Debate continues over pipeline politics
All-Star panel weighs in
- Duration 5:38
- Date Jan 25, 2012
All-Star panel weighs in
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Don't understand this situation better mr.
Russian -- question.
We invite the Coke Brothers -- the Coke industries to come here and testify.
We are not going to be -- -- the Coke Brothers and we're not asking the Coke Brothers.
To appear because the Coen Brothers have nothing to do with this project we followed -- one World War II in less time than it's taken so far to evaluate this project the first piece which we don't have -- is to just identify what some of those alternative routes may be.
So we don't even have a complete -- for this pipeline which goes to.
A lot the whole part of the central of the content to part of the country.
Well there was a hearing up on Capitol Hill today about the keystone XL pipeline that the Obama administration rejected -- -- -- at times.
There you heard the State Department officials saying that.
They still needed time to talk about -- the state of Nebraska which is really at the center of all this.
Came up with a different group that took it away from sensitive -- for us a different sensitive area environmental area.
As you look at the map they came up with a new route and the governor governor Heineman said.
They were ready to go forward and the State Department had already approved the more environmentally sensitive -- But they came up with a different group and he's going to put that back in by September.
This hearing was quite something we're back with the panel Charles.
You heard Democrat Henry Waxman pointed the Coke Brothers the Republicans and contributors saying they might have interest in this pipeline.
Here saying we can be really can't let the moment pass without.
Commenting on the -- objection.
So this again be now a new criterion for evaluating.
A public policy.
Something that we create thousands of -- shovel ready jobs.
That would reduce our dependence on.
Unfriendly sources of oil that would cement our alliance with Canada.
That would be for us and secure source of oil that secure and long range and denies strategic assets and to China.
This I mean that we ought to reject because it might.
Help -- -- products and -- is like saying native Qaddafi son.
Well and a Biotech company that discovered a cure for cancer we would abandon its importation molested -- the Qaddafi -- That if you can think of a more stupid intellectually.
Desperate argument on anything I'd like to hear it and I would address that.
To congressman Waxman and with the highest in all due respect.
We'll ask him to come on and respond.
The invitations out there -- one the president didn't mention keystone XL pipeline obviously and State of the Union Address he did talk about.
As this goes on is this a vulnerability for this administration and is it a real -- that's why you see Republicans persistent.
This thing I mean clearly the president has said there's going to be no decision to 2013 at the earliest and he may not be president then so.
Why are Republicans persisting they sense that they have the ability to say this is about jobs and America we care about jobs number one political issue in the country.
And we're gonna beat the president about the head.
Hillary is always gonna wait to try thirteen -- come forward with another plan six poetic play anyone think they need.
Permission from the State Department because it crosses international border so it's just -- experience always always -- really think -- item and you cannot hold -- out as a paragon.
Of virtue here that I don't the guy who oppose the pipeline.
And said that it was going to poison the -- look for in Nebraska and then under pressure from Republicans in Washington changed his -- he had a different route would for the fact that there was three and a half.
After years of environmental study that suggested that in fact it wasn't going to poison -- -- -- that the State Department said.
Had would have no adverse environmental impacts the State Department says it twice once in 2010 once in 2011 -- An accident and I interact as the doctor -- has changed in that period and they're now asking the State Department military's new rap even their own reasons so let -- look all right so the president -- Republicans insist that as part of that.
You know the tax deal that we have a decision by February say you know what it's too quick and what are we here today from the -- from the Labor Department who is being brow beaten.
By the Republican -- thank you know what we don't get and the alternative -- -- and I know it's infielder who have.
Not nearly and a half years then let -- get rid of fruits are less environmentally sensitive -- the ones -- -- that.
Or maybe even.
Give people a chance to look at why it has to be part of tax deal because it was political pressure let me just say what happened to -- about my -- show because we don't yet know how we don't know but let me get -- one thing.
Could you tell me about the Coen Brothers.
Licensed to today -- yeah.
And I would -- had actually if you know my wife you'd appreciate.
Let me just say that you love the Coen Brothers bring the value -- -- next week indeed thank you.
The cold weather that we get this it's about your argument is OGY look at the -- -- -- -- what's the latest threat and they were people who were bundling money for the Obama administration set -- that's very suspicions.
The point is if you didn't benefit him or not.
This policy is so overwhelmingly positive that he makes no difference whatsoever who benefits it's a completely non sequitur.
Jim Barrett isn't -- who wants a lender failed.
And yet it doesn't benefit but that acts he was using as a point of criticism they wider and optical this year this is no longer gonna -- Warren Buffett we're going to.
-- -- us this panel was fiery it will come back to it again.
Thank you all would stay tuned to see how one movie.