republican national committee at its winter meeting in california. coming up, a conversation with dr. anthony felt >> newsmakers is pleased to welcome john hoeven. he is the sponsor of the keystone xl pipeline bill. we will talk to him about that and other issues related to energy and policy. wall street journal's energy reporter. she is been following this debate. cq roll call congressional reporter. we are pleased to have both of you. >> we have been debating this bill for six years now. more and more people are saying that this debate is over blown that the job cost's impact is not

that big in the climate impact is not that big. do you agree with the people that believe this debate is not as big as it is? do you think it should be the first bill that the senate is pushing with republicans in control? >> first off, not only have you been aware of this project for six years, but you have been out to north dakota to see firsthand what is going on. it is a bigger issue about building the energy infrastructure to be energy secure. i like to refer to it as north american energy security. we produce more energy than we consume. consumers are reaping the benefit of it.

if we equated that to consumers -- the point is when he to build the energy infrastructure to have the kind of energy plan we are building for this country for north america read at is what this is about. the opponents are trying to block it. it is not just this project. it is the bigger picture. >> do you think the low oil prices presents an opportunity for congress to pass a variety of measures that might be hired to do and a higher gasoline environment such as perhaps higher taxes? there have been a growing number of academics who say that right now is a prime opportunity. >> i am not a fan of higher taxes. way to do tax reform and you get revenue from economic growth not higher taxes. we have to build the kind of business climate in this country that empowers the investment to produce more energy more cost-effectively, the infrastructure to move it more efficiently and safely. at the same time, and develops and deploys the technology to give us better environmental stewardship. that is will we have to do.

we have to build that climate for investment and continue to grow our energy resource here at home. >> i wanted to ask because you , have the first bite at the apple in terms of getting the bill on the floor this year. it is the first test of the open amendment process, something that is entirely unfamiliar to a lot of recently arriving senators from the leadership of senator reid. i am curious how that is going in terms of the progress that is being made and if you see -- and what point do you see majority leader mcconnell possibly pulling the plug and saying we have had enough of this. people aren't bringing their amendments to the floor and we have to move on. >> that is a good question to dove tail off of. we are trying to build the right

of energy plan for this country. we have this open amendment process which means we are turning to regular order in the senate. republicans and democrats can bring their and limits down and offer them on this legislation. we will have a debate and we will get a vote. so we will have a good debate on energy which is what we need to have. we will work to get the job done for the american people. we are hoping that this helps bring more bipartisanship and open up the senate and break to the gridlock. i expect we will be on this bill probably for several more weeks so that people have the opportunity to offer amendments and vote on it. >> how was the eminent negotiating going? i figure you are going -- getting involved and the senator of alaska is taking the lead on that. how is that going so far? >> it is going well. i want to give senator makowski a lot of credit for working to

get this process going and being open. she can work both sides of the aisle very well. we are welcoming all amendments. we have a number of amendments that are pending and we will vote on them next week starting on tuesday. i think that is going well. some amendments are from people opposed, and some are for those for the bill. >> some amendments that have been offered have been pretty controversial. senator ted cruz, a republican from texas, has offered an amendment to repeal the oil export ban. there are some people that would rather not see a vote on that. do you think the senate should vote on lifting the ban on oil export? >> we have talked about this before. it is a debate we need to have and a discussion we need to have. people need understand why it is a benefit in terms of growing our industry in this country and long-term lower gas prices at the pump benefiting the consumer. we are still doing our homework. this is the time when we would

get enough people to support something like that. it may be a little soon, but that is a debate we need to have. that is part of having a bigger energy debate. that is something we anticipated working on this year, regardless of whether it is on this bill or some other energy legislation that we will be working on a little later. >> senator bernie sanders from , vermont is pushing an amendment that says climate change is real and caused by humans. something is to be done. among the democratic party is it seems that there will be an amendment that will be voted on this. do you think there should be a vote on that and could it be politically controversial for some members of the republican party? >> we will have an open amendment process. if he wants to offer it, i am pretty sure he will get a vote on it. i don't think senator mcconnell or anyone else a strike to block him on it. i would expect senator sanders

will offer an amendment and we will have a vote. we will have amendments from the republicans and democrats. some amendments are for people supporting the legislation and some are opposed. >> how would you vote on it? >> senator sanders offered that type of amendment in committee and it is not one i would , support. i motioned to table it and we voted to table the amendment. i made that point. why don't you offer that on the floor? if it is the same amendment he offered in the committee, i would vote against it. >> nasa scientists announced that 2014 was the hottest climate year on record. i am wondering how that statistic fits in this broader energy debate that you have been referencing. >> it makes the point that i continually try to emphasize and that is the way that you get more energy on a more affordable basis more dependably and moving

move it more safely is if you build the infrastructure and make the investments to develop and deploy the new technologies that help us produce the energy and an environmentally friendly way. when you block the kind of investments that do that, which is what the administration is doing with keystone, you prevent us from developing technologies that help us create environmental stewardship. for oilsands, the greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 28% since 1990. that is a most one third. shell and exxon have multimillion our projects for cogeneration, carbon capture and storage. if we can do about that that can , be applied. that is how you develop technology for environmental stewardship. >> on the point of not just energy infrastructure but also the broader infrastructure area, we are hearing the president has made some announcements about infrastructure today.

the vice president with the epa administrator and secretary of agriculture and the mayor of the district of columbia have an event today on that. what you think is the federal -- is there anything you're looking to hear in terms of infrastructure that you think you might actually hear from the president in the state of the union address next week? >> number what i would like to one, hear is that he will work with us. our number one focus is creating jobs and growing the economy making sure that all americans have an opportunity for a job. this first bill is about jobs. the key is that he starts working with us instead of one win we have legislation that is supported on a bipartisan basis and that has overwhelming public support, the first thing he does is issue a veto threat. work with us. that is number one. in terms of infrastructure, i think we have to do a highway bill this year and i think we can do a six-year long-term highway bill.

i think that is something that has to be a priority. that is something he should talk about also working on trade. , we should be able to work on trade. that is good for all industry sectors. let's hear about areas where we can come together. >> are you any camp with some of your republican colleagues and democrats as well who are talking about using revenues that may be gleaned from a corporate tax overhaul to try to come up with a way forward on funding the highway bill that may not be a gas tax. >> if you mean repatriation, that is and idea that has a lot of traction on both sides of the aisle. we can get a long-term highway bill done this year because if we use repatriation, you have the opportunity to have those revenues to do the highway bill without raising taxes. i talked to the ceo of microsoft.

microsoft alone has $80 billion part overseas. to bring it back, they would face a large tax burden. if we did something on repatriation, they could bring it back and it could create revenue that we can invest in infrastructure. >> you referenced the president's veto on the pipeline, are the four votes findable for an override? >> we will see. that is why we are having the open amendment process, to try to foster bipartisan ship. we are tied to come up with something that can attract more votes so it is at the 67 vote threshold. if we can't, our plan b would be to bring back the bill attached to other must pass legislation , broader energy legislation or perhaps an appropriation measure. there is precedent for that. the first keystone bill which was passed in 2012, we attach to attached to the payroll tax for

holiday. >> that was to make president obama make a decision within 60 days. >> you have truly follow this. >> you did and he rejected it. >> that is why we wrote this bill. >> the president has been increasingly critical of the pipeline in the last few months. he has been saying that the jobs are temporary and somehow not as good as other broader infrastructure jobs. he's been saying that it won't lower gasoline prices. we can debate the facts all day, but what i want to hear from you is what do you make of these negative comments? do you think it signals he is getting ready to reject the pipeline? if he does reject it what can congress do at that point? >> we have addressed every one of those criticisms and we ask it used his own administrations information there on impact statements to

rebut the reasons given. it is hard to understand why he doesn't make a decision. if he is opposed to it and want has some rationale to turn it down, why are we still sitting here six years later. and he hasn't done it and when you have poll after poll showing 65 to 70% support from the american public for the project and we have a bipartisan majority in the house and senate and every single state on the route has approved it, why does he still not make a decision? and then he says he is a process. how can you say you have a process when you hold it up for no viable reason for six years? it makes no sense. it goes back to the fundament of fact that the american people want this done and he is essentially holding it up on behalf of special interest groups. >> what will you do if he rejects it? >> i always said we will win on the merits.

if he rejects it again, we would approve it congressionally. it goes back to the merits. >> that he would veto it and we would go back to talk and war. back to tug-of-war. >> if i can use that to dovetail into the subject of must pass legislation, although i don't think this is one you are talking about in reference to keystone. it is my understanding that you may well be the chairman of the homeland security appropriation subcommittee in this new congress. if that is true, your appropriation bill -- that department is running under stopgap funding. do you have any take away from the recent retreat that republicans were just in

hershey, pennsylvania on what the prognosis is for keeping the department of homeland security funded past the end of february? >> as you have seen, we will make sure that homeland security is funded, but at the same time do everything we can to block the executive order issued by president obama. >> going back to the keystone debates, the underlying bill is a mere 200 pages, but the senate is debating other issues. so i want to ask you about the epa's agenda. they announced their plans to to regulate methane. what are some of the biggest things out of epa that you are looking at including msn , regulations and the carbon regulations for power plants. i would like to ask you about the renewable fuel standard.

the national mandate requirement which north dakota has. can you comment on whether you think congress needs to step in there and change this law that epa is a year behind in getting? >> no, i think the epa will come forward it has taken longer than it should, obviously. in terms of some of the things you are doing --for example, you mentioned the report on water in the u.s. it is no surprise for them to publish a report to justify what they have done. i have the votes to do that right now to defund and the authorize it which means 60 plus , vote on the senate floor. we have a real shot. i talk to people who are involved in agriculture and we will get democrats with us on that.

we made the authorize it. in terms of co2, that is a tough one. the effort there would be to go through an epa subcommittee or the energy and water subcommittee. i am on both of those. that will be more difficult to do. on methane, here's what i'm talking bout with the state of the union. we are putting legislation out there that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that will reduce flaring. my north american atlantic energy security act will help us build more gathering systems so we can reduce the flaring on federal lands in north dakota dramatically. and so, even things like keystone provide infrastructure that the environmental impact shows will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. so, >> right here. mr. president, work with us on

this legislation and we will get those reductions rather than having the president or his agencies go unilaterally an issue regulations that will prevent us from producing more affordable energy and getting better environmental stewardship. >> if i can follow up on amy's point there. >> sure. >> you mentioned the interior ada bill. is that bill something that looks like the kind of thing that is veto bait in terms of the number of riders that would be attached to it that the president would not want to sign? >> you both show that you are up there all the time and have a good working knowledge of this. that is exactly the balance. we will have riders in that bill. that is a bill that when senator reed was in charge of the senate, that bill would never come to committee. we will take it to committee and we will bring it to the floor.

we will have riders in there that will address the problem. if you will be how many issues can we address and still get this bill across the floor. then the president will have to make a decision. i hope we see from him some movement towards congress on all of these issues. >> we have six minutes left. going back to the renewable fuel standard, that is a very contentious issues that involve the oil industry and environmental groups and the ethanol industry. the obama administration continues to support it. do you support the renewable fuel standard and do you think it is to be changed at all? >> i support market-based approaches. but i don't think now is the time to eliminate the rfas because you have to provide some certainty to the marketplace and that is what i have always contended. you have to have a regulatory environment out there that

business can count on so they can make these investments and we can build our energy future meaning all of the above truly. again try not to pick winners , and losers. just create a good environment and encourage the investment. let us build our energy base from all these different sources and i think that is what benefits the consumer in terms of choice and competition reduces price. >> i saw bipartisan amendment having to do with your keystone bill to eliminate the rfs. is that something you think should be voted on? >> if they want to bring it up and vote on it, i don't think that is what fits what we are trying to do. that is a discussion we can always have. that is something that should be dealt with at another time. we are not saying to anybody that you cannot bring your

amendment for did have a debate. >> so far it looks like you have succeeded in avoiding things that are not at all related. something like the rfs that you definitely do not want to see, , the time may not rewrite but , it at least is on an environmental question. how have the the conversations been going in terms of getting colleagues to stay away from diving into the health care law or immigration or something that is not related at all to energy? >> because leader mcconnell has said that we will have this regular order open amendment process and we will be bringing bills through committee and bringing them to the floor people understand there will be other opportunities for these amendments which may fit better

on another bill and maybe they have a better chance to get votes and pass. that is why so far, the amendments seem to be more focused on energy. we will see. there may be some others, but i think it is because people understand that we will have regular order and other opportunities. >> if you have amendments that succeed as part of this debate -- and one that seems like it could is the amendment that senator portman and senator shaheen have which is a recurring issue with energy efficiency. in the previous congress, it was the inverse. you were attempting to attach the keystone pipeline measure at one point to the energy efficiency bill. if that amendments exceeds or other amendments succeed, do you have a message for the house on if they should just take up your bill and passed it with the amendments that may be attached to it so you can go to obama

right away? >> we will conference with the house obviously. the underlying bill is the exact same bill. i gave them our bill and they passed it. i think the energy efficiency measure could help us gets more votes. if it gets put on there, that would be fine. it might attract some votes. >> with two minutes left i will close with this. this is following france and our attention on global terrorism. what are your comments on the following energy crisis and what you see as the prospect for global relations based on falling energy prices. >> first these events remind us , that we have to combat terrorism and islamic extremism and we have to do it on a global

basis and we have to get our , allies across the globe involved. any time something happens like these tragedies, our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. it actually does tie into the discussion we are having on energy. we don't want to be dependent on opec for our energy. what we are doing to create more energy and work with canada to create more energy. look at the impact it is having. it's not just benefiting the consumers of the pop, it is also helping our allies. look at vladimir putin's aggressive behavior vis-a-vis the ukraine. western europe is dependent on energy from russia but the russian ruble is down by half because of the drop in oil prices. so understand that when we built built our energy future, we help ourselves and our allies

and we hurt our opponents that are petro dependent like iran and russia. >> that is it for our time. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> newsmakers is back. we just talked to senator john hoeven of north dakota about the keystone pipeline debate in the senate. much of the conversation with the senator focused on something that will sound arcane to the american public and that is the open amendment process in the senate. why is a significant? >> in some ways, that is the most significant long-term piece of the conversation of the senate itself. over the last several years with majority leader harry reid and the nevada democrats were running the show, there was a persistent complaint from republicans and even some democrats that he was too

controlling in restricting the ability of senators to offer amendments. what the new majority leader mitch mcconnell is attempting to do is sort of let the floodgates open to some extent to allow senators to have more opportunities to cast votes. but that comes with it the potential and likelihood that they will have tough political votes they will have to take if this process goes forward. the amendment amy was talking about that senator sanders has filed and floated regarding the reality of climate change or the view on the reality of climate change is that sort of amendment. it remains to be seen how tolerant republican senators will ultimately be on having to vote for these amendments, particularly as the elections grow closer next year. >> the senate does not have a

germane this rule so they can , use any piece of legislature to bring up the topics they are talking about. these are fairly uncharted territory for the senate. what are the expectations about how this will work? >> it is all in flux. i wouldn't say to give mitch mcconnell credit for this until we see the open amendment process. i think something we need to keep in mind is that most if not all of these amendment probably will not get enough votes to become attached to the bill. it will most likely be 60 votes but most of these will not likely get 60 votes. the underlying bill has been on the veto threat from the president. all of this is to see where senators land on certain issues. it would be very interesting to see what the senate about the science of climate change. i would say senator sanders amendment goes further than that

and therefore will probably not be a good barometer to tell where senators are on the issue. for example, exporting oil will -- something the country has not done since the 1970's -- to see where these people are on issues will be telling to us, as especially other lobbyists will try to make changes here. one last point, i think it is important to remember that they do want to have additional energy debates. one of the things we will be seeing in the republican caucus is internal talking and urging certain senators to not put forth certain amendments. i think that is how you will see some of these controversial votes avoided. >> the other thing that senator hoeven mentioned that was interesting was the balancing act they will do on the interior epa appropriation bill. if republicans were left to

their druthers, they would attach hundreds and maybe thousands of these policy riders that would restrict the ability of the epa to implement all sorts of regulations or take actions. again, because of the 60 vote requirement to get over a filibuster in the senate, it sounded like senator hoeven thought the goal should be a bill that could get to the president's desk which means they will need a number of democratic votes, some of which they will get because there are democrats who don't like the way the epa is currently run. there are others that i am not so sure of and they might have to hold back. >> in any case, it sounds like legislation will take a lot longer. >> it is. i will be busy this congress. he said several weeks. a lot of that is adjustable.

we have the president said of state of the union speech. this is uncharted territory for a lot of people. this is something we are not used to. i think time will tell. >> that is it for our time but it sounds like there will be lots more opportunity to talk about the pipeline. thanks to both of you. >> thank you. >> dr. anthony found she, our guest tonight on q&a is on the front line rattling diseases. >> we have drugs right now that when given to people who are hiv-infected, i can show the dichotomy in the early 1980's is somebody came into my clinic with aids, the median survival would be 6-8 months. half of them would be dead and eight months.

now, if tomorrow, when i go back to rounds on friday and somebody comes into our clinic with 20 plus years old, recently affected -- infected, and i put them on a cocktail of retroviral therapy, i could accurately predict and say we could do mathematical modeling to say that if you take your madison regularly, you could live an additional 50 years. from going that 50% of the people could die and eight months to knowing that if you take the madison you could live an essentially normal lifespan just a few years less, that the huge advance. >> director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, dr. anthony found she, tonight on c-span's q&a.

>> lindsey graham said today that he was considering a presidential bid in 2016, going so far as to set up a committee to explore the prospect. he spoke about it on meet the press, saying he did not know with the next out might lead but he was definitely looking at the possibility. senator graham has served since 2003. in november, he won reelection to a third term. another republican who is reportedly considering a run for the presidency is 2012 presidential candidate mitt romney. he recently some that spoke to the report national committee at its winter meeting in san diego. he talked about what the party could achieve in 2016. this is about 15 minutes. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. thank you so much.

wow, what great friends. thank you. this is a friendly crowd. it is nice to appear in crowds like this. thank you. please, thank you. >> ann, why don't you say hi? >> again, it is just the gratitude that we express such deep appreciation for all that you have done to try and promote democracy and goodwill. winning elections, we were thrilled to have been watching the television sets of 2014 the night of the big win. we knew that you had a big part in that. we appreciate the work that you do in your state, and all the work that you did for us. i'm here to express deep gratitude for that. to just express our love and appreciation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

she is quiet a person. that is quite a woman. gosh, it is great to be back with so many friends. it is like coming back to a high school reunion to see my friends here. you all look so young. everybody has lost weight. you have grown more hair. [laughter] as i get older, my eyes hit weaker. it is wonderful to see you. what a generous welcome. we have been able to say hi to so many of you. we have had some selfies taken. it touches my heart. congratulations in a historic re-election of reince. what extraordinary chairman. [applause] you know this. he came in a difficult time. we had a financial deficit at the rnc. we had a technology deficit. he has helped to the race that. this is an extraordinary man. he and the entire team that has

been elected deserve the extraordinary support you have given them. look forward as we think about his continued leadership. i also want to congratulate you on the successes in 2014. i know you hear that time and time again. i had a chance to visit with the number of people who were running for office. you know this. it is a very impressive group of men and women. those that you have elected offices across the country. i can't possibly think of all the names. some of these folks, you meet them and it is like wow, this is an amazing person. tom cotton. [applause] background in the military. thom tillis, dan sullivan. doug ducci. mia love.

my state of utah. my governor of massachusetts charlie baker. [applause] gosh. how about joni ernst? isn't she an amazing person and great leader? just something else. there are some people that not only impressed me but also inspire me. martha mcsally arizona, you know her story. a fighter pilot, air force fighter pilot. in combat. she comes back and runs for congress and believes she wins. they send her to washington to meet the other members in 2012. only to find out by recount she did not win. she has to go home having thought she had been elected. she decides to go at it again. she has been an extraordinary person. a rising star. then some people who have served in the military, who have gone out and fought for our nation, despite having extraordinaire

academic credentials and career opportunities, they went to the military and have come back to serve in the congress and in the senate. it is quite a story. i want to congratulate you on the work you have done to improve the primary process, to change the date of the convention, to limit the debates and reign them in. i think these are things that you have considered it great length. i think you ought to be proud for doing that work. a particular thank you to you for your help to me in 2012. you were hard-working. dedicated. you went all over the country for me. you should know that from our perspective, the romney family and also from the perspective of our campaign, everything works seamlessly between the rnc and the campaign. that is how it should be. you really want to have those work hand in glove as we did.

your leadership in this group deserves great credit. we pulled for different people that we came together once i became the nominee and it was an extraordinary blessing. you should know this -- no greater honor has been bestowed upon me than to become the nominee of the republican party for the president of the united states. and i owe you a debt of gratitude. thank you. [applause] now there is some speculation on whether i'm going to embark on a political endeavor of which i have been previously unsuccessful. [whistles and applause] let me state unequivocally i , have no intention of running for senate of massachusetts. seriously. [laughter] for our party, and for the nation, 2016 is not going to be about the obama years. it is going to be about the post obama era. in a post obama era conservative , principles are needed as

perhaps never before. this isn't the right venue to lay out the policies that may be appropriate for our party and for people who represent our party. i do want to mention three principles that i think should form part of the foundation of what we take to the american people. first, we have to make the world safer. second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. finally, we have to lift people out of poverty. if we communicate those three things effectively the american people are going to be with us and with our nominee, and with our candidates across the country. let me take a moment and elaborate on those. first, making the world safer. the world is not safer. six years after barack obama. there is no question about that. i used to joke during the campaign that president obama didn't have a foreign policy. of course that was a joke because he did.

the foreign policy was the one crafted by he and his secretary of state hillary clinton. their foreign policy was based on the premise that if we are friendly enough to other people, and if we smiled broadly enough and press the reset button peace would break out around the world. this is a foreign policy that said we should walk back from red lines. this is a foreign policy that said we should lead from behind. this is a foreign policy characterized by speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. it was a foreign policy that somehow felt that america and her friends, like israel, were the problem rather than the solution. the results of the hillary clinton/barack obama foreign policy have been devastating. you know that. terrorism is not on the run. as a matter of fact, the radical

violent jihadists and their forms are terrorizing and brutalizing people all over the world just in the last several days. tragic events in paris and nigeria, in yemen. hundreds of lives, possibly thousands of lives taken needlessly. it is extraordinary. of course we also see in the , middle east and north africa turmoil. the syrian tragedy races on. liberia is in disarray. libya, i meant, is in disarray. iraq is under siege. iran is rushing to become a nuclear nation. this is a difficult time for the world. then of course you have russia having invaded ukraine, taking crimea. you have china saying they own the south china sea. you have the bolivian alliance in south the america to continue to expand. this is not been a good time for american foreign-policy. to make the world safer for americans and to make the world

safe for freedom, our party must stand for making the world safer and our principles will do that. we have to make that point loud and clear. [applause] in the post-obama era, we have to use our strength to anticipate events, to shape events rather than react. when i say our strength i mean , our economic strength, our diplomatic strength. those are the sources we will be able to rely upon. so number one, safety for the american people and freedom, and freedom loving people all over the world. number two, i believe we have to communicate to the american people that our principles are principles that will bring opportunity to every american. this is the land of opportunity. regardless of where you live you ought to know that your future can be brighter and your kids' future will be brighter. we have the principles and the vision to do that for the

american people. look it is a tragedy, a human , tragedy that the middle class by and large does not believe the future will be better in the past. or their kids will have a brighter future than their own. we have not seen rising incomes over decades. the american people are struggling to make ends meet. so our policies in this regard are designed to help create economic growth and put people back to work, and get rising wages. people want to see rising wages and they deserve them. they are working hard and using technology. they face competition around the world. the kind of policies we are going to be talking about all over the country will be education, dealing with legal reform. job training. tax and regulatory reform. energy policies. immigration policy. it also means if they want to see growth we are point at the going to have to limit the size of government and balance the budget. finally repeal and replace obamacare so we can get real

growth again. [applause] number one, safety. number two, opportunity for all americans. and then number three, we have to lift people out of poverty. we are in abundant nation. we have the resources and the capacity intellectually, mentally, financially, to lift people out of poverty. it was how many years ago? 50 years ago, lyndon baines johnson in 1964, 1965 declared the war on poverty. his heart was in the right place. his policies did not work. we have not won that war. under president obama, income inequality has gotten worse. there are more people are in poverty than ever before. under this president his , policies have not worked. their liberal policies are good every four years for a campaign but they don't get the job done. the only policies that will reach into the hearts of american people and pull people out of poverty and break the cycle of poverty are republican principles, conservative principles. they include family formation,

education, good jobs. we are going to bring them to the american people and finally end the scourge of poverty in this great land. [applause] and so, i believe in the post-obama era, we need to stand for safety and opportunity for all people regardless of the neighborhood they come from. we have to stand for helping lift people out of poverty. now i should tell you the last few days the most frequently asked question i get is, what does ann think of this? [laughter] she believes that people get better with experience. [laughter] [applause] and heaven knows i have experience running for president. by the way, she knows my heart. in a way that few people do. she has seen me not just as a

business guy and political guy. four over 10 years, i served as for over 10 years, i served as a pastor for a congregation and groups of congregations. she has seen me work with people who are very poor to get them help and jobs. providing care for the sick and the elderly. she knows where my heart is. i love her, and appreciate her support. she is my strongest advocate in almost every single thing i can imagine. me? i am giving some serious consideration to the future. but this i know -- we can win as a party in the house, senate and in the white house if we communicate a clear vision of where we are taking the country, what we believe in, those principles i have described are among those that we are going to fight for. we are going to win.

i continue this as well. regardless of what happens in the primaries or the political process that goes on, ann romney and i are going to fight for our nominee and win back the white house because the american people deserve it. we're going to make it happen. thank you, guys. great to be with you. thank you so much. thank you. [applause] ♪ thank you. mr. chairman. thank you. [applause] >> on the martin luther king holiday, we are featuring all day programming on c-span2's book tv and c-span3's american history tv. monday morning at 930 a.m. eastern, cornel west on six revolutionary african leaders and their impact on their own generation and now. at 4:00 p.m., the life and journalism career of gail sheedy. allen west on the importance of

preserving core values and that he feels these guys are under attack by the far left. monday morning at 8:00 p.m0 am eastern. historians talk about the history of race relations in ferguson, missouri and it am and how policing in the criminal justice system are related to racial conflict. find our complete version schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs your or watching. call us at the following number. e-mail us at the following address. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address.

live coverage begins at it apart p.m. eastern, including the president's speech, the gop response delivered by joni ernst, and your reaction to open phones live on c-span and c-span radio. on c-span2, once the president speech and congressional reaction in the u.s. capitol. the state of the union address life on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> the deadline for this deviant cam video edition is tuesday. get your entries completed now. 5-7 minute documentary on the theme, the three branches and you for a chisel in the grand prize of $5,000. go to student cap.org for a list of rules. >> coming up next, the legislative and political strategy for issues being debated by congress with you political strategists. this about one hour.

>> i have a couple of guests to talk politics and policy. democratic strategist and republican strategist. we have been talking about the president's tax proposal. the headline says it targets the wealthy, helps the middle class. what is your reaction? >> when the president ran for office, he said he wanted to spread the wealth around. finally we have a proposal that tries to spread the wealth around a little bit. i think it is a mischievous proposal, released on the saturday before the state of the union. obviously, he wants it to show up on the sunday programs. i don't think it is a serious proposal. he did not propose this when the democrats ran the congress. i will say, i think something

will happen on taxes. i don't think it will be this. something will happen with tax reform. i would also think the republicans will tackle this immediately. contrast different policies that divide republicans and democrats. i agree that it will not go anywhere, but it is a great way to jump art __ jump start the debate. i agree with john that it is possible to get something done on taxes, this is not it. it is a good way to start the debate. host: we will talking about a lot of different issues on the hill, we welcome your calls. we will continue to take your

tweets for john feehery, a republican strategist, and jim manley, a democratic strategist. you have seen both of them on the program before. we know the jim manley spent six years as an advisor on the hill. john feehery was vice president of communications at policy impact communications. he was communications director for tom delay. lots of issues here. before we get the calls, i want your early take on the short session of congress. how are they doing? guest: pretty much as expected. that is the house democrats and republicans are unable to get on the same page. we have an interesting issue coming up this week with the keystone pipeline. that is low hanging fruit, that

the leadership has decided to adjust earlier. the bill will get out of the senate the question is whether or not they will get the votes necessary to overcome a presidential veto. there is a fundamental issue here that has not been addressed __ our speaker boehner and senator mcconnell able to get their caucuses in line in order to compromise, or will they let the inmates run the asylum? after last week, if anyone thinks the house schoolbe able to do much of anything, they need to get their head examined. host: how about that mcconnell_boehner relationship? guest: i think it is like he

said, predictable. it was a little bit of a rocky start for the speaker. it shows you that the republican party is not as unified as it needs to be if it will be successful in competing against president obama. i think mitch mcconnell said that he will have an open process, thus far he has kept his word. i didn't open process is important. not only does it allow everyone to express their opinions, it also allows both sides to cut deals. the idea of a legislature process is that you have the extremes of both sides, and you work out something in the middle. i think you saw that in the house. the homeland security bill that jim mentioned __ they had a lot of controversial amendments added to it. i don't think it can survive the senate.

now, they have to hurry because we had a terrorist attack in paris, and we do not want our homeland security shut down due to a political impasse. ultimately, both sides will have to come together and get something done. host: lets hear from gerald first. caller: good morning. how are you on this beautiful day? i am here from fort bragg's __ the spearhead of the defense of all of america. i am a vietnam vet. first of all, america has grown stupid because we got rid of the fairness doctrine. there should be a simple one implemented. eminent domain with keystone __

this is forcing private property owners to sell their property to a foreign entity, they should not have to do that. third, what is keeping democrats from implementing the same tactics that republicans and limited against obama __ you have to have 60 votes others 70 votes. about taxes __ i'm on the side of marie antoinette when she said, let them eat cake. you know, they did eat cake. based on her house and garden from her covered while they cut her head. host: we may not have time for all of them, but go ahead and take those comments __ guest: what will be the driving force __ i think in the end it

is that democrats understand the need to get something done. if the house republicans overreach and start to send bad stuff over to the senate, they will just die a slow painful death. i think bigger __ the most important relationship in washington will be between speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell. we saw some tensions growing out of the republican congress last week __ the two_day conference that they held last week. house republicans still so the grasp of 60 votes. they want to send everything over to the senate and expects senate republicans to pick it up, that does not work. host: we know there was a procedural vote in the senate this week, they got 63 votes.

where do you think this is going in terms of a presidential veto? the threshold will be higher, correct? guest: you need two thirds of a vote in the house and senate to override a veto. i'm not even sure they can get that in the house. i think the ultimately on keystone, it is important for both sides to lay down their markers as long as we can get a presidential veto and an override vote, we know where that republicans are. keystone will not be the end_all be_all for mankind. it is a symbolic issue on where you stand on energy issues and jobs. but, this will be a familiar refrain. we have not had a veto fight in a long time. harry reid was able to snuff out a lot of legislation.

this will be interesting. the last time we had this kind of thing was with bill clinton and the republican congress. guest: can i say one thing about keystone? i agree that the bill will probably not even get out of the senate. what i will be watching for is after it is vetoed, whether republicans and the administration try to find a way to compromise. a veto, as the "new york times" pointed out, is a mechanism to try and bring people to the table to compromise. host: dave calling from michigan. caller: i think it is a laugh that some democrat would be complaining about the 60 votes after harry reid was in senate for the last six years.

i've never seen anything more frustrating than reid and how he ran the senate, and suffocated every piece of legislation out of the house. he wouldn't let anything get discussed. there should be no complaints about how the senate gets run. host: there is a tweet here. one viewer wants to >> i would respectfully suggest that republicans have not stepped forward in a meaningful way to try to define and/or find come from eyes. what we saw was when extreme measure after another came out of the house. senate republicans were not able to try to find compromise. what i suffer my time working with senator reid is starting from the very beginning was the house and