[cheers and applause] this is where we are making the great progress. the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds. there is a whole new generation that is excited about what we are doing. there is a whole generation that used to know about it but they got a disgusted. the remnant is coming together. this young regeneration. there is a secret weapon if we can keep the government off of the internet. [applause]

and have every right to be optimistic when we see what is happening. the movement is an art direction. it is the answer to the problems we have today. more government is not the answer. the answer is more liberty. thank you very much. [applause] >> president paul! [chanting "president paul"]

[applause] ♪

>> the results of the main presidential caucuses have been announced. mitt romney finished first with 39%. and second was wrong paul with 36%. rick santorum was third with 18% and newt gingrich had a 6% t. the keynote speaker for this year's political action conference was former alaska governor and republican vice presidential nominee sarah palin. the event is hosted by the american conservative union. this is about 40 minutes.

>> thank you so much. i am so honored to be here. thank you, cpac. thank you for the birthday greetings. you are wonderful. thank you so much. to millie and all her good work at the nra, i appreciate her efforts protecting our second amendment rights. thank you.

i am honored to get to be here. last time i was in the d.c., my family and i were here cruising on harley-davidsons. the rally to honor america's finest, our veterans. [applause] when we were here last, my husband was able to drive one of those 400,000 machines that day. he is back home, gearing up for the race across alaska. my girls are here, though.

i am glad they are with us. do you know why rolling thunder chose washington for their rally? they wanted to make their engines their voice. that is why cpac started in the 1970's. conservatives wanted the republican party to hear us. at the 1975 cpac, ronald reagan laid out a blueprint for rebuilding the gop under a banner of bold colors. not pastels. ever since then, cpac has been the rally for conservative action. that is why i am glad to be here today with all of you.

[applause] the conservative movement has never been stronger or brighter. with people at the grass roots. the federal government has never cast a bigger shadow. for the last three years, we have been waving a banner that says "don't tread on me." [applause] the tea party rose up because americans woke up. our movement, it is bigger than one person. it is bigger than one candidate. it is bigger than one party. it is about one country united under god. we're not red americans. we are not blue americans. we are red, white, and blue americans. president obama, we are through with you.

[applause] we paid for three years of his administration and we cannot afford four more. candidate obama promised to fundamentally transform america. that's a promise he has kept. transforming the shining city on the hill into a sinking ship. promising to cut deficits in half. he has piled on trillions more. [applause] $3 million a minute and no plans to stop it. no plan or budget.

days andng on 1000 still no budget. he muffed it up. [applause] folks, this government is not too big to fail, it is too big to succeed. it is too big to ignore and it is too big to bear any more. what did we get in return for the president's spending spree? 8.5% unemployment, 13 million americans who cannot find work. 46 million living in poverty. government dependency under obama has gone up 23%. for the first time in our history, folks are fearing that our future is going to be worse than our past. look around. you can see decline and failure, but it is not a failure of the american people. it is not a failure of america

itself. it is the failure of our leadership. [applause] we know how to change that. yes, we do. yes, we can. [applause] hope and change. you gotta hope things change. changes that we believe in. it is the change i want to talk about today. to borrow another phrase from our president, we cannot wait. our country hangs in the balance. [applause] >> u.s.a.! u.s.a.!

>> u.s.a.! u.s.a.! u.s.a.! [applause] >> [crowd chanting "sarah"] >> see how easy that is? we must come together as

constitutional conservatives to save our republic. america has reached her tipping point. the door is open. the door is open. if they keep trying to tax and take and spend our way to prosperity, we know where we will end up. look to the old world to see the new world's future. it is the future of downsizing and downturns and downgrades. that is the future of the far left dream. that is not the american dream. it is not a future we will ever accept. [applause] president obama has a different

view. a conflict of visions. when i listened to his state of the union, i was struck that he barely mentioned unemployment. what did he talk about? he gave us more promises, promises to give us "an economy built to last." mr. president, we do not want an economy built to last. we want an economy built to grow. we certainly do not want your economy. we want your administration to end. [applause] in the history of our republic,

it never has there been such a gaping disconnect between how our own president sees the state of the union and how the americans see the state of the union. he believes that we are heading in the right direction, even though seven in 10 americans are saying we are heading in the wrong direction. we believe a real recovery cannot get underway until government gets out of the way. [applause] the president wants to raise taxes so he can redistribute wealth. we want to cut taxes so we can create more wealth. government is digging us deeper into debt. it is because it spends too

much. [applause] we know how to deal with it. you cut it, gut it. he says he has a jobs plan. a jobs plan to win the future. wtf -- i know. [applause] and i'm the idiot. wtf plan. he will invest our money in bullet trains to nowhere, but he will stop boeing from building airplanes anywhere. bankrupt energy companies get sweet loans and grants offers.

oil pipelines, not allowed to give you job offers. we say his plan is not winning the future, it is losing our country. we have a better jobs plan and it is called the free market. it worked before, and it will work again after this president. [applause] he says we need more of his financial regulations. we say, go asked mf global customers how happy they are with his regulations.

they did not prevent the financial meltdown. these folks have helped cause it and you helped to bail them out. the president says, small-town americans, we cling to our religion and guns because we are frustrated with his pace of change. we say, keep your change. we will keep our god, our guns, our constitution. [applause] professor obama may have forgotten the bill of rights,

but we shall not forsake it, including the rights our founders risked their lives for. freedom of religion, our right to bear arms. we will rise up, we will defend them. the president believes your tax dollars should subsidize planned parenthood. we believe that every child is created equal with that right to life. [applause] i ask you to stand up for those who cannot stand for themselves. if not us, then who? [applause] thank you. the president believes we need

to consolidate power, centralize power, because you cannot be trusted to make decisions for yourself. not about your health insurance, your gas mileage, not even about your light bulbs. we believe it is time to return power to the people. that is where the founders intended it. that is where the constitution entrusts it. that is where it belongs today, people. [applause] perhaps this distrust of us is because he seems to believe that america is a destructive force in the world. we should apologize to enemies. he believes that we should share our missile defense technology with the kremlin. he believes we should make cuts in our military while other

nations are building up their military. cuts to our troops while we keep on spending wildly on everything else. talk about priorities. the white house is trying to negotiate with the taliban. they are watching helplessly as iran moves close to developing their nuke. the number one duty is protecting the american people and our allies. god bless israel. [applause] our president needs to understand that. he needs to understand what you

understand. they are asked to risk their lives for it. this is not some international community organizing we're talking about. or social welfare networking. we will never apologize for america's strength and our greatness and we will refuse to accept that a weak america means a better and safer world. [applause] we are going to put our confidence in the strength of the armed the forces, not the hollow promises of our adversaries. not the cleverness of our diplomats. we will gladly and route the

fight to defend this land of the free. we must be the home of the brave. [applause] one reason our president has such a skewed view. he does not get out to see much of real america. 11 months from now, he will have his chance to spend time outside of d.c. -- all of it. when he comes down from his lofty office and he is finished rolling back the tides and a lowering the sea levels and snowdrifts or whatever all of those promises were. when he is finished with all of that, and then he is going to see that the facts on the ground are much different. in the divided between washington and the rest of the

country has never been greater. it has never been more dangerous. while america struggles, washington prospers. while our real-estate market's crash, washington is strong. washington is hiring, but they are hiring for what? they do not manufacture. they do not drill. they produce nothing. the services that they provide, they increase dependency, not freedom. they do not create wealth, they take it. this is obama's washington. it is not the washington of our founders. it is something that our forefathers never envisioned. they would have sworn their lives and fortunes to change.

it is now home to the highest per-capita income. he even have a a lamborghini dealership here. not that there is anything wrong with hot wheels. this is the playground of for the government rich. they are hoping you work really hard to keep it going. the people need and demand urgent reform from this growing out of touch government. it is for freedom's sake. it is to grow our small businesses and hire more people. we know things must change rapidly in order to let the private sector growth. there is no such sense of urgency here in washington.

life around here is a really good materially. our permanent political class is content. they are immune to the realities that the rest of us face. they play by a different set of rules. look at the epa. it is hurting our energy independence to be secure. it is enslaving us to these foreign dangerous supplies of energy instead of tapping into our own god-given forces of energy under our foot. that is what the epa is about. you have to ask yourself, when is the last time you saw epa prevent constructing a new government building? maybe instead of calling

washington a swamp, maybe we should call it a wetland. maybe that will slow down the growth of government. [applause] now, the old washington of our founders, it is a place where you came to serve for government and not prosper on it. you left your home and your farm. you left your industry behind to serve the common good. this washington is a place where politicians arrive as men and women of modest means. they become plutocrats. the money-making opportunities are really at less. -- endless. they don't just enrich themselves off of you for themselves. they spread the wealth around to their pals. this is called crony capitalism.

[applause] i said in a speech over the summer, this is not the capitalism of the free men and free markets, of risk and sacrifice and innovation and hard work. it is the capitalism of connections and of government bailouts and hand out and waste and corporate welfare and corruption. this is the capitalism of barack obama and the permanent political class. it is why i think occupy protesters, you are occupying the wrong place and protesting the wrong thing. this crony capitalism is a root of our economic problems. it has spurred the expansion of government.

it diminishes freedom and opportunity for all to rise and to succeed. some politicians get elected by promising more programs and a new freebies and favors. government grows to accommodate their promises. it never shrinks. that crowds out the liberating individual initiative and the equal opportunity that america was built upon. it swallows of the work ethic that we try to teach our children. often they come to washington, d.c. denouncing the place as a cesspool of corruption. after one year or two, they decide, no, it is not a cesspool. it is like a hot tub. they are jumping in and enjoying the jacuzzi.

it is time we drain the jacuzzi and we throw the bums out with the bathwater. [applause] we took a good first step in 2010. as much as the media wants you to forget, tea party won a historic victory. we, the people, we rose up and step up. we said we do not want a big government agenda. we will not pay for it. now these points that i make about congress, i want to be clear. i toast the tea party members there and congress. many of them who have fought so bravely against the status quo.

they have agreed with us that you cannot get out of debt digging deeper into debt. some have an voted to give the president and other plastic credit card that our grandkids will have to pay off for us. barack obama has dismissed them. he has lied about them. they have held their ground. they have kept their promises to the people who hired them. now they need reinforcements. will you help them? [applause] this november we will take back the senate and we will fortified the house. be aware patriots, we will

elect more and this time we will expect them to get leadership in congress. [applause] but to fix obama's washington, to return power to the people, we must replace obama at the ballot box. he is sinking our ship of state. when the a ship is going down, and the last thing you need is the community organizer reorganizing the deck chairs while singing "let's stay together." we should not forget that for all of his lofty rhetoric, he is a chicago politician.

quid pro quo, that is the chicago way. though you do not make any friends in the establishment doing it, i fought to the corrupt political machine. barack obama used it to advance. he never challenged it. he never changed it. he brought it here with him. now in the campaign, he will try to reinvent himself as the champion of the workingman. well, sorry, but no. he is the champion of the power player who will bankroll his million-dollar campaign. world only knows how many more

solyndras are out there who he promised to finance them. we do not know who our nominee will be to come up against the barack obama and his policies in the fall, but we know this election will be hard fought. our nominee must be ready, strong, up fortified, passionate, a fighter for american ideals. [applause] our candidate must be somebody who can instinctively turn right to constitutional conservative principles. it is too late in the game to

teach it or spin it at this point. it is either there or it is not. [applause] all of these challenges facing america. all of these questions -- our candidates are trying to articulate the right answer. it is through often defog the filter of a biased media. these campaign managers are not ready to run for dogcatcher but they will tell candid it's what -- candidates what to say. a candid its true intention, -- , ndidates' true intention they can be found in that candidate's view of government itself. my view comes directly from the most incredible blue print, it seems providential lead that they were crafted back then. our charters of liberty. they asserted that liberty is in the power of the people.

the government originates within the power of the people's ideas. he who inherently believes that, that is who i am looking for. that is who we are looking for in our nominees. we have all heard from these experts that we have to name our nominee right now. wrap it up. no debate for you. cut it off. as if competition weakens our nominee. in america, we believe competition strengthens us. competition elevates our game. [applause] competition will lead us to victory in 2012. i believe that the competition has to keep going. let's make sure this competition brings out the best in our party. we know that the far left and

their media allies cannot be us on the issues. they will smear our record and smear our reputations. they will attack our families. let's not do the job for them. ok republicans? ok, independents? the attempt to destroy it will continue. we cannot let the next ticket go through that. we cannot let them divide us. we must stand as conservatives with common sense and with a servant hard for the good of our party. more importantly for the sake of our country, we must stand united. whoever our nominee is, we must

work together to get him over the finish line so that he can start rebuilding the defense of our republic. [cheers and applause] and then next year at this time, this time next year we will have a true conservative in the oval office. next year maybe he be here speaking to us at cpac. we will have a president who defends our way of life instead of apologizing for it. we will have a commander in chief worthy of our troops. [applause]

our troops, those in uniform who are serving something greater than themselves, sacrificing much around a dangerous world so that we at home can enjoy the blessings of liberty, and they represent the best of america. in their honor, please note we are so blessed to live in the greatest nation ever known. do not squander this. remember ronald reagan's inaugural address. he acknowledged we had been set aside in a very special way. we must not stray from our noble beginnings. he reminded us we be a free people living in faith with our makers and our future. standards of right and wrong to exist, and they must be lived up to. we are the heirs of patriots

who cast off the chains of tyranny. immigrants who braved the seas. of pioneers who pushed into the great unknown. of soldiers who stormed foreign shores. farmers and workers laboring in farms and factories from dusk to dawn. they toiled so their children could have a better life. that is the america, and that is freedom. that is why we are exceptional. [cheers and applause] as president obama lacks a vision to lead, we will lead it. the door is open. our vision is as bold and strong and free as the country

that we loved it. it is the vision of government that works for us and not against us. it is rooted in the old washington of our founders, not the washington of today's political class. of liberty and of empowerment. it is a vision that our heroes throughout history proved through liberating strife, their selfless love of country. it is the enduring vision of this land that god had shed his grace upon. we will cherish it and fight for it. the door is opened. god bless you, patriots. god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ ♪

♪

♪ [chanting sarah] >> ladies and gentlemen, the

>> the results of the straw poll are announced. mitt romney finished first with 38 percent of the vote. and second, rick santorum with a 31%. newt gingrich had a 15% and was in third place. ron paul finished what off%. congressman paul was the winner for the last two years. this panel discussion compares the tea party and occupy wall street movement. it is part of the annual political action conference held in washington, d.c. [applause] >> i will start bringing out our panelists. the first one is a very good friend of mine.

i spent many long hours traveling the country talking to people with her. she is amy kramer. she was one of the original founders of the atlanta tea party. [applause] amy left the party patriots and joined the tea party express. now she is one of the most recognizable faces of the tea party movement. she does an unbelievable job and i love her so much. >> thank you. >> our next panelist is kevin jackson. he is author of the book "the big black lie." [applause] he founded the "black fear blog."

kevin has been featured on the glenn beck program, rush limbaugh, etc. he writes is almost daily blog and is a syndicated writer. he contributes to "american thinker." he is hilarious. he will entertain you guys tonight. no pressure. our next guest is -- i need some water up here. our next guest is jennifer stefano. she is a director with americans for prosperity. [applause] political unexpected

career began in april of 2009 when she attempted to spend one day at the park with their husband and a newborn baby. they stumbled onto a tea party rally. soon after she started organizing and leading rallies from harrisburg to washington, d.c. she earned the nickname "the tea party rock star." she is a wife, mother, and a terrible cinder. -- singer/ . our next panelist is the editor and chief of big journalism. [applause] she is a cnn contributor and

host her own radio show. her original brand of young conservative the reverence has found a fast-growing audience. she was named one of the top 16 most powerful mothers by nielsen. she appears regularly on fox, cnn, abc, and hbo's "real time." she was the first and only female guest host for michael savage who calls her his mental maps. -- match. she serves as a grass-roots organizer. she founded the st. louis tea party. she is credited with having the taking him out of new york 23. [applause]

our last panelist is another young the conservatives superstar, ryan hecker. [applause] ryan is the coo of freedom works for america. he is a houston-based lawyer who launched the contract from america project. it is an open source platform for the tea party movement. the agenda has the imprint of everyday citizens every step of the way. while the republicans' 1994 contract with america represented the nation's last intellectual conservative movement, the new contract was created from the bottom up. please give a big round of applause to the entire panel. [applause]

now, we are going to let everybody give some brief remarks. the title of this panel is "taking wall street back." we are going to start the remarks with amy kramer. >> thank you so much. thank you for putting this cpac together. this is inspiring. we needed this energy and inspiration going forward because we have a lot of work to do in the 2012 election cycle. it is up to us to take back this country from the administration on the left. i am honored to be here with all of you great people. obviously, the tea party has had significant impact on the political landscape across the country.

in the past six-eight months, we have heard about occupy wall street. we have seen it happen all across the country starting in new york city. the media wants to write to the narrative that occupy wall street is alive and well. the post pictures and videos and everything of their bright signs and a boisterous people. and then they are writing stories that the tea party movement is dead. i have news for them. the tea party movement is not dead. we are alive and well. [applause] we have grown and matured into tea party 2.0. don't judge us by our signs. judge us by election day when we are out voting and they are still out with their signs.

the difference is that we have great ideas. we have truly changed the political landscape. it not only on a federal level, but on a state and local level. that is what is happening across this country. we are truly having an impact. we are not backing down. we are not giving up. if anything, this tea party movement will have an impact on the united states senate when we take the gavel out of harry reid's hands. [applause] that's right. we are going to reclaim the house. the reason the tea party movement has been so successful is because we have great ideas. we understand that we have to take action to implement those

ideas. if you truly want to implement change, you change the players. the most valuable tool we have is our vote. we show it in 2010 and we will show it in 2012. occupied wall street resorted to all kinds of tactics. i do not even want to get into it. it is not worthy of our time. we are here to save america, and to protect the great constitution that america was founded on. that is what we are here for. that is what we are going to do. this movement is something that has been created by the left. it is an astroturf movement. obviously they were out in front of the hotel yesterday. they were out there, and they were paid probably $60 a day to come here. the unions are infiltrating them

because they see the value of it. that is okay. we are going to take this country back. we are going to continue to move forward. that is why i am blessed to be here and be part of cpac and be a part of the great palace here. -- panelists here. we are all about grass roots. we believe in this country. >> thank you, amy. >> i will tell you this. occupy has me mad. it is a movement that has 1 foot on a grave and another on a banana peel. more people watch my fifth grade's youtube videos than this crap.

[applause] i love to confront lunacy on all forms. this is a perfect example. i am happy to talk them down. somebody asked me why we do not have somebody from occupy on our panel. i said, why should we? by the way, how many people are in occupied? i want to the media to cover that. thank you for your time. i am happy to be here. >> that is why i love you. you always pull your punches. >> i get asked all the time. i am asked what is the difference between the tea party and occupy. i am one of these political nerds so i can get into the policy issues. if you're standing in a room in your not sure how to separate them, do one thing.

raise an american flag. the tea party years will stand and put their hands over their hearts and a pledge to it. the occupied people will try to defecate on that. you tell me, that is the difference. [applause] the tea party movement came about. i was a stay at home mother and a wife, and i still am and a practitioner of the domestic arts. which i love. [applause] terrible singer, but wonderful cook. here is the deal. we are standing arms and arms so our children do not have to defend the liberty that is being taken to us which is in doubt and not by the government but by the creator. we need to proclaim that every

day of our lives. [cheers and applause] one more thing i will say. when i started in this movement that was an unpaid housewife wearing a flak. today i am a paid patriot. i always get asked the same question. they always bring up this big evil americans for prosperity. here is what i say to them. if americans for prosperity or anybody would like to cut me a check to go out and defend the cause of liberty. i will do two things. i will cash it and kiss them. and in that order. this girl is a capitalist. [applause] the tea party movement came

about because we do not need a leader to save us and restore us to greatness. take it to the bank. we were always great, and we will show that in 2012 and beyond. [cheers and applause] >> you amaze me. >> i read that the union bosses had paid these occupy people. i went out there to see how many there were. they had a big giant golden toilet out there. so did saddam hussein. they paid them $60 a day. i think we could probably take up a collection and paid them $70 a day to protest outside of the white house. [applause] there is three differences that i see between the occupied

movement and the tea party movement. i want to address the issue of astroturf thing. it always amazes me how progressives believe conservatives cannot go out in public and cannot peacefully assemble and raise their american flags and do things to promote conservatism without being paid. i think what we have seen from the occupy movement is that is because that is how they live. they get paid to go out and get paid for their ideologies. we believe in the things that we say so we will do it for free. [cheers and applause] i had a fancy on my show yesterday. she is obviously the spokesperson for the koch industries. i said i would say this opportunity to say i work for you. where is my check? i have not received one.

you can cut one for me now. if they are so offended by the existence of the company, what are they still even making money off of all of their products? you know that they are. there is that. we are out here as part of the movement. i have been working and ready and blogging since 2001. i had never really got out and held up a placard to protest. for a conservative to do that, it was sort of odd. people were so fed up, we have been protesting for less government. here comes a movement that got started via a canadian company

called adbusters receives money from the tides foundation who is funded by george soros. we are protesting for less government and they are protesting for more government. how is that patriotic? it is not. we are protesting for less government intrusion. we are trying to keep the government out of our cafeteria, bank accounts, churches. i can go on. they want complete nanny state babysitting from cradle to grave. that is what they define as liberty. when the government makes you self-sustaining instead of you sustaining yourself. [applause] we have also had a lot of successes. 2010, the tea party helped

assure that republicans took a victory in the house of representatives. and we are going to do it again with the senate in 2012. one of the things the grass roots have assured is that this president -- barack obama has already been beaten. the media is keeping him on a lifeline right now. this is the same media that has been telling you that the occupy wall street movement is an all encompassing universal movement made up of peaceful people. my colleague has a list of over 300 criminal acts, drug selling, drug using, child abandonment -- this was the group that also shot up the white house and through smoke bombs, but we are the violent, raging, racist, hillbilly, and gunslinging klan.

-- gun toting rednecks. [applause] and in closing, because you know i could go on, i have a challenge for this grassroots movement. even people doing the not so glorious work of petitioning, phone banking, and going door- to-door. it does not matter if you are on television or have a blog read by millions of people. you are just as important as the next person and on -- do not let anyone tell you differently. the challenge and have is this. we can change out the politicians. we can put forward legislative efforts. we can do all this during the election but it is not going to matter if we do not change the hearts and minds of the

american voter. that is where it starts. politics is downstream from pop culture, so support your conservatives that are in entertainment. get involved. be a liberty evangelist. small hearts and minds, and then we will see a permanent change in the electoral process. thank you. >> a tough act to follow. >> are really tough act to follow. when asked what is the biggest difference between the tea party movement and occupy wall street, the first thought on my mind was soap. similarly related, in every rally i have been too, the 9-12 march in washington, throughout

the country, i think everyone picked up their trash. everyone picked up their trash. there was not a single wrapper from any tea party here in the country. they were doing race baiting. there was not a single races than any event in the country. but it occupied events, we have people saying go home, jews and we hate the jews. we care about this country, and they care about themselves. i have been asked a number of times, why is it that the tea party movement folks are fighting for economic freedom and less taxes. you guys are blue-collar, middle-class types. why would you want to do

something that is against your own interests? i said, that is just it. the tea party movement is about more than our interests. it is about a set of values we think america is losing. we are for economic freedom because we believe the individual can make choices about how to spend their money and it is not the government's place to make those choices for us. and i think that is really -- i think it is the seriousness of the tea party movement that stands out from occupy wall street. i occupy wall street is no different from any other g- eight protests that has taken place for the last 20 years. it is anarchists, women college students, and free market types. the tea party movement was very focused.

we are 50% of america. we care so much about this country. our goal -- the reason why the tea party started was because a whole host of americans individually decided that they were fed up with america. we were fed up with the leadership in washington, and we were fed up with republicans. that was the key thing. we were fed up with republicans. it was not obama. it was the active republicans supporting charlie crist over marco rubio. it does not matter what you believe, it matters what party belong to. i think he partyers around the country recognize that the republican party no longer represented their interests as economic conservatives. and so -- but i think the major thing -- you know, it was not

just dislike of the republican party. it was anger at ourselves too, because we let this happen, and we were not going to let it happen any longer. the other panelists have brought up one of the key differences between occupy wall street and us is that we have really made a difference, not only just in terms of policy, not only in terms of pushing the house to the right. we made a difference directly in elections. it is not just elections to get republicans elected. it is elections to get conservatives elected. that is the goal. i want to stress that. if republicans take the senate and that senate is not conservative, then we have all failed. we have to take our victories in 2010 and bring them to 2012. there is a great panel going on

in the other room right now with two leaders who are going to make that happen. one is ted crews from texas, and the other is richard murdock, who is going to unseat dick lugar in indiana. so, you know, so -- that is it, and i will finish here. our movement has changed. the press has said our movement was dead every six months, and then we win 2010. we rise and push for grass- roots change, and we are going to be doing that in 2012. i just want to ask the question of all the folks up there, who here is a tea party supporter? [applause]

so, folks, that is your answer. thank you. >> i think i am going to have to get some reparations for my time. >> we will take care of that. >> you guys made the case with such eloquence, i do not have much to add. but i do want to say, i got involved in the tea party movement because i bought a home at the height of the housing boom. i have a wife and three daughters and i am a forklift

driver. i wanted some answers. and you know where i got my answers? with the government manipulation of the free market. that is what got me motivated. when i first saw the occupy protests -- i will not even call it a movement -- the protests, i was hopeful that we shared something in common. the question i want to put to you guys is, is there any redeeming quality in occupy? >> they started, they claimed they were mad at the banks being bailed out. guess what? we were too, but where the heck were they three years ago when we started protesting? >> you talk about going into enemy territory and winning

people over. is there any opportunity there or is it so manufactured that there is no chance? >> where i come from in st. louis, it did begin selling as a grass-roots movement. we knew it has been hijacked by the acorn group. they bullied the original founder of occupy st. louis out of business. if they are so upset about wall street and the bank bailouts and everything else, welcome to our club number one, and number two, why is it the majority of you say you are going to vote for barack obama? i know you have seen the videos where they drive to these things with their hybrid cars and their apple phones and their obama stickers on their cars, and you go out there and interview them and they say barack obama, barack obama, barack obama. but he is the wall street candidate. nobody has gotten more money

from them. >> with so much going on, is there a danger -- are they trying to marry us to the bank bailout somehow? >> what i would take from occupied is they are like sybil. they have multiple personalities. you do not know where they're coming from. one needs banking. one loves capitalism. they are all over the map. the tea party movement has remained relatively stable in terms of what we believe and our core values and things like that. with the tea party movement needs and the conservative

movement in general, and what we can take from this is, i admire the level of fight that the left brings to what they do. we like keeping things we say civil. we are not in civil times. the left changed the definition of pedophilia to across generational sexuality. that is nutty. i had a panel on race relations and people were saying african- american. there is no african-american. there is only american. [applause]

and let me tell you something else before i lose the microphone to one of these pretty ladies. i have been all over the world. i have lived in france. i have lived in china. i have travelled throughout africa, 23 countries, various other countries, and i have never heard of anything like the french dream or the chinese stream or the cuban dream. but they all know what the american dream is, and that is what we are fighting for. and as the national spokesperson for the tea party, the only black national spokesperson, which throws the left into a spin -- >> wait a second. lloyd marcus of the tea party express. >> lloyd is one of my friends and he is definitely black. he is probably blacker than i am.

i defer. the occupied people are all over the map. they do not know what they stand for. we all have the same core values. all you white people, none of you are at the same color. there are no black people on the planet that are the same color. we're in hyphenated americans. that is what we stand for. the american values. [applause] jennifer. >> how do we hang the ugliness, the violence, how do we pin that to liberal politicians? >> let them use their own words and their own actions.

nobody likes to argue more than me. i love to argue. i know we love to fight and have our point, but here is what i tell you. go quiet and ask the questions. it is the hardest thing in the world, but these people are completely remarkable. they stormed the dream summit from americans for prosperity. they said if people want to walk out the front door, walk out. i was behind a world war ii vet in a wheelchair and said, i am walking out the front door. if i can take on hitler, i can take on these bums.

that brave man went out there with his veteran hat on and went out there. another thing we have to do that is crucial. independence is very important to all of us. there is a big discussion about coopting. am i going to be coopted if i work with this group? will i be coopted? stop asking that question. you have one question. do i or do not want to win? that is it. you are individuals with your own god-given freedom. there is no such thing as coopting. but you have to work together because the left does not have that argument, does not have that consternation, does not have that vision, and we do. we need to pull together for

winning. define it and do it. >> i want to add to jennifer's. and also address the question about pinning the violence in the occupy movement on liberal politicians. you do not need to panic. they have redone it. barack obama, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, debbie wasserman schultz have already spoken out in favor of the occupy movement. they have already endorsed this movement. this is something i find fascinating. everyone in st. louis, my city, a great city, we had a parade. we had a veterans day parade and we also had a parade for

the returning iraqi veterans from iraq and afghanistan. now, what is fascinating about this is that there were individuals who wanted to have a parade in new york city for the iraq and afghanistan war veterans, and new york said no. but what does new york to four months on end? they allow the occupy wall street protesters to march without a permit, defecate without a permit, and the raping, and the dragging, all of the crime associated with it, all of that. but we cannot have a parade to welcome our veterans home? remind them of this. when you go home, when you talk to democratic official, say do you condone the violence in this movement?

do you still endorse this movement after witnessing over 300? -- 300 acts of documented violence all of these people have criminal records. that does not even include over two thousand individuals who have been arrested at various protests because they will not abide by the law? do you condone this? to support it? next time you see them. >> i think that is exactly the answer. we have to wrap up. we have some minutes left. i want to give each of you a chance to wrap it up and speak. we will go down the line starting with amy. >> a just want to echo what dana said. i mean, look. they are out here, outside of this hotel protesting as because we are a threat to their agenda. that is the bottom line. if we were not a threat to their agenda, they would not be

here. they would not be paying attention to us. it is the same thing with the media. it is the same thing with the left. we have to keep up the fight. we can not back down. if not us, who? if not now, when? the only way we're going to change it is to put people into office who believe in the constitution, believe in the people, and believe that the power should be put back in the hands of the people in this state and not the federal government. that is the answer. washington is not the answer. washington is the problem. >> i was on bbc world and they were having protests and they were actually crediting some of those protests with occupy. people have been protesting for hundreds of years, and now all of a sudden they are part of

the occupy movement? i will make a prediction. in a few months, the occupy movement will be more lonely than whoopi goldberg's e- harmony profile. >> i am going to say one thing. i am a mother. i'm a wife. i know life is busy. i get it. i want to remind you of something. between now and november 2012, your children, your grandchildren, they are not going to remember how many soccer games or ballets you attended, but they will remember if you live to free, and if you do not rise up right now, every day of your life and take action, they will remember. and you need to stay on your feet. that is right.

because i'm going to remind you. i'm going to remind you of something. it is not simply that god blesses america. it is the work of people here on earth in this nation on behalf of liberty and justice that have brought forward this great nation. we are going to defend liberty every day of our lives. now is the time. >> our men and women go overseas. it is super hot the revers to melt your face. i'm not sure the exact temperature, but it is hot. what we do here is just a candle to the flame they have.

you are already involved because you are here. get involved. all politics are local. raise the scene in your own district. the epicenter of activism. get involved. and again, and ask them. get them on record. do you endorse? do you condone? and if you need to, come and get me. i would love to have you. >> i would like to conclude by echoing what amy said. we have to keep our eyes on the prize. the occupy wall street movement is irrelevant. the in the prize is the powers that be, the establishment, whether on the left or the right that is trying to deprive us of our individual freedom and economic liberty. they are a much bigger threat. that is why we have to elect

conservatives like ted crews and richard murdock to the senate. we have to keep the house, not just with a house republican majority, but create a house conservative majority. and only then can a true defeat of barack obama mean anything. we have to defeat barack obama, but we need to win it, and when we do, we need to win it for conservatives. for conservatives. that is what the tea party movement is all about. it is not about getting republicans elected it is about upholding the principles of our founding fathers and insuring those liberties for future generations. >> when you look at the professionalism, passion and class of all of these panelists

and all of you, i think that the american people know which side they need to stand on. i want to thank all of you thought. i think with that we will wrap it up because we are running a little over time. thank you so much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> on news makers, the chairman of the energy and national resources committee discusses whether a divided congress can tackle energy legislation this session. he also talked about a clean energy standard and negotiations to advance a green energy credits using the payroll tax cut bill. newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. miss the latest on c-span? subscribe to our channel and we will notify you of the latest video post. >> there was this very sad, tragic episode in beaumont. a race riot broke out here june

15, 1943. there was a story about a black man having raped a white woman. the story spread to the shipyard. several thousand of the shipyard workers, some say at least 2000 shipyard workers, came out of the shipyards to the city hall and to the police department to try to find the person who had allegedly committed this crime. >> there are hundreds of videos to choose from online. subscribeatyoutu at youtube.com/cspan.

host: gene karpinski is president of the league of conservation voters the. billy of conservation voters have come out with this annual scorecard of congress and their votes. you call this congress the most anti-environmental in the nation's history. explain. guest: it is sad, but true. i've been working on these issues for 30 years and lcd has been doing this for over 40 years. at seventh, it is true. in the past year, there have been 200 votes and we scored 35 of those votes. this congress was the most anti-environmental and history. but the good news, most of those bills that passed the house did not become law. host: and what stop them? guest: almost every anti- environmental bill that was in the house, very closely allied with other bills, those passed

the house. the senate and president obama managed to defeat those and veto those. host: let's talk about the bills that the league of conservation voters find most distressing. but what is the top one? a guest: probably the biggest single attack is on the environmental protection agency. it has been around since 1970. it was set up by president nixon to protect our air and our water and public health. it has an incredible track record, saving lives, reducing health-care costs, making sure the public is protected with the air they breathe and the water they drink. that is what they are supposed

to do. the leader is very artistically, very forceful. he pays attention to science. and this epa in the last three years has made a number of proposals. that is what they're supposed to do. but the house has tried to block them from doing their job. for example, last december, the first proposal to cut mercury and other toxic pollution from power plants. it has been 20 years in the making. but seventh, the house tried to block it. ordaz was not going to happen and those proposals went into effect in december. host: let's talk about state representatives. let's talk about the state representative that got the

lowest score. there are quite a number that, low scores. guest: the previous house had an average score of 57. this year's is down to 45. host: what does that mean? from one to 100? guest: from one to 100. in 35 different votes. a very specific subset of the numbers in the last congress, their average score was 73. the average score of those who replace them, 15. a dramatic drop. that is the difference with this congress. host: before we go through some

names and states, what does the league of conservation voters do to prepare for the next election? guest: the scorecard is put together by a lot of groups within the community. a number of states are part of the process. they all sit around and help us shape which votes are taken. this scorecard is not an election tool. it is an educational tool. we also get involved in the elections. we endorse people who we think our champions. and we have a dirty dozen every year, who tried to defeat some of the worst anti environmental members. we are just beginning the

process of getting involved in that. george allen, that is an open seat. senator jim webb is retiring. george allen has a lifetime score. a sharp contrast between the 1%, and the lifetime scores. host: here are the numbers on our screen. but take us through why some of these members on this list. guest: that is across a number of states, south lake, from alabama to wisconsin and a number of states. it is about 20 states. what that means is that of the 35 votes that we had, they got no more than three of those votes correctly.

from alabama down to arkansas and texas and wisconsin. the most extreme example, in terms of numbers of voting, there were four members of the house, they actually got a zero. that means that of the 35 votes, they got all of them wrong. host: if you like to join the conversation and talk with gene karpinski, the numbers are on the screen. let's go to ashland, kentucky, where doug is on the democrat's line.

caller: republicans want to destroy the world we live in. we start of the epa so our children in the future will have clean water. i know a little about this. these companies do not want to clean up their pollution. republicans say it destroys jobs. it makes jobs. it makes good paying jobs, but they do not want to pay, these corporations. we need to keep our air breathable and our water fresh. host: here is a breakdown of the house and senate in kentucky.

kentucky is read, that means 0- 19% in the ranking. and the house is in orange. guest: the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, sadly, is almost always in opposition to protection. those who say these things are job killers, it is just not true. we save lives and create money and create jobs creating new technology. president obama and the senate blocked almost every effort to block the clean air and clean water act.

host: someone asks, what is the stance on nuclear-power? guest: it has been around for more than 50 years. we all agree it is a community we should not be subsidizing using taxpayer money. not for something that is not more than 50 years old. map, let's go back to the looking at how the members of congress rank environmentally. who are some of the high achievers? what are some of the delegations making environmentally conscious decisions? guest: the highest are connecticut, hawaii, vermont, rhode island, massachusetts, and the state of maine.

those are leaders. from some of those states have come the biggest champions on our issues. we want more champions. one example is ed markey. he is an important leader and champion. our job is to make sure we score the votes, and also give a shout out to the champions. host: republican line. marion. caller: i am a retired nuclear engineer and i have been protecting the environment for over 30 years. mr. gene karpinski is not telling you that the epa is attempting to regulate the water.

i taught environmental law for many years. he is trying to regulate arsenic to less than what happens in nature. we have had the epa go as far to an attempt to make it almost impossible for small water systems to comply with these regulations. we have a system of people at the epa, and i like them a lot, that are trying to regulate industry out of existence. i am talking about small water systems in small communities. we probably have better water than most large communities, but our are cynic might not fall within the categories.

you cannot maintain it at less than what happens in nature, and that is what epa is trying to do. host: let's get a response from gene karpinski. guest: nobody wants unhealthy levels in our drinking water. in the clean air act, passed in 1970, amended in 1990, they said the job is to look at the science, the law, and the facts, then when you set your standards for pollutants, you follow the science. the scientists decide what level is safe. the epa bases it on what independent scientists find. what is how the process works. we need to not listen to lobbyists, but listen to the scientists.

follow the signs, follow the law. if you do it right, if you are creating more jobs, clean energy jobs. host: mary, in independent in warwick, rhode island. caller: i have to agree with the previous caller, as this the administration is looking to shut down mining in the u.s., yet they ok the russian state-owned miner in wyoming and texas. also, the chinese state purchased a coal-mining company

in wyoming. they have a deplorable record. american oil companies can not drill in the gulf of mexico. but president obama has rubber- stamped bp. he says he does not want american companies to do it. it seems we are seeing foreign takeover of u.s. economy. foreign polluters are ok. i care about the environment. i was 11 when i first learned about the environmental movement in school. this is not environmentalism. this is seeking to destroy the u.s. economy.

thank you. guest: when the epa sets standards for drilling on offshore oil in the gulf, it does not depend on their company of origin. the standards are set across the board. most public polls say we are doing not enough because to many people are breathing air that is not healthy, or unhealthy water. we've seen new industries created to increase protection of air or water. we work closely with the american lung association. we work with the epa to make sure they follow the signs, and the law. the public deserves that.

otherwise, the polluters will make their case, but the epa has to police beat. -- has to be the cop on the beat. you mentioned oil companies. right now, to the tune of about $4 billion the year, taxpayers subsidize the oil companies, at a time when they're making record-breaking prices and there are skyrocketing gasoline prices. that makes no sense. the 52 senators said we need to eliminate those subsidies. there are solutions to make sure our air and water is cleaner, but let's take away taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. host: on twitter --

host: yesterday, cspan sat down with the chairman of the senate energy committee, and let's listen to what he had to say to reporters about the chances of seeing energy legislation passed this year. [video clip] >> i think the truth is this is a difficult congress in which to pass substantial legislation. that is not just energy. that is in any area. that is what we are faced with. particularly, it is difficult this year because of the upcoming election. so, i'm not overly optimistic that we are going to get legislation through both houses of congress that is significant in this area. if we can get bipartisan cooperation to do some things, that would be great. >> no energy legislation? >> i am hoping we can pass some energy legislation, but we do

not have a path forward yet. host: we will be barry knapp -- airing that tomorrow on c-span at 10:00 in the morning and -- be hearing that tomorrow on c- span. he says do not hold your breath. guest: he is right. host: he is retiring. guest: he has been a leader. he knows the difficulty. as we said, there is no evidence that they will support issues to make our air cleaner, our water cleaner. senator jeff bingham gets it, but sadly, his colleagues do not. host: you have given the house a very low score overall.

where are things going right now? if things are gridlocked, if the chairman of the energy committee says we are not going to get things to test? guest: we want to make sure people know about scores. you can go to lcv.org and look at how people voted one goal is to make sure many of these bad bills do not become law. there is reason for hope. number one, we work with partners across the country. many states are moving forward stronger than the government lost to protect our environment, make green energy, prevent carbon pollution. in the states we are making progress. in washington, the congress is doing nothing, but the epa is

doing amazing work. lisa jackson is creating new standards. we want to encourage her to be as strong as possible, to follow the signs, and make sure when she sets the standards, like she did for mercury, these are things the epa, the department of interior, the department of energy, the department of transportation can do. we can make progress. palm beach progress in many states and in the epa. host: rod in college station, pa.. caller: two callers in a row

talk about how bad the epa is, and one gentleman said excessive regulation is killing jobs. we hear them as a talking point from a lot of conservatives. if you go back to the 2008 republican national convention, the speeches made on this, and the chanting of "drill, baby, drill," and then fast-forward to the bp or oil spill, many republicans were yelling at president obama. how hypocritical can you get? secondly, i would like to say a lot of people are sickened by smoke stack industries.

they need some type of regulation. coal plants throughout pittsburgh and a lot of other cities. a lot of women are getting cancer, and they did not smoke. more and more people, especially women. these are serious consequences. finally, many of these same individuals who try to talk about job killing, are actually blocking renewable energy, as it happened in pennsylvania and a number of other states where 30% of the tax incentives are being blocked by state government, and the current

congress, the gop-dominated congress is blocking renewals every stage. host: ron, how important is environmental record to you when you go to vote? caller: it is very, very important. it is not necessarily the number one. i look at the economy and other things, too, but it is in the top three. host: let's look at pennsylvania before your address the question, gene karpinski. pennsylvania, in your break down, has a 50% voting record, going to environmental half the time, and in the house is a lower number, 30%. guest: you have a sharp contrast between two senators. senator pat toomey has 9% in

its first year. there is a 91% by senator casey. there's a big contrast. ron makes an important point about what we need to do to protect air and water. we had one of the most outrageous disasters in terms of the oil spill, and i do not think we handled it very well, yet this house of representatives tried to weaken standards for drilling in the future, and refused an effort to begin to make the oil companies pay more to reduce taxpayer subsidies for their work. what we should be doing in the wake of the disaster.

it's called do you see the irony there the way republicans host: do you see irony there? guest: sure. the hypocrisy is outrageous. one of the things we look at is where contributions come from, and those who consistently have the lowest scores are the ones that receive the largest contributions from biggest oil companies. the future is in a clean energy. we need more wind, solar, and geothermal. those are the jobs of the future. we need to invest in those technologies and stop subsidizing dirty energy. host: gene karpinski is president of the league of conservation voters, and we're

looking at their annual scorecard. let's go to louisiana. jim, a republican caller. caller: i would like to ask mr. gene karpinski, who pays him? i hope it is not the taxpayers that he gets his money from. host: how important are environmental issues -- caller: i have another question. guest: there is no taxpayers subsidy for my salary. thank you for asking. host: how important are environmental issues to you? caller: well, i will tell you about these environmentalists.

they have almost torn up the earth. the people cannot do anything. people cannot do their jobs. another thing i would like to know is he is always talking about mercury. you know what they put in those new light bulbs, do you not? they put in mercury. i want him to explain to us why mercury is so bad -- if mercury is so bad, why do they put it in the light bulb? guest: the biggest dangers for mercury pollution are from power plants going into the air and getting into our water. many of the lakes, rivers, and streams, you cannot fish and eat the food.

mercury contaminated the fish you try to take out of those waters. it is primarily from power plants that creates that air pollution that either gets in our water and people breathe as well. that is the biggest challenge with mercury. host: from twitter -- lcv.org. -- lcv.org/scorecard. guest: thank you for asking. host: maryland, democrats. caller: i am so concerned about the the water did. i want to address the river keeper. they are important people in this country. can you also show a map of north carolina.

my parents live near the river. in maryland, i am near the person river. i want you to address the river keeper, and whether or not bp help the river keeper's along the gulf coast when they had the oil spill. host: i will show the east coast here, and you can see maryland getting a high score north carolina, lower. guest: let me give a couple of shout outs -- both senators from maryland had 100%. north carolina averaged 50%. 100% and 9%.

river keepers do great work. there are non-profit organization working on the basic fundamentals to clean up our rivers. it is a network of organizations that check our water quality of work hard locally and nationally. in maryland, one of the big issues is the chesapeake bay. one of the votes in the house wanted to cut the money to clean up the chesapeake bay. that simply made no sense. we need to invest the resources keep our air and water clean. host: let's talk about some of the worst offenders according to the league of conservation

voters. what state did it come from? who are we talking about? guest: there are a couple of different ways to look at this. in terms of the lowest house delegations, you have states like montana, idaho. a couple of states had 0, indiana and kansas. other states, mississippi, texas, wyoming, the war all under 10%. that is some of the state- specific. eric cantor from virginia was under 10%. he had penned must-pass bills that he claimed were about jobs, seven of them were about the epa. he went to block them from protecting air and water under

the false claim that it was about jobs. there also people that take a leadership role. host: what about the congressperson from wyoming. you mentioned her as someone that is offered amendments. guest: she is key committees. we scored several amendments amendments over the last several years she has proposed. she is a leader in offering amendments that are anti- environment. host: the lowest scores are in the central u.s., the northern u.s., states that are looking at development and using public land.

guest: some of those states, north dakota, south dakota, they might only have one or two members. the state of montana, the congressman's lifetime score is 5%. the state is in sharp contrast. host: georgetown, mass.. dan, independent line. caller: good morning. i think the environmental people need to step this up. i have tried to apply common

sense to a lot of things. when i see the oil companies' pumping the oil out as fast as they can, and basically not paying any money to do it, and even being subsidized to do it, they're actually should be a value put on oil as it sits in the ground. common sense says that in the history of the planet we started off as a "piece of rock with molten lava everywhere, and over time, this material is broken down. coincidentally, over that same time the plan that has become more stable. this oil has a lot of value other than burning and releasing carbon. the oil is our planet's blood. host: let's get a response from

gene karpinski. guest: i think every president in the last 40 years have talked about reducing dependence on oil and foreign oil, and the good news is president obama just proposed the strongest fuel economy standards to cut carbon pollution and to make cars go further on a gallon of gas. while is a precious resource. we need to shift to cleaner energy. we should use the technologies available to reduce our dependence on oil. we need to stop subsidizing oil companies. it makes no sense, billions of dollars a year, at a time when they're making record profits.

$40 billion over the next 10 years. that makes no sense. we stopped subsidizing while companies. -- should stop subsidizing oil companies. host: a question from twitter -- did any republican states get a high score? after seeing your website, it appears you're not being forthright. guest: our organization has republicans on the board. environmental issues are bipartisan issues. teddy roosevelt the fourth was a former chairman of our board. the epa was created in 1970 by a republican president, richard nixon. i have worked in washington, d.c., for more than 30 years. you cannot pass legislation

without bipartisan support. said it, leadership in the republican party today, and the president of candidates as well, has become very anti- environmental, to close from our perspective to the big oil companies and other polluters that fund their campaign. leadership has been terrible. there are new members of congress that had the highest scores like mr. bass from new hampshire. on a relative basis they were among the highest in republicans. there are republicans. historically, a lot of republicans understood this issue and our real leaders. sadly, most recently, in the congress there are not as many

people, and the leadership in both houses has been anti- environmental. we need republicans to support these issues. host: looking at a story last fall in "rolling stone" that highlights 10 things obama must do to protect the environment. president obama said future generations would remember his election as lending climate began to kill. -- heal. environmentalists are -- that the indictment begin to heal. environmentalists have been disappointed. are you supporting president obama? are there things he must to do? guest: there are things we have been disappointed in. we supported him in 2008. we supported him in 2004 when hardly anyone ever heard of barack obama. he has made a lot of progress on a lot of issues.

the challenge of addressing climate change has not been as easy as we want. passing more bills in congress is impossible. that is why the job that epa has done to begin to cut carbon pollution from our cars and power plants is critical. the next critical step we're working closely with him on is an effort to cut carbon pollution from power plants, and that is a significant step forward. it is early in the process for us to get involved. we have applauded the president for blocking the keystone pipeline. we have applauded the president for backing up the epa. we're looking at pending proposals the sad part is republican presidential nominees have called for

abolishing or cutting back and the epa, and all the leading candidates are basically deniers of the problem of global warming. that is anti-science. george bush and john mccain understood climate change was real. the candidates today have gone backwards. their global warming deniers and skeptics. that makes no sense. host: ruby, a republican, from virginia beach. caller: i am a 74-year-old grandmother. i love the environment. a protected the environment all my life. this thing about carbon dioxide, it is not a green house guest. it was not classified as a greenhouse gas. congress use the epa to do it.

if you take stones and put plans in, and feed them with 100% carbon dioxide, the plants grow. we humans take in oxygen that we get from plants and we breathe out carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide is really a nutrient. some scientists have said it is an insulator in our atmosphere. you are trying to throw everything out of balance. this mercury thing, as a little girl i had about 50 cents worth of mercury that i collected from thermometers, and i would throw on the floor and play with. is it not interesting that our governments, whether they are republicans or democrats, when they went to drill the oil in the golf, they selected bp, who

had 600 violations against it, when they could've taken conoco, who only had one. guest: i'm not going to defend bp. the supreme court 2007 said carbon dioxide is under that definition. a pollutant. the epa made a finding that carbon dioxide in dangers of public health. those that suggest that carbon dioxide does not cause pollution and is not a contributor to global warming does not square with the effects. -- the facts. many years ago we used to tobacco did not cause cancer. the 2% of scientists disagree on carbon dioxide -- sadly, their voices are louder than

they should be. floods, droughts, the warmest years on record -- all the signs are very clear that we are threatening the life of this planet. it is a serious problem. carbon dioxide is the main pollutant that causes global warming. host: she was incredulous about mercury pollution. guest: mercury goes into our air, pollutes our water. is that mercury pollution, which is what the epa decided to regulate. that is air pollution from mercury and other toxins from power plants. host: gene karpinski, president

of the league of conservation voters. we're talking about their annual scorecard. you can find it on there website. lcv.org. it calls the 112 house of representatives the most anti- environmental session of the u.s. house in history. thank you for being here. >> tomorrow, citizens united president david bossie talks about super pacs. author and a radio talk-show host bill press discusses politics and his new book, the obama 8 machines, the personal attacks on the president and who is behind them. and bob richie outlines what he sees as problems with the election systems and his suggestions to change the

process. "washington journal," live on c- span. >> here is that wonderful moment when the senator revealed his nostalgia for the states right segregationist south. >> when strom thurmond ran for president, we voted for hampered >> george marshall on the internet and his websites emergence into the breaking news business. >> the media ecosystem is a different than it was 10 years ago. i think things like that happen all the time now. i know there is many stories that we have had over the past decade. we have an editorial staff so we are breaking stories right and left. it is almost commonplace.

it is not nearly as surprising as it was back then. >> more about george marshall, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> on tuesday, the house energy commerce committee voted to advance a bill on the keystone oil pipeline. the legislation would give the regulatory commission 30 days to approve the pipeline, taking the decision out of the hands of president obama. the republicans plan to attach it to a transportation bill.

the north american energy access act. i would note that because of the conference committee, i want to thank members for getting here to start this morning. we are intending to stop at 10:00 and resume. is under -- my understanding we will meet until noon. we will come back at noon and work until it is done. we expect the vote will occur about 1:30. we will maneuver around that. the chair would recognize mr. kerry for announcing an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your bringing up the amendment and a substitute. i introduced 3548 --

>> will you call up the amendment? the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of hr 3548. >> the reading is suspect -- dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i introduced 3548 last year and through the committee's betting, hearing suggestions have percolated i want to incorporate in this bill. the changes are relatively simple but i want to walk my colleagues through them. the first three changes are in section 3, the amendment in the nature clarifying that they must issue the permit without additional conditions. they often have conditions and i want to clarify that they cannot attach additional

conditions to the pipeline. only the conditions and about fdis. there are multiple already. those would stay. it requires a memorandum of understanding with the state of nebraska within 30 days of enactment. the state of nebraska was then -- and able to testify to the objections. what is in the testimony that the nebraska submitted was there was not and mou even though it was on a desk ready to sign. this amendment would ensure that it cannot be similar in executing with my home state. this gives my home state a path forward on this issue.

during the third of the amendments would clarify that the holder of any permit issued under that act may began construction of portions of the pipeline while the proposed modification is being determined to. the last change in this amendment comes in section four. only federal law, i intend to supersede with this legislation the requirement that a presidential permit must be obtained for the pipeline. this change was brought up in the hearing with the first panel. all of the other laws continue to apply by taking the issue out of the president's hansen intrusting the issue with an agency. i hope we can de-politicize

this issue and get the energy that comes with this pipeline. with that, i will yield back. >> the chair would recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> i oppose this amendment. this bill is an unprecedented regulatory earmark. it singles out one project for special treatment. in some ways it improves the pending legislation but in other ways it makes it worse. the bill called on the federal energy regulatory commission to approve transcanada's permit in 30 days. to representative has resent -- represented this as in the hands of an expert agency. he said that, "going forward is simply moving the authority to an agency that understand pipelines." this legislation is not about

letting experts to their jobs. they said it was impossible to allow for public comment and build a record that would deal day decision in 30 days. now goes for their. opposeerc's duty to conditions when warranted. like to serve a public interest purpose. apparently there is concern that the act -- experts could find it necessary to add a condition to the permit. the substitute makes it clear that they may not do this. no matter how compelling the reason may be. this amendment says it will tell the experts to issue the permit but first we have to put them in a straitjacket. ferc will not have the time to identify the problems and they will not be allowed to address

them. under the keystone xl project, the american people will bear the risks. we get more carbon pollution, more dangerous oil spills, land seizures by a foreign company, and higher oil companies -- prices in the midwest. they can extract more profits from the midwest, at a conduit for exporting products to china, and a green light to explore -- exploit the tar sands regardless of the consequences. president obama made a responsible decision. he said he would not approve the pipeline through the ecologically fragile sand hills area in nebraska. the state department would consider an alternative route. nebraska is taking the time to find an alternative route and

the president is making sure he has all the information he needs to make for right decision. if mr. kerrey wanted to let the experts do their job, he may wait -- want to take this legislation back to the drawing board. this turns ferc into a yes man corps the project. it is a bad idea. >> the chairman yells back. others wishing to speak. seeing non, are there any bipartisan amendments to the substitute? seeing none, are there any amendments to the substitute? the gentleman from illinois. >> i have an amendment. >> the clerk will read the title. >> amendment offered by mr. rush

of illinois in the nature of a substitute. >> it will be considered as read. >> mr. chairman, last week during the hearing on hr 3548, the subcommittee heard compelling testimony from made nebraska rancher -- a nebraska ranchers. he urged the committee not to hastily approved a pipeline without allowing the agencies of jurisdiction to conduct their due diligence and responsibilities. among his many concerns was the hostile and belligerent manner in which transcanada approached many nebraskan claiming imminent

domain in the quest to take away the property and land of ordinary american citizens in order to push forward plans to construct a yet to be approved pipeline. mr. thompson's testimony before the subcommittee, he noted, " many nebraskan said the new transcanada as an aggressive company who fought it could intimidate its way across our state. having witnessed their actions during the application process, has made us wary and weary of what they could and are trying

to do if empowered by a premature permit." transcanada has approached nebraskan is over the issue of eminent domain. thompson went on to say, "in the heartland, many of us feel that approval of this project would strip of us of our individual property rights. we feel this way because we were being forced to give up a portion of our hard-earned property for the personal gain and benefit of corporate entities." mr. chairman, even if we cannot come together and agree on the necessity of hastily approving

the keystone xl pipeline without the appropriate time frame and federal oversight, surely each of us, as representatives of the american people, elected to watch out for the public's best interest, should agree that it is morally wrong and incomprehensible that we would allow a foreign company to push american citizens off their land for the purpose of allowing a pipeline that will be used to export oil overseas. my amendment reads, "a permit should not be issued other than subsection prohibiting the

recipient from initiating or threatening to initiate proceedings to invoke the power of eminent domain for the process of taking ownership away, or other access or use of private property in the united states for purposes of constructing or operating the keystone exxon pipeline -- xl pipeline against the will of the owner's." in 2005, when they decided against new london which upheld the use of eminent domain, the house moved quickly to condemn that in a bipartisan manner. 220 republicans voting with me in favor of a house resolution expressing our disapproval of

the decision. i hope that today we will again find our way across party lines and do what is right and in the best interest of ordinary american citizens. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> to speak against the amendment, first, before i get to the merits of mr. rush possible amendment, i want to state there is a phrase used, "pushed them off their land." this is a right of way, were they used 50 feet, bury it, and the landowners continue to ranch on top of it or grow their crops on top of it. it is not pushing anybody off their land. i just want to set that

straight, because i think that shows an image that is not accurate to begin with. now, they are a private company and they negotiate. at least in the state of nebraska, i have met with ranch owners who had no problems negotiating an agreement for the right of way. in fact, now with the movement of those lands, one of them is even concerned they are losing their right of way money they were going to get. nonetheless, though, if there is an issue with being able to negotiate, not that is always handled by state law. so if there is a landowner in montana, a montana law handles that. if there is an issue in south dakota, south dakota law handles that. the same for nebraska.

in essence, what this amendment does is eviscerate the states' rights to handle utility issues in the rhone state. now, whether it is this project or forever, but that is what this does. it says we will not trust nebraska or south dakota or montana on this to do with their state law says it should be done here. i just think for states rights advocates, this is a bad amendment. so i will yield back. >> other members? mr. waxman is recognized. >> i support this amendment by our colleague, mr. rush. it is a simple amendment that congress will give this extraordinary earmarked to rubber-stamp the permit and application, but only on one condition, and that is that they commit to stop bullying american

landowners and seizing their property through eminent domain. my colleagues may not be aware of the fact that transcanada has been using threats of an minute domain to force american landowners along the pipeline route to give up their property rights. transcanada has even taken landowners to court to seize their property rights through eminent domain, even before receiving a permit to build the pipeline. last friday, randy thompson, and nebraska and a rancher, testified that in the heartland many of us feel the approval of this project would strip us of our individual property rights. transcanada is a foreign corporation. they have been trying to strong arm of american citizens along to propose the path of the pipeline. they're telling property owners, here is some money for the

rights to go underneath your land. but if you do not accept this amount within a shortened time, we will initiate proceedings to condemn your land and take what we need through eminent domain. this is an imperious approach. it sounds unbelievable, but it is true. i don't know whether the state of nebraska give them this the 40 or not. -- i did not know if the state of nebraska gave them this authority or not. it would be interesting, but at the same time they're trying to figure out what the route will be in the state of nebraska. i have a copy of the letter that transcanada sent to mr. thompson on july 21, 2010, informing him the proposed path of the pipeline will cross his property. transcanada offers him money for easement to his land, and tells him if he does not accept within a month, "we will be forced to

invoke the power of eminent domain and initiate condemnation proceedings against his property." absent mr. rush's amendment, this bill will empower a foreign company to bully our citizens into giving up their property rights. most americans simply cannot have the money or time to defend themselves in court against an oil company with billions of dollars in assets. ranchers and farmers will be forced to live with the tar sands oil pipeline running through their property. that may jeopardize their safety, their health, their livelihoods with a single week. it is not unexpected there may be leaks. existing pipelines that they are have, has already had many leaks in a very short time. this amendment should receive bipartisan support. in the past, republican members

have voiced concern about the use of eminent domain to seize property. as a result of the debate, the private property act of 25, speaker boehner said allowing somebody's property to be taken "represents a complete departure from the very core value upon which america was founded. your natural human right to your property." i hope that i hope our republican colleagues hold that the property rights exist even when it is an oil company, rather than a democratically elected local government that seeks to use eminent domain. i think this bill is an insult to american citizens who oppose the keystone tarzan's pipeline and expects their views to matter. it will be worse if this bill by granting the permit without condition unleashes transcanada to bullying and threaten the

american landowners into giving up their property rights. i urge my colleagues to support the rush amendment. >> have a couple of questions. this issue of eminent domain. i'm curious how the provision is being used by this company that is based in canada, are different than a utility based in the that the states when it comes to them in a domain. >> how they are different? >> does keystone have any special rights or privileges not accorded to a domestic utility? >> no, it would be the same as state law. >> would reduce of eminent domain have some special power that some city or county would not have? because there for? >> no. >> is there anything because they have foreign ownership that gives them any privilege or

right that is above a domestically based company? >> no. >> when other pipelines are constructed in the united states, did those companies use eminent domain? >> depending on the law of the state, it would depend on the law of the state. some states have that tool, others do not. it is a state-by-state decision. >> and in this case, would it transcanada have to abide by state law when it comes to emmett domain? >> yes. >> so they would have to live by whatever the state law is relative to it ended the main. >> that is correct. >> when these pipelines are laid, in my understanding in this case it will be fairly deep in the ground. is that correct? >> i think for stretches of it. i'm not sure if all of it is underground. >> that which is underground,

oftentimes you can still conduct agricultural activity above it? >> absolutely, yes. >> tell me how the pipeline safety law would intersect? >> the federal laws continue to apply. for this particular pipeline -- >> could get closer to the microphone? >> it would continue to apply. for this particular pipeline, as contemplated under the final environmental impact statement, there are 57 special conditions that create a standard for this pipeline as opposed to most oil pipelines. >> i was just hearing about the potential of leaks. does the pipeline safety act not have pretty strict requirements in terms of the safety of a pipeline? >> yes, pipeline safety laws need to apply. >> so in the united states, it would apply to transcanada's own xl pipeline?

>> yes, and a heightened standard of the additional 57 conditions. >> could you speak to some of those 57 additional conditions? >> a lot relate to special detection techniques. to make sure if there's an incident, that it is known sooner. most of them focus on big detection type is used. >> are there additional levels of inspection required on this particular pipeline not on others? >> within the idea of ensuring adequate leak protection, it is increased inspection requirements. it would have other pipelines. them not when it comes to -- i keep hearing this issue of tarzans, which i think is really at the crux of the opposition, that this is an attempt to stop production of this. this is my commentary, i will not ask council this -- but to stop or hinder the development

of oil from tar sand in canada. i think some people are pretty passionate about that. but when it comes to the pipeline itself, are there differences in how the tar sands oil would flow from a canadian- based field forces anywhere in the domestic united states? >> well, and other places in the united states, they used trucks and rail, also, but most large transmission of oil is through a pipeline, but there is also truck and rail. >> the fact that it is tar sand boil, does that change how the pipeline operator? is that really an issue when it comes to pipeline safety law? >> i think imbedded in some of the 57 conditions was consideration of the nature of the crude oil from the oil sand.

but nothing particularly distinguishable. >> ok, thank you. >> with the gentleman yield 10 seconds? >> sure. >> the the state of nebraska agree to limit demand for this pipeline? >> i think it is eminent domain authority within the state of nebraska for a pipeline. that my time is expired. >> this company is telling landowners they can go into a minute domain. the know if the state of nebraska has given them that authority to make that claim of the eminent domain? >> i think it is a process -- >> no, do you not of the state -- >> may i answer the question instead of the council? >> this is a legal question. if she does not have an answer, i would yield to you. >> mr. chairman, my time has expired. if i could seek unanimous consent for mr. carey to

respond. he is an attorney from nebraska. >> the gentleman's time has expired. any other members? the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzales. >> let me ask council a question. doesn't the concept of eminent domain contemplate a taking, an appropriation? >> yes. >> that is the whole basis of and it the main, and there is a governmental purpose or interest that trumps the private property rights of the citizen. >> there is a balance of just compensation, but that is a component. >> we can get into compensation forever on that. but it is still a taking. if you have a pipeline deep underground, it is still considered taking, write qwest of a private property owner's land? i just want to make sure that we know what we're dealing with.

second, doesn't the power of eminent domain belong to a governmental entity, but it can be assigned to the private sector? is that what mr. waxman's question goes to? has nebraska closed transcanada, or whatever entity, with the authority that the sovereign would have? >> the state's authority for a minute demand would be given by the situates of that state. that would be up to the state to delegate or give it as appropriate, the authority it has. >> who would be making the determination on whether to appropriate somebody's property, whether beneath the ground or above the ground? it would still be a private enterprise, would it not? >> i am not well versed on the specifics of nebraska law, but i think it goes toward process, that if there were a particular right of way that the pipeline

operator was looking to exercise authorities related to it and it the main, there is a process involved with that. >> the you know if that process has been completed in nebraska in order for transcanada to be making those representations to mr. thompson, the property owner? i will yield to my colleague, mr. terry, because he may know this. >> it is in the state statute. it is already spelled out of the state statute. >> reclaiming my time, i know it is spelled out, just like in texas. has it been exercised and has it been granted? >> it does not need to be granted because it already exists in state law. whether they have used that or not, i have not heard of an instance in nebraska where it has gone to court or used it. they have been able to negotiate. >> let me ask, does that mean at this point in time, transcanada

has the opportunity to go through the process, has not gone through the process, but is making a representation to mr. thompson, the property owner, that they will in essence appropriate his property, even though it is below that level? >> i'm not on to put myself in the minds of transcanada. all i know it is there is a state process build out the statute in which they could. mr. thompson's property is going to become -- is now irrelevant in this process because there has been an agreement with the state of nebraska to move that pipeline. so that route through his family's property is going to be rerouted. this is what the statute is important, and the memorandum of understanding, so they can pick a new site and start negotiating with those landowners. >> reclaiming my time, look, i

support the pipeline. i just wanted properly. i did not want to circumvent the regulatory scheme with the proper agencies and the expertise, and i surely did not want to circumvent what we have always been established as policy in this country when it comes to anything crossing our borders from another country, whether mexico or canada. that is all i'm asking. i think dealing with these legal concepts, we need to be very honest about what we're doing in who we are empowering, and making sure it is orderly, fair, and just to the property owners. we're having reports right out of some heavy handedness. i know it is true or not, but let's set the stage for these negotiations as the pipeline goes forward. i am happy to yield to any of my democratic colleagues. to thehink this goes heart of the matter. and the answers to in questions

from the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez, he indicated that mr. thompson's property is not even under consideration any more. the fact is there is not a route that exists, all right? so here we are giving approval to allow keystone xl pipeline to be constructed without nebraska basic due diligence and giving us the route. this question will be revisited it immediately after nebraska besides the route they want this pipeline to travel. that is the essence of our problem. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr.

bart. >> i just want to give congressman terry the opportunity to respond, if he wishes to? >> i'm sorry, i was being briefed. >> i want to give you that i pretended to respond to the prior question. >> sure. thanks to the due diligence of a great staff, but the specific statute of nebraska, 57101, states specifically petroleum pipelines, as stated in the statutes. so there is a specific process that is spelled out through state statute. those things are important. two points i want to make mr. rush's points. one is the reason why their risk this kind of catchall is you

have one landowner who has aligned themselves with the nrdc, then you have one landowner who stopped the 1,700 mile pipeline, and that is really the basis of this amendment. but also what it does is it usurps nebraska law. it takes nebraska law that has been vetted and adopted by the state legislature, that the people are behind, saying we're going to make this law irrelevant or not applicable here. that is what this really does here. the other part of this it is they are duly compensated. there is due process of law in this process. they have to be compensated at market prices. so all of the rights are done here. i just want to come back and say this is what you are doing, is

saying that we are going to block state law. we're going to nullify state law. i just don't see why we want to go here and block state laws in the way that they have chosen to deal with these companies. so i will yield back to my friend. thank you. >> i yield to the subcommittee chairman. >> thank you. the minute the main is always contentious. the way these questions are being asked from the other side, it leaves the impression that transcanada is getting special privileges. is there anything in the legislation that would give transcanada some special privilege related to admit domain -- eminent domain that any other pipeline and the country would not receive? is there any special privilege given to transcanada under this legislation?

>> no, not in this legislation. babbitt is being treated like any other pipeline company, correct? >> that is correct. >> being a non attorney member, i need to ask some legal questions. it seems to me that the amendment from the gentlemen from chicago, mr. rush, what essentially, if successful, change nebraska law regarding eminent domain. i will ask council her opinion on that. >> that is correct, currently under federal law, there is no limit demand for oil pipelines. this would apply to the state of nebraska, any state, it would change their law, it would change their lot as they had eminent domain authority. >> right, let me ask council on the question. this has been brought up a number of times regarding eminent domain, and this issue

of taking eminent domain for public purposes in the usual way of thinking that is to build a school or transportation corridor for the greater public use. in this situation, this taking it under eminent domain -- and i think mr. terry just address this -- fair market value, anybody's determination, or transcontinental offers with a -- offers what they think is fair value. if the property owner is not satisfied with that for a market value, my question to counsel, they do have recourse and the superior court of the state of

nebraska and the appellate court system, all the way to the supreme court, in regard to the true market value if they are opposed to the taking of their property by eminent domain, is that not true, counsel? >> that is correct. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i will be happy to yield to mr. rush my last 13 seconds. >> with this holt amendment and to the essence of what you might call special privileges. is this a special privilege for one corporation to do whatever it wants to do? is it a special privilege to direct the administration to within 30 days make a decision, and if they don't, then this matter will automatically be approved? of thisat the essence special privilege?

the whole thing, i might add, is about the special privilege of one company, keystone, transcanada. the special privileges of transcanada. if this is not about a soul corp.'s special privileges, -- a soul corp's special privileges despite the fears of american citizens, then i don't know what is special privileges. i yelled back. -- i yield back. >> it is only to point out that back in 2005, the supreme court brought down a case called kilo vs. city of new london. in that case, they upheld the

use of eminent domain to transfer one private land to another for further economic development. now, the majority's response was quick and furious. it publicly condemned the decision and they brought a revolution to the floor expressing grave disapproval of the house ever possess -- of the house of representatives regarding the supreme court case. every republican on the committee supported that resolution. but it is interesting to see that what the republicans believe this is a critically import issue in 2005, today they seem happy to allow for a corporation to exercise eminent domain. so i just want to make it very clear that it is being loaded on our side -- is being noticed on our side how this has changed as the circumstances have changed. i yield back.

>> the gentleman from illinois and. >> thank you. fromlad to see my friend massachusetts concerned about private property rights. if the staff would put up the slide on the screen. let's put this into perspective. come on, staff, don't let me down. ok, those are the pipelines in the u.s. currently. canada to the united states, there is a pipeline to edmonton to detrick, edmonton to puget sound, edmonton to detroit. toronto to boston, toronto to new york, winnipeg to omaha,

winnipeg to detroit, edmonton to windsor. we have to pipelines flowing from the united states to canada. portland to montreal. prude tobe to edmonton. to the that states. folks, this is not stuff we have not done before. there is a system by which we approved pipelines. especially the ones -- my point is this is not new. and we do it for the public interest in the public good, to make sure that we have a free flow of oil and refined product. environmentally safe. could you imagine if all of that product was moving by truck or train? this is such a ridiculous debate that is just furious that

we don't understand how much product flows by pipeline today. and the environmental benefits of that, but here we are demagoguing one pipeline to make us more energy secure, and i think my friend from texas with like to speak. >> taking advantage of your map, i want to show members why i am concerned about this bill. if you look in the central part of the united states, where texas is at, we have existing law already on a national basis, we have ferc that regulates natural gas pipelines but not all will. with this legislation, we're changing it for oil pipelines, and we are eliminating eminent domain for all of those pipelines my colleague from illinois is talking about. because ike the bill because ike the bill think we