i was amazed. you know, this is a great country filled with people who think big ideas. i did need to understand the gap we are in here. abraham lincoln understood the importance of the railroad, a revolutionary technology. he came out for the transcontinental road. we did not have the steel industry, the steam engine, and 10 years after he called for a transcontinental railroad was completed to utah. john f. kennedy got up in may 1961 and said, "we will put a man on the moon by the end of the decade peak of at the time he said it, -- decade." at that time, we have not had an american orbit the earth. we did not have the technology, the rockets, the organization,

the astronauts. he said we could do it in a decade, not because it is easy but because it is hard. that will force us to get organized and do things. how many of you remember july watching as americans -- do you remember this? americans landed on the moon, not some international organization, but americans inside of that decade. i just want you to understand how serious i am. the japanese attacked us on december 7th, 1941. we were a serious country. we defeated and ended the war in august 1945. in 44 months we defeated nazi germany, fascist italy, and imperial japan simultaneously. we did serious things.

it you elect me, i will take it as a signal, if the american people elect me, that we do not want someone who can manage the decay, someone who will apologize for failure, someone who will wind about the past. we want someone who will force dramatic, bold, fundamental change in washington and new york. we want someone to get the establishment working back for america rather than preside over america. we need to go back to being within the constitution rather than rewriting it. [applause] if you will help me for the next two days, we will win in florida. when we do that, we win the nomination. when we get the nomination, we will be barack obama to get america on the right track. thank you, good luck, and bless you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> and newt gingrich running in second place in florida according to latest polls. from here, he will be going mounted jacksonville to visit the first jacksonville baptist church. mitt romney will be on the atlantic coast. we will show you his campaign stop there tonight at 6:30 p.m. eastern.

>> april 15th, 2010, i arrived in paris, walked into the hotel lobby, met general mcchrystal for the first time and he said, "so you are the rolling stones guy? i do not care about the article. i just want to be on the cover." >> the june 2010 issue of "rolling stone." and ladyetweetn you gaga. he replied, "put us in a heartshaped tub." this is a different general, a different story. >> he had been fired as a result of this story later. talking about his new book, "the operators." tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a."

>> you may have just heard newt gingrich at his campaign stop in florida. he talked about the keystone pipeline and the senate and house energy and some committee held a meeting. lee terry introduced the legislation called the north american energy act. the hearing is almost two hours. >> summit also like to welcome those members of the training plant. i did not realize you were going to be with us this morning. we're delighted you're with us on the second row. today's hearing gives us the opportunity to learn why the obama administration denied it permit to build the keystone pipeline from canada through

parts of the united states. how could the obama administration, when presented with the chance to create thousands of jobs, and at the same time significantly reduce our dependence on oil say no to the american people? we will talk about how such harmful decision was made and explore opportunities to reverse that decision while the administration struggles to find a rational decision to reject the construction of the keystone pipeline, we will look for ways to build it. this is a project that would cost about $7 billion and there would not be any government money involved in the project. it's all being supplied by private industry. it would immediately put at least 20,000 people to work.

that certainly sounds like a national interest to me. the president decides that sending three aircraft carrier strike groups to the strait of vermont to defend the free flow of oil, if he thinks that is in the national interest, would he not also think a pipeline from canada that would help us be less dependent on middle eastern oil would serve the national interests? they determined that the pipeline would have no significant impact on the environment. the president said himself that his rejection is not based on its merits. he said that, which makes us believe the decision to reject was solely political decision to help him be reelected.

i would like to submit the rest of my time to mr. terry. >> this is what the state department house by way of environmental studies on the keystone route. it is very voluminous. it's difficult to understand and we will get into some of the points leader during questioning. i want to go off my regular script and express my displeasure that the state department decided to object to to our nebraska witness that could help put in context the nebraska exemption and what the state is doing. just because they do not sit on the same panel as a state witness. the head of our department of

environmental quality is not worthy enough to sit there because of the time constraints and his ability to answer our questions have to be deleted from this panel, and frankly i'm disturbed. we will get into the poll excuse of using the state of nebraska for the reason for the denial. the bill was written so you would not have to make that decision. we would get into the statements and i yield back. >> i might also say that last night in the president's state of the union address talked about the importance of and for structure for america to remain competitive.

>> [unintelligible] five minutes are up. we should proceed. regular order. your time is up. >> there was still 30 seconds left. >> i looked at it -- >> we will enforce the rule. >> thank you for recognizing me. i'm glad to have a referree here. i expected to be a big battle to take place this morning at the hearing. today we are holding at another hearing on the keystone pipeline. it is a follow-up to the last hearing, the last marco for the majority attempted to hastily

make a decision on the keystone pipeline. let me remind you. the majority first tried to move the legislation there required -- that required them to forego their due diligence by november 1st of last year. the irresponsible -- irresponsible view so be it. the administration did not have the time needed to to do throat oversight and review of this project. -- throw oversight and review. as long as the industry got what it wanted the was the most important role of the congress.

they wanted to attach a rider that would force president obama to come out in favor of the keystone xl pipeline within 60 days. we all know how well that strategy worked out. again, the majority says "too bad" but the majority of americans may have been negatively impacted. they have yet to even identify information about the pipeline. as was a said all last year, my

colleagues continued push this through. if you just take the projections for average americans and allow industry to do what it wants without restrictions unfettered. somehow miraculously jobs would be created in millions of out of work americans would be gainfully employed. after all, mr. chairman, we saw how this will involve a collapse of our financial institutions and economy. it is ironic that 25 members of the subcommittee, the nine bills that it originated from the

subcommittee, the only piece of legislation that actually became law was the pipeline safety reauthorization bill. it expanded regulations in order to address public safety. the pipeline save the bill enjoyed unanimous support from this committee. it would appear more republican colleagues do not always support federal regulations and oversight. today, mr. chairman, we are here on in other real fishing expedition. federalying to sidestep regulation and oversight in order to help energy get what

they want and the american public be damned. they're working feverishly on their behalf. it would never ever become -- >> i want his words taken down. the gentleman's time -- [gavel] >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman made an accusation saying that we are tied to campaign contributions. that is wrong and against our rules. his words need to be taken down. >> we will have the clerk review the transcript.

we will proceed at that point. i will remind everyone that we do not need to be making accusations about what people are and are not doing as far as legal campaign finance laws. at this time, i would like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the full committee. >> i notice we have a number of referees in the second row. welcome to the big house. yellow plaid means there is a review of the play, and we look forward to having a review of the play. it passed on the floor and in committee by a two to one margin and we look forward to have the ruling on the field confirmed again, and perhaps again and again. it's not often that congress can to reduce thesteppe price at the gas pump to create

literally tens of thousands of jobs. it is not often that we can accomplish all of these important goals with no costs to taxpayers. that is exactly what approving the keystone pipeline expansion would do and why i support h.r. 3548, the north american energy access act. it is a show of already project that would create badly needed jobs. it would allow oil to come into the u.s. taking the place of imports from far less friendly producers. it would go to refineries come increase the supply of american made gas. it would also provide an outlet for the growing supply of domestic oil produced in the formations in north dakota and montana. every penny of the project will be paid for.

it is no surprise that some americans consider this to be a no-brainer, especially since it has been extensively studied for years and found to be minimal. the one in the state department to make the long-overdue decision by november 1st. it probably would have garnered even more votes if it were not for the repeated assurances that they would make a decision by the end of 2011. sadly, as the end of the year approached, they reversed their decision and postponed until 2013 at the earliest. they give the president is second chance to do the right thing by providing another 60 days to approve the keystone as a part of the payroll tax bill. he decided to reject it after only 26 days.

make no mistake. time is of the essence. not only are there are unemployed americans anxiously looking for jobs, not only is i strait ofatening the hormuz, but they're getting increasingly annoyed. canada is increasing their production, and they will build a pipeline to the pacific coast and they will export to china. we offer an opportunity to approve keystone. i believe giving the authority to the ferc is a good one.

i yield to anyone on our side that would like time. if not, i will yield back. >> the gentleman yield back the balance of his time. i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. cook today we once again consider legislation to approve the keystone -- >> today, we once again consider the legislation. this has a pet project from every state and commitetee with a project. one will be exempted a review. is that the way to approve a controversial pipeline? the legislation we are considering today is an earmarked that benefits

projects. you remember the republicans say they are against earmarks? well, not when it helps their friends. the arguments for the project do not stand up to scrutiny. this will not boost our energy or create in pleaded jobs. why did the republicans introduced a bill after bill to short circuit the committee process on the keystone xl? they say it will make the country more energy independent. that is a myth. energy prices are set by the global market. this will have no impact on our vulnerability to price spikes or iranian gamesmanship. in fact, keystone will not even reduce our imports. it will allow canadian oil companies to use the united

states as a conduit for shipping overseas to china. i know they say they do not get this pipeline that they will go to the west coast. that is a problem. there are nations that do not want the pipeline there either. the republicans say it will cut gasoline prices, but the opposite will happen. the oil now being refined in the midwest and suppressing prices will be diverted to the gulf coast for export. it will cost consumers in the midwest millions of dollars. they sit supports the pipeline because it will create tens of thousands of jobs. that's not right either. according to transcanada, the companies seeking to build the

keystone pipeline, on the project will have a "a work force of approximately 3500-4200 construction personnel." some labor groups of recently described the gop's antics as a strategy of a do nothing republican congress. if the republicans were seriously and are actually concerned about jobs, they would worked with the president on passing his jobs bill. they have no solution. the jobs crisis, they say, is to protect public safety. this will trickle-down to more jobs. they say this one project will provide the jobs that we need. it is amazing to me. the fact is the legislation we are considering today is one

that is hard to understand. ask the koch brothers whether this -- this committee has an obligation to understand the benefits from this legislation. last year, news organizations reported that one company, koch industries, would be a big winner at this would be constructed. we asked koch if this was true, and we were told they had no interest whatsoever in the pipeline. then we know they told the canadian government they have a direct and substantial interest. something does not add up. we invite koch industries to come here and testify. the chairman has not even responded to our letter.

therefore, i revoke the minority's rights under rule 11 to have a minority stake the hearing. it is important we hear from the other stakeholders. i think this is a bad idea and it ignores the concerns -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. we will certainly accept the letter and we will follow the rules, but we will not send a subpoena to the koch brothers because they have nothing to do. >> point of information. you cut me off in the middle of the sentence. i'd like to know the substantiation. >> your time was up. we will recess this hearing for 10 minutes and then we will come back. >> will you be calling the koch brothers during the recess? >> let's talk about the millions

of dollars the obama administration gives companies like solyndra. would you like for us to subpoena them, too? >> uconn of members and give yourself unlimited time. >> i am responding to allegations. i'm the chairman. we will recess now for 10 minutes. display device settings

>> i colli hearing back toward her. at this time, we will hear testimony from are two witnesses. i would like to welcome both of you to this hearing today. first of all, we have the hon. kerry and -- carrie ann jones. and we also have mr. jeffrey wright at the federal energy regulatory commission. i welcome you to the hearing. each one of you will be recognized for five minutes. then we will have questions for you at that time. ms. jones, i will recognize you for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> turn on your microphone.

>> i think it is on. good morning, members of the subcommittee on energy and power. i appreciate the opportunity to be here before you today. we received the outline for the project in 2008 and we undertook a thorough and rigorous process to determine the issuance of the pipeline -- >> would you please pull the microphone closer to you? >> is that better? i think you know the first part already. in december, congress passed a temporary payroll tax cut extension act of 2011 which required a response within 60 days. on january 18th, 2012, the department of state recommend that the application for presidential permit be denied due to insufficient time to

conduct necessary analysis. the president to accept it and we felt the pipeline, as looked at by that time, would not benefit national interests. i would like to comment on the administration's view of h.r. 3548. on april 30th, 2004, president bush issued executive order 13- 337 to empower the department of state to receive the applications for presidential permits for all oil infrastructure projects but across the u.s. border. the executive order indicated that the permits should be granted whether or not it is in the natural -- national interests. it includes numerous issues including energy security, foreign policy, economic effects, health, safety, and environmental considerations including climate change as well

as any other factor we believe is relevant. to make an informed decision, they directed an executive order to request additional information is needed from the applicant. in order to analyze the potential environmental impact, as required by the order, the department determined that we would prepare an environmental impact statement as required. we also carried out process is mandated by the national historic preservation act of 1966 and the endangered species act. following these requirements, we engaged in a robust public outreach effort including meetings along the proposed route. on august 26th, 2011, we issued the final e.i.s. began an interagency review time for determination and we conducted additional public comments that closed on november

9th, 2011. we held meetings along the route including in the sand hills. these meetings are passionate with strong opinions and rationales on both sides. in nebraska, we heard concerns about the fragile and unique sand hills. the people of nebraska felt so strongly about this issue that their legislature met in a special session to enact a law to make sure the sandals would be protected. based on experience, with pipelines of similar length, we estimated it would take until early 2013 to complete our assessment. in december 2011, as we were cooperating with the nebraska, the temporary payroll tax cut continuation act was enacted into law. we knew 60 days was not enough time to complete the work and analysis needed relevant to the national interest determination. we decided based not on the

merits but on the inadequate time in the incomplete review to recommend that the president denied a permit. this now brings me to h.r. 3548. it imposes time constraints and create automatic mandates that prevents an informed decision. we feel this raises questions about existing legal authorities and appears to override foreign-policy, the national security considerations implicated by a permit, which are properly assessed by the state department. we remain engaged with all the key partners, including canada. the state department remains committed to carrying out the responsibilities under executive order. we have the utmost concerns for the american people. thank you for the opportunity to

testify, and i am pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you, ms. jones. mr. wright, members of the subcommittee, i am the director of the office of energy projects at the federal regulatory energy commission. the office of energy projects is responsible for, so things, the certification of interstate gas pipelines. i have no position on the proposed bill, but should congress trip -- congress direct admission for application for the project, as the commission infrastructure review branch, we would like take a primary role in advising the commission on the matter. i will offer comments with the goal of making sure that if congress gives this to the commission, the legislation

should provide clear and corrective procedures. i note that the authorization provided by the bill would differ substantially from the natural gas act and that the proposed act does not make specific provision for procedures like public notice, public comment, rehearing, or judicial review in conjunction with the commission's consideration of application. i now turn to the specific provisions of the act. the commission would be required to approve the project within three days. if the commission has not acted within these 30 days, the application is deemed approved. it would not permit construction of an adequate records or allow for meaningful public comments. it gives no discretion in the issuance of the permits. it states that it is to be implemented in accordance with the terms of the impact

statements. it is not clear if the commission or any other entity would be able to force compliance with the measures required by that document. section 3b1 allows for modification of the route or other terms of the environmental impact statement. the bill, however, does not articulate the process for such a decision. 3b2 suggest that they will enter into a memorandum of understanding for effective and timely review for the national environmental policy act of any route modifications within the state of nebraska. upon approval of the modification, the commission will have 30 days to finish the review and approve modification. section 3b3 says that if it is not acted upon, modifications will be approved. the bill appears to contemplate that some entity will issue a

document regarding nebraska modification after which the governor will have the opportunity to approve the proposal. the commission would have 30 days to complete and approve such modifications. the section could be read as there is no obstruction, but further it does not appear to provide public notice, comments, or opportunities for hearing or hearing again. it states that a permit issued under this act shall be the sole legal authority required to construct and operate the pipeline except for safety and oversight that the pipeline hazardous material safety administration tariff authority. the language makes it not clear as to whether such permits would still be required from other federal agencies. further, as the department of state is responsible for issuing a permit, and authorizes border crossing authorities,

depending on state law, who have authority to cite pipelines on their jurisdiction. the proposed legislation could be construed as providing local authority. this concludes my testimony and i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. i will recognize myself for five minutes of questions. miss jones, in october, 2010, the secretary of state clinton said that she was inclined to approve the keystone pipeline permit. on october 31, 2011, the press secretary stated that the fact was that this is the decision that will be made by the state department. the very next day, president obama said that the decision

would rest with him. in the president's announcement last week to reject the pipeline permit, he said that he had accepted the state department's recommendation to do so. so, my question would be, were you involved in the decisions made at the state department? did you recommend to the president that we reject this permit? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the recommendation was a state department recommendation that came from my bureau, and other bureaus. it came from the deck -- from the deputy, through the secretary, to the president. >> will on what other role was the state department involved? >> the bureau of economic affairs. the state department books at

this pipeline across all of the issues involved. so, there are multiple bureaus involved. we also have some energy expertise, and we have the regional bureau, which handles matters of candidates. >> i think we have a copy of the impact statement that is quite voluminous. is it not true that the state department impact statements concluded that the pipeline would have limited adverse environmental impact? >> with this statement, it said, it's suggested, that there would be little adverse impact to most resources. it then went on to say that that was the case if the applicant followed all of the state and local rules and mitigation procedures as outlined. it went on to then say that

there were three or four areas of concern were there could be impacted. still a possibility that was called out for cultural resources related to data americans, wetlands and other areas where the trees and shrubs would not be put back after the pipeline was put in. the environmental impact statement was very long. the summary is just one page, but there are many other pieces throughout the document. >> is it not true that their own environmental impact statement included a review of an alternative not to build the pipeline at all? didn't the environmental impact statement conclude that the building pipeline along the preferred route was better, environmentally, then no pipeline at all? >> in the environmental impact statement, we look at many alternative routes.

we looked at the roots that made very little changes. as preferable to the capote -- proposed route at that time, based on the different environmental considerations that they had, as well as some technical issues. the denial of this permit we did not have a complete rout to look at at this point. >> it says that as a result of these considerations, the department of state does not regard the no action alternative.

this language in here is very clear and the state department concluded that it was preferable to a pipeline. we found ourselves confused about the reversal on this. this was a study that went on for 40 months or so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss jones? hastes makes waste. my question is, why did the state department now recommend that the president does -- deny the pipeline?

>> we recommended the denial because we did not have the information. we would not be able to look at the other factors, economic, socioeconomic factors, environmental factors, as well as current policy energy security. that is why we recommended denial. it was not based on the merits of the project. >> maybe you can further explain this, but why was it not completed by the arbitrary deadline set forth by the republican bill which others did

they not have time to consider? >> november, when we identified the need for additional come in- depth analysis for alternative routes, we recognize that we had to identify what the alternative routes might be. that is one thing we do not have. we also do not have the level of detail. to have a route, we would have to have the detail regarding the different kinds of information. the other kinds of border crossings and the endangered species that were issued. we would of course have to

interact with the community to hear their concerns and understand what issues might be there. that overall process could take several months. the estimate that was put out there was supported by both the applicant and the state of nebraska when we talk to them about this. we had to understand what would be needed to get the information. and that we needed to make a well-informed decision. >> you think it would have been irresponsible, reckless, potentially harmful to the american public, had you tried to make grant permits within these artificial deadlines to

satisfy the republicans in this situation? >> i think it would have been irresponsible because we did not have defined a significant portion of the pipeline that would be a major piece of infrastructure that would affect our country for many years. having that information was an important piece. that is will we based our first decision on. the most recent decision is based on the fact that we did not have the time to get the information that we thought we needed. >> in all of your experience, ruling in your capacity, have you had similar instances where by congress enacted some artificial deadline that did not allow you the time to thoroughly and completely perform your

responsibilities to the american public? >> not that i can recall, congressman. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. i need to make disclosure before an answer my questions. my congressional district in texas, if it were a state, at one time it would have been the fifth largest energy producing state in the country. i have been producing oil wells, natural gas wells, coal mines, coal fired power plants, oil pipelines, water pipelines, existing and in use. some of them are not in use and are still underground. i have big pipelines and little

pipelines. so, i think i know a little bit about this subject. i have listened with interest to the woman from the state department's explanation. i will say that she puts the best face possible on a terrible decision that her department has made. one of the things you just said was that there were socioeconomic factors that had to be considered. where is it in the law, socioeconomic factors -- >> congressman, the -- >> is it in the law? i do not need a long dodge answer. is there a statute that says the state department has considered socioeconomic factors? >> it is in the executive order. >> which is not a lot? >> it is in nipa as well.

>> i would like you to provide it. is it a size -- socioeconomic factors that a project might bring high-paying jobs to the area? >> yes. >> is it a factor that a project might bring much needed energy to the mid the continents and lower southwest and southeastern states? is that an economic factor? >> yes it is. >> were those considered? >> absolutely. the decision at this time was not based on those factors. those socio-economic factors might be the reason, until the radical environmentalists began to protest and petition against it, when the secretary of state was asked in california the status of the application, she indicated that she was inclined, or the state department was inclined to approve it? is that a fair statement? >> we were considering those

factors the to mention -- that you mentioned, congressman. we were not able to complete it because of the deadline for forward. >> what is the statute, under >> i am not sure, sir. >> i know that it is not four years. i will not swear to 180 days, but i think it is 180 days. >> my understanding is that in previous cases where we had gone over pipelines, it had taken a few years or so. i do not know the statutory time line. >> there are three phases of the pipeline. you have the construction phase, the operation phase, and unfortunately on occasion even have a catastrophic accident once it is in operation. were there concerns about the construction of the pipeline?

i am trying to get a primary concern of the state department. is it an operation phase concern? is it a concern over some serve catastrophic event that would spill oil out into the environment? >> at this point, sir, the concern was that we did not have time to do the analysis. the dimensions of the issue that you're talking about, we had to study it. certainly the bills around construction. the reason it was taken was because it did not have -- >> i and world war ii we spend less time fighting that war than it took to evaluate this project. with all due respect, it is an insult to the american people to say that you need more time. there are 10 other agencies of reviewed this project. correct me if i am wrong, but my

understanding is that the corps of engineers and the department of agriculture approved it. the department of the interior proved it. the department of transportation and for it -- approved it. the defense department approved it. the justice department approved it. the department of commerce approved it. only the state department, which i believe by law is required to look to the international implications, because this is trans canada, only the state department did not approve it. i yield back. >> at this time i would like to recognize mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. when we first held the hearing on this subject, there were press reports that koch industries would be one of the big winners of this was constructed. we asked them if this was true.

>> will the gentleman yield? >> no. we were told that they had no interest whatsoever in the pipeline. then we learned that they told the canadian government that they had a directly substantial interest. i have before me a document. it is the application for intervening status in canada. this application says that -- this is an application from a company called flint hills resources, canada, which is a subsidiary of the coke industries -- koch industries. they said that flint hills resources in canada was among some of the largest crude oil purchasers, shippers, and exporters, primarily in minnesota. that they had a direct and

substantial interest in the application. mr. chairman, i would like this document to be made apart a record. >> without objection. >> this document raises the issue that this statement that industries was not involved is not accurate. this is why i think we need to get more information. the keystone xl pipeline poses substantial risks for americans. it would pop -- pump across the middle of america, from canada to the gulf of mexico. even if it is rerouted around nebraska, the sand hills, it will certainly go through the offer, and injuring the water supply of 2 million americans. the state department analysis

indicates that shifting away from crude oil would reduce carbon emissions. these are risks that are real and serious. the benefits for oil companies are also real. they will finally be able to export tarzans to asia. -- tar sands to asia. but the benefits for americans are less clear. doctor, how many jobs would this pipeline generate, according to the state department analysis? >> economic analysis and economic consideration is part of the review that we have been doing that was cut short by this deadline the refaced. the final environmental -- deadline that we faced. the final environmental deadline, based on the number of work crews, it was 5000 to 6000 construction jobs that would be needed per year. >> for how many years?

>> two years. >> the oil industry has been saying that it would create 20,000 jobs, even 100,000 jobs. that was provided to the information to us in those claims. >> congressman, we have seen many different estimates on the number of jobs that could be created with this pipeline. job creation is a very complicated issue. >> what about the challenge to your data and claim? >> we have had lots of challenges coming from different directions. that is the number that we have gotten. >> let me back my time. as soon as it is up, that gavel will be smashed. "the washington post," claimed that this would create tens of thousands of jobs. this was called a pinocchio challenge.

saying that we need to the need for american jobs bill. instead, doing that legislation is being considered through a pipeline? i think it is a pitiful excuse for a jobs policy. i want to ask you about the review, dr. jones. assuming that transcanada reifies for the permanent, as the state department agency, you will need to assess the new route. will you commit to examining other questions about addressing u.s. carbon emissions and climate change? when you look at this question? >> congressman, should a new application be submitted without prejudice, the different aspects of the project, as you mentioned, certainly greenhouse

gases, as well as broader environmental issues and foreign policy, everything would be considered. we would do that in all fairness and transparency in trying to deal with this process. it would be a new application. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> at this time i would like to recognize the jo-ellan from oklahoma for five minutes. >> i would like to yield one minute of my time. >> i have sat here for one year and watched folks on the left obsess about one of my industries.s, kicoch today we have reached a new place, asking if they benefit on a particular permit application. this makes no sense to me. this is about good policy, not deciding whether particular companies benefit or not. if they benefit or not, i do not understand how it is

relevant to the decision. i would not for a moment suggest we should bring in warren buffett to testify about whether his company would benefit from this permit application. i have read that he would be greatly benefited if we do not get the permit approved. i cannot believe that anyone on this committee would have their decision on whether or not to vote for this legislation turn on whether any private company benefited or was harmed by this. this is not what we are supposed to be doing. the constitution tells us to do good public policy and we should not make decisions based on whether or not one company or another benefits. >> i did not want you to go up -- to go over one minute. thank you for being here today. it has taken you three years and no decision. my constituents are wondering about this. when do you think you could make

a decision? 10 years from now? do we need to reapply? when do you think we could make a decision? >> congressman, we made the decision in november that we needed additional information. the estimate was for the first quarter of 2013. at this time we recommend denial because we did not have the time to do that. >> these other departments seemed to approve. why are they so nimble and you so slow? >> congressman, i did not have a chance to respond to the comments, but we did not finish the national interest determination of consultations between other agencies. i was not clear as to what for -- what kind of approval but was referring to. >> january 11, hillary clinton made remarks calling the threats to the strait of hormuz dangerous.

she called it the lifeline that moves oil and gas from the world. according to the department of energy, 1/6 of global consumption passes through the strait at the mouth of the persian gulf. the fact is the crude oil futures have risen 7.4% since december 16 on increasing concerns that the second-largest producer of opec would close in the face of european governments under suspected nuclear weapons programs. in light of the national energy threats from iran, why has it taken three years for the state department to go through with this review? do you agree that it is in the national interest of the united states to be more energy independent from these regimes, like iran, that wants to harm our way of life? would you agree that fluctuating economic security is

threatening the reliance because of on reliable sources of oil? as you noted earlier, hillary clinton is concerned about the provocative actions of iran in the strait of hormuz. that is of great concern to our good friends, canada. yes or no? on the canada thing. >> yes, we share a commit -- commitment with canada to work towards energy security. as you pointed out, the issue is an important national priority. it is one of the considerations when pipelines are being reviewed. we did not have the opportunity to complete the review. that is why we took the action and made the recommendation that we did last week. it was only to partially fund the pipeline at this point.

>> is a game changer for energy is security. they transport to the midwest and gulf coast. it is in our national interest to move forward with this pipeline. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> in full disclosure, i support the building of the pipeline. i also believe that given the proper time lines to look at all factors that eventually this application will be approved with the recommendations. it is a matter of time that time is of the essence and that we need to move forward with it

but 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 be to energy security. if we do this, the total production out of canada and the united states will exceed production. that is energy security. inlso believe it'll result more jobs in america on the construction site. this is a representation that is made by members of this committee that this is at the benefit of the american consumer and lower gasoline prices.

that is not going to happen. the sooner they acknowledge that it is a world market and the leading export of the united states according to a story that. in the associated press was fuel. as a result, market forces and selling it to the highest bidder means the american public is not going to be paying less for fuel. we need to continue to emphasize alternative means in fuels and hybrids and more efficiency and

conservation. the only reservation i have is that placing all our eggs in one basket is a distraction from pursuing more responsible energy policies that will lead to energy independence in the country in a way that is safe and cheaper to the american people. this is part of it. there has not been made any final determination on the application. is it clear from your testimony that the reason it has not been approved is that you have not been given sufficient time? >> that is the reason. >> you are not new to your job. i asked my staff to look into your background. he had been years since the inception. >> in 1979 i began. >> your testimony today is that

what we are attempting to do is to circumvents or introduce a new process would not be workable in the current form. >> my testimony is based upon my experience with the natural gas pipelines. they are trying to extrapolate to oil pipelines. it does not appear there be enough time for procedures to be followed to a public notice and the time allowed to do on the opprobrious studies. >> this is not the first sign that congress was not happy. we tried to transfer it to another. to the other department is telling us it still will not hurt. i hope we are listening and that we can all be on one page. if we do this correctly, it will be beneficial to those. let's give them the time that is necessary. >> i recognize the gentleman

from illinois. >> thank you. so many questions, so little time. last night the president used a great phrase that was really claimed by republicans a couple of years ago. we did in all the above energy strategy. a sitting with my friend on the other side of the aisle. he said he should have credited you for that. all of the above means all of the above. we applaud him for that statement. we had members -- i want to continue this debate. this is not a partisan debate by house representatives.

when the first keystone bill passed, 37 democrats joined us. the vote was 279-147. this was not a debate against business versus labor. we had a strong group of friends from organized labor into the operating engineers. they supported job creation. last night in the speaker's box we have the manufacturer [inaudible] it is not part of your job creation. people are putting the pipe in the ground. he failed to mention the people that build the pipe. nor do you consider the people who created the alleging generator for the pumping stations. we build pipelines. you know how many people it takes.

he multiplied by 1700. it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the statistics. that is what organized labor is used in a row friendly to the republican side. they joined 47 members and were very supportive of this piece of legislation. another issue is that i had to refinery managers -- two refinery managers. ray brooks from the refinery in illinois, hundreds of jobs. they are already using oilcans right now from the keystone pipeline. we have done research on moving oil through pipelines. we are already doing it. also in attendance was mr. j.

church hill, the company in wood river. they had a $2 billion mansion. thousands of members of organized labor were on the ground during the worst economic times. that is why i am proud. you talk about energy security. it creates better high-paying jobs. it is not give the credit it deserves. -- it does not get the credit it deserves. i guess i should ask a question.

did you know that the wall street journal sold 40% of their oils, do you know to which country that china. do you know why? they will now have a controlling interest of the oil field so they can develop it. what is profoundly disappointment mean in state department interrelation speak? >> it usually means exactly what it says. >> they are very angry. the canadians are allies.

>> of like to recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. i still have three more refineries up on me. >> i'm going to work for more. >> i know you traditionally come from a coal area. i am a strong supporter of the keystone pipeline and have been from the beginning. we need this product. we are preventing the future production. the violent and safety concerns need to be dealt with. without this product will

continue to feed money into countries that status. having said that, i do not think we should be rewriting an outstanding process. i do have some questions about the process. i'll use my time to address it. the executive branch offered authority. literally since the executive order in 1968. with executive order from president bush, they amended that authority to see the review that did not alter the exercise of that authority with the delegation. is that correct a? >> that is correct. >> how many permits have been issued since 1968?

>> i know of three at this time. i am not sure that is accurate. >> most of our pipelines come from mexico instead of canada. it seem like there would be a number of them that cross international borders between mexico and the united states. what is the average time these permits have taken? >> is at stake in about two years or so. >> the state department issued an environmental impact statement in august.

then they held several public hearings. i appreciate the state department granted my request for a hearing in eastern harris county and east of houston. we can have our constituents talk about it. you held those hearings. when you announce in november the year delaying the decision,

they were showing this about is standing hill. my question centers on a language that allows for transcanada to continue to work on the routes. given the favorable eis, they have language allowing for the issue to be dealt with. why are you not able to make a decision in 60 days? the average time is 18 to 24 months. this has been well over three years. why wasn't enough time? >> we did not have the information we needed. since we did not have that, that is a significant portion of the pipeline. it was an arbitrary time line. we knew it would take more time. >> previous parliaments had taken 24 months. this is a logger pipeline than others. i know it is much shorter. it seems like 3.5 years is plenty of time to give someone 60 days and say you have done these environmental studies any need to make a decision. they may have a different opinion.

there are pipelines crossing it. >> we did not see any oil pipeline spirit guides there are six pipelines. >> there are six pipelines. it to be in that easement that is already used. that is the frustration. buy him out of time. i do not know if you will have the second round or not rigid i am out of time. -- i am out time. i do not know if you have is that it around. >> i recognize the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you very much. we welcome our witnesses. >> on november 12, 1973, led the house of representatives

under democrat-controlled six similar action in approving the trans alaska pipeline. the senate to get up and approved it on a 40-49 -- 49-49 tie. the pipeline continued. that was 800 miles. it was about that time that president nixon said we need to do something about using america's energy reserves. it was approved by congress. this is not an unheard of act. as someone who represents the district as 55% of federal

lands, if there were circumstances involving forestry were people seem to have been sufficiently and chief in a clean up down in texas after a windstorm. i think even in south dakota after a fire. it is not unheard of. congress has done it before. i want to get on the issue of jobs. it says that there is $7 billion to construct the proposed project. do you have any disagreement on that number?

$7 billion. then we talk about the number of jobs. it talks about hiring of 5600 workers over the three-year construction. the related income benefits would be substantial. these are the words of the fdis. it to generate $349.4 million in total wages. if the maximum work force for 6000 people, $419.2 million in wages would be found. these numbers are only relate it to the actual construction of the pipeline, correct?

>> yes. >> a shrine to find other tables to get into the more rigid i was trying to find other tables to get more into it -- i was trying to get some other tables to get more into it. >> i did i get to speak to the indirect jobs. correct i would give you that chance. there's a company an organ that is building the pumps for the keystone xl pipeline. where would -- tell me what the fdis says relative to the total number of jobs? >> we were in the process of analyzing the indirect jobs. there are multiple models that people use. we did not complete that. because of the timeline we were candid. >> it is not in a final statement? >> we have the direct job numbers but not the indirect. weaver looking at that through the natural interest determination.

-- we were looking at that through the natural interest determination. >> what would those be? >> i think it is approximately 35,000 per year. >> how many years? >> that is another discussion. one was extraordinarily long. >> in the executive summary, it would also result in long-term to permanent impacts resulting from long term hires. revenues would be generated. >> some of that is in there. that is only one piece of the analysis. we did not finish the rest of it. we recognize the economic

impact is an important consideration. we did not have the complete route of the pipeline. >> i want to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you. i think the discussion over this keystone pipeline, the back-and-forth, has been unfortunate. it mirrors the discussions we have on policies in general. people talk about having an all the above strategy. each year that said a lot when in -- you hear that a lot so when in reality there seems to be more. if you are for coal or oil, and it cannot be for solar and wind. and vice versa. we need to do all of this if we're going to have energy security.

we need to pay particular attention to the technologies that are slowly but surely overtime going to start to replace fossil fuels. we know that also feels are not in infinite supply. something has to take its place. it will not take its place tomorrow or in five or 10 years. if we did not start making investments now, we're going to be in trouble down the road. the need to do that also. -- we need to do that also. it is in our interest to develop domestic supply and continue their relationship we have with canada. this pipeline is a small piece of the puzzle. let's not delude ourselves. this is a silver bullet, it will not lower peoples gas prices. of this pipeline cannot have you no no longer buy oil. there is 800,000 tons of steel pipe in this project. i wish i could say that is

coming from the united states. transcanada's contract is with and indian and rushing company to manufacture the pipes. -- and a russian company to manufacture the pipes. i would feel better about this project of one drop of u.s. steel was being made in this pipeline. it is unfortunate that it is not. having said all of that, i think what has to do this more than anything was the politics being played in only passed the payroll tax act and put the gun to the president's head and said he had to make this decision in 60 days. it is pure and election-year politicking. i agree with faster gun dollars. after the -- with mr. gonzalez. after the review and we have a

route that is environmentally safe, this project should move forward but not until we do that. i do not think we are there yet. this legislation in front of us once again imposes this artificial deadline of 30 days and take this out of the hands of the state department's to an agency that does not do oil pipelines. it is a misguided effort. with the time i have left, i want to ask a couple of questions. i know we planned earlier to have the nebraska deq with us. i know that his testimony lays out a timeline for his state to follow this new route through nebraska and complete any necessarily environmental reviews. he said that if this were done on an aggressive schedule, a

new route could be approved by october of 2012 at the earliest. does the state department believe the 60 day time line has allowed for a complete recommendation from the state and nebraska? >> we feel that we do need the time that he had put out. we had talked about the environmental quality as well as the applicant. the estimate that came in from all of this was run the same. >> has the state department recommended a pipeline without having the entire proposal

before it? >> no. >> was there any question that would be able to complete a modified proposal by the deadline? >> no. that is why we felt we cannot go forward. quite as much time has expired. what i'm trying to get their everybody. we will not be able to come back. -- >> i am trying to get through everybody. we will not be able to come back. >> i have respect for my friend from pittsburgh. it is about 60-65% of the steel is u.s. steel. the reason why he is not here is because our state department's objected to him being on the panel because it was beneath them to have a state official. that is why he is not here. >> will my friend deal for one second? >> there is an e-mail chain verifying this. i may have put a little

editorial to its. i am profoundly disappointed that the state department objected to him being on the panel. therefore, he is not. for the record, i would like to introduce a media note from the state department. april 15, in conclusion the u.s. department expects to make a decision whether to grant or deny the mets before the end of 2011. another comment the executive office of the management of budget saying the same thing. they are working the state department. all are working diligently and will have all of the information they need.

there will be able to make their decision by december 31. -- they will be able to make their decision by december 31, 2011. we are using the state and nebraska as the excuse to delay the decision until after the election. it is not in a coincidence that -- any coincidence that they feel like they would be in a position to make a decision within 60 days of the election. they said in the first quarter of 2013. it flies in the face of all their previous statements. i read a quote from an environmental news service. it is after the nebraska

legislature met. "i am confident that the "i am confident that the departments and nebraska authorities will be able to work together in preparing any documents necessary to examine the alternative route to the state of nebraska to satisfy any state laws." they were all set and ready to go with the state and nebraska. if he would have been allowed to participate in this hearing today but for the objections of the state department, i think he would have said on december 1, 2011 we contacted the state department to explore the process of entering into an mou between agencies that would outline responsibilities.

we received a first draft of the agreement from the state departments within the next two weeks and exchanged comments for what we consider to be an executable document which we submitted to the state department december 2011. i think it is odd or interesting that the state department's in the middle of december 2011 decided that they were not going to work on this project anymore and then come here and said they did not have time. you cannot be the one delaying it and an object to the delays. mack also submit the actual language of -- may i also submit

the actual language that was signed into law. let me wait for just a second on that one. as i understand that from reading your report you are objecting not because of the enactments, the president shall grant a commit under executive order. you said that many times. it is that 60 day requirements, the absurdity -- damn. darn. [laughter] that does not run and sell all of the reports are done and certified by the governor -- darn, i yield. >> sorry, we're going to have some votes. >> thank you.

according to some information that i have, october 15, 2010, she says she was inclined to approve a permit. on october 31, 2011, the white house secretary stated the fact is this is a decision that will be made by the state department or is has been the state department. the next day president obama said the decision will rest with him. he said he had expected the state department's recommendation to do so. can you tell the committee to it was made the call and made the decision to reject the keystone xl permit?

>> based on the act, they had specific language. this is through the secretary to the president. he recommended to the president that this decision be taken and the president decides. >> the the white house exert any influence? >> no. >> it seems to me there is an individual that is missing from this hearing today that perhaps we should ask if we could cement some questions to that individual. we all know what is going on.

i was in iraq in august. although our military presence there has a well in doubt, there is still a big state department footprints. in bosra, there is one of the largest a department operations. my understanding is that is where they narrowed down going to the golf upon and all the oil flowing down will go through basra and they felt they needed a large presence there. i do not get it. why do we have to have? there are jobs there. i would rather have the pipeline through taxes. -- texas. we are not nearly hard to deal with as people in the middle

east. as food for thought. let's build it where regionwide make it hard? i would like to yields to mr. pompeio are you good? >> generally. i will yield back to you. >> thank you for 5 minutes. my understanding is there is a potential to some of the product that would flow through to this proposed pipeline. it could be consumed by other countries rather than by consumers in the united states. under this bill, with united states government be able to

assess the impact of that of consumer prices? >> i assume you mean the proposal. >> i cannot answer that. that was one of the considerations in the interest determination that we read in the process of doing. >> my understanding is this is used by american consumers. other people are from the world will be bidding on it. they will be bidding against it for the gasoline domestically. i think this has the potential to affect the price we pay at the pump. we are competing with the same product. i do not know the answer to that question. would the u.s. government assess that as part of the

decisionmaking process? >> i would say as part of the analysis and overall national interest. it is something that would be assessed. >> thank you. >> has the gentleman yield back this time? >> yes. >> we have a vote on the floor. we will not be able to come back. but i will give everyone three minutes in an effort to try to get their everybody. you're recognized for three minutes. >> what is your experience on these cross border issues? how to been working on it? >> i have been at the state

since 2009. >> some of us have more than a passing interest. this is a 1,700 mile pipeline. we have 2,000,300 miles. how much jurisdiction did they have over the two million-plus? -- we have 2,000,300 miles. how much do you control? >> they are involved only in permits that cross there. >> it obviously looks at the no, project option. what are the emissions that would be created? what is the ability under nafta for canada to bring trucks across the border?

>> i do not think i can answer that question. >> it is pretty unrestricted. >> yes. >> what is the total emissions annually if we went that option? >> i do know in the final impact statement there was some analysis done that it was likely that other modes of transportation would pick up and continue to move. >> wouldn't you consider the fact that it would be put down? those are diesel emissions that have been categorized above and beyond. trucks are 87 times more dangerous. did you consider the fact that the no, project option for the delay would end up having more

emissions totalled? >> the denial was based on the fact that we do not have the time to do all the analysis. >> i'm happy to see the president approved across the border. just because the gentleman who is financing it is a billionaire from chicago, i'm not going to attack that agreement. when you get this agreement, would you consider the increased global impact of the operation that operates at the border? >> the ahead and finish. >> out is not involved it that. >> year recognized for three

minutes. -- you are recognized for three minutes. >> what concerns about me it's getting it back on track. the presence made a political decision and to hurt our relationship. >> canada is a strong friend, maybe one of the best friends of america in the world. canada had been trying to get this project done for over three years. is it true that canada submitted their application for this keystone xl pipeline back in september 2008? >> the trans canada company submitted it. >> the president said this time and time again, he did not have enough time.

he had 20 months. if you look at their original keystone pipeline, it was approved back in 2008 after less than two years of review. it does not take 40 months to review project like this. at some point in time have to decide if you are going to fish or cut bait. that is what congress decided in a bipartisan way. it is one of the few things we actually came together on an agreed, mr. president, stop wasting time, stop delaying the project for political purposes and make a decision, yes or no. back in august of last year, it all said this is something you should do. when asked about improving the keystone pipeline in 2010, then you get to august of last year, were you all came out with your report and basically said this is something we should do.

we don't see any real problems with the keystone pipeline. there would be no significant impact. that was the state department on keystone back in august 2011. what happened after that? in november, there was a big rally at the white house. you have and daryl hannah i got arrested, a lot of radical laverne list said do not approve-- environmentalists did not approve the keystone pipeline and threatened his re- election. three days after this rally, the president reversed his course and said we will push the decision on keystone until after the election. he is the one who gave the arbitrary date, not because of environmental reasons, because of political reasons. the radical environmentalist did not want this thing approved. canada said, we cannot wait this long.

china wants to do something. they want to participate with us. instead, the president said no, we don't want the job, let china get that oil. then we go to the statement by the prime minister of canada who said they are profoundly disappointed with this decision. >> we are down to three minutes because we have votes on the floor and we are running out of time. >> we have been repeatedly told that we need to get over the concerns about pollution and the environment because the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce over dependence on oil imported from unfairly middle eastern nations. the transcanada application states that the pipeline will serve the national interest of the nine states by providing a secure and reliable source of canadian crude oil to meet the growing demands of refineries and markets in the united states. however, citing plans by gulf

coast refineries with whom transcanada had entered into long-term sales contracts to re-export diesel and other fuels based on the keystone crude to latin america, europe, and beyond. nearly all of these refineries where the keystone crew will be sent are located in port arthur, texas, which is designated as a foreign trade zone. this means that these refineries -- they would not even have to pay u.s. taxes on these exports. earlier this month, the canadian prime minister said that when you look at the iranians threatened to block the straits of hormuz, i think that just illustrate how critical it is that supply for the united states 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 they hear in this country instead of a three exporting it, he said no, sitting right at this table. in other words, if the permit for the pipeline is

legislatively mandated by this bill, the u.s. may just become the middleman for shipping products made from some of the dirty as crude oil on earth to foreign markets around the world. secretary john, does the process the administration is following to determine whether keystone xl was in the national interest, whether the project would reduce dependence on middle eastern oil? >> that is one of the considerations. >> if the republicans had not force the administration to deny the permit because it was not given enough time to review it, the administration could have issued a permit the required the keystone oil to be sold only in the united states. isn't that right? >> i am not sure of the facts. we would have to study that. i don't think we can restrict exports. >> that could be in the national interest. is that correct? to keep the oil here? >> we would have to study it in regard to exports. >> could it be in the national

interest to keep the oil here? >> it would certainly be a consideration. >> we never got a chance to look that. the republican legislation provide explicit authority to issue permits -- does it contain that provision? >> i did not see that. >> i do not see that there. >> make no mistake, i think this is a pipeline -- >> [unintelligible] we are going to have to go down to 2 minutes, because we have four minutes left on the floor and 312 people have still not voted and i want everyone to have an opportunity to say something. >> i will be quick. we all know the benefits of the keystone xl pipeline. 20,000 jobs, energy for canada, national security and energy security. as a formal naval -- former naval aviator, we flew through

the straits of hormuz. i have a new perspective on iran. we all know that iran was threatening to close the strait. stopping 30% of the world supply of oil from getting to market. i cannot expand upon this enough, but that is a very real threat. the streets are narrow, about 9 miles wide in some places and they are shallow. if a vessel would sink in the middle of the straits, it would be blocked for months, if not years. in fact, three of our 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have been deployed to the region because our commander in chief sees the threat as real. the state department has a

history of approving new pipelines in the interest of national security because of political tensions. but it -- most recent example is the problem in the midwest part of the united states. let me read you a section from the record of decision for the alberta klipper pipeline. "the department of state has determined review of the alberta clipper project an application that the alberta clyburn project would serve the national interest. a time of political tension and other work major oil-producing region of the country by providing additional access to approximate stable and secure supply of crude oil with minimal transportation requirements from a rival allied trading partner of the united states which we had free trade agreements that further augment the security of the energy supply. why is the situation now

different? yes or no, mrs. jones, is the situation now more dire than it was when you approve the alberta klipper pipeline? yes or no? >> energy security is still a major priority for this country and this administration. however, we did not reject this project on the merits. it was an issue that we did not have time. those considerations to raise would be considered if we had the entire it theater had time to conduct a process we feel the american people need to have for this pipeline. >> your time has expired. >> with all due respect, you changed your mind. >> to some quick questions and perhaps you could just respond in writing to us rather than take time. could you submit to us in chronological order the process when it began in september of 2008. why in god's name it would take a three-point five years? private-sector firms would be fired for taking that long to go through process.

can you get back to us as to whether the railroads in montana and north dakota and oklahoma, are those captive railroads? i don't know whether they are or not. do you understand the term? >> we will have to get an answer back to you. >> i am asking if for the record if you would get back to us on that, whether or not these are captive railroads. can you also respond to the editorial that was in the investment business daily that on november 16, in which the editorial board there is trying to -- 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 posts on this until after the election is already crying out this is a political decision. since they are linking get 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 was not based on the time frame, we understand that. i think the american public is going to come to understand that. if you would get back to us in writing, i would appreciate it. >> is job creation the number one national interest? yes or no. >> yes. >> does this pipeline create jobs? a yes or no question -- does this pipeline create jobs? you recommend not moving forward with the pipeline? flea acted at odds with the number one national interest. >> we were reviewing the job situation and the economic issue is part of the process. >> i want to go back to this

final internal impact statement from august 111. -- august 2011 among the other alternatives, it considered a no action alternative. yes or no. >> yes. >> expressly -- >> there's more to that. >> the part of state does not regard the no action alternative to be preferable to the proposed project. the reason you concluded that, all things considered, transporting the oil in a state of the art pipeline is better than shipping it by rail, truck, and cargo ships, better than shipping it from the middle east. yes or no. if we delay this, if the white house delays it, we run the risk of no pipeline at all.

your delays run the risk of no pipeline. he said jobs are the no. 1 national interest, and 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. >> you just said no to this. these delays risk of the killing of this pipeline, so you end up with no pipeline, which is not in the preferred interest as the the parlous state has already said. if you do this, you are going to have none of the jobs. you will kill the jobs. you have none of the energy, and china wins. >> i have one question, miss jones, are you liking any -- lacking any information that you were constrained for time about how this impacted a particular private company? are you interested in how this might or might not affect any private company, relevant to your decision at all customer ? >> no, sir. the issue is running through nebraska.

>> the issue of how any private company would be impacted is irrelevant to your decision. >> we are looking at the routing as explained. >> it suggested they must have a financial interest in this transaction. this notion that they have an interest there has been shredded. there are many intervenors. the alberta federation of labor, the communication energy and paper workers of canada. this is a silly concept and i want to make sure the record reflects it. it makes no indication of whether any company has an interest in this pipeline at all. with that i yield back my time. >> i am sitting here curious. the state department keeps talking about studies in nebraska, but isn't your job supposed to determine what the

impact is because it is international on the international relationship with our friends in canada? >> because we have the authority for the permitting -- >> i understand you have the authority for the permit, but you got all this done by the agency that would normally do that. it is your job as the state department to focus on the relationships with our foreign friends and not interfere in internal decisions made by other agencies. >> our job in this situation is to look at the entire pipeline for the impact it would have on the country. >> so everything these people did was worthless. >> no sir, that is important analytical information. >> well then, why do you have to redo it all? i really believe this was a political decision. you are not supposed to comment on that, and i understand that. i believe the president had to delay until after the election. i believe that is what the

evidence shows. i am not asking for comment. it means more jobs in the u.s., more profits to the u.s., more taxes paid to the u.s. and more u.s. supply available. all those things are good things, and because you are from the state department, i would say that we have damaged our relationship with a good ally and a close neighbor and friend. to me that seems counter to the purpose of the state department and all this would indicate that everything you all are doing is counter to the interest 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. some questions were submitted to you all and i would appreciate you getting that information back to us. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house will be announced tomorrow. members return on tuesday. the senate will be in taking up the stock act, a measure that would prohibit members of congress from using insider information on stock trades. president obama talk about that legislation and in the state of the union address. it is sponsored by joe lieberman, and senate debate begins at 4:30 p.m. eastern time. there will be a procedural vote at 5:00 p.m. you can see that on our companion network, c-span2. mitt romney will have a campaign rally at pompano beach at 6:30 p.m. >> i had arrived in paris, i walked into the hotel lobby. i met general mcchrystal for the

first time. he looked at me and he said, "you are the guy from rolling stones. i do not care about the article. i just want to be on the cover." >> michael hastings wrote about the general and the military. >> i said it was between him and laidy gaga, joking. he replied, "just hit me and her together in a heart-shaped tub." >> it the months later, as a result of the article, general mcchrystal had been fired. he talks about the article and his new book, "the operators," tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> a look at the florida primary and beyond and president obama election strategy from today's

"washington journal." host: this is the sunday round table with carol lee. and aaron sharockman is joining us as well. let's begin with a lead story in your newspaper, a double digit lead for mitt romney at 42% in the statewide survey and 31% for newt gingrich, 14% for rick santorum and congressman ron paul at 6% for what do these numbers tell you beyond the obvious? guest: clearly, mitt romney is outspending newt gingrich 3-1 and the poll numbers are reflecting that. we see two decent debate performances by mitt romney and the state and newt gingrich has struggled this week. we have the momentum that can at a south carolina has now staggered. we are a couple of days before the primary and mitt romney is

holding an inevitable leave unless something happens. it looks like it will be a victory on tuesday for mitt romney. host: the panhandle tends to be more conservative, an area that mitt romney did fairly well in a few years ago and the corridor between orlando up for the jacksonville area and finally in south florida, both of reston, fort lauderdale, and miami. guest: this is a very diverse state geographically. there are different types of voters. you have your conservative core republican voters in the north part of the state. in the south part of the state, you have many cuban-americans and that has been a big play this week for both mitt romney and newt gingrich to appeal to the cuban-american voters. the quarter will be your swing voters in november. -- the corridor. it acts as a type bustling area

where you will have your suburban working-class white collar republicans will have to make a decision between romney and gingrich. host: the headline of "the miami herald" -- guest: mitt romney always had an advantage heading into florida over newt gingrich. he had a lot of money there and good organization on the ground there. he also had a lot of endorsements from various people in the state. he already had that advantage heading into it and what you saw in the last couple of days is that the nude gingrich momentum slowed in the mitt romney campaign regrouped to go

after newt gingrich more directly. that seems to have not to newt gingrich of his game. you have to have a lot of money to play there and it requires having a lot of organization and the mitt romney has been building the organization for one year as newt gingrich had not. host: look at the numbers -- there is a huge disparity between the romney campaign and a gingrich campaign. guest: you have to have a lot of money to play in florida and that is a complete and balanced. the other interesting thing is that romney had a bit of a cushion but his campaign has been chasing absentee ballots weeks before gingrich was campaigning and got sort of any operation together to do that.

that will provide in somewhat of a cushion heading into tuesday's primary host: we have an e-mail from one of our viewers -- guest: by moving its primary in florida and getting into the mix, negated from 99 delegates down to 50. part of rnc rules is that if you come in early, you're supposed to award those delegates proportionately. the florida republican party says that a letter from the rnc and they said this is winner- take-all and that is what ron paul is not campaigning here. there is a potential challenge

year. this is a hypothetical thing that if we come down into august and we are still fighting for every delegate that there is a telling someone could make that said florida broke the rules and could go toward these -- and should award these delegates proportionately. they're operating as a winner- take-all state and whether that remains will remain to be seen. michael steele has talked about this not being fair. mitt romney appears comparably and they're not talking about this as much. host: "the new york times is focusing on adelson and has contributed sap -- at least $70 million to the new gingrich campaign.

it says he is a loyal friend and agrees with them on many issues. he agrees with his view on israel. guest: this is the man who could keep the new gingrich dream alive. he intends to fight on to the convention $5 million to sheldon adelson is not what it is to me and you. they have the ability to do this. they have similar personalities in terms of their bombast and boldness and they have a longstanding friendship.

can keep new gingrich a flood and certainly is in florida and could continue to do that. host: we will be there in florida as well. we are following the speeches including this one from mitt romney yesterday on the campaign trail. [video clip] >> he is a historian, but that does not give them the right to rewrite history. he was given the opportunity to lead our party. he failed. we allowed him to lead our party and some of us remember that the contract with america was a good thing. what happened four years later? he was fined for ethics violations. he had to resign in disgrace. he cannot rewrite history. we have to go back and look at history and say he may have had a lot of great ideas but he is

not a leader that we need a critical time. host: follow on that. there is a related story in the washington post. from your vantage point, did newt gingrich fail is the speaker? how would you assess john boehner and what he has and has not been doing in his years as speaker of the house? guest: newt gingrich's record as speaker is being poured over. people have different opinions on how he served. i think some of what john maynard -- john boehner is interesting in the sense that he is in the situation of being met in mitt romney has been trapped by the tea party movement and being beholden to them in his speakership. you see the same problem dogging mitt romney, whereas newt gingrich has managed to tap into that sentiment on the campaign trail. host: aaron sharockman, i will get your reaction on this as well. kirit campaign sparks

revolutionary comparisons. guest: i think this is an guest: i think this is an interesting narrative through this campaign. you have speaker gingrich, who early on most voters only remembered the contract with america, and they forgot how things and did. -- in did. -- ended.

we know we have talked a lot about him resigning in disgrace. we checked it out and said, pretty much, that is what happened. that is part of history. that has been left out over the weeks in this campaign. what has happened here is that once mitt romney felt this real threat from newt, he attacked and attack and attack. we see these lines, and anyone in this state is being pilloried with a 30-second spots saying the same thing. the two debates leading up to this primary, we saw a lot of the same lines as we see is the campaign ads. they are getting this reinforced through the print media and that remediate and it is taking a toll on the speaker who does not have the resources

to combat at governor romney. host: this endorsement last night from an event that newt gingrich was attending from herman cain. [video clip] >> i hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse newt gingrich for president of the united states. [applause] one of the biggest reasons is the fact that i know that speaker gingrich is a patriot, speaker gingrich is not a parade -- is not afraid of bold ideas, and i also know that speaker gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder. i know what this sausage grinder is all about. [laughter]

i know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the united states of america. host: comments of herman cain. also, sarah palin weighing in, not officially endorsing newt gingrich, but critical of the republican establishment. how important will this be toward the vote? guest: the not-run the vote, who was a going to coalesce around, and that has been answered. when i was in florida two weeks ago talking to the newt gingrich office in orlando, a lot of voters are former herman cain supporters. he had already managed to siphon off those voters when herman cain dropped out of their race. this is definitely a good thing

for new cream ridge. host: aaron sharockman, let me point this out. unlike nikki haley campaigning, mr. scott has not endorsed a candidate and has scarcely acknowledge the fever pitch in building up for a primary race. -- in developing the florida primary race. what's happening with your governor? guest: different from four years ago. charlie crist made a surprise endorsement of john mccain. he used his campaign operation to help john mccain, to win that and come back from the dead. and then go on to the gop nomination here in florida. conversely here in 2012, our governor is very unpopular. the latest approval rating has and that 43%, disapproval at 47%.

gov. scott without endorsing a candidate, he is generally supportive of rick perry. now that governor perry, who he considered a friend, is out of the race, he has sat on the sidelines. he is putting his head down and going to work for him. his battle is to win over florida voters for a potential reelection in 2014. it is unclear how much his endorsement, how much weight it would carry. an interesting story here as well, herman cain really launched on the national scene in part every he won a straw poll in september unexpectedly. it forced voters across the country to take a look at herman cain. it launched into the next level. an endorsement from cane for gingrich could help in florida. what is strange about what happened last night is that the endorsement occurred in palm

beach. newt gingrich was in orlando with all the national media and essentially the national media peeled off and the endorsement came after they were all gone. it was a strange thing that you do not think that people in romney-world would not have let happen. that would have more cameras and journalists around it. for some reason, in this case it did not happen. it is unclear what herman cain's staying power is come tuesday. they might one a coalesce around one conservative alternative, but it might be difficult to see whether herman cain can deliver those votes. host: aaron sharockman joining us from tampa, and here in our studios, carol lee. you can send us comments on our twitter page or send us an e- mail.

rick santorum has gone with his daughter to a hospital. in a statement from the center on campaign, rick are admitting his daughter to a hospital. guest: he has talked about his daughter a lot on the campaign trail. obviously she is not well. this is a blow to his campaign, clearly, because he has to leave the campaign trail. i don't think anyone begrudges him taking the time. host: we did an interview with rick santorum in which she talks tenderly about his daughter and all loss of his son. part of a series of interviews we did with many of the republican candidates that you can see at our video library.

click on senator rick santorum if you want to check it out. south carolina, republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i can believe i got through. i think that in the long run, newt gingrich is 10 times better than the other three. i agree with what he said the other night on the debate about the space station and the state of nasa, that thing on the moon, i thought that was brilliant. if it comes to a debate between him and obama, i think he has the best shot. i think he has the most fire in him. they are so many things i like about him. he has an immaculate way. i also think that -- i think, i mean, he has the the nichols on that man.

host: we're going to eugene on the democrats' line. caller: has a god-fearing christian man and a gay person, i am praying for the santorum family. that they would have peace and that their daughter would get better. secondly, as a conservative democrat, i am actually more fearful of newt gingrich getting the nomination, because he does sound much more like ronald reagan. he does appeal to me. he appeals to the things that i believe then, and i believe that if the republican party chose him, it would spell almost doomed for mr. obama, because america is more easily and more apt to forgive rather

than promote someone who believes they are perfect and will lie to allow that preakness to be shown. -- perfectness to be shown. host: thank you for the call. from the washington post, new gingrich vowing to go all the way to the republican convention. and the poll, showing that the former speaker does lead in some polls nationally. guest: the differences when you talk about who democrats are more fearful about going up against president obama, in a head-to-head, newt gingrich does not do as well as mitt romney against president obama. in terms of game birds having light and fire in the belly, that is something the republican voters want.

they want someone who can take it to barack obama and give him a run for his money in november. if you talk to people in the obama campaign, they do not think that person is newt gingrich. they would prefer to against newt gingrich than mitt romney. in terms of our polls, the very good news for the obama campaign showed that voters are much more optimistic about the economy. his numbers are on the way up. if you talk to the obama campaign, they are happy to sit back and let the republicans fight it out right now. but the economy get better -- let the economy gets better and get back on its feet. host: from north carolina, welcome to the conversation. caller: i understand that goldman sachs gave mitt romney millions of dollars to campaign. i cannot understand why people would want to vote for him,

knowing that every vote for him would be for wall street after we build them up. -- bailed them out. host: let me follow up with aaron sharockman on his comment and this from dave. guest: a couple of interesting comments there. quite frankly, both newt gingrich and mitt romney have a difficult questions to answer when it comes to where some of their money is coming from, and how they are spending their money. if you look at newt gingrich, $10 million coming from one casino family. that my rubs some people the wrong way, especially as we move down through the process. no doubt that mitt romney is

taking money from folks at bain capital, again, which might bring up some questions. but the fact is that it takes money to run campaigns. i don't think anyone will bear grudges either candid it too much. -- either candidate to much. as far as style, we talked about this a lot. newt gingrich has got a lot of ideas. the knock on him is that he has 10 ideas an hour and five of them are good and five might be terrible and he does not know which the good ones are. the caller talked about the moon base and a coloring joy that concept. -- how the caller enjoyed that concept. in republican primary, i don't see how that plays well even in florida. talking about committing huge amounts of resources to make something happen, quite speculative, and he had talked about the pride that if you

deliver the moon base, you get a prize. most big companies would not be interested in the money because there is not enough money and cannot guarantee that you would when it set -- you would get its should you win. newt gingrich is a man of ideas. what happened in the newt gingrich presidency is tough to say. he has changed much of his rhetoric now that he has been on the campaign trail, and wants to be a conservative crusader repealing much of the work that the president has done in the last 3.5 years. we will see. host: this caricature, to the moon, romney. the famous "honeymooners" program. carol lee, your reaction to aaron sharockman. guest: the moon and idea is emblematic of what reporters like about newt gingrich. he embraces the grandiose idea. but i want to go back to the goldman sachs point.

the fact that mitt romney is getting all of these donations from goldman sachs, it is not a huge deal in and of itself, but it feeds into the overall narrative, that's certainly the obama people are trying to create in the campaign, this perception of income inequality, wall street versus main street. in a different election cycle where the mood was different, it might not be as big a deal. this year having goldman sachs being one of your largest contributors is a problem for him. host: aaron sharockman, you are inundated with television ads as you watch the programming. what have you seen in the greater tampa bay area? guest: a couple of interesting ads. one of my favorites is from deliver union group running anti-mitt romney adds trying to link the medicare fraud that

occurred at a time when mitt romney was at bain capital, at one of the companies called damon corp. it is linking mitt romney to rick scott, who knows -- who was elected despite his company paid $1.7 million in medicare fraud fines. -- $1.7 billion. you have two things happening here. you have a liberal group supporting president obama in november of attacking and playing in this gop primary, and on top of that, they are trying to link the governor of massachusetts to the current governor of florida, to score political points. it is playing in heavy rotation. the ads that romney is playing, and his super pac, they are singularly focused on newt gingrich. he has been on tv since the beginning of january in the state.

earlier ads focused on rex santorum, but with him dropping into a distant third spot, he can focus all of his money and message on attacking newt gingrich. host: our sunday roundtable will aaron sharockman and carol lee. from "the tampa bay times" and "the wall street journal." let's look at some of the ads. beginning with the romney campaign ad. cease and desist from nbc news and tom brought out. still getting attention. [video clip] >> good evening. newt gingrich came to power after preaching a higher standard. a man who brought down another speaker on ethics accusations, tonight he has on his own record the judgment of his peers, democrat and republican alike, by an overwhelming vote. they found him guilty of ethics violations. they charged him a very large financial penalty and they raised several of them serious questions about its future effectiveness. >> i am mitt romney and i

approve this message. ♪ [video clip] >> there are a lot of reasons not to elect me. >> with medicare, the government says that con artists are draining the life blood by filing millions of dollars in false claims. >> we did not do that. >> we did not do any work with the government. ♪ >> winning our future is responsible for the content of

this message. host: aaron sharockman, just how personal has this campaign and its primary gotten? can the wounds heal for the general election? guest: tough question. certainly ultimately the answer is yes. but the big question with mitt romney, since he has been running, which has really been since 2007, is can he consistently win over the conservative voters? in florida, i could speak specifically to what is happening here. you have many conservatives rallying around his campaign, some officially,you have many cs rallying around his campaign, some officially, some unofficially. for instance, a great back and forth down in south florida, miami, newt gingrich running a spanish-language radio edward

heath called mitt romney anti- immigrant. newt is trying to run to the left of mitt romney on immigration here in south florida. a big huge push back from the former governor, jeb bush, or really revered among republicans in the state as part -- as well as marco rubio who could be a vice-presidential candidate and president one day. both said it was out of bounds and came to mitt romney's defense. he is not a moderate. he is someone who can serve the conservative wing of this party. a similar attack made by the newt gingrich campaign over mitt romney hiring former charlie crist staffers. both jeb bush and more rubio came out and slapped him on the wrist. there will have to be some feeling that will likely occur. -- healing that will occur. quite frankly, as much as republicans want to pick their primary choice, primary goal is to be -- is to defeat president obama in november. we talk about this and every cycle, but in most cases we have a good uniting if that happens, july, august, and

september. the biggest challenge would be you ron paul running as a third-party candidate. that would splinter away more libertarian-leaning republican votes than internal struggles between a conservative wing and the more establishment folks predominately supporting governor romney. host: jeb bush in washington last night for the annual out of a club dinner. -- alfalfa club dinner. it meets once a year. a political note -- he has not endorsed the republican and says he will not. guest: neither of the heavy -- half the republican heavyweights are weighing in, jeb bush and marco rubio. they do not want to stick to their neck out for any of these guys at this point. the way that senator rubio has played this, he has

relationships with both of these men. he has been friends with newt gingrich for years, exchanging e-mails and ideas and have talked over the years. newt gingrich single them out before he was speaker as a national start to watch. and then you have mitt romney, who flew down to florida and endorsed marco rubio when he was in a primary against charlie crist. he was one of the first people to do that, but for newt gingrich. -- for newt gingrich. rubio has chosen to stay out of the race and call balls and strikes when he thinks that candidates have gotten out of line. but there is no genuine upside for either of these men to stick their neck out for either of these candidates. host: tuesday the president delivers his state of the union address followed by a three-day tour, including bipartisanship, part of the weekly address.

here's a portion of what he had to say over the weekend. [video clip] >> just two days ago, a senator promised to obstruct every judgeship i have appointed unless they fire the consumer watchdog i put in place to protect the american people from financial schemes or malpractice. for the most part it is not that the senator thinks that the nominees are unqualified. in fact, all of the judicial nominees being blocked have bipartisan support. almost 90% had unanimous support from the judiciary committee. instead, one of the senator's aides told reporters that the senator plans to delay and slow the process in order to get the president's attention. well, this is not about me. we were not sent here to wage paulette -- perpetual political campaigns against each other. we were sent here to serve the american people.

and they deserve better than gridlock and games. one senator coming up the whole works for the entire country is certainly not what our founding fathers envisioned. the truth is, neither party is blameless and tactics like these, but it is time for both parties to put an end to them. i am asking congress both democrats and republicans to stop this kind of behavior by passing their rule that allows all of judicial and public service nominations a simple up or down vote within 90 days. host: carol lee, he was referring to orrin hatch. your response to what he was talking about. guest: you are seeing him trying to go back to post- partisan per sauna, -- persona. whether he is trying to be a fiery or consolatory, -- conciliatory, his whole goal was to lay out the argument that he wants to make in the

campaign. he was able to do it in a way that did not seem overly partisan vote it was extremely partisan in terms of the policies he put forward, who he had set with the first lady, warren buffett secretary. that cap that they fought over last year. and richard cordray, who he did a recess appointment of an stuck it in the eye after republicans, and in the weekly address, he focused on congress and we know he will be running against congress, and is trying to get back to this idea opposed partisanship and being conciliatory in washington. look at his record, one of the big things he campaigned on, one of the big things he has not

been able to do since he came to washington. host: the white house correspondents' dinner is open but the alfalfa club is close. -- closed to cameras. these are excerpts released by the white house. we will fit your reaction. it is great to be here tonight because i have 45 minutes more on the state of the union that i like to deliver this evening. he also said, you heard it from the pundits, obama is duluth, he is in the bubble, he is not connecting, and that is why one of my big goals this year is to be out among everyday ordinary americans like the men and women of the alfalfa club. guest: it is good for the president to be funny in an election year. he probably did have 45 minutes more the state of the union. he is very long winded. host: aaron sharockman, he also said it was good to see jeb bush, who was accepting the

presidency of the club again. he says, with jeb bush accepting the nomination, it is not fair to tease your friends like that. guest: certainly jeb is one of the real stars of the republican party. people suspected he ran in 2012, which he said he was not doing, the field might have cleared for him. certainly he remains young and up. -- young enough. the more we get away from the bush legacy, george w. bush, the more attractive i like governor jeb bush's, especially many conservative republicans. this time might be in 2016, depending on what happens. that is part of his gamble, i suppose. there would be a shot for him in 2016. he and george h.w. bush were in the white house and in the oval

office with president obama on friday. no doubt, an interesting conversation the three had. host: tom joins us from kentucky. caller: i just wanted to say to florida what a beautiful state and how close it is to my heart. i just wanted to say that christopher columbus discovered america there, and the space plane that carries the airliners and stuff. host: let me go back to the point about the space coast. we heard newt gingrich discussing it in mitt romney saying that we do not have the money for that kind of an effort. aaron sharockman, your reaction. guest: certainly on the east coast of florida, space issues are huge. it is definitely a big issue and will be in the state. it is one of the reasons why unemployment numbers here are

closer to 10%, the closing of the manned space shuttle program took a toll here. what happens going forward is another question. most people realize that whether you're democrat or republican, focusing resources on space is a difficult sell. even here in florida. one of the bigger questions is how to use that manpower, the resources, whether the engineers or whether it is the blue-collar types working on the east coast, how'd you find them good, solid employment jobs, and the answer may not ultimately be in space for a little while. i know the governor in this state, rick scott, is working on bringing high-tech companies into that area to supplant what was lost when the man the space program left. certainly there will be

investments and continue to be investments in space in florida. but there are many people preparing for the next cycle, or something may be replaced space, whether computer technology, some type of the it corridor. host: carol lee, a tweet to you. guest: he is obviously in texas. host: his name is not come up in this debate. ronald reagan has come up 50 times. no one has asked for his endorsement. guest: he is still not someone that a candidate wants to embrace. there is still bush fatigue out there. you've seen the white house and the president bring him up, he has come back into the conversation a little bit. he is not someone that the party -- the party has not sorted out how they feel about

george w. bush. they're still division within the party about that and no one is actively going to be seeking his endorsement. host: in the new york times, maureen dowd. talking about what the president faced with jan brodeur in arizona, and she concludes with one point, the president can be thin skinned but the governor can be that headed. -- fat headed. guest: if you remember that david axelrod memo about his concerns with the president. he worries about what the people think about him.

this is a president there reads everything, he digests everything, he did not read the entire book that he read that excerpt, and the meeting that she felt -- that he felt she had mischaracterized. it brought the -- when she handed him that letter, he brought that up. he plays a very close attention to that. he can be very thin skin. but the photographic came out of that interaction did not do her any favors for the idea of putting your finger into the face of the president of the united states is not something that will give you a lot of sympathy. it might fire a particular base. but if i were the broader electorate, i would not think that was something that you should be doing to the president. host: aaron sharockman, this twitter says --

guest: the person who would not say that a is jeb. he was governor of florida for eight years. he says he likes making money. he is down in south florida, he has an hispanic leadership group, working very hard to get our reach so the republicans can potentially win over hispanic voters. his brother was able to do that to some degree in 2008. -- in 2008, literally no hispanic support for became. he is also working on education reform. he pushed through a huge educational reforms as governor. trying to move to more of about your system, where he says

students can choose the schools that want to go to. students and parents. he is happy in that private and semi-public life. if there is anything we have learned about this cycle, it is sometimes a lot better to be wanted them to throw your name in the rain and face all the scrutiny goes with it. host: i do not want to get too far ahead of the news cycle when it comes to running mates, but there is an article about the governor of virginia. he has come out early for mitt romney. there is a huge military vote in virginia. guest: and a very important state in the general election. the short list, you hear the names likemcdonnell, rubio, chris christie, and jeb bush, although i cannot imagine him being number two.

but he was certainly a very early supporter of mitt romney and you can look to him as a vice-presidential running mate. host: the vice president has said that he is responsible for a half-dozen states, including pennsylvania where he was born. areas talking about that. [video clip] >> i have been given five states as a focus. i will be in a lot of states, but pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, iowa, new hampshire, and florida is where i spend most of my time. coincidentally, that is all -- that is where a lot of your targeted seats are. host: about 30 campaign visits scheduled between the spring in the summer. guest: if you look at where they are having him go, he is going to places where the president's struggle.

he is an emissary to places. the vice-president has been an active campaigner for the president. he is a big advocate. obviously he is a big draw when they send them out. and they are strategically using him to go to these places where the president is already struggling, and he has a connection with these types of voters in a way that the president may be does not have. host: from south carolina, the democrats' line. caller: i would like to have your guests address an issue that i do not hear very much about. we all know that citizens united, that corrosive force on politics and the unbelievable amount of money pouring in, but no one has talked about the recipient of said unbelievable

amount of money, which is you guys, the news media, television, radio, newspapers -- they are all just reaping the benefits of citizens united. they are forming new talk shows, everybody is writing books, and so what really scares me the most about citizens united, is its corrupted influence on media. how are we ever going to get money out of politics it if it is not only welcomed by the politicians but the news media is going to have to let go of all of the extra cash? host: aaron sharockman, let me go back to the numbers we posed to carol lee. roughly $70 million spent by the romney campaign. guest: certainly a lot of money. and that is just the super pac.

you can raise unlimited amount of money and spend unlimited amounts of money. for my company, the tampa bay times, we are a newspaper and i have not seen one super pac newspaper ad. we are not benefiting from the financially. that would be one point out what may. more generally, though, i think that our role in this campaign is to cover the ads and talk about what they are saying. most journalism organizations worth anything have a good fire wall between their advertising side and their business side. hopefully no news organization makes news judgments on advertising dollars. host: the wall street journal, a one a path -- point out a map of florida. these are the results from 2008. you can see that mitt romney did extremely well in jacksonville, for myers, and

panama city. he did ok in orlando, better in tampa, not very well in miami and fort lauderdale. this is from 2008. he lost the state debt john mccain with an all-important endorsement by charlie crist. that helped john mccain in his win over mitt romney. what changed four years later? guest: a couple things. primarily in south florida where mitt romney has spent a lot of time and a lot of big- name endorsements, essentially all the cuban american congressional delegation. he has the firepower down in south florida. he has been very aggressive courting the voters. he remains very strong and jacks t -- in jacksonville. one of the stops it is the villages, a central florida

mega-retirement community. he is supported by the developer of that community. mitt romney has a lot of advantages in the state. he has outspent newt gingrich by millions and millions of dollars. through his campaign in the super pac. he has been campaigning here essentially since 2007. he has the best crown came in 2008 and did not pay off. -- best ground game in 2008 and it did not pay off. but he has been here ever since. he has touted pfizer's in the state. did he has top advisers in the state. the romney folks have been looking for every absentee ballot that they can. when it comes to the ground game, it does matter. but in part because of the

dynamic of this national race, if there is any help to a ground game, it is all going to run the other campaigns just cannot have it. guest: the question was whether ronnie's organization was going to trump the energy that was following newt gingrich into florida. we have seen a couple of things. his ground game does matter and the money does matter. and two, after the refocusing of the romney campaign to focus in on newt gingrich, it has knocked him off his game. he had that opportunity in thursday's debate and people were expecting him to come out swinging. he did not. he was lethargic and did not seem to be into the debate. now you're seeing that when mitt romney puts all of his firepower out there, the energy that newt gingrich came into florida with has been sacked. -- tapped.

you are seen his money and organization have been a big impact. host: a related story in the new york times. digging into the strategy of the mitt romney campaign. other headlines from fort myers, florida, undecided. a look at the long time supporters. rick santorum and ron paul, and from the orlando sentinel, who contends the dupont -- who can fix the economy? from the tampa bay times, the poll showing mitt romney with an 11-point lead according to the latest mason-dixon survey. another vote not in the primary but in the general election, the chair of the florida republican party, he joins us on newsmaker is at 10:00 eastern time. here is what he had to say

about the primary and general election. [video clip] >> obama kennel win the rick obama can probably win -- obama can probably win the presidency without florida. i do not think the republican nominee will be able to. florida is a must win. we have a heavy lift here. we are up to the task. host: as we heard in 2008, it was florida, florida, florida. guest: florida is a must-win for the republicans. the way that the demographics have changed in various states, the democrats have been able to put those in the play. obama in 2008, and david plouffe, now a senior adviser in the white house, was always saying that they had different strategies that do not include florida or ohio. they're looking at virginia and north carolina. colorado is a huge gap for them. they would really like to win

there. you hear them talking about playing places like arizona, or least forcing republicans going to defend that turf, which they had had not to do in the past. if your republican, you absolutely have to win florida. florida is the state or the independent voters really matter. you see the president making a play for the independent voters and whoever the republican nominee is, they have to have policies that appeal to independent voters. the obama campaign, uc mitt romney being the nominee who has a better shot at winning over the independent voters. host: there just over a 11 million registered voters in the state of florida. equally divided between democrats and republicans. taking a look at those numbers

and the state's unemployment numbers, just below 10%, the most current figures, 9.9% compared to the national average of 8.5%. how do those numbers play into the dynamics of florida in november? guest: you have to go back to 2008 and remember that president obama won florida through a huge amount of circumstances. his rhetoric, definitely one thing, but on top of that, the vote turnout, getting a huge african-american turnout in this state, any still only carried by three percentage points. in 2012, if you flip 2% of those folks, he loses this race. our latest poll numbers show him trailing in a hypothetical against mitt romney, while defeating newt gingrich year.

all the millet the state of -- ultimately the state of florida comes down to the high-4 corridor, which cuts from tampa through orlando and over to the east coast. it is where the independent moderate voters are. the moms and dads raising kids who will vote on pocketbook issues. that is why president obama opened here as the underdog. but that the unemployment numbers in the state, 9.9%, people looking for work and not finding it. the housing market here is still very much depressed, more than four when 10 homes, the mortgages are under water. a lot of bad news still in the state largely because our economy is so dependent on tourism and housing market. the housing market certainly has not rebounded. an interesting state to see what happens. quite frankly, florida will be in play, but i can see s chairman curry has said, he is absolutely right.

republicans need this state and i think that for the president, to be reelected, i don't think florida is as critical this time. host: aaron sharockman, thank you for being with us from the tampa bay times. carol lee? guest: the biggest thing happened was that polls show that voters are feeling better about the economy. that is a huge thing for the president. if that continues, some of these other concerns about where the president is now are going to subside. the one sleeper is europe, something totally out of the president's control. but if there is a meltdown in europe, and the crisis deepened. back to throw the united states economy back into a bad place. host: carol lee, whose beat is the white house for the wall street journal, thank you for

being with us. >> running in first place in most recent polls, mitt romney will be holding a campaign rally. we will bring that to you live at 6:30 eastern time. we also heard from newt gingrich earlier. the former house speaker was endorsed by herman cain yesterday. today he held a campaign rally at a retirement community in florida. his remarks were about half an hour. [applause]

>> it really is a great day in the villages. we are delighted to have a chance to be with you. down last few days before a very important primary. i want to share some ideas with you and talk about what we need to get done. i want to ask your help on facebook, twitter, e-mail, telephones, even seeing people face to face. i think if we can get the message out, we will have a powerful turnout. i think it is pretty clear that i have an opponent that has money power. we need people power to offset

money power. [applause] it matters because this is the most important election of your lifetime. four more years of obama will be a total disaster for the united states of america. with his unemployment, deficits, and problems he can get reelected, can you imagine how radical he would be for a second term? that is what this campaign really matters. it comes down to a matter of who can win and how they will win. in 1980, we were involved in a campaign where it was clear that you needed a conservative who was a long way from jimmy carter in order to win.

i would argue that we've tried a moderate in 1996. 1996 and they could not show the difference. obama is going to have $1 billion. almost all that will be spent negatively because he does not have a positive record to run on. he is gone from yes, we can to why we could not as his team -- theme. we need to have somebody who can draw a sharp distinction. romney-care and obamacare are not far apart. you cannot make the difference. where we are as conservatives is about this far apart. he will not be able to show the difference. it is pretty straightforward. i am for free enterprise, small

business, creating jobs, and pay checks. he is for big government, bureaucracy, and through stamps. he is for big government, big bureaucracy, and food stamps. that big of a gap. i got asked again this morning on television. the news guys see past this. the news guide are -- the news people are fascinated by this. they say, you use the word food stamps like there is some deep, racial preference. no. it is a fact. this is the most effective of food stamps president in history. his policies of killing jobs have pushed more americans onto food stamps than any president in american history. anyone who thinks that as an except will future where you want to be depend on the government, to have recanted it -- barack obama. if you would like your children to be able to get a job, to have a paycheck, to be independent, sought to build a better future, if you're going to have recanted, too -- called newt gingrich.

-- did you are going to have a candidate, newt gingrich. [applause] you know, there is a big difference in core values. i believe in the declaration of independence. i believe in the constitution. i believe in the federalist papers. obama believes in their ideas of the european socialist bureaucratic system. he is that far apart. let me make this quite clear. i am prepared to defend america n exceptionalism. -- when he was asked in europe, what you think about american exceptional listen? he said, but britain problem things they're exceptional. the greeks public think they're exceptional. he did not have any clue. american exceptional as an comes from the declaration of independence that says we hold these truths to be self-evident. a very important concept that there is truth in what we stand for. not ideology, not philosophy.

an effort by the founding fathers to get to the very heart of what governs human beings. that all men are created equal -- remember, this was a very radical idea. in 1776 we were at war with -- in a world with kings and the czars and emperors and here were these americans saying, no. we're all create equally. the rule is for all of us. then it says, we are in doubt by our creator with certain unalienable rights. this is the heart of american exception was an. exceptionalism. we are the only society in history that says power comes from got to each one of you personally -- from god to each one of you personally. [applause] you are personally sovereign. you loan power to the state. the state never loans power to you. [applause]

that is why the constitution begins, "we the people of the united states of america." it does not say, we the politicians, we the lawyers, with the bureaucrats -- it says we the people. in america, we defined the contract of our government. that is why when judges start behaving outside the constitution they are a threat to the very fabric of american society because they are violating the constitution. [applause] it goes on to say that the rights are inalienable. that means that no politician, no judge, no bureaucrat can come between you and god. that is and we have a big discussion about in washington. [applause] then it says, the rights among

which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. a very important concept. notice, first of all, happiness in the 18th century meant wisdom and virtue, not hedonism and acquisition. the founding fathers thought wise people could remain free. notice what it guarantees. it does not guarantee happiness. it guarantees the right to pursue. an active concept. there is no provision for a federal department of happiness. [laughter] there is no suggestion that we should have happiness stamps. [laughter] if you had said to the founding fathers that someday we would have a president who would say that he would take from the overly happy and redistribute to the under lee -- underly happy, they would say, what kind of ignorance would lead someone to jake -- what kind of arrogance

would lead someone be so arrogant to believe they have the kind of wisdom to take away from americans and give to others? that violates the very concept of america. [applause] finally, in addition to economics and in addition to the core nature of america, there is a gap this big about how we approach the world. my father was an soldier in the infantry wars. i think the world is dangerous. i believe we to be stronger. jake i think we need to be stronger than our potential injuries. -- i think we need to be stronger than our potential enemies.

[applause] the president lives in a fantasy world where there are no enemies. they are just misguided people with whom he has not yet had a coffee. [laughter] you watched him go see hugo chavez while he deliberately and cynically and insultingly gave him an anti-american book. obama did not have a clue that he had been in salted. -- in salted -- in salt-- insulted. you know, the dictator of iran, he said that he wants to wipe out israel and drive america out of the middle east. as a historian, i have a pretty good sense of what that means. it means he wants to wipe out israel and drive america out of the middle east. [laughter] but if i were a left wing, harvard law graduate surrounded by left-wing academics, i would know that this is actually a sign that he probably had a bad childhood. that his training was probably inadequate and that he is trying to come to grips with his mother is better to love him enough. to love himeailure nough.

and then if in some manner we can only and locked him and we could be closer to him and be friends together. [laughter] [applause] this is madness. people need to take this seriously. remember on 9/11 when planes hit the world stage center and hit the pentagon. the next day, somebody said, we had not thought about the use of commercial airliners as a weapon. i thought to myself, tom clancy wrote a novel about eight years older in which a boeing 747 crashes into the capital. there is a complete failure of imagination among our leaders. they cannot get in their head the fact that is the iranians get nuclear weapons, they do not have to fire a missile. they can just drive a boat into jacksonville or into the new or harbor or into long beach. they can come across the border in a van. there are lots of ways to

deliver a nuclear weapon. we live in a world where if we are not careful, we are going to lose one or more american citizens. -- cities. we were shaken by 3100 dead. a nuclear could leave a quarter of a million dead and half more wounded. we have no preparation for this. you have an administration which at every level is kidding itself. they talk about cutting the defense budget dramatically. they're talking about weakening our intelligence capabilities. they consistently tried to appease our enemies. they had a meeting of the organization of islamic countries in the state department's to talk about how the government of the united states could censored those of us who had inappropriately said something that might be offensive to somebody who was islamic. a concept which is astonishing. if i tell you that there are

terrorists around the world plotting to kill us and that they have one common characteristic, it is not belonging to rotary. [laughter] and yet, when you listen to this administration, they have literally blocked every federal document from discussing honestly what threatens us. that is how big the gap is. [applause] but this is a president who is destructive patterns are almost beyond imaginable. he recently vetoed the keystone pipeline. think about it. he did it to appease violent extremists in san francisco. but think about what we are up against. here was an opportunity to of oil come to houston to provide

jobs for the next 50 years processing oil and sending some of it overseas so you get jobs at the ports, refineries, and building the pipeline. he canceled all that. he weakened our energy supply. he did not stop the oil from getting out. the canadians are looking seriously at a partnership with china to build the pipeline due west of vancouver. imagine american president so destructive that he forces canada into a partnership with china because they're more reliable than the united states, i would have thought it impossible. it goes against our deepest interests. we have a national security and an economic interest in developing energy security. we want to develop the maximum amount of new oil and gas

because it will drive down the price of gasoline, which has doubled under obama and is continuing to go up because he is so deeply anti-american energy. it creates jobs and it lowers the cost of gasoline. the second reason is because i want us to become completely independent from the metal least -- the middle east. [applause] no american president should ever again bow to a saudi king. [applause] crowd: newt, newt, newt!

>> people say to me, how you do all this? i will show you. of course you can do it. i need your help on tuesday to when the primary and then receive the nomination. when we win the nomination, we will run as a team like we did with reagan and in 1994. this means we need to replace bill nelson with a conservative. [applause] people say to me, how fast will things turn around. house start -- how quickly people invest in new jobs? on election night, people will start making decisions to create new jobs. [applause]

because we will run as a team i will ask them to first repeal obamacare. [applause] i will ask camera because i have -- i can ask them to repeal obamacare because i have not helped pass something that resembles it. we will also repeal the dodd- frank bill which is killing banks. there is a brand new report out today that 1000 small banks will close in the next two years. it cripples a small business and it had been driving down the price of housing because it creates federal regulators who are against making loans on housing. you create jobs, help small business, and start raising the price in one act.

[applause] third, i will ask them to repeal sarbanes oxley which has had no product and has increased the cost of american jobs. it has crippled our ability to compete in the world. i would like all three of those past and i would like to ask the members of our team to work on passing all three by the time i am sworn in on january 20th. [applause] on january 20th, i will sign all three on the first day of the presidency as a sign of the change in washington. [applause] on at the inauguration day, two hours after the inaugural address, a series of executive

orders. all of them will have been published by october 1st so everyone will know what is coming. the first will eliminate all of the white house czars. [applause] you can go to newt.org and let us know if you think we should do. my goal is on the first day, about the time obama rides back in chicago that we will have dismantled 40% of his government. that will be on the opening day.

i think this is doable. i for debated in the reagan -- i participated in the reagan campaign and we had the first event in history where we brought the team together and we won six seats by a combined total of 75,000 votes. we went to work by the help of the american people. tip o'neill was the speaker of the house to. had to get one out of every three democrats. we passed the reagan program. by august, we had signed the growth that enabling us to create 16 million new jobs during his presidency. [applause] there have been two stagnant increases, and i am facing reality. i could make speeches all day long. if i could not get a signature, and none of it became law. bill clinton had a reality. if they could of schedule a --

if he could not get me to schedule a vote, nothing would become law. we had a mature adult understanding that the constitution only works when you have people putting the country for two are willing to work together to find a common solution. [applause] welfare reform, the first entitlement reform of your lifetime. child poverty declined. working family incomes went up. the first tax credit in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history, and we ended up with literally 11 million new jobs and 2.4% unemployment. 4.2% unemployment. by the way, i want to shake your hand as soon as i'm done speaking. someone who is 90 years old and comes out because there that committed, that grateful. -- i'm that grateful. [applause]

this is the support that will make the difference. thank you for being here. i will come see you in just a minute. when we were formed welfare, cut -- when we reformed welfare, cut spending, cut taxes, cut people back to work, the 1997 balanced got people back to work, the 1997 budget act led to four consecutive years of a balanced budget, the on the four in your lifetime. that is a sign that we can get big things done if we know what we're doing and we work together. [applause] we decided to run after a year or more of talking about it. we really believe this is the most important election of our lifetimes. we believe we are at the

crossroads. if you just take the list of what i just gave you, with all due respect to governor romney, there is an enormous difference in our understanding of how to run the nation and how to actually get things done in washington. [applause] this is a very hard, complicated business. we have had three years of an amateur and we understand it does not work very well. we need someone willing to change washington, someone who knows enough about washington to change it. both are necessary. now, i know you have seen all sorts of articles about the washington establishment coming unglued and we have had three consecutive polls show me leading by a significant margin nationally and they became unglued. let me tell you.

they should be. i am not running for president to manage the decayed to the -- the decay of the united states to the satisfaction of the establishment. [applause] i and are running for president -- i am not running for president to make the wall street elite and washington elite happy. i want to change this on behalf of the working people of the united states of america. [applause] i do not believe wall street can give enough money to run in of negative ads to hide from the truth. we have badly served the american people. -- we have been served badly by the establishment in both parties. let's be clear about this -- in both parties. [no audio] [applause]

if that that makes them uncomfortable, answer is, "good." i want you to know that if you help me, if you get on facebook, your e-mail come talk to your friends, we are so close to having great things happening. i was grateful last night that herman cain flew in to embrace me. -- endorse me. this is a grassroots movement against the establishment. as of tomorrow, michael reagan will be campaigning with me. [applause] that should tell you that when romney suggested i was not a regular republican. nancy reagan said in an in 1995 that ronnie passed the torch to

newt. that michael will be here tomorrow to prove to every doubting person that i am the legitimate heir of the ragan movement, not some liberal from massachusetts. [applause] i am honored that governor palin wrote a very powerful op- ed this week and went on top of the very -- on fox with a very strong statement. i'm grateful for her and her husband, todd, for endorsing me. i think that is another step. [applause] let me be clear. the road we are embarking on is challenging. it is more challenging if we win. being serious about taking the greatest, most complex country in the world and moving it back to the right place is a big job. i am not here to ask you to be for me.

if you are for me, you will vote, go home, and say, "i sure hope newt gets it done." i need you to be with me. i need you to be with me every day for the campaign and the presidency so that together we remind congress what we are trying to get done together. we remind the governor and the legislature together. we remind the city council, school board, together. what i thought was fascinating this week was, when i talked about the future i outlined a vision of the space program as dynamic and as exciting to get young people to study math, science, and engineering to recreate the excitement we tell -- felt in the 1960's. is got ridiculed by two of my friends running for president. i was amazed.

you know, this is a great country filled with people who think big ideas. i did need to understand the gap we are in here. abraham lincoln understood the importance of the railroad, a revolutionary technology. he came out for the transcontinental road. we did not have the steel industry, the steam engine, and 10 years after he called for a transcontinental railroad was completed to utah. john f. kennedy got up in may 1961 and said, "we will put a man on the moon by the end of the decade peak of at the time he said it, -- decade." -- by the end of the decade." at that time, we have not had an american orbit the earth. we did not have the technology, the rockets, the organization, the astronauts. he said we could do it in a decade, not because it is easy but because it is hard.

that will force us to get organized and do things. how many of you remember july watching as americans -- do you remember this? americans landed on the moon, not some international organization, but americans inside of that decade. i just want you to understand how serious i am. the japanese attacked us on december 7th, 1941. we were a serious country. we defeated and ended the war in august 1945. in 44 months we defeated nazi germany, fascist italy, and imperial japan simultaneously. we did serious things. it you elect me, i will take it as a signal, if the american people elect me, that we do not want someone who can manage the

decay, someone who will apologize for failure, someone who will wind about the past. -- whine about the past. we want someone who will force dramatic, bold, fundamental change in washington and new york. we want someone to get the establishment working back for america rather than preside over america. we need to go back to being within the constitution rather than rewriting it. [applause] if you will help me for the next two days, we will win in florida. when we do that, we win the nomination. when we get the nomination, we will be barack obama to get america on the right track. thank you, good luck, and bless you. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

♪ >> coverage continues from florida tomorrow with the newt gingrich campaign rally in tampa. we will show you republican presidential candidate mitt romney at a campaign rally in the villages. >> i arrived in paris, walked into the hotel lobby.