heavy trucks already operate on some 22,500 miles of noninterstate roads in maine in addition to the approximately 167 miles of the maine turnpike. but the nearly 260 miles of nonturnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my state are off-limits. this simply makes no sense. furthermore, trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are already permitted on many federal interstates in new hampshire, massachusetts, new york, and the neighboring provinces in canada, so that puts maine and vermont

at a distinct competitive disadvantage. all around us, the states and our canadian counterparts allow the heavier trucks to use the federal interstates, but unfortunately maine and vermont have been excluded. that is why my friend from vermont, senator leahy, has joined me in this effort to help provide a level playing field for our states. mr. president, here are a few more important points about our bill. the 100,000-pound trucks are no larger or wider than 80,000-pound trucks. this change would remove an estimated 7.8 million truck miles from our local roads and streets. increasing the truck payloads by

35% would reduce the overall number of trucks needed. in addition to saving fuel by traveling fewer miles, the steady pace of interstate driving improves the fuel economy of trucks by 14% to 21%. and the maine department of transportation's engineers say that they are confident that our interstate bridges are safe and can handle the additional weight in the state of maine. mr. president, countless maine small business owners have told me how this change would improve their competitiveness. for example, the owner/operator of a logging business in penobscot county said that being able to transport his pulpwood to the mill on i-95 rather than

on secondary roads would save his company at least 118 gallons of fuel each week. that benefits not only this small business but also our nation as we seek to reduce our overall fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions. the pilot program has also made a dramatic improvement for some of our communities. according to the maine d.o.t., before the pilot program began last december of 2009, more than 200 heavy trucks heading north on route 201 crawled through downtown vasserboro, a small town of about 4,000 each day, even though i-95 runs parallel

just a few miles away. during the span of the pilot program, the number of northbound trucks on route 201 decrease by roughly 90%. these trucks were using the interstate where they belong. and i will tell you, mr. president, that since the pilot project expired, so many of my constituents have talked to me about the return of these heavy trucks to the residential neighborhoods in which they live, to downtown portland, orno, brewer, other -- freeport, other towns throughout our state. the fact is, mr. president, that this kind of road congestion, of diverting these heavy trucks into downtowns and along

secondary roads can lead to tragedy. a study conducted by a nationally recognized traffic consulting firm found that the crash rate of semi trailer trucks on maine's secondary roads was seven to ten times higher than on the turnpike, and it estimated that allowing these trucks to stay on the interstates could result in three fewer fatal crashes each year. public safety agencies in maine, including the maine state miss, have long -- maine state police, have long supported my efforts to bring about this change. in fact, bangor's police chief joined me at a press conference last week where he spoke

eloquently about the safety implications for downtown bangor. in 2010, as a result of this pilot project, people throughout our state saw their roads less congested, our streets safer, our air cleaner, and most important our businesses more competitive, and that's why i'm so committed to ensuring that these improvements are allowed to continue and are made permanent. mr. president, this legislation simply makes common sense. it will benefit our economy as well as lower fuel costs and make our roads safer for motorists and pedestrians. most important, we now have the

concrete evidence from this pilot project showing why this bill should become law. i'm grateful for the support and leadership of my colleague from vermont and the steadfast support from maine's senior senator as well. i urge its swift passage. this is the highest priority that i have for the state of maine this year, and i thank you, mr. president. i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that a number of letters that i have received endorsing this bill be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: these letters are from the maine motor transport association, the city of banger's -- bangor's chief of

police, the professional logging contractors, the northeast region for the forest resources association and from a well-known trucking firm in maine, h.o.bouchard. in addition, i expect to have a letter from the governor of maine later today that i will also ask unanimous consent be inserted in the record at this point. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, thank you. as we -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. johanns: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. as we look forward to tonight's state of the union address, we're hearing a lot of talk about jobs and the u.s. being more competitive. unfortunately, too often, the american people have heard the talk, they have heard the rhetoric, but they don't see the concrete action that's going to make a difference. the time for talk really is over. today i am introducing three concrete measures to unleash american competitiveness and lift barriers to american job creation. first, we must embridle our job creators from the onerous 1099 tax paperwork mandate that's buried in section 9006 of the

health care bill. behind the scenes for the past few weeks, there has been growing bipartisan support for this important piece of legislation. in fact, now i can report, mr. president, that 50 senators have signed on as cosponsors, including, i believe, ten or 11 of my colleagues from across the aisle. successful passage of this repeal would send an enormously powerful message. it would declare that the 112th congress will come together to remove barriers to job creation. left unabated, though, this avalanche of paperwork will simply bury businesses. if a business purchases more than $600 of goods or services from another business, they will be required to provide the business and the i.r.s. with a 1099 tax form. this new mandate will affect all

kinds of businesses in the country. it also will include nonprofits, churches, local governments. in this small section of this 2,000-plus-page bill is causing massive confusion, and i might add outrage across the country. although this mandate was included in the health care law, it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with improving health. rather, section 9006 was included because it would supposedly generate money to help pay for the bill. but the national taxpayer advocate, a division of the i.r.s., doesn't buy it. their analysis took all the air out of the argument by concluding that the i.r.s. would, and i'm quoting -- "face challenges making productive use of this new volume of information. "the analysis adds that the i.r.s. likely would -- and again

i'm quoting --" improperly assess penalties that it must abate later after great expenditure of taxpayer and i.r.s. time and effort." this mandate, mr. president, was ill-advised, and it's not responsible policy. we can do better, and the time is now. the president himself is talking about ridding the books of outdated regulations. we should not overlook this new regulation that will smack businesses if we fail to repeal it. it will inflict a mountain of paperwork on an estimated 40 million business owners across this nation, and it stands in the way of job creation. it's going to have an impact in nebraska, there is just no doubt about that, mr. president. in fact, as i traveled back home, i have been inundated with

stories about business owners who are bracing for the impact. jeff scherer of snell manufacturing in snyder, nebraska, says the 1099 will lead to an additional $23,000 in accounting costs. being able to invest that that $23,000 into a company would go a long way to helping jeff with business expassengers. another real-life example from nebraska is a company called hayneedle. hayneedle is an online retailer of home furnishing and other home products located in omaha, nebraska. hayneedle employs 400 people. prior to the 1099 tax-reporting mandate, hayneedle issued approximately 150 1099 forms annually. now this great company will be required to issue thousands more

tax forms every year. they will be required to track payments for everything from a computer to rent to office supplies. simple expenses such as food purchase for employees would have to be counted and traced. the company estimates the annual cost of compliance for them will exceed $100,000, useless paperwork. $100,000 would go a long way, mr. president, to hiring more workers. in addition, the thousands of hayneedle's vendors will be required to complete and return to hayneedle a form w-9. this means hayneedle will be required to review and process and oftentimes correct those forms and then issue to the vendors a 1099. it's a mad circle for no good reason.

if the 1099 law is not repealed, it will waste vast quantities of capital in human resources. squandering these resources will stunt their ability to grow their business. our nation needs more hayneedle, nor sneel manufacturing to continue growing and putting people to work. considering the high unemployment rate plaguing every state in the country, it's just incomprehensible that we would keep this in business. this new 1099 requirement will have an especially detrimental effect on small businesses in our local communities. for example, the new 1099 reporting requirements create a perverse incentive to consolidate suppliers, which leaves main street businesses out in the cold. you see, businesses will likely reduce the number of vendors they work with so reduce the

paper transactions to avoid the the $600 limit and avoid the paperwork. when suppliers are consolidated, you can just bet that suppliers will lose out. kentucky fried chicken restaurant owner dale black of grand island says it best. he says this, and i'm quoting -- "he wants to be a good corporate citizen in the communities i have restaurants, but the 1099 forces me not to hire local vendors and tradesmen in my community. instead, giving work to a single regional contractor." unquote. the i.r.s.'s own taxpayer advocate appears to agree, saying small businesses -- and again i'm quoting -- "mr. may lose customers, leave the economy with more large national vendors and less local competition." now, i'm certain the goal was not to strangle small town

economies, but it is the unintended consequence and reality of this new mandate. we need to look for ways to help small businesses, not hamper them. but there is just no way to talk around this provision, to spin it. it is simply rebuttal for -- brutal for the american business community. businesses can't afford the new burden. they are imploring us to help them. that's why the small business paperwork mandate elimination act introduced today with that many cosponsors simply needs to become the law. repealing that mandate is going to be a joint effort of all of us here in the senate, and my hope is that it will be done. in fact, mr. president, there is something else we can support. to create an estimated 27,000

new jobs and it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. i'm referring to the second piece of my american competitiveness and jobs package, our three pending trade agreements. unfortunately, with our economy struggling, this issue has been given lip service for the past couple of years. today, our president mentioned this topic almost one year ago, and we have seen virtually no action. during last year's state of the union address, the president boldly stated -- quote -- "we have to seek new markets aggressively just as our competitors are. if america sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we'll lose the chance to create jobs on our shores." and i could not agree more with this statement. the next day, i authored a letter to the president with 17 senators, offering our help and our support, but unfortunately a

year later, there has been little action. the white house just hasn't sent to us the three trade agreements that are sitting on the shelves collecting dust, and it's an unfortunate squandering of a sorely needed opportunity. so with 14 million americans still unemployed, our country will tune in to the state of the union tonight with keen ears for ideas that create jobs that boost the economy, but our three negotiated trade deals continue to just ride, continue to sit there. it's unacceptable and it needs to change. by this july, mr. president, the european union in south korea will have implemented their own free trade agreement, putting u.s. business at a competitive disadvantage. the korea-u.s. trade agreement fixes that. our friends to the north in canada and south in mexico have

trade deals in place with colombia. while our agreement languishes, their exports are winning the marketplace. imagine how our exporters feel watching their competition move to the front of the line, knowing that the agreements put them ahead. if we fail to act on the agreements, it's clear that our u.s. producers will fall behind. it's happening. today some of my colleagues and i have introduced a resolution pushing for approval of korea, colombia, panama trade agreements. our president in this congress -- and this congress hold the keys to unlocking the benefits. according to the u.s. international trade commission, these agreements would increase new u.s. exports between between $10 billion and and $12 billion, reducing the u.s. trade deficit and boosting the economy. in addition, these new u.s. goods exported to south korea,

to colombia, to panama would yield 27,000 new jobs. overall, this means an estimated gain in g.d.p. of over over $12 billion from net exports annually. their government should similarly be chomping at the bit to get this done, and it's within our grasp. american workers and businesses are essentially pleading for us to move forward on this. the folks on the production line, in our fields, those seeking employment are the ones with true skin in the game. we need to unleash their potential by unleashing the pending agreements with south korea, colombia and panama. these agreements will level the playing field and eliminate barriers for u.s. goods. our workers are always ready to roll up their sleeves and do what they can to start produci

producing. recently our federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke, said that our current pace of hiring will require four to five years to reach normal unemployment levels. mr. president, four to five years is too long to wait. we need to do everything we can to change that picture, so imagine the the impact of eliminating terrorists on 80% of the exports to south korea. remember, mr. president, that only 13% of our goods and services are currently exported tariff free. how about immediately eliminating tariffs on exports to colombia for more than 70% of -- of agricultural goods and 7% of -- 76% of industrial goods. a whopping 70% of colombian imports already enter our country duty free under the

andyan trade preference around -- andean trade preference act. this level of the playing field is sorely needed. to be clear, i do not oppose helping our neighbors and the andean agreement was designed to do that, but shouldn't we at least seek the same treatment for our businesses and our workers? almost one year ago today, we heard the president speak about aggressively expanding the marketplace in the international market. these agreements would do that and i hope tonight he reaffirms his commitment. finally, mr. president, the third pillar of the competitive package that i introduce today will lower our corporate tax rate to 20%. for many years, the u.s. has had the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. second highest corporate tax rate in the world. second only to japan. japan has now announced that they will reduce their corporate

rate for 2011. with this reduction, the united states will have the highest corporate tax rate of anyone in the entire world. that means this -- the u.s. tax environment for our job creators will be the least attractive in the entire world. here's the math. when you take into account a federal corporate tax rate of 35% and the average state corporate tax rate, the combined u.s. corporate tax rate totals more than 39%, nearly 40%. this combined rate soars above those of other countries with which american businesses compete. it makes absolutely no sense. is it any wonder that jobs are leaving this country to go to other competitive countries? our nation should be encouraging business creation and growth,

not putting our job creators at a disadvantage with this extraordinarily number one in the world tax rate. at least 27 of 34 nations in the organization for economic cooperation and development have cut their general corporate income tax rates since 2000. these countries have benefited from increased capital investment. and, get this, they've seen their corporate tax revenues as a share of g.d.p. actually increase, even with the lower rates, because they're expanding the base. according to a july 2010 analysis by pricewaterhouse coopers, the u.s. would have to reduce our federal rate to 20.3% to match the average corporate rate of other oecd countries. thankfully, many recognize the need to bring our corporate tax rate in line with those of other

industrialized nations. in fact, in december, the president's export council recommended a corporate tax rate be reduced to 20%. this will stimulate job creation across the country, all sectors of the job market. washington can't continue to say one thing and do another. that's why today i am introducing the restoring america's competitiveness in enterprise act of 2011. this legislative package, the 1099 repeal, the resolution supporting the trade agreements, the bill to reduce the highest -- soon to be the highest corporate tax rate in the world will provide a solid foundation for our country to move forward. it will send a powerful message that this 112th senate supports job creation and is committed to unleashing american competitiveness. i'm hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this

important package. we're off to a good start and i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined me in this effort. mr. president, thank you, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. johanns: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> one of the cofounders on behalf of robert allbritton, our publisher. ..

he knew everything and he left everybody wondering like when and if he ever slept. i have since learned the answer mike does sleep. he just sleeps at different hours than most of us do. his playbook as many of you know has become a washington phenomena mom.

we thought, jim and i thought it was good enough. we should be sharing this with readers. we did. turns out it was a couple hundred people. grew to a couple thousand. then with a little help from "the new york times" last year and their cover story that they did on mike allen, it grew to about 60,000. there are community of 60,000 people who get their day started with mike allen. we often hear, i wake up in bed every morning with mike allen. i don't think you should be telling me. other people say, mike is part of my breakfast routine each morning which sounds a little more wholesome. given that, we thought, people are saying figuratively they start their morning breakfast with mike. it would be good idea literally and put together a series of breakfasts which mike would interview a newsmaker and sort of bring

together using, what is really sort of remarkable power mike has, bring that convening power into a physical space that is our aim with these conversations. have a good conversation and hopefully make a little news along the way. before i get further, we go i in further i want to recognize our sponsor for this inaugural playbook breakfast. it is the national mining association. in particular their president, hal quinn and special thanks to the washington representative, carol ralston a long time friend of "politico". we want to thank you their support very much. thank you. [applause] we do want this to be a conversation and a lively one. that means engaging all of you. if you have questions, please write it on the paper we've been distributing. we can get you some or there is more.

my colleague beth has them. write your question on that and we will place those in a box and grab those at the appropriate time to ask our guest. our guest of course today is senator minority leader mitch mcconnell, somebody very much in the news. we would like to welcome senator mcconnell and mike allen. thank you. [applause] >> thanks. >> good morning, thank you very much for coming to our debut breakfast. thank you to all of you who have been e-mail me this morning you've been waiting. i really appreciate it. receipt leader mcconnell thanks for take the time. david broder the dean, wrote right after the election that you are, you now hold as much sway as the president of the united states because for things to

be done they have to be done through you. do you feel different than you did on november 1st? >> well, i think divided government presents some opportunity to do some important things. just to give you a few examples, reagan and tip o'neill, social security in '83. reagan and a democratic house, tax reform in '86. clinton and a republican congress, welfare reform and balanced budgets. what i hope is that we can come together and do some important things for the american people. the tax deal in december i thought was a good indication that maybe we could do some business. the president's indicated he is interested in lowering the corporate tax rate. i and most of my members think that's a good idea because we're certainly increasingly having real difficulties competing with overseas companies.

so we'll see. i personally think it is a great opportunity to do something about some problems, some long-term problems we know we have with regard to spending and debt, the entitlement programs. understand the president won't mention that tonight. i hope the fact that he doesn't mention tonight doesn't mean that we might not be able to make some progress on that front as well. >> playbook starts its morning with we love the print editions in asia. we start in asia and move to the united states. in the print edition of "washington post", obama not likely to call for security cuts. this one sentence, follow-up in "the wall street journal" the day before. it says in here obama plans to stress the need to reduce record budget deficits it he is not expected to get into detail instead will call for members of both parties to work together to tackle the problem. are you ready to do that? >> absolutely. >> now, what do you make of the president not offering

details or we're told not answering, offering in fact detailed response to his -- >> look if we're going to do anything serious about entitlements we'll not negotiate it in public. i don't necessarily conclude from the absence of any real discussions of entitlement reform that the president is not interested. so we'll find out in the coming months. i think we've got a window here of about six to nine months before the as more fear is overcome by the presidential campaign to do some important things for the american people. and he seems to me to be pivoting on a whole variety of things and coming in our direction. i think that's actually pretty darn smart. he noticed what happened november 2nd. as one pundit put it, it was a sort of a national restraining order against what they have been doing the first two years. so i think the message is let's go in a different direction. to the extent he wants to do that, it is not just rhetoric but reality we'll

be willing to happen. >> you're not just willing to discuss changes in entitlement and social security but you will actually push the white house to have that conversation? >> look there will be no entitlement reform without his leadership. which means that fingerprints have to be on whatever we choose to do from both sides. to give you an example how successful that could be, i was running for the u.s. senate in 1984. the year after the reagan-tip o'neill the social security fix. the issue never came up. a major change in our most popular entitlement program, the subject never came up. why? because it was a bipartisan deal, to fix social security for a generation. so, look, i think this could be, could be done. should be done. but it will not be done without him. >> now you talk about fingerprints from both sides. that is the pain culpability for both sides. what is the -- >> before you even get started.

we're not negotiating it here this morning. >> great audience. >> good try. >> c-span audience. >> good try. >> but from your side what are you going to do indicate good faith as you kick this off? >> he and i had this discussion for over a year that i would be willing to sit down and i'm hoping that's going to happen. this is the perfect time. he had no incentive to deal with us in the last congress. he started two years with a 65% approval rating. a 40-seat majority in the house and subsequently got 60 in the senate and they decided to pursue this hard-left agenda. we had a referendum on that november 2nd. he is now clearly indicating at least with his rhetoric that he is going in a different direction. >> it is more than rhetoric. we also are seeing a shake-up in the white house that -- >> bill daley and bruce reed indicate they're going in a different direction. look, just personnel appointments and just speeches don't get the job

done. are we really going to pass trade agreements? not just korea but panama and colombia as well? are we going to negotiate any new trade agreements? are we really going to lower the corporate tax rate and try to become more competitive internationally, creating u.s. jobs in america? to the extent that he really wants to do those things, we're interested in being helpful. >> we also are not going to hear details about corporate tax reform tonight. >> right. >> that is something very much on the white house's agenda. are you going to push them to put that toward the top? do you think there could be action on that this year? >> he hasn't indicated it is important and we ought to do something. that is subject, international competitiveness is related to corporate tax rates. it is related to ratification of trade agreements. these are the kinds of things i and my members have been advocating for years. so to the extent he is now interested in doing that, sign us up. we're interested in helping. >> now the white house said that a lot of the "state of

the union" address is going to be things that they believe republicans will work with them on or should work with them on. you mentioned trade, education. just a little reality check on that. a year ago this week you put out a press release and you said during a meeting at the white house tuesday u.s. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell offered to help the president accomplish the key job of, offered to help the president accomplish the key goal of job creation laid out in the "state of the union" address. how did that go? >> well, as i said he didn't really need us last congress and was not particularly interested in doing the kind of things he had mentioned. he mentioned things like nuclear power, clean coal technology, trade agreements. those are kinds of things i and my members are for. nothing ever happened in the last congress. i'm not going to put him down for that. he didn't think he needed us. they were busy trying to

turn american into a western european country as rapidly as possible. we had a referendum on that november the 2nd. the american people don't want to be a western european country. now he has wisely, in my view, pivoting to the center rhetorically. we will see whether he actually wants to work with us, to accomplish things that we're already for. >> what is the single thing he could do that would indicate to you it is real? what could he do that you would say, you know, we're working together, the president's working with me in good faith? >> look i mean i think it will be, when senator reid, for example, introduces a bill on lowering the corporate tax rate. some indication that we're, the majority in the senate is moving forward or discussions with it. i think that will happen. if he got it in the speech tonight i assume he means it. category of trust by verify but yeah, i think these are the kind of things we ought to be working on.

>> i feel like you don't dislike him? [laughter] >> that is an interesting way to put it. i don't know anybody whoever said i did dislike him. i think the president is a smart guy, an engaging guy. he has had a different agenda for america. maybe now he is interested in going in a different direction. >> all right. mr. leader, you have a late night tonight. everybody in this room has a late night tonight. the crew from washington drove up here at 4:00 a.m. thank you guys. the reason for that is we're all going to be watching or participating in the state of the union. now, a little different this year. a number of members have said they're going to sit on the buddy system on the other side of the aisle. you said you're not going to be participating in musical chairs. why is that? >> i'm going to sit where i usually sit. most people don't have a assigned seats. but two leaders usually have seats across the aisle. i'm going to sit where i usually sit. everybody can sit wherever

they want to but look, the american people are a lot more interested in whether we will actually do something than they are the seating arrangement during the state of the union the seating arrangement during the state of the union in the end will mean absolutely nothing. can we come together on issues we've been talking about. >> do you think it is a fraud? do you think it is cosmetics or do you think it is well-intended? >> i don't make much of it at all because i don't think it has anything to do with accomplishing something in the end. >> so you haven't -- >> we urge you sit where every you want to. because of president's point of view it may be distracting because the cameras may be for example on teams sitting around in, who is sitting with who. oh, my goodness, there is senator gillibrand and senator thune and you know. you all will be scribbling all that down about the interesting combos out there. i'm not sure that is helpful to the president but but look, the important thing is not the seating arrangement

but what we actually accomplish. can i mention? i would challenge all our friends in the press here to count how many times the president uses the word investment tonight. investment as you know is a latin term for washington spending. i've noticed that our good friends on the other side whenever they want to spend call it an investment. and so it will be interesting, i may just keep my own count tonight to see how many times we talk about investing. look, this is not a time to be increasing spending. this is a serious, sober time. we need to come together and address spending and debt. unemployment is unacceptably high. if government spending would have produced a robust economy, we would be roaring now. >> so if we're going to go frank luntz up here, what other word are you looking for? >> frank luntz? whatever word, that is the word because, you know, what the president ought to be doing in my view is talking about how we can reduce

spending and reduce debt. spending is pejorative term. so they will use the term investment for the exceptions -- >> you and your colleagues are going to do a lot of television after the speech. what word should we look for from your side? >> i think we are going to hear from paul ryan that we want to address not only the short term but the long-term spending and debt problems in this country. and we think that is actually better for the private sector than continuing to borrow money like the majority did with the stimulus and squander it, largely on the public sector. we just don't think that's productive. then you're left with your children and grandchildren having to pay it back. >> mr. leader, last week you spent a couple days each in afghanistan and pakistan. told me backstage you're seeing signs of progress. let's start with pakistan. what did you learn there? >> well, as everyone knows the good news in pakistan is

the military is a pretty solid institution. we're pleased with the fact that they have taken it to the terrorists up in the tribal areas with several successful efforts. wroer not pleased with the fact that the afghan taliban is headquartered in pakistan and we would hope sometime in the future to have more cooperation from the pakistanis on that issue. in afghanistan we have made substantial progress. the taliban had a very bad year. >> on pakistan -- >> i'm sorry. >> you wind up more hopeful or less hopeful about the cooperation we're going to get? >> more, more hopeful. >> what did they do to show that? >> the action in the valley and the efforts up in the tribal areas i just mentioned i think were pretty successful. over in afghanistan the taliban has had a very bad year. in 10. they will have a worse year in 11. we're making substantial headway. i was there january a year

ago as well. substantial headway in allowing the country to come back to normal. but what is normal in afghanistan? remember this is a country where over 90% of the people are illiterate. the best we can hope for in the near-term future getting them back to what is normal for them is get them back to where they were 30 years ago before the russians came in. which was, a relatively peaceful and, to some extent self-sustaining agricultural society. that is about all we can hope for. so i think we and our allies will be there for a long time, not probably with the kind of military presence that we currently have. but it will be a long-term international mr. project to try to get them into a more stable position. >> we have more forces in afghanistan than ever. all the signs are that this spring could be very tough on our forces. can the american people tolerate afghanistan

casualties spiking? >> the good news about this war, if there is any good news about any wore, -- war that it hasn't become a domestic political football like the iraq war did. >> it also gets less attention than it should. >> let me finish. what made the iraq war so challenging here it became a shirts versus skins domestic political issue. in 2007, for example, i had 250 antiwar demonstrators in front of my house in louisville, kentucky. louisville is not san francisco. this is sort of an unusual thing. we haven't seen any of that with the after -- afghan war. with as republican leader for the senate, and i think i speak for virtually all of my members on this if not all of them, we support what the president is doing, and if we support it will less likely become a domestic political football like the iraq war did. so even though we're a

country that greatly values life and always hates it when we lose anyone, the post-9/11 mission of keeping afghanistan from becoming a haven again is still important and i support it and i think the president is doing the right thing. >> all right. here at home, let's talk about the, tense sieve remodeling project that is going on across the street at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. can you agree based on the moves the president made since november 2nd that he is less liberal than you would have thought november 1st? >> look i don't think it take as rocket scientist to figure out what the president was going to do after the november 2nd election. >> it took a while. >> clinton playbook is right in front of him. >> which -- >> he has got the clinton players in the white house. daley and bruce reed. he knew what the message was. this man is not foolish and he knew that they had taken the country as far as they

could to the left and that was going to have to change. look, the reason i'm smiling about it is, it is obviously political but the point is we have politics in this town. that's what we do and my view is, even though i would love to have a republican president on january 13th, we have had an election every two years since 1788 in this country, right on schedule, every two years. you can as you use the next election as on opportunity to not to do anything. what i'm telling the president publicly and privately let's do some important things for the country where we can agree. let the election take care of itself until 2012. so, i'm hopeful that we will tackle some really challenging, long-term, seemingly intractable problems and do it now, not some other time but now. >> you mentioned the, by

intrackable problems you're talking about entitlements. you talked about that earlier. what else is on that list? >> i think this competitiveness issue. i was interesting in his "wall street journal" op-ed editorial about competitiveness. you might be interested, maybe all you know about this the executive order on competitiveness exempted health care and financial regulation. so i'm in the skeptic category as to whether or not or he is serious about doing anything about overregulation. we've only exacerbated that problem in the first two years. and as you know, we will not agree on health care. this is not an area of that there is likely to be a kumbayah moment. i have said and i'll say again this morning i think it was the single worst piece of legislation passed in my time in the senate. i think we owe it to the american people to try to repeal it entirely. if that falls short as it probably will in the senate, to go after it piece by piece. this is huge, huge mistake for the country and must be undone if we can get the

support of the american people to do it. so on that issue, don't look for a kind of coming together. andrew: have you asked leader reid if there will be up-or-down vote? >> there will be a vote. >> you say that comfortably? >> yeah i say it confidentially. [laughter] >> because of your conversation with leader reid or physics? >> trust me. >> i'm verifying. that's all [laughing] there will be a vote. >> based on your knowledge of politics or your knowledge of reid? >> no, my knowledge of the senate. i guaranty you we will be voting on it. >> but how do you know? >> why? [laughter] >> trying to get -- >> do this interview with parliamentarian. just take my word for it. >> on regulation you said you're skeptical. why do you think the

president did that executive order if you don't think anything real is going to change? >> well i thought the fact that the executive order exempted health care and financial regulation was makes one someone skeptical. and i know the house and i think we will be looking at too using congressional review act to, to have an opportunity to reconsider some of the regulations that are coming out that are a huge problem for american business. you know, now that the tax issue was solved for for two years, the biggest thing i hear and i was out a lot over the last two weeks in my state, is the overregulation problems. uncertainty about health care costs as a result of the new obamacare and, overregulation in general is really stifling job creation. >> now, you've talked, you were talking earlier about the new chief of staff, bill daley. you said it was encouraging that he was there because you said that before that there hadn't been anyone in

the west wing that run a lemonade stand let alone a business. i wonder where you get your business and management advice. you're hearing from people besides career politicians. >> i'm an elected official. i interact with my constituents and people around the country advocating one cause or another all the time. that's what we do. the uniform chorus from virtually every part of the private sector in the united states is they were being harassed by regulators who have no idea what it takes to produce a job and this overregulation is making it more difficult for us to come out of this economic trough that we're in. i mean the administration is, you know trying to sing a tune here that is a little bit sour at the moment. that we're coming out of this. well, i hope we are but the job growth has been pretty tepid. one of the reasons for it, first was uncertainty about taxes. we resolved that for a

couple of years. then, there was the health care bill which completely unresolved. there isn't anybody in america that can tell you what is in the bill. as speaker famously said the day it passed we need to pass it to figure out what's in it. we haven't figured out what's in it. it is replete with intended ad unintended consequence that are stifling to job growth in the country. this whole regulatory area across the board most of these regulators in this administration are sort of left-wingers on steroids. they are anxious to go out and regulate america in their image what they think america ought to be like? >> you took a little flak after the election the single most important thing we need to achieve make sure president obama is one term president? is that ire mission and what do you plan to do to accomplish that.

>> you're not the first person to ask me about that. do i need to say it again? the political objective who is in the white house because who is in the presidency make as whole lot of difference. more importantly the second part of that interview up interviewed. you and i were talking about this morning about kinds of opportunities divided government presents. i remember when president bush tried to get us to tackle social security in 2005. at a time my party had the white house, house and senate. i remember going around trying to find any democrat in the senate, any democrat in the senate, to even talk about it. none. zero. nobody would even talk about it. so if we're going to do something about some of these really serious, intrackable, seemingly intrackable problems, divided government -- intractable. divided government is the time. it can not be done without presidential leadership.

we'll see whether it will be provided. >> the most concrete sign of the new world when the vice president negotiated the tax cut extension deal with you at the same time the democrats were in a photo-op and later found out about the terms of it from the press. take us behind the scenes. what was it like to have that and when they approached you did you realize okay, the landscape has really changed, they get it? >> well, the important thing was the results. and. you want to get into the process. >> give us palace intrigue. >> only thing i say about the process i thought it was noteworthy that i was at the signing ceremony and the speaker and majority leader were not. >> this is your first one. >> yeah. >> almost out of body experience. [laughter] >> you expect to be at some more or many more? >> well, if we, you know, i would hope so. i would hope so. if the president is willing

to do what i and my members would do anywhere we're not going to say no. >> that is not much of a concession that is not bargaining, to just give you what you want? >> i like to think i'm a pretty good negotiator. >> but, are you willing to go halfway and make concessions -- >> depends on the issue. depends on the issue. and, we can't negotiate it sitting here this morning. and the president is not, i'm not surprised. i will not say what he will do on entitlements in a state of the union speech. i wouldn't either. it is not so much what he says tonight but what he is willing to do. i will say i think the best opportunity to do some business is in the next six to nine months because the presidential contest will have a way of kind of sweeping into the senate, you know? it just will. and i think, and the house. and the closer we get to the

iowa caucuses and new hampshire and all the rest, conceivably the less difficult it will be for us to come together and tackle some of these big problems. >> so you think it is possible in the next six to nine months to pass legislation on social security and corporate tax rates? >> i'm hopeful that we can do some business on all the issues that you and i have been discussing here this morning. >> okay. what is president obama like in these white house meetings? like what's his style? >> the friendly and business-like, you know. gets to the point and, i think he is. we all know, he is a smart, capable guy. and, we sit down and say hello and get to work. >> around a small table, how is he different from president george w. bush? >> in that sense not all that different because,

because i will say this for president obama. he has been on time for every meeting. president bush would get this early. so if you were on time you were late. i have no, you know, sort of takeaway comment about his style other than, we usually know what the agenda is and we get down tonight. we're about to bring in some questions from y'all but before we do that, we're going to do a rapid round here. what is your favorite thing about president obama? take as much time as you wish. [laughter] >> he is supposedly given up smoking. [laughter] you wanted me to say he is a bears fan, right? >> you are -- [inaudible] >> kentucky is rapidly going no smoking. louisville election no smoking. the likely republican candidate for governor in kentucky is in favor after

public smoking ban for the whole state. things have changed. >> how do you feel about that? >> i think there is no question about the health issue is clearly been determined. >> so you would support a statewide smoking ban? >> i don't get into statewide issues. that will be up to the state to determine. >> you run the state? >> thank you. [laughing] i appreciate the compliment but i don't think i'm quite that good. >> is, have you ever smoked? >> no. >> not even once? >> no. >> -- >> did i ever smoke a cigarette? i think i did when i was 18. i didn't like it. i immediately put it out and said this is not good. >> who is your favorite member of the obama cabinet? >> well if the chief of staff qualifies, i guess i would say bill daley. >> name one more.

[laughter] >> he didn't like that answer, did he? can i name bruce reed? he doesn't count. >> we'll do something easier. packers or steelers? >> probably packers. paul hornung, who is a great star in early days of super bowl play was from louisville. very much alive and force around our hometown. i guess i will have to be for the packers. >> what are the chance that is a year from now he will be the senate majority leader? >> look, no one knows for sure. every election tends to be different although i must say the '06 and '08 elections had certain similarity to them. we like our numbers. 23 democrats and only 10 republicans up. we like where the states are that a lot of these first-term democrats will be competing in. but it's a long time from

now until 12. i'm hopeful but not going to make any predictions. >> certainly overwhelmingly likely republicans will get the majority. what do you think will be the single biggest factor determining that? >> i don't know. you said likely. i don't know what the odds are. >> i got that from -- >> i like the numbers as i just said. when you've got a lot of opportunities and the other side doesn't have many, it does give you greater opportunities. >> what do you think are the chances that president imobama will be reelected? >> who knows, you know? i think rather than fixate on the 12 election we need to next lech shen we need six to nine months to improve the country. >> do you think he is politically strong or politically vulnerable? >> you know, mike. this is interesting parlor talk but it doesn't -- that's what you do, right. i'm not going, i'm not going

to go down that path because what i want to concentrate on right now is what we can agree on that would be important to for the country. >> we'll skip 2012. i know you won't answer that. but, who is republican to put money on for 2016? >> for 2016? oh, my goodness gracious. why don't we -- >> got jeb bush. got governor christie. >> that is what you all do. i'm not going to get into the that. >> who is a rising star republic? who is a republican to watch? >> won't surprise you, i think john thune is -- >> he has risen. >> huh? >> he risen, he is in the senate. somebody new. >> he is new to the american public. >> okay. >> anybody who knocked out the senate democratic leader, and then was so skillful that six years later no one even filed against him, no one filed in the primary, no

one filed in the general. no independent filed. i think that was the first time in south dakota history that no one, that anybody gotten reelected without any opposition at all. that tells you john is a person of considerable political skill. >> do you believe he will run for president? >> huh? >> do you believe he will -- >> i don't know. i know he is thinking about it. >> do you think he should? >> i think he should. >> do you think he will be strong? >> uh-huh. >> what do you think will be his biggest strength? >> well, i think he is a very sharp, capable, individual with, he is a good speaker. good leadership qualities which i see on the display every week in the senate. i'm a big john thune fan. >> and, you said that you think you should. have you urged it? >> i had talked to him about it i wouldn't be talking to you about it. >> you urged him to on c-span. i think we have the ability to bring in questions from you guys.

is there a, is there a microphone around? maybe raise your hand. a microphone will find you. how is that? >> i was curious to think whether there is chance that the senate may take up the interchange issue pa was passed as part of the dodd-frank overhaul bill? bankers and other groups raised concerns how we should say their bottom line. what are your thoughts on that? >> i don't think the administration will be interested, regret fully in revisiting either health care or financial regulation. so i, my guess, would be that there would be a lot of reservations about revisiting that in the senate. i wouldn't be surprised to see the house revisit the whole package but, in the senate, my assumption is that they're going to kind of double down and try to defend both health care and financial regulation.

>> [inaudible]. >> thank you. when president obama was in the senate were there issues where you personally worked together? and could you characterize the issues and the experience of working together then in those days? >> no. we didn't work on any issues together. so i can't give you any examples. >> does the crowd have a question? >> put me on the spot here. what? kind of a more personal question but next february 11th we have the convention itself. wondering if the minority

leader would come speak at the convention next year. >> i can't understand you for some reason? >> they're from washington university and lexington, virginia. he invited you to attend their mock convention. >> you know, one of my predecessors did that. alvin barkley. [laughter] and right in the middle of his speech at your mock convention in 1956 he had a heart attack and died. [laughter] so the answer my friend, is no. [laughter] did you know that by the way? >> we did. >> yeah. there was a guy in kentucky who was a student at washington lee at the time and still alive who wrote an article about his experience. he was sitting there in the audience and barclay apparently, for those of you who have forgotten barkley, he is the other kentuckian been leader of one of the

parties in senate other than myself. barkley was vice president under truman from 48 to 52. and then when he finished up as vice president he didn't like being in private life. so he ran back for the senate and was defeated john sherman cooper, sort of only successful republican we ever had. and so, he became al back bencher in it the senate after being majority leader and vice president. for whatever reason decided to go to washington and lee for the mock -- >> convention. >> convention in 1956. and -- >> much safer now. >> there was some line that he uttered that was, do you know? something about he would rather -- >> i would rather be a servant in -- >> servant in the house of the lord. >> house of the lord than sit in the seats of mighty i believe. >> right after he said that, bam. [laughter] so great question but there

is not a snowball's chance in hell i'm doing that mock convention in washington and lee. >> hillary? we can hear you. >> mr. leader, what do you think about the fact that there are two republican responses to the state of the union tonight? the tea party response and the house leadership response? and do you expect similar divisions in the senate going forward? >> actually there are going to be 534 responses in addition to, in addition to paul ryan's official response. every single member of the house and senate will be responding. so, i find it not particularly noteworthy. everybody's going to be responding. the hall, some of you will be there. the hall will be literally jammed with people responding. i will do what every member of congress does, talking on the telephone right afterward with all of my local press in addition to whatever national press. >> tea party response is

legitimate? >> yeah its it is legitimate. along with the response of the everybody else in congress. other than the one that is going to televised by paul ryan which is the one that people will notice the most simply because it has the biggest audience. >> how worried are you that tea party pressure is going to be a distraction for either you or for speaker boehner? >> not at all. not at all. >> why? >> why? look, i've had the experience of managing scarcity, 40 and 41. every day is a maalox moment. we now have, at least for minority a abundance at 47 and i would be rather managing abundance than scarcity. we have everybody from olympia snowe to jim demint. we have pretty broad

philosophical difference. geographical difference. different points of view already. i don't see much difference other than at 47, you're more likely to end up where you want to than at 40 or 41. >> a lot of times the group still has muscle and their aims aren't exactly aligned with yours. >> well, you know it is one of the favorite press parlor games to try to look at divisions among republicans potentially. i think a much more interesting thing -- >> it is not potential. >> let me finish my answer. >> it is not potential. >> let me finish my answer. much more thing would be observe democratic differences. query, how many of 23 democrats up in 12 will start voting with us? and maybe my number is not 47. maybe it is 51? or maybe it is 60? query, how many of the democrats in the senate who are up in 12 are still comfortable with all of the ways they voted in the

previous congress and may want to go in a difficult direction this congress? so i think a much more interesting story is going to be the potential democratic divisions in the senate than speculating about republican differences in the senate that haven't yet occurred. >> have you had conversations with those democrats or do you have indication some of those democrats -- >> do i ever talk to democrats? sure. >> and you've talked to some of these -- >> you will be the first to know, mike, when --. >> no, but are you posing that as hypothetical? are you saying you're hopeful you have indication or intel that is going to occur? >> there has just been a number of published comments. i remember one democratic incumbent senator beginning to have second thoughts about the individual mandate. i thought that was kind of noteworthy since that is the cornerstone of the obamacare. we'll see. but i think there is a lot more potential for queasiness and division in the democratic conference going into the 112th

congress than there is in ours. >> queasiness? what's that? >> queasiness, sort of put another way, hearing footsteps. sort of like at receiver hearing the footsteps of the defensive back. >> and the footsteps are? >> the voters. >> all right. this is the most important thing i'm going to ask you, really for the young people here are wondering how they can be you. you mentioned earlier senator john sherman cooper. you were an intern for him. you were student body president at university of louisville. what do you tell young people who want to navigate washington and want to succeed in washington and want to be you? >> who want to be in politics? >> yes, sir. who want to succeed in washington. >> i can only say in my own case i got interested through politics as you indicated. i ran for student council. and enjoyed the process and then the internship i had with senator cooper was, you

know, kind of beginning to convince me take a shot at it. there are a whole lot of ways to serve. you don't necessarily need to run for office. but what i hope is all the interns who come here in the summer end up being good citizens and interested in public affairs, whether they actually choose to run for office or serve in some other capacity is less important. . .

>> and so i think, you know, you have to like people enough obviously to interact with them and be involved with them. and you have to be willing to help others. in my own case, i worked in a number of campaigns for other people. we won some and we loss on some. but it was a way to learn about the process and a way to pick up others. that applies to a whole lot of things not just politics. that's what i'd recommend. >> now in the run-up to the election you and your staff did a lot of reading of history, of divided government and looked at at the relationships majorities minorities in the white house. what did you learn from that? >> well, i think i've already said it. periods -- first of all, the american people since world war ii have actually preferred divided government most of the

time. they've been suspicious of giving one side too much power. you've got a country that's skeptical of giving people too much power. they did that in the previous congress and really didn't like it. and so they went back to divided government where they're more comfortable. and so we were pretty sure that was going to happen. i mean, nobody knew for sure but we were pretty sure we were going to either have divided government again as we have or be a lot more in an influential position. we were looking at what could be done. and we've been talking here this morning about the opportunities presented by divided government. and what i hope is the president will not miss this opportunity to do something important for the country. and it's right now. it's in the next 6 to 9 months. and we have -- and i've cited them, numerous examples of

extremely important things that have been done during times of divided government. and the time to do it is now. >> now, for your team, what did you learn from '94. what needs to be done differently this time? >> well, i think one of the mistakes of '94 -- if you want to get the best critique of that period it's newt gingrich's book of '98 interestingly enough in which he went back and chronicled what he felt were the mistakes that he and his team made. at the top of the list was sort of acting like you were in charge of the government when you weren't. and you'll notice that speaker boehner and i made it very clear from the beginning to the american people that we really appreciated their support but we had not taken control of the government but we did not to lead the american people into thinking that they had changed the whole government when, in fact, they had only changed a part of the government. >> so you wouldn't get blamed?

>> well, you don't want to suffer from hubris. and you don't want to overinterpret what has happened. and candidly, i don't believe that the november election was an enforcement of republicans. i think it was more about them, about stopping what they had been doing for the last two years. so we thought humility, lack of hubris was an important way to start the new congress. i think the speaker has done an excellent job of that. i like every way he's handled this transition, a kind of no frills, minimal celebration kind of transition. these are serious times with serious problems. and this is the perfect time to tackle them. >> now, history suggests to you that republican -- or that outparties have been too eager to give into the president.

that they haven't been tough enough with the president? >> oh, i don't know. you sort of have to take it issue by issue. i think one of the best ways to be effective is not overinterpret what happened in the previous election. i think our friends on the other side mistakenly concluded that the 2008 election was a mandate to turn america into a western european country. and they were -- that's something they wanted to do for a long time and they had the votes to do and by golly in several significant ways they did it. and the public had a severe reaction to it. i think the last election was as i said about stopping that, stopping it. and then when you look at the three biggest issues in the country, private sector, job growth, unemployment way too high spending and debt which i believe are all interconnected because we've tried spending our way out of this period

demonstrably has not worked. we've got to get the private sector going and we've got to focus on spending and debt. and i am hopeful that the president will have gotten the same message. i can't believe that he didn't. and we're going to be more interested in helping him on those kinds of issues than his party in the congress. >> what's your biggest pet peeve about the president? [laughter] >> if you were an editor or a producer, what would you change? >> which one? [laughter] >> it sounds like you get good coverage. >> i don't have any big complaints. look, if we have robust discourse in this country, and periodically we all get into these hand-wringing periods oh, why can't westbound nicer and

our discourse is too harsh. one of the things that i do do is read a lot of american history and i can tell you most of the discourse today pales in comparison to what jefferson and adams said usually under assumed names. [laughter] >> i don't -- this is a kind of robust political discussion that goes on, not between the two parties but you guys in the fourth estate. i think it's good for you and -- >> you read almost exclusively history, right? you don't read contemporary nonfiction? >> yeah, i generally don't read contemporary stuff. in fact, the only book i can recall in the last 15 or 20 years that i read that was by somebody i knew was colin powell's book. so i tend to read books from an earlier period. for example, right now i'm reading james swanson's second

book. his first one, "manhunt" was about the assassination for lincoln and the capture of john wilkes booth. this one called bloody crimes is about the lincoln funeral co quartet and the chase for jefferson davis. and i just finished a book about roosevelt and the court packing period in 1937. and just to give you some other examples if you're interested. before that it was winston grims about the battle of vicksberg. i tend to read -- american history tends to be earlier so that we had some time for a perspective and i tend to stay away from the current books. >> no bob woodward? >> no bob woodward. >>

[laughter] >> you recently an ipad. what do you think about it? >> i love it. the most significant my playbook. [laughter] >> which i will soon become addicted to. >> what do you use it for and what do you like about it? >> it's just an incredible device. it's amazing. i use it for the most part i look at my daily clip instead of caring reams of paper. i'm also thoroughly addicted to the hotline which has been around as we all know for, what, 15, 20 years. and rather than lugging around a lot of paper just have a hotline on my ipad. it's great. >> what other apps do you like? >> university of louisville sports. >> i hear you're a big tailgater?

>> yeah, we have a tailgating group. we go to louisville football team and it's grim but they'll come back. >> these are wild tailgates? >> we're pretty tame compared to most. but some of my tailgating group -- at least one guy a friend of mine is going back to college so we rarely miss a football game. i got interested in the washington neither not that they're anything to write about and i'm still mourning letting adam don go but it's kind of renewed my childhood interest in baseball. i kind of lost interest in baseball over the years. but having a team here has kind of renewed my interest. >> i have to ask this for deckiard howard the kentucky wildcats are going to do this? >> the wildcards? >> yeah, they came into

louisville and beat the you know what out of the cardinals new year's eve but they're good every year. >> how far do you think they'll go? >> i wouldn't predict either kentucky or louisville to go the whole route this year and kentucky will probably go farther. i think they have more talent. and they'll go farther. >> okay, mr. leader, my final question. you have a thing with kroger. the president tried to call you and he found you in a kroger. and when you go home you always stop at the kroger on bartstown road, that's that about. >> that's the first conversation i had with barack obama when i was president. i was up in the kroger -- my cell phone went off. so there i was with people that i know from the neighborhood walking around with their carts and i'm talking to obama. unfortunately, the first two years i didn't have a whole lot of conversations with obama but i was up there another time when he called so i've had two calls at the kroger from barack obama.

and regretfully there were not a whole lot of calls the first two years but i think i'm on speed dial down at the white house and i think we'll have a lot more communication in the coming months. >> mr. leader, thank you very much for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate is in recess for their weekly party lunches. when we return we expect rules in the debate on the 112th congress. specifically rules on the use of the filibuster. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2 starting at 2:15 eastern. the president's state of the union address happens tonight at 9:00 eastern. our coverage will start at 8:00 with a historical look at

bipartisanship between past presidents and congress. and a discussion on the bipartisan seating plan for this year's edition. the president again at 9:00 followed by the republican response. the house budget committee chair paul ryan of wisconsin. you can be a part of the discussion through your phone calls and tweets and on facebook.com/c-span and for more go to c-span.org/stou. c-span2 will be simulcasting the speech and get live coverage as they pass through the statutory hou house efforts to get republican and democrats to sit together during the president's state of the union address. the two parties typically sit on opposite sides of the house chamber. the bipartisan seating proposal was first introduced by democratic senator mark udall of colorado. this is about 25 minutes. >> well, good morning to

everybody. i've been joined by senator miles an hourkowski from alaska, congressman schuller from north carolina and the senator from arizona. i'm senator udall from colorado. i think what connects all of us is that we're all westerners. senator murkowski is from alaska. congressman gosar represents the use part of austin including the udall homeland including the northeastern part of arizona and i married a north carolinian and i know the spirit that north carolinians bring to the political process so we're proud to stand here to answer questions after we give some brief remarks about what we'll be a historic night. the state of the union address was first broadcast in 1911. that was on radio. it was first broadcast on tv in

1947. president johnson first gave the state of the union speech at night in the '60s. and we believe that the custom of sitting in two parties with the aisle separating has probably started based on what the crs told us from the first broadcast in 1911. we're thrilled that 55 colleagues have joined us on our letter. we think there will be many more tonight who will choose to, if you will, bridge the divide. i think we all believe that the state of the union has become more like a high school pep rally and we want to change the tone and show the public that we can work together. i'm an old mountaineer. i think that the aisle that divides us has become as high as the mountain. and it's time to climb that mountain and look out upon america all together. in colorado we have a literally continental divide and the most effective leaders in colorado bridge that divide and that's

what we want to do tonight. i think we -- we're all moved by the terrible events in tucson and we want to turn something tonight to build on something in a positive way. i would bet these three colleagues standing behind me in their own professional and elective leadership positions in the past have found ways to step across that divide. i certainly did that in the colorado state house and there were a lot of ways in which the structure promoted working together. and i think we all agree that if we can't sit together in an important night like this, how can we face the real challenges that the country has? how are we going to pay down the debt, fix a broken immigration system or fix an energy policy much less get the economy back on its feet and get the jobs as job one to sit together. we beginning to sit on this symbolic gesture by emphasizing unity over decision. i know that can have a real

effect on the way we work together. so stay tuned. we're going to propose some additional ideas as we move forward as to how we can work in a bipartisan in addition so again i'm really honored and proud and humbled to stand here with my three colleagues and i want to turn the podium over to my good friend from the far west, senator lisa murkowski. >> thank you, mark. senator udall has mentioned that this is a symbolic gesture and some might say, well, you know, why do you need to focus on the symbolism of it? it is a symbolic gesture. but why not start with a symbolic gesture. why not start off this new 112th congress with a gesture, an effort to try to come together. if even just for a couple hours as we show not only respect for

the elected elderly in congress but respect to the institution. and as senator udall has mentioned, oftentimes at the state of the union it becomes where the attention is not focused on the president's words but who's standing up, who's sitting down with their arms across their chest? who is engaged in kind of the theatrics. that's not what the state of the union should be about. so let's come together, for an hour or two. and if for nothing else sit with a colleague that perhaps we don't know as well and be part of a process that i think is good for all of us. when senator udall first mentioned this to me, i thought to myself, boy, this is a symbolic act.

why would i want to participate in doing this? and i bounced it off a couple of others in my office. and i'll be honest with you. they were all folks that have been around for a while. and i said, i'm going to go out to the front desk and out there i had a couple young people that are pretty brand-new to capitol hill. there was actually a former intern of mine who's attending college at the university of alaska. and i said, what do you think? what would you think if we were to come out in the state of the union and mix it up a little bit? and instantly, the response was, yes! one of them said that would be wild. and i said wild in a good way? and without question, yeah, you should. you should do this. so maybe we do need to get out of our conventional skins every now and again and come out and do something that indicates to the rest of the country that we're not afraid to sit next to

one another. there are no in between republicans between democrats but together we can join together in this very important speech that the president will deliver to us tonight. i'm pleased to be with these gentlemen and all the others that will be joining us tonight. >> lisa, thank you. what an incredible leadership we have in the senate, both lisa and mark have done an incredible job. mark reached out to the house members and asked for us to consider setting with a colleague across the aisle. and being a blue dog member that's usually pretty easy for us. but in the state of the union, when not only america is watching but the whole world is watching, how we conduct ourselves and what is this institution about? i've only been -- this is

starting my fifth year. and one of the most discouraging things that i was able to recognize in the first four years is the partisanship. it's an us versus them approach. and i've said this before. it's time that the congress together as one becomes a team. in order for our country to move forward, we have to unite together and far too often it happens when tragedies just after a tragedy, after 9/11 -- i wasn't here but i heard and watched how members of congress stood on the capitol steps and sang god bless america. after this horrible tragedy in arizona with one of my blue dog colleagues, classmates gabby giffords. this needs to be a constant

reminder to all of us. let's put the political rhetoric aside. understand the entertainment news is there for one reason, for ratings. but the most important thing we can do is be americans, unite together to move our country forward. that's what we have to do to accomplish and have progress in this country. and we can remain on top. we can't have a divided congress. we can't have a divided nation in order for us to continue the progress that the u.s. has been so strong economically and be the economic giant of this world. the world is watching tonight and they will also watch us conduct business going forward. at this time i'll have my colleague, paul, come forward and give his remarks. the great thing that paul is going to be able to see tonight

is unity in his first state of the union. thank you. >> thank you for leading the way on this effort. and i'm proud to stand with you today. i'm here because i believe it is time to work together to solve the problems at hand. at the end of the day we all came to congress with the same goal, to represent the people we serve and to continue to ensure that our future generations would have the same opportunities all of us have. while we may disagree how we get there, we can do so respectfully and work hand-in-hand to find the best solutions we face in this country. sitting together this evening is a step in the right direction. we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner throughout the 112th congress so that we best can gather everyone's ideas and put the best solutions forward. tonight, i will be sitting with representatives elijah cummings

and also joining the rest of the arizona delegation in honoring gabby giffords. i'm excited about those who are joining us in this effort and looking forward ahead. thank you very much. >> thank you, dr. gosar and i know we would be happy to answer any and all questions. yes. >> senator, if someone were to go back and review the c-span video of last year's state of the union address, would they see you, senator udall and you congressman schuller standing and cheering when president obama's made his unprecedented attack on the supreme court justices for their decisions in the citizens united case. >> i don't know. i don't remember. i do know i had concerns about that case and that's a whole other topic, of course. but we're turning the page. this is a new start. this is a reset. we're not only going to reset our economy. those of us here and many others tonight want to reset the way we

work together. look, partisanship at its best is about promoting ideas that a particular party believes will enhance the party's prospects but it's been detrimental and not constructive. and as we all believe and i think three of my colleagues would say what happened in tucson setting aside any blame because i think this is a very troubled man in tucson is a warning to us. it's a wakeup call. we all said to each other, democrats to democrats, republicans to republicans, look, the rhetoric is getting out of control. and it could have an effect. sticks and stones can break my words but words can do real damage is the old axiom. we're committed to having the kind of debates around here where you can disagree without being disagreeable. >> to what extent do you think the media is responsible for

this corrosive partisanship and what with the media is responsible >> in those of us public figures use words that may incite or of -- incite is probably a more inflammatory word than i want to use. when we don't choose our words carefully and then the media chooses to perhaps take them out of context, build them up, pass them around in a way that the individual didn't clearly intend them. i don't think that helps. so you've got a situation where as a leader we all have an obligation to be careful with our words. of listen to senator udall's maxmum there. sticks and stones can break my bones but it's the words that really hurt.

but some can share the blame and they can further that tension that is caused by those words so i think there is a responsibility for all. we need to be careful with what we say and i think the media needs to then be careful in how they choose to portray it further. >> do you think the media is overlooking a lot of substance that goes on around here in favor of the partisan drama or -- >> absolutely. it's far more interesting to focus on some of the partisan drama rather than those efforts that demonstrate that we really are working together. i'll use what senator bingaman and i have managed to build over the past couple of years as we have worked together as a chairman and a ranking member. pretty good relationship. worked to build some pretty good policy. and yet that doesn't generate near the same level of interest as a chairman and a ranking

member that don't seem to get on quite well. what's the story there? that there's tension, there's partisanship? there's a difference in issues? shouldn't the story be that individuals from different parties from different parts of the country can come together to build good policy. i don't think we see near enough of the good news stories that come out of the working relationships that we all worked very hard to build. >> can you give a sense of what your expectations are going forward and what behavior in the state of the union should be for members? and is the speaker, the president, whichever party hold some type of responsibility? normally you talk about partisanship as being -- basically the ideology. are there going to somebody things that the president is going to say that you're going to disagree with? how should members behave and does the president hold some accountability as to the state

of accountability of it. >> when i initially proposed the idea and lisa talked i think we both figured we'd walk down that center aisle and i know i would go sit on the republican side and she'd go sit on the democratic side. and we'd made a statement with our own behavior and actions. i think that's where it starts and ends and that's what the call is. and often if you want to change a culture you look at how institutional structure -- there's an old saying that the function follows form and if we're sitting together mixing like the homeland security committee does under the leadership of senators lieberman and collins where we're sitting like we will tonight, i think that leads to a sense that we're in this together. certainly the president, it's his night and he has the responsibility for the tone he sets. the gentleman asked about the comments about the supreme court last year. maybe that's given with the new tone that we set. but the idea is to build on the

relationships that senator murkowski had and the two congressmen have. >> and republicans will likely, you know, sit quietly whenever they choose to do. or do you have a different expectation with everyone sitting together do you think people will behave together? >> i think you'll see a mix. again, i don't have any said expectation of the behavior of my colleagues. i do think you might see a few more standing ovations that include the whole chamber because sitting together we realize that this -- these are ideas that the president is presenting that have utility for the country. far too often if you'll watch members of congress will actually watch their own leadership to see if they should stand or not. i think this is a perfect example of what true leadership is about. i mean, far should often if you

watch c-span that you see members of congress trying to get their oscar awards. i don't think any member yet has received their oscar awards from c-span. not one. and until we get to the point that we lead as one, one congress, one nation, it's going to take time. it's not going to happen just today. it's going to be day after day after day. i stay off c-span unless there's something real important for my district's sake or to represent someone for my district because there's too much rhetoric going on. way too much rhetoric going on. let's get our business and conduct it the way it should be and we can lead by example, not just by standing up and giving a speech that hopefully some day will get someone an oscar. >> i would like to comment -- i'm the newbie here maybe what

it will orchestra is the true meaning of when you stand for a certain point and we exemplify everything that's said in a speech. it's past that point, the american people want to have some concise language and maybe we'll have a little less standing ovation and really mean it when we actually stand. >> i think the american public november 2nd said focus on the economy, focus on reducing the country's debt and work together, doggone it. i think that's really what they're saying. >> can i ask congressman gosar, speaker boehner dropped your conference on how to behave tonight. did he give you any sort of instructions and maybe for all of you, you know, congresswoman bauchman will give the tea party response. which i think would be quite partisan. i wonder if you have a reaction to that. >> first of all, no special, you know, instructions. we've always been believing that

it's about personal accountability, personal responsibility and you best be on your best behave and i think that's exactly what the american public has asked us to do. >> it's a free country and a free congress. we all have our constituents, yes, sir, back here. >> senator udall there's been some reform packages. is this effort for the acknowledgement that the filibuster is not going to be rolled back as far as some democrats were asking. it's going to be tougher to do that and that you're looking more for the comedy as a way to break down the way the senate -- and i guess i put that question to senator murkowski as well. >> yes. [laughter] >> as i mentioned and senator udall mentioned, i think all of us believe that this is -- that is good first step. i think it's important when you use the word comity which i've

been using. it's important to emphasize correctly the word that we're speaking about. it's comity, not comedy. >> i think we've all -- there's certainly, i think, some general support for ending the practice of secret holds. i think there's general sense that we expedite nominations the executive branch and district court judges and i know the minority has a legitimate case about it being filled and i have a set of proposals that i think would meet some of the concerns of the minority. but this certainly stands on its own, this effort tonight. we hope it will ripple through the way we do our business. >> can you point to any concrete moments or actions that will come out of this? i mean, should this sort of -- should this go out to the chambers on a regular daily basis or should the seating arrangements be changed?

can you give us some -- >> i think senator lieberman and senator collins have instituted something that works well in their committee. i know there are many of us who would like to find a way perhaps for the whole -- the entire senate to lunch together once a month. discuss policy, have a chance to rub shoulders but what we're really trying to do -- not to go back to the good old days and the good old days were not so good but there was more time to interact personally. and the good news you can get home quickly and be available to your constituents. but that demand often means we're here and we work hard and we don't get the chance to know each other personally and what lisa and paul and i see in finding our compressed work weeks to get a little bit better and therefore work better. it works in small communities. it works in families and that really is the intent here. and i was thinking -- america is one big family.

and unlike other families, i should focus on the udall family. there are times when there are people who want to disinherit, disenfranchise members of a family. we can't afford to do that in america. we're all in this one big family. and our prospects are all linked together and the congress reflects that family. >> can you just clarify how many members you think are going to be participating tonight? i think you said you had almost 60 members sign this letter. >> i think you're going to see tens of additional members team up quietly in some cases publicly. >> there was a lot this morning. there were several folks that in the house gym, hey, oh, yeah we're sitting with our delegation. we're trying to sit together. i think you're seeing that throughout the entire house side for sure and i'm sure the senate will be the same way. i'm just trying to figure out how i get closer to the front.

[laughter] >> yeah, for example, the colorado delegation will be sitting together including senator bennett. i have a mystery seat made tonight and stay tuned to who i'm going to sit with. but i think you're going to see the chamber very differently than it has been the years i've been. >> and this is an example of one step toward unity of the congress. and it has -- and, you know, so much of that has is going to have to start with the president. it's going to have to filtrate through the congress but it's also going to have to be up to leadership on both sides. and in both chambers. you know, the whole thing about power and control and power and control is really -- i see the focus as opposed to the focus of the american people. it's not about that rhetoric. it's truly about the progress of this country. >> i do hope we don't -- you all

and those that are covering the president's comments don't spend the whole evening focusing on who's sitting next to who. it's like going to the prom and who's wearing what dress. and to a certain extent it's been a little bit of a dating show, you know, who are you going with? it reminds me a little bit of eighth grade. i got a double date and we'll see how that works out. but i do hope that it's not so much a focus on who is sitting next to who but really allowing those of us that are in the chambers and are focused on the president's words as we should be. it should be the content of this speech. and not necessarily where everybody ends up sitting. so hopefully that will be the general outcome. >> ending on that note, i think that's appropriate. [inaudible conversations]

>> tonight, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span's live coverage begins at 8:00 pm eastern with our preview program followed by the president's speech at 9:00. then the republican response from house budget committee chairman paul ryan of wisconsin. plus your phone calls and reaction live on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. and use our website for enhanced coverage to see tweets from congressional reporters and to add your own. you can also add your own comments to our facebook page while you watch our live streaming video and see reaction from members of congress following the president's address, live on c-span2.

>> while the senate is in recess for their weekly party lunches when they return we expect work on rules governing debate in the 112th congress. we'll have live coverage on c-span2 starting at 2:15 eastern. senators may have remarks as they leave their lunches and if they do, we will bring those remarks live. an update now on a story that we've been following. rahm emanuel, president obama's former chief of staff is running for mayor in chicago and yesterday a lower court ruled that his name could not be on the ballot because he didn't meet residency requirements. well, today the supreme court illinois stayed a lower court if any ballots are printed considering the case those ballots should consider the name of rahm emanuel as a candidate for the city of chicago. we will keep watching this story and give you updates on further developments. the president again is offering -- is giving his second state of the union address tonight at 9:00. here's a preview from today's

"washington journal." >> host: and we're back with major garrett a veteran reporter here in washington. familiar i'm sure to many of you. chief white house correspondent for fox news, a correspondent for cnn covering presidents bush and clinton and now congressional correspondent with "national journal." here is his story this morning with the "national journal" daily. it used to be congress daily. both parties warm up for state of the union. what should viewers be listening for tonight? >> guest: well, i think one way to look at this speech tonight it will be president obama's informal launch of his re-election campaign. this is the most important speech probably the most watched speech with the exception of maybe some external event that we're not anticipating right now that the country will see right now. this is his stage to reset the course of his administration and the way he talks about public policy and these agenda after the midterm elections in which democrats lost control of the house and absorbed significant losses in the united states senate. the president is clearly retooling his team.

he's retool his mental and he's retooling his agenda going forward and what people will hear tonight is the way the president tries to adapt to that new political reality. the neural fact is, though, he passed a tremendous amount of legislation in the 111th congress. some of which republicans would like to get rid of. the president will no, no way give ground on that. so even though much of the tone tonight will be about -- if not reconciliation moving forward and moving together. the hard underlying reality is much of what the president accomplished he's going to defend to the hilt and republicans will try to unravel and that will be a big part of the story after the state of the union. >> host: and the story today that he will move to the center in this speech specifically what words do our viewers need to be listening to indicate he's moving to the senator? >> guest: you know, i hesitate tools try to lead the witness. the american people have always found us enormously adept at

deciding what the rhetoric is that they're looking for and whether or not any president hits the mark. and i'm reminded of a very long address that bill clinton gave during his presidency that received almost universal if not condemnation, criticism among the reporting class and the punishedid class in washington, lo and behold we found out the american people loved that speech. >> host: are you talking about his 1995 speech? >> guest: it went on -- nearly an hour and a half if i recall. many people in washington thought it was far too detailed. that it was a laundry list. that it was an excessive, nearly excessive policy discussion. and so all the wise men and women of this town looked askance at that speech, looked down their nose at it yet the american people responded very favorably to it and remember parts of it and brought it closer to themselves. i'm always hesitant to look for

this and the american people know what they want to hear and know what they're looking for. they also know what happened in the past two years. info state of the union is unhinged from the reality of the president who's giving it. george bush could talk about reconciliation in 2007 and moving the country noting unity of purpose and we all knew the country was divided, iraq, afghanistan, his economic policies so you can say a lot of things and you can build as many rhetorical flourishes if you want but the american people are the ones who will decide. >> here's white house a book written by robert slinger and the president. he had said to his aides my gut is we ought to try to do this in half hour. half hour at tops. no more than a half hour is what he says to his aides the final script 5800 words, his staff figured it would take an hour if

no one applauded once he wade 81 minutes. so how long is too long. >> how long is too long? and by every typical metric of the time it was too long. and i remember being part of the pilyn class in those days. i think i was on the local npr station that very friday. and everyone was just heaping criticism on top of this speech. they wanted to see how a president a moment after defeat. one of the most important parts of being president is not always winning. one of the most important part of the presidency, generally whether you're republican or democrat is how you respond to a defeat. how you respond tooth setback and a national crisis because everyone knows in america that you're not always going to get what you want if you don't get it in your own lives and if you're a president and you don't get what you want, you still to have lead. you have figure out thousand change, adapt and redirect your

political momentum. and so that's one of the reasons people are going to be paying closer attention tonight i would say than they did maybe last year. i would expect the ratings of this would be pretty high and the american people are going to want to take stock of our president. everyone knows he's our president. and he's the one who sets the agenda. congress will respond we know what happened to the midterm elections and how is he going to adapt. >> host: who's writing the president's speech and how much of a role is he take? >> guest: i no longer cover the obama white house but when did john favreau was instrumental in every significant speech the president gave. and i know from talking to john favreau when i covered the white house and understanding as i learned to during the campaign -- i covered the obama campaign for 14 months the president is extremely involved in big set speeches, not every speech but he edits by hand.

because the president, as someone who presents speeches, never really frets about his presentation, he's calm and about the ability to say the words and say them the way he wants to. what he works on and focuses on and what he works on in the last minute is working on it. he knows how to turn a phrase and he takes that part of the speech development process very carefully. >> host: our coverage is today on the state of the union's we'll have live coverage tonight. 8:00 pm eastern time we'll begin with your prespeech coverage taking your comments and your calls and then at 9:00 pm eastern time on c-span and c-span2, we'll be covering the president's address. and then also on c-span, we'll

cover the republican response by paul ryan, a republican in wisconsin and we'll talk more about that as well. on c-span2, we're going to have live reaction from members of congress from statuary hall. fort worth, texas, you're the first phone call. go ahead. philip, are you with us? >> caller: yep. >> host: go ahead, sir. >> caller: well, i was going to tell them i don't think his speech means anything tonight because he keeps saying that he's going to be transparent. and he hadn't been transparent. they've done all their big bills behind closed doors and not where the american public can see things. you know, if he wants everybody to think that he's moving to the center but he's going to stay from the left where he came from and where he's planning on staying? >> host: major garrett? >> guest: that's a classic example phillip has not made up his mind but largely made up his

mind with what happens with his presidency. you won't unhinge or decouple the state of the union address from what you presided over as president and there is no way to look at the last two years and not regard it as a period of active government involvement and the economy, regulation. the president believes those things are necessary. staunchly defends them. achieved more than two years than most presidents have in two years. nearly as much as lyndon johnson, maybe more. and maybe nearly as much as fdr in his first two years and the president believes all that was responding to the magnitude of the crisis. some americans have responded favorably to that most democrats, republicans are not sure. they have clearly pulled back some like republicans like philip were skeptical of president obama come in and watched the past few years and many have realized and still not going to be persuaded by a shifts. >> host: let's hear from linda, you're on the air. >> caller: i didn't want to call

'cause of a cold but i have to say we have to put single payor and the president is doing an awesome job and needs credit. single payor and pass it while we have the senate and the right now. >> host: linda, let me ask you have you ever voted for a republican. we've lost her. universal coverage is something liberal democrats have talked a lot about. >> guest: yes. and if you look at the polling data on the question of repeal, which has been revisited since republicans took control of the house and had the vote last week -- if you unspool some of those numbers, there is a certain percentage, somewhere between 25 sometimes 30% of those who say they would like to repeal are dissatisfied with the law who wanted to go farther. not everyone who falls in the

repeal are dissatisfied category once it removed or shrunk. they wanted it expanded. they want single payor. the president knows that. i will tell linda this will not come as welcome news to you but it is a legislative reality. house republicans are never going to propose pass or even consider for a moment single payer. the democrats don't have that votes to put it across the finish line in the senate and the president could advocate in the next two years and it will go nowhere. single payer for the single or midterm is a nonstarter. >> host: what do they want to hear from the president on the votes they took on that legislation? >> guest: what the democrats want to hear and probably what they will hear is less about health care and more about jobs. the democrats believe that it's largely a settled issue politically and it's quite clearly settled law until republicans are successful by one way or the other changing it. so until that occurs, it's settled law. move on.

implement it. defend it but don't spend a lot of time tonight on health care. i predict the president will say yes, you've taken your vote. it's the law of the land. we fought and argued about this. i believe it's the right thing and the machinery public will implement it better than they thought it would had been but i would say if there's more than 10% of the speech devoted to health care, i will be shot. >> host: major garrett in the latest edition of american journal magazine about health care in the republican side. republicans still haven't found a health care alternative that will make a meaningful dent in the interlocked problems of coverage and cost. you want to read that, if you get the magazine it's the latest edition or go to the website, a "national journal".com. good morning? >> caller: good morning. >> host: you're on the air, sir. >> caller: yes, i am. i understand. my concern is this, until the president has -- >> senators are returning from their weekly party lunches,

remarks now from minority leader mitch mcconnell in the senate in the capitol chamber as they return. this is live c-span coverage on c-span2. >> okay, good afternoon, everyone. we're all looking forward to the state of the union tonight. we all have noticed with great interest that the president seems to be trying to head in a different direction. we hope it's not just a rhetorical shift of the center but an actual shift to the center. i might make just one observation about one thing i hear will be in the speech tonight is a recommendation for a five-year freeze. i would remind you that in the speech last year there was a

recommendation for a three-year freeze. and the problem with that is a freeze is in place an extraordinary increase in spending that's occurred over the last two years. so it strikes most of us that the effort by the house of representatives to get us back to 2008 spending levels would be the direction to go if we really wanted to have an impact on our annual deficit problem. of secondly, i would say even though the president apparently is not going to mention it tonight, i hope he has not ruled out the possibility of doing entitlement reform and i would say again as i have in the past that entitlement reform will be done on a bipartisan basis and we all know we have a crushing, long-term unfunded liability problem in this country that runs the risk of leaving behind for our children and grandchildren a very different country than our parents left behind for us and so i hope that

in the next six to nine months which i think is the period during which we have the greatest potential for bipartisan accomplishment -- we will not waste this opportunity to do something truly significant for the american people. with that, let me turn to senator kyl. >> thank you. regrettably the first order of would be a resolution which senator mccain and i intend to offer commemorating the victims of the shooting in tucson, arizona on january eighth. we will present that and have some debate about that and hopefully vote on that tomorrow. >> president lyndon johnson's press secretary i don't a book called twilight of the presidency in which he defined the job as seeing urgent need, number two, developing a strategy to meet that need and

no. 3 and persuading half the people he's right and if ever president obama had an opportunity to meet that definition tonight and the next few weeks is that because at a time when we're spending -- borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar that we spend, we desperately need for the president to identify the size of the federal debt and overspending is an urgent neat to propose a strategy to meet that need to invite us to join him in the strategy and to persuade at least half of the american people that he's right about it. >> well, state of the union speeches are -- tend to be lots of fanfare and pomp and circumstance and i think what you've heard the leader say is that we want to judge this president not by what he says but by what he does. and if you look at the record in the last couple of years, you've seen spending increase

dramatically. a time when inflation in the officer -- office of the economy in the last two years. and i think that the -- there are lots of areas in which the president and republicans in congress can work together. the leader has mentioned a number of those. but it's going to be the action that follows from this more than what he says this evening. i think it really defines whether we'll make any meaningful progress towards addressing what i think the american people care about the most and that's jobs, spending and debt. those are the three issues that voters have spoken loudly and clearly about. those are the issues on which they want action and we will -- we will be happy to listen to the president this evening but are going to be more interested in what happens in the days and

the weeks and the months ahead. >> for the last two years listening to the president these annual visits he talked about jobs, the economy, the debt and the spending. but yet each year since then we've seen increased spending, increased borrowing and a government growing bigger every day. so i think much more important whom we happen to sit with tonight is what we can do together in the next two years. i had a chance to be in latin american countries with senator mccain. we visited with folks in panama as well as canada. we can work together with the president and certainly a free trade government with colombia as well as south korea are things that we can work on together to help with private sector jobs in this country. i mean, that's what we're trying to do every day. is to make it editors and cheaper for private businesses to create jobs in this country.

>> i'll take a couple of questions if there are any. [inaudible] >> well, i think our goal is going to be to try to reduce -- you're talking about the annual deficit. yeah, our goal is going to try to reduce that as much as we possibly can and i commend the house for the efforts that they're making. and i'm hopeful that there will be a number of democrats in the senate who will be a lot more sensitive to the excessive spending issue than they were in the last congress. i mean, the message from the american people in november was, i think, pretty clear, pretty unambiguous there's been too much spending and too many washington takeovers. [inaudible] >> you're asking me a lot of things that are impossible to predict in advance. what i think i can tell you i

think there needs to be dramatic rubs beginning with the current fiscal year which we are in now. and we will have two opportunities as we all know, both the cr on march the 4th and at some point as the president has asked to us raise the debt ceiling. those two issues are about spending and debt. spending and debt are the too biggest issues other than unemployment in the country and we think we ought to do something significant on both those occasions to address this both short term and long term threat to the future of this country. [inaudible] >> could you tell us did you outline for your caucus proposals related to the filibuster reform changes to rules regarding the secret holds and the like? is your caucus on board? >> i did outline. our goal is to do two things. one is to see if we can find

ways to help the senate function better at a time when we have very serious issues to deal with. and at the same time, protect the senate as a forum that respects minority rights. and schumer and i have been working with senator reed and senator mcconnell and we're making good progress. we don't have an agreement yesterday. we're still having discussions. several of our members and several democratic members still have decisions to make and when we've finished -- >> we'll leave these remarks from senate leaders as the senate is gaveling back in after their party caucuses. on the agenda for the afternoon is work on rules governing debate in the 112th congress. more specifically, debate on the use of the filibuster. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i submitted a resolution on behalf of myself and senator tom udall to amend rule 19 and rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. merkley: mr. president, for purposes of having the resolution go over, under the rule, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the measure will go over under the rule. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ss

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak on the issue of senate rules. i will be joined by a few colleagues in a few minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. the reason i'm rising to talk about rules is that we are at the start of a new two-year period for congress. this is the appropriate time to be considering how well the senate is working and whether we should amend the rules by which

the senate functions. the last major debate over amending the rules was in 1975. the reason that there was a debate that particular year is that in 1973 and 1974 there were 44 filibusters, each eating up about a week of the senate's time. there was a tremendous amount of frustration over the dysfunction of the u.s. senate. so at the start of the congress that began in 1975, there was an enormous amount of debate, debate that went on for weeks, all kinds of motions. the spread sheet tracking them fills pages. in the end what this body, the u.s. senate, decided to do was to change the rule that requires

67 senators to terminate debate and have a final vote on the bill and replace it with a decision to have 60 senators required to end debate and have a final vote on a bill. this is so-called cloture motion. now, we are in a period immediately preceded by the 2009-2010 congress. in 2009 and 2010, we didn't have 44 filibusters. we had 135 filibusters. in other words, the senate has been three times as dysfunctional as it was preceding the last major debate in this chamber over rules. since each filibuster delays the work of the senate for approximately a week under the rules, if you have 135 objections in a two-year period,

that would be 135 weeks of delay in a 104-week period. obviously many things are not going to get done with that type of obstruction. and indeed, during 2010 this chamber was unable to pass a single appropriations bill of the 13 appropriations bills traditionally taken under consideration, debated on this floor and sent forward. and why is that important? because in the appropriations bills, we make decisions about what the most pressing problems in america are and how we're going to allocate resources to address those pressing problems. but we didn't fail to do this in one or two areas. we failed to do it in all 13. furthermore, this body did not pass a budget during the last

year, 2010. this body did not proceed to advise and consent on all the nominations that came before it. in fact, it left over 100 nominations pending. now, this merits a little bit further discussion because under the constitution, it is the senate, this esteemed chamber, that weighs in on the president's nominations to fill key executive branch positions, and it is this chamber that weighs in on the president's recommendations to fill judicial positions to, assign judges. and if we never get to the debate on the floor of the senate, then we haven't fulfilled our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. in fact, we've damaged the judicial branch, and certainly under our theory of balance of powers it was never envisioned that the advise and consent

function of the senate would be used to damage the other branches of government. so we have failed in our responsibility. furthermore we left over 400 house bills lying on the floor, collecting dust, unprocessed, unconsidered. the saying in the house of representatives is the u.s. senate is where good house bills go to die. it is appropriate that as we start a new two-year period, we ask ourselves, how should we address this dysfunction? there was a time in which the senate was called the greatest deliberative body in the world. unfortunately today there is very little deliberation in the u.s. senate. no appropriation bills. nominations unprocessed. hundreds of house bills untouched, a budget incompleted.

the main culprit in this is the filibuster. a filibuster which is kind of street language, if you will, for an objection to the regular order of holding majority vote and triggering a battle week delay in the senate process and it triggers a super majority of 60. it's gotten to the point of this body the as a majority body, a body that would need 51 votes is functionally becoming a super majority body. the framers of the constitution were clear and they laid out a super majority required for purposes, a supermajority required to approve treaties or a supermajority required to impeach, but not to pass legislation. that wasn't the vision. so today i rise to say we can do

better in the u.s. senate and that we owe it, under our constitutional responsibilities to do better. and there are a series of proposals that have been filed. and one of my colleagues has arrived, senator udall, who's been a key leader, enormously instrumental in this effort to reform the senate. so in a few minutes i'm going to -- to ask for unanimous consent for one of these rule changes to be considered on the floor. i'll do that when my colleagues -- colleague from across the aisle has arrived. and i'll go further in discussing how we need to change the senate. but before i go any further, and senator udall, i've already asked for a kol key, so i -- kol kee, so i -- colloquy, i thought i would stop and have you give general thoughts before we go to the unanimous consent that we have to have considered.

mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator in new mexico. mr. udall: thank you -- thank you, madam president. let me, first of all, at the beginning thank two of my colleagues that have worked incredibly hard with me on the issues of senate rules reform, senator merkley from oregon and senator tom harkin from iowa. and i think senator harkin will be joining us at some point here. and -- and -- and i also want to -- to thank the chair. one of the very early leaders on the constitutional option, on senate reform of the rules was senator jeanne shaheen from new hampshire and she -- she's in the chair today and i -- i know she cares about this a lot and i know that -- that she wants to see this moved forward. and what we're trying to do today -- what we're trying to do today is follow what has been

history in the senate. if ever -- and -- and at various points in the senate there's been respect for each other, the ability to get things on the floor, to get debate. and with the rules it's pretty extraordinary when you look at the history. when you look at the history of the senate rules, one of the things that's very clear in the movements in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's to change rules reform, both leaders would allow proposals on to the floor, allow these proposals on to the floor to be voted upon. and we have the extraordinary situation today -- extraordinary where our -- and we'll -- we'll see when our colleagues show up, our friends on the other side of the aisle are basically saying, we don't want your rules reforms on the floor today. we're not going to allow that to happen. as everybody knows in the senate

you got -- you have to have unanimous consent to do this. and -- and we're not going to get consent today, but we want to lay out for people what it is that could happen if we were able to get something on the floor and -- and it's my belief, senator merkley that -- that the proposals that we make, the proposal that you and i are on and the presiding officer, senator shaheen, and 26 other senators are on a proposal senate res. 10 that we filed on jan the 10th. it's a reasonable proposal. it's a commonsense proposal, and the five proposals that are contained in here have substantial bipartisan support in the past. and i -- i -- i'm going to be asking unanimous consent to put senate res. 10 on to the floor so that we can have a debate on it, so that we can move forward,

and -- and the thing that -- as i said that's extraordinary is that we're not going to get that consent. as our research indicates, and i know senator merkley and his staff worked really hard, they had a chart that was three pages long and -- and in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, these proposals were on the floor and they were debated on the floor, sometimes there was a motion to table and sometimes there was an up or down vote, but we're having great difficulty getting this reasonable commonsense proposal on the floor. let me talk a little bit about senate res. 10 which -- which 26 other senators went on on the first day and it -- it's -- first of all, it deals with -- a serious problem. there are five parts to this. the first one is debates on motions to proceed.

it may sound a little crazy to people out there, but when we try to get something on to the floor, it doesn't just happen automatically. actually what has to happen if both sides don't agree, the majority leader files what's called a motion to proceed. and we could end up on the motion to proceed going along for a week have to file cloture, which means to file cutting off debate on the motion to proceed and then with all the ripening time and everything it takes about a week to get through that so you can -- you can get at the end of the week, and if you don't get the 60 votes to cut off debate on the motion to proceed, you're back to square one and you've wasted a week. and that is a -- is what we believe is a dilatory tactic. it doesn't let us get to the point which is the people's business. please, senator merkley. mr. merkley: if i could interrupt for a moment.

i wanted to clarify what you just said is that a supermajority of the senate after a week of debate is required just to get to the point that you might be able to start debate on a bill and the senate wastes weeks and weeks and weeks debating whether to debate rather than doing the people's business, that's a problem. mr. udall: senator merkley, you hit it on the head. that is a problem. and we have had that consistently here in the two years that you and i have been here and my understanding it happened in many of the years before that. in fact, senator byrd -- senator byrd was -- was very, very upset about the way the motion to proceed was being used. in 1979 came down to the floor, he was the majority leader, and he did everything he could to change the -- the motion to proceed and try to make sure that it was used more rationally

and more reasonably. and what our proposal is, senator merkley, and the other senators that are on this knows, we're talk two hours of debate on the motion to proceed. so rather than wasting a week, if majority leader reid comes down and says we're going to proceed to a piece of legislation about jobs and he puts it on the floor, the side over there gets an hour and our side gets an hour and then we're on the piece of legislation ready to have amendments filed, ready for debate to take place. and so we've saved us what we believe would be a -- a week -- a week of time. the second proposal -- that's dealing with the first on the motion to proceed. the second is -- is very, very simple, but it's going to move the senate along in -- in a dramatic way, and that is section 2, eliminating secret holds. and we take an approach here that i know that we have several senators who have worked for

years and years and years on secret holds. when i talk about bipartisan on secret holds, senator grassley, senator wyden, from your great state of oregon, senator claire mccaskill from missouri, more recently, but they've all been working on the issue of secret holds. we do this in one little section, we say that no senator may object on behalf of another senator without disclosing the name of that senator. that gets right to the heart, senator merkley, of the secret holds. mr. merkley: you're telling me it's become a common practice here on the floor of the senate for any individual senator who wants to oppose something to not have the courage to stand here and tell the world their position, but, instead, to secretly object to a particular issue being -- being raised? i -- i can't imagine the american public can believe that senators don't have the courage or convictions to come here and

say i'm going to hold up this piece of legislation because i disagree with it and i'm going to fight it in any way i can so that the public can weigh in on whether or not they agree with them or don't agree. we'll be transparent and accountable to the u.s. citizens. mr. udall: senator merkley, one of the things that happens, and we've seen a lot of this, is where we -- we know that some senator is objecting to, for example, a nomination, a high nomination in a department, an executive department, and, yet, this -- and does it secretly so we don't know here on the senate floor the press that covers this doesn't have an idea, the people don't know, and then the same senator goes to the department and negotiates policy -- national policy about a particular issue that concerns the whole nation, all of our states and tries to get an agreement, a backroom deal and and an agreement. that isn't the way we should be doing business and that's why

this very simple proposal, no senator may object on behalf of another senator without disclosing the name of the senator. you own the hold. senator merkley? mr. merkley: i wanted to note as you observed senator wyden and senator grassley and senator mccaskill have worked hard on a much more detailed version than we have in the senate resolution 10, but the basic notion is the same, if you're going to place a hold, you're going to do so in a public and accountable fashion, and that that would greatly improve the quality of ballot. i've been in the position of trying to get help for the clamoth basin. it took me a lengthy period -- eventually did find out, but it took a long period before i found out who had the hold before i could ask them to release the holds so we'd have a chance to moving that assistance for this drought-impacted

portion of my state. but with this change, senators holding up assistance to clamoth would have to come to the floor and make clear where they stand. mr. udall: and, senator merkley, what ends up happening is then it's transparent. then if you, as a senator from oregon, on the clammoth basin want to do that, can go to that senator and try to work that out. right now the problem that we have is that some senator is putting on a secret hold and we don't know who it is and we don't have the ability to -- to clear that away. and so this is a good, solid proposal. mr. merkley: it's not only secret to the public, it's often secret to fellow senators greatly complicating our effort to dialogue with fellow senators and to explain why we're pushing something or pursuing something and get their partnership in it. mr. udall: that's right.

that's right. now i'm going to move on to the third section of -- of senate res. 10, which is the right to offer amendments. and, as senator merkley knows very well, and our presiding officer, one of the big issues around here, and this is getting into -- a little bit into weeds, but one of the big issues and -- and -- that could help us function better is if we just agreed that -- that whether we're in the majority or in the minority, we -- we want both sides to have the opportunity to debate and to offer amendments. and so we are trying to protect that right. many of us are thinking in terms of these rules, we're saying, we want them to be fair to both sides. and so the provision on right to offer amendments is -- is in the legislation. it talks them being majority and minority amendments. it doesn't talk about parties because we may well, you know, a

lot of pundits are saying that we're going to be in the minority in two years. and i think it's only fair in the united states senate that we have that kind of relationship. senator merkley. mr. merkley: i'd like to note this is important to both the majority and the minority. for example, we recently had a bill on the floor of the senate which was a major bill regarding the compromise struck by president obama with our republican colleagues to spend almost a trillion dollars. i had an amendment that i wanted to present here that would have taken some of the money in that bill that was being spent in a fashion which created very few jobs and spend it in a fashion that would create a lot of jobs, and i had another proposal to take money that wasn't being put to good use and proceed to fill in and support the solvency of social security and medicare. now, people can argue about

whether these were good ideas or not, but if i had been able to offer one or both of those amendments, i think it would improve the debate and dialogue here and perhaps have resulted in a better piece of legislation. mr. udall: senator merkley, the fourth provision -- and i think you're very right on section 3, but the section 4 is the issue of extended debate, and i would like to -- to have you talk about that issue, because that's the issue that you've worked the most closely on. you -- you have raised the issue of what we have going right now is what we call silent debate, it's a silent filibuster. we have people that -- that say they want to filibuster and object, but then they go home or they go on vacation or something like that. and so you have -- you have drafted a provision. you were the architect of this provision in s. res. 10.

could you go through that and just talk about this section on extended debate, what it does and why it's important to -- to what we're dealing with here today? mr. merkley: you bet. this provision about a talking filibuster says rather than having a situation where a senator objects to a majority vote and then we delay the work of the senate for a week but nobody is here explaining their position to the american public, instead we would switch to a provision that says if 41 senators want to continue debate on a bill, we will get continued debate on a bill. we will have debate on a bill, not silent. currently, we have the hidden or the silent filibuster. we would create the public or the talking filibuster. and to give you the sense of numbers on this, these blue bars represent filibusters during the last two-year period. during the first six months, 33. 34 in the second six months.

36 in the third six months. and then 33. i think that's 136 total filibusters in a two-year period. this is why we didn't have any appropriation bills. this is why we didn't have a budget. this is why we didn't deal with hundreds of house bills. this is why we didn't get nominations done and advise and consent on them. now, is this the way the senate has always operated? absolutely not. in the last few decades, there has been a huge change in how the senate has functioned. so let's take a look. this is average per year. in the 1900-1970 period, the average was one filibuster per year, right here. in the 1970's, the average was 16 filibusters per year. in the 1980's, 21 filibusters per year average. 1990's, 36 filibusters per year.

average. 2,000's, 2000-2010, 48 filibusters per year. and in 2009-2010, this last session, an average of 68, or 136 total. so you can see from this chart the growing dysfunction, because there was a social contract that existed in which you as an individual senator didn't exercise your power to object to a simple majority vote unless you thought it was an issue of huge consequence, and maybe you would do that once or twice in a career. not routinely week after week. but as social contract has been eliminated, so the filibuster, which is really the honoring of every senator to be heard, that we weren't going to hold a vote until every senator had had their say so we can be fully informed, have a full dialogue.

it is that reciprocal respect that is being routinely disrespected and abused on the floor of the u.s. senate. now, in our heads, many of us have an image of the filibuster that comes from "mr. smith goes to washington." and here is jimmy stewart playing the character of jefferson smith, and he comes to defend a corrupt action and stop it regarding a camp for children, and he talks through the night and there are many forces assaulting him, but jimmy stewart is going to stay object the senate floor and he is going to tell the american people what he is fighting for and why, and this is a talking filibuster. that you don't object and go away and leave the senate suspended. you don't vote for additional debate and then not have that debate. you come to this floor and you hold the floor and you join with other partners to hold the floor in order to explain why you are holding up the senate and to

carry on the debate, to have that additional debate that you have voted for. so the talking filibuster is almost that simple. replaces a silent filibuster with a talking filibuster. the result is two critical things. first of all, transparency and accountability with the american public. the public can see what you're saying on the floor of the senate and can say you're a hero or you're a bum. they can agree with you, they can disagree, but it's visible, not hidden. the second thing is that each senator has to expend time and energy to carry on a filibuster, so this will strip away all of these frivolous filibusters that are done for no other reason but to prevent the senate from being able to carry on its responsibilities. mr. udall: let me -- let me also say one thing about the talking filibuster that -- that hit me, and that's the -- the

bipartisanship. as we know, both of us i think were here on the floor when senator arlen specter gave his farewell address. i believe the presiding officer was also here. and senator specter served in the minority for two years and then was in the majority for almost two years, and both times he came forward with a proposal he was calling the same thing, talking filibuster. whether he was on the minority side or majority side. so i -- i think once again i just want to demonstrate that each of these provisions in here has bipartisan support, and i believe this debate -- we -- we don't think this debate is about partisanship. we don't think it's about power grabs. we don't think it's about those kinds of things. it's about, as you have i will use dated, it's -- alucidated,

it's about making the senate work better. we're talking about making the senate work better for the american people. i think when we did the oversight of government when it comes to appropriations bills, a budget, getting a budget out on time, getting appropriations bills done on time, that does a lot to make sure the public's money is well spent. that's something i hear about a lot back home. but on -- with regard to a power grab, i -- i had a statement that i wanted to put in the record that -- that shows very dramatically why the constitutional option is not a power grab, and i -- and i would ask unanimous consent to put that statement in the record at this point and also a republican policy committee paper that's titled "the constitutional option, the senate's power to make procedural rules by a

majority vote." it's dated april 25, 2005. i would ask unanimous consent to put both of those in the record because i think they show that this isn't about a power grab, this is about us trying to work to -- to make sure that the senate is going to work better for the american people. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and i would also ask unanimous consent for my law clerk, tim woodbury, to have floor privileges for the duration of this debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: now, the -- the fifth provision of senate res 10 -- and as senator merkley knows, ware down here today to try to get senate res. 10 rules changes onto the floor. we're asking -- we're going to be asking unanimous consent, but the fifth provision is called postcloture debate on nominations, and what are we talking about there? well, when we have a nomination

that comes onto the floor, a judicial nomination, an executive nomination, those kinds of nominations have in the rule 30 thundershowers of postcloture debate, so when you decide to cut off debate, when you get to the point and say we're going to cut off debate, that 30 hours is normally used for amendments, and to work through the amendment process. well, when you have a nomination, you're not amending a nomination. you're -- you're trying to either move forward, up-or-down vote on the nomination, the person is either voted up or down, and so it makes no sense to have 30 hours. so the other commonsense proposal we have in here is -- is to shorten that cloture time to two hours, the postcloture time to two hours from 30 hours. because there is no -- no reason to amend in that phase. and i don't know, senator merkley, you're also familiar with this provision also, i

think. mr. merkley: i think what you have set forward is we would save 28 hours on each nomination, and if the senate goes around the clock, that's a bit more than a day. if we're doing a day -- ten-hour days, then that's almost three days. you save three days of senate time that really is put to no purpose right now since at the time that you have 60-vote cloture, you have already got 60 members saying they're ready to vote, let's go forward. so letting people just wrap up over a couple of hours, restate their key points for other members, a couple hours makes sense, that's why they are there, but rather than two hours and three days. mr. udall: that's -- that's correct. so -- so what we're doing here today -- and senator merkley, i know you have introduced a freestanding proposal on the talking filibuster. we have joined together and i have also signed onto that. we have senate res. 10 which was

filed on january 5 that has these five solid provisions for reforming the rules. i think if you look at these in history, if you look at these in history, they have had broad bipartisan support. i would at this point recognize that our colleague in this rules debate, our partner and hard worker, more senior and experienced on these rules matters has joined us, senator tom harkin from iowa. we're in a colloquy situation. mr. harkin: would you yield for an observation? mr. udall: you bet. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i want to thank my friends, my colleagues, senator udall and senator merkley, for their great relationship on this issue. they have brought a breath of fresh air to the senate in exposing, i think, what has become a gridlock, which has

made the senate almost dysfunctional. and so my friends, senator udall especially, in focusing on what the constitution really says and doesn't say and the fact that i believe -- i am only speaking for myself, i believe that we are not, madam president, living up to the oath that we stood down here by the well and took when we were sworn into the united states senate. we took an oath that we would uphold and defend the constitution and that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. well, quite frankly, the constitution, i believe, is quite clear in the way it's written, in the verbiage that's used, and if we look to what the founders wanted in the constitution, i think it was very clear that but for -- but for a few instances which they ea