proceedings" on and on -- end of quote. in january we provided that we would be in session every three days. the senate was open and provided the opportunity to conduct business. that business included passing legislation and confirming nominations. in fact, the senate did pass legislation which the president signed. according to the constitution, each house, not the president, determines whether the house -- that house is in session. the senate said we were in session. the president recognized that fact by signing legislation passed during one of those sessions. article 1, section 5, also states -- quote -- "-- or partial quote -- "neither house shall during the session of

congress without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days." end of quote. the other body did not consent to our recess for more than three days. no concurrent resolution authorizing a adjournment was passed by both chambers. under the constitution we could not recess for more than three days. we did not do so. the president's erroneous belief that we can determine whether -- that he can determine whether the senate was in session would place us in the position of acting unconstitutionally. if the president is right, we recess for more than three days without the consent of the other body. and, of course, that would be a ridiculous position to take. by claiming that we were in recess, the president effectively dares us to say that we failed to comply with our oath to adhere to the

constitution. yet, it is the president who made appointments without the advice and consent of the senate while the senate was in session. it is the president who violated the constitution. of course the president does not admit that he violated the constitution, for he has obtained a legal opinion from the office of legal counsel at his own department of justice. that opinion reached the incredible conclusion that the president could make these appointments not withstanding our december and january sessions. that opinion is entirely unconvincing. for instance, to reach this conclusion that the senate was not available as a practical matter to give advice and consent, it relies, would you believe it, on such unpersuasive material as statements from individual senators. however, the text of the

constitution is very clear. it allows no room for the department to interpret it in any so-called, quote unquote, practical way that departs from the terms of the constitution. the justice department also misapplied a judiciary committee report from the year 1905 on the subject of recess appointments. that report said that a senate recess occurs when -- quote -- "the senate is not sitting in regular or extraordinary session as a branch of congress or in extraordinary session for the discharge of executive functions when its members owe no duty of attendance, when its chamber is empty, when because of its absence it cannot receive communication from the president or participate as a body in making appointments."

end quote. obviously that report does not support the department of justice. during these days the senate was in fact sitting in session. it could discharge executive functions. the chamber was not empty. it could receive communications. it could participate as a body in making appointments. in fact, it sat in regular session and passed legislation. there was nothing in this 1905 report from the judiciary committee of the senate that justifies the president substituting his judgment for the senate's regarding whether the senate is in session. in any event, a senate judiciary committee report from 1905 does not govern the united states senate in 2012, 107 years later.

the senate as constituted today decides its rules and proceedings. the department is on shaky legal ground when it claims that -- quote -- "whether the house has consented to the senate's just remember the of more than three days does not determine the senate's practical availability during a period of pro forma sessions. and, thus, does not determine the existence of a recess under the recess appointments clause." end of quote from the department's opinion. there is no basis -- none -- for treating the same pro forma sessions differently for the purposes of the two clauses. the department simply cannot shr it both -- cannot have it both ways. yet it tries to. and the justice department's

opinions contain other equally preposterous arguments. for instance, the opinion claims that the administration's prior statement to the supreme court through former solicitor general kagan that recess appointments can be made only if the senate is in recess for more than three days are somehow distinguishable from its current opinion or that the pocket veto cases do not apply. or even if they did, the -- quote, unquote -- fundamental rights of individuals that the courts described in those cases include the right of the president to make recess appointments. now, we all remember that there was a time when the president believed that they could take legal action only when the law gave them the power to do so.

they obtained advice from the justice department on the question of whether there was legal authority to justify the action they wished to take. theodore roosevelt started to change the ways that presidents viewed power. he believed that the president could do anything so long as the constitution did not explicitly preclude him from acting. when he used that theory to create wildlife refuges against a rapidly expanding industrial race, there appeared to be no objection. but without objection, what happened? a dangerous precedent was set when he claimed that he could make recess appointments during a -- quote, unquote -- constructive recess of the senate. the senate rejected this view in

that 1905 report. when a president thinks that he can do anything the constitution does not expressly prohibit, the danger arises that his advisors will feel pressure to say that the constitution does not stand in the way. at that point a president is no longer a constitutional figure with limited powers as our constitutional founders intended. quite to the contrary. the president looks more and more like a king that the constitution was designed to replace. this office of legal counsel opinion reflects the changes that have occurred in the relationship between the justice department and the president on the question of presidential power.

formerly the justice department gave legal advice to the president based upon objective reading of text and judicial opinions. it was not an off shoot of the white house counsel's office. this more objective view of the limits of presidential power also provided a level of protection for individual liberty. the principle at the core of our constitutional separation of powers. the president might refuse to accept the advice. he might choose to fire the officer who gave him advice with which he disagreed. he could seek to appoint a new officer who would provide advice he preferred. but you know what? if he did those things, he risks paying a political price for doing so. an official who thought that loyalty to the constitution

exceeded his loyalty to the president could refuse to comply at great personal risk. that is what elliot richardson did during the saturday night massacre of the watergate era. during the reagan administration, the office of legal counsel issued opinions that concluded that the president lacked the power to undertake certain acts to implement some of his preferred policies. the president did not undertake those unilateral actions. president obama originally submitted the nominee for the office of legal counsel that was wholly objectionable. the senate had good reason to believe that she would not interpret the law without regard to ideology. we refused to confirm her. the president ultimately withdrew her nomination and

nominated instead virginia si sites. we asked important questions at her confirmation hearing. she responded that o.l.c. should adhere to its prior decisions in accordance to the doctrine of stare decisis. and she stated that if the administration contemplated taking action that she believed was unconstitutional, she would not stand idly by. relying on those assurances, the senate confirmed ms. cytes. she is the author of this wholly erroneous opinion that takes an unprecedented view of recess appointments clause. and i suppose it is literally true that ms. cytes did not stand idly by when the administration took on constitutional action. rather, she actively became a

lackey for the administration. she wrote a poorly reasoned opinion that placed loyalty to the president over loyalty to the rule of law. that opinion and her total deviation from the statement she made during her confirmation process shows extreme disrespect for the institution of the senate. but more importantly, for the constitutional separation of powers. i gave the president and ms. cytes the benefit of the doubt in voting to confirm her nomination. however, after reading this misguided and very dangerous legal opinion, i'm sorry the senate confirmed her. this is likely to be the last confirmation that she'll ever experience. mr. president, the constitution outlines various powers that are divided among the different branches of our federal

government. some of these powers are vested in only one branch such as granting pardons and k-bgting -- conducting impeachment proceedings. other powers are shared such as vetoing bills. the appointment power is a shared power between the president and the congress. when one party turns a shared power into a unilateral power, the fabric of the constitution is itself violated and, of course, a response is called for. in federalist 51, madison wrote that the separation of powers is more than a philosophical construct. he wrote that -- quote -- "the separate and distinct exercises of different powers of the constitution is essential to the preservation of liberty."

end of quote. the framers of the constitution wrote a document that originally contained no bill of rights as we know. they ended up being the first ten amendments to the constitution. they believed at that time that liberty would best be protected by preventing government from harming liberty in the first place. that was the reason for the separation of powers. and they designed a working separation of powers through what we learned in school as checks and balances to ensure a limited government that protects individual rights. madison wrote -- quote -- "ambition must be made to counteract ambition. the interest of man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." that is what the framers intended in a case such as this. when the constitution or -- i

mean, when the president unconstitutionally usurp the power of the senate, the senate's ambition would check the president. in this way, the constitution is preserved. the power of the government is limited, and the liberties of the people are protected. but the framers did not anticipate the modern presidency. it took justice jackson's famous concurrence in the youngstown case to address presidential powers in today's world. i was a college student at that particular time. it didn't mean much to me at the time, but it means a lot today what justice jackson said in that court case. when the judiciary committee held its confirmation hearings on president bush's supreme court nominations, my friends on the other side of the aisle posed many questions about the jackson concurrence.

that opinion shed light on the so-called recess appointments. for instance, president obama argued in a nationally televised rally that his actions were justified because -- quote -- "every day that richard -- meaning richard cordray -- waited to be confirmed was another day when millions of americans were left unprotected, and i refuse to take no for an answer." end of quote. justice jackson anticipated these hyperbolic statements. he wrote -- quote -- "-- this is in the youngstown case --" the tendency is strong to emphasize the transient results upon policy and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our republic." end of quote. president obama has definitely

let transient policy goals overtake the constitution. his argument is that the end justifies the means. pretty machiavellian, isn't it? his argument is that he can say no to the constitution or in essence that the constitution does not apply to him. but the constitution demands that the means justifies the end and that adherence to established procedure is the best protection for liberty. a monarch or a king could say no to the constitution, but under our constitution, the president may not. it is the constitution and not the president that refuses to take no for an answer. justice jackson was also aware that the modern president's

action -- quote -- "overshadow any other and that almost alone he fills the public eye and ear ." by virtue of his influence on public opinion, he quote -- "the president exerpts -- exerts a leverage upon those to off balance their power which often cancels effectiveness." some believe that president obama challenged the senate for partisan purposes, but justice jackson understood that the true partisan dynamic that is now playing out. he recognized that the president's powers are political as well as legal. many presidential powers derive from his position as head of the political party, jackson wrote, and i quote jackson." party loyalties and interests are sometimes more binding than law.

extend his effective control into the branches of government other than his own. and he often may win as a political leader what he cannot command under the constitution." end of quote. and so jackson concluded it this way, something we ought to take to heart -- "only congress itself can prevent powers from slipping through its fingers." that's the end of the quote. mr. president, outside these walls in the reception room are portraits of great presidents -- or great senators of the past, in the room right out here. the original portraits were selected by a committee that was headed by senator john f. kennedy. they include webster, clay, calhoun, lafayette and taft. now, these senators were partisans but they were selected

because of the role they played in maintaining the unique institution that is our senate -- meaning the people's senate -- in our constitutional system. in particular, they protected the senate and the country from the excessive claims of presidential power that were made by chief executives of their time. where are such members today? where is a member of the president's party today who is like the most recent senate institutionalist that robert c. byrd was. he defended the powers of the senate when presidents overreached, even presidents of his own party. where are the members who recognize that our sessions every three days rightly prevented president bush from making recess appointments but who stand idly by as president obama makes recess appointments

without a recess? in other words, what's different between the years 2007 and 2008 when we had a republican president and democrats senate? when we did, when we recognized what recess appointments were and the president recognized the same thing, but today 2011 and 2012, things seem to be what different. i remind my colleagues of my experience as chairman or ranking member of the finance committee. i refused to process nominees to positions that pass through that committee to whom president bush gave recess appointments. that is how i use the authority -- used the authority that i had to protect the rights of the senate. i do not believe that we should let the powers vested in elected representatives of the american people slip through our fingers because we place partisan

interests above the constitution. i have shown how the framers understood how supposedly expedient departures from the constitution risk individual liberty. the constitutional text in this situation is very clear. it must be upheld. we must take appropriate action to see that it is done, nor should we wait for the courts. although the nlrb appointments are already the subject of litigation. we should take action ourselves rather than rely upon others. the stakes are too high. on the other hand, own the o.l.c. opinion recognizes the litigation risks to the president. more more than 200 years, president haves made very expansive claims to power under the recess appointment clause. the president and the senate have worked out differences to form a working government.

now this administration seeks to up-end these presidents and that working relationship. it may well find as the bush administration did that when overbroad claims of presidential power find their way to the courts, that not only does the president lose but that the expansive argument of the presidential power that had long been a part of the public discourse can no longer be made. although i believe that this ironic result will ultimately occur here as well, the senate must defend its constitutional roles on its own as intended by the framers of the constitution that we all swore an oath to uphold. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the presiding officer: all time has expired. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

a

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 74, the nays are 16. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. durbin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i won't take ten -- a senator: could i kindly ask the assistant leader if -- the presiding officer: the the senate will come to order. the senate will be in order, please. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i would like to ask the assistant leader, just as a matter of accommodation, i know we have two speakers on the republican side, two speakers on the democratic side. would you be amenable to entering into an order that locking in the order in which people are speaking, go back and forth, or the like? mr. durbin: and if we could have some suggestion about the time for each. i know senator wyden and -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon, please. mr. wyden: mr. president, senats asked for is very reasonable. senator moran and i, who have

teamed up on this question of internet policy, would each like to speak for a few minutes. if we could follow each other. we were planning to be breevment i know the senator from illinois is going to be brief, if that would be acceptable to the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask just whether the senator from illinois would agree that following his comments that i be -- up to ten minutes that i be recognized up to fe fen ten mins and then back and forth? mr. durbin: senator wyden and senator moran had already asked for time. i have asked for three minutes to speak about our colleague, senator kirk. that's all. i want to make a reference to him. i will not speak at length. after they have spoken -- i don't know if you would like to suggest a time. mr. wyden: i think both of us were thinking about five or ten minutes each. we were going to be very brief. mr. durbin: and then of course back to your side. is that fair? quor correspondenmr. cornyn: th.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: we have been gone for six weeks or so. it is great to see our colleagues back here. lot of things have been exchanged about what we did back home. the focal point on the floor this evening has been rightfully about my colleague from illinois, senator mark kirk. most everyone knows that he suffered a stroke over the weekend, and he underwent surgery last night at northwestern hospital in chicago. all i know about this -- virtually all of it -- comes from a press conference that his surgeon gave today in chicago. all of us want to make it clear to mark that he's in our thoughts and our prayers and his family is as well. we all feel to a person that he will make a strong recovery. he is young, he is in good condition, he prides himself on his service in the naval reserve and stays fit to serve our country in that capacity as well as in the united states senate. he has a tough, steep hill ahead

of him, but he i up to the task. and the encouragement from democrats as well as republicans is needed. he has it. i want to let you know that if a word is passed along to him and his recovery that his colleagues in the united states senate were focusing on his quick recovery and are anxious for him to return. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. i think senator durbin speaks for ever member of the senate. such a decent, caring, and thoughtful man, and all of us have so enjoyed working with senator kirk during his time in the senate. we can preallot various kinds of bills -- we can relate various kinds of bills. but, godspeed, senator kirk to a healthy recovery. we are thinking of you tonight and nur our prayers. i'm very glad the senior senator from illinois has reflected the concerns of everybody from his

home state tonight. i want to take a few minutes with senator moran tonight to reflect on the events of the last few days with respect to the internet legislation, and i want to begin by thanking majority leader harry reid for reopening the debate on anticounterfeiting and copyright protection legislation. in pulling the protect i.p. act from the floor, leader reid has given the united states senate an opportunity to get this policy right. the senate now has the opportunity to consult all of the stakeholders, including the millions of internet users who were heard last week. the senate has the opportunity to ensure that those exercising their first amendment rights through the internet, those offering innovative products and services, and those looking for new mediums for sharing and expression have their voices heard.

i also want to express my appreciation to senator moran. he is an impassioned advocate for job creation and innovation on the net. the first on the other side of the aisle to join me in this cause. my colleague, senator cantwell, from washington state, who is knowledgasknowledgeable as anybn public service about technology, and senator rand paul, who is a champion of the internet as a place where those who look at the net as a marketplace of ideas can stand together and approach policy in an innovative way. mr. president, last week tens of millions of americans empowered by the internet effected political comaing here in washington. the congress was on a trajectory to pass legislation that would change the internet as we know it. it would reshape the internet in a way, in my view, that would have been harmful to our

economy, our democracy, and our national security interests. and when americans learned about all this, they said "no." the internet enabled people from all walks of life to learn about the legislation and then take collective action to urge their representatives in washington to stop it. and so everybody asked come wednesday what would happen. and in fact the american people stopped this legislation. their voices counted more than all the political lobbying, more than all of the advertising, more than all of the phone calls that were made by the heads, the executives of the movie studios. their voices were heard loud and clear. last week the congress did what the american people called for instead of what the washington insiders wanted. that's what i call real change. it was a grass roots victory for

the history books. and as one commentator said, now we are in unskphroeurd territory -- unexplored territory. here's why. 8 million of the 162 million that visited wikipedia took action. seven million americans signed google's petition to block considers of pippa. hundreds of thousands of americans called the congress. in all, in just one day more than 15 million americans communicated with the congress and urged it to reject the hollywood proposal to censor and censure the internet. the 15 million americans that took action, who signed the petitions, who provided their e-mail addresses, zip code and a desire to be informed, they are now going to be watching us like never before. the 15 million that looked up and spoke, they're not faceless and they're not anonymous. they are people like francis stewart of maryland, nancy

linton of oregon and debbie hernz from connecticut and john jewette of colorado who gave their names to web sites around the country. they are joined by millions of americans raising concerns for months before last week's web blackout and support the filibuster that i announced here in the united states senate, mr. president, almost a year and a half ago. these 15 million citizen activists were not the only ones saying the protect i.p. act took the wrong approach. "the new york times" and "the los angeles times," the hometown newspapers, mr. president, for the content industry, both wrote editorials saying that the legislation overreached. i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president that copies of those articles be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: while the 15 million are no doubt pleased, as i am, that majority leader reid pulled pippa, they're waiting to

see if we now retrench into the old ways of doing things. the old way where senators go behind closed doors and write legislation with the help of well-heeled lobbyists. the old way that has eroded the trust america has with the congress and the confidence that we are here on their behalf. or will the congress instead construct legislation in a transparent way that responds to our broad collective interests? the american people want just that. and they deserve it. among the lessons we should have learned from the events of the past few weeks is the importance of letting the public in on what we're doing. there are serious unintended consequences when members of congress and staff think they have all the answers and rush to construct and pass legislation. there are clear virtues in prudence, deliberation and even a little humility. i believe that's what our constitutional framers had in

mind for the united states senate. mr. president, i know my colleagues are waiting. i want to close with this. i harbor no doubt, mr. president, that this congress on a bipartisan basis can and should construct legislation to combat international commerce and counterfeit merchandise and content that infringes on copy rights. there is no question that selling fake nikes or movies you don't own is a problem that needs to be addressed. but it can be done in ways that do not threaten speech, that allow for the legitimate sharing of information and protect the architecture and value of the internet. i look forward to working with my colleagues in a broad cross section of stakeholders to do that. i have proposed an alternative with senator moran and senator cantwell here in the senate. chairman issa, congresswoman lofgren have proposed that kind of alternative in the house.

it's called the open act. it is bipartisan. it is bicameral. it would allow us to go after the problem of these rogue foreign web sites while at the same time protecting what we value so greatly about the internet. mr. president, we're going to have more discussions about this legislation and other approaches in the future, but we now have an opportunity to get this right. to a great extent that is possible because of my colleague from kansas who has joined me in this effort, the first on the other side of the aisle to step up and join our efforts. i'm very appreciative of what he has done and look forward to his comments. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. i also thank the senator from texas, senator cornyn, for his courtesies to senator moran and i because of our bipartisan work to make these brief remarks. mr. president, i yield the floor. spoeup the senator from kansas -- the presiding officer: mr. president, kansas. mr. moran: mr. president,

thank you. i appreciate so much the remarks of the senator from oregon, senator wyden. it was a significant moment in my brief time in the united states senate when three months ago senator wyden and i had a conversation here on the senate floor about this legislation, about hipaa and about sopa and about the open internet. it was a moment in which senator wyden found me looking for ways in which i could be engaged in the process of trying to create an environment in which entrepreneurship flourished in the united states. i've been discouraged, disillusioned a bit by the lack of congress and the president's ability to find ways to reduce spending and to balance the budget. and while i don't intend ever to walk away from those important issues, it became clear to me that another way that we can reach a more balanced budget is to have a growing economy. and i started looking at research that would suggest how we get there. and when senator wyden presented this thought to me about engaging on this issue, it was

one that made so much sense to me, and i'm very grateful for the partnership that we have developed. senator wyden and i, as he said, indicated that we intended to speak this evening about our concerns about the protect i.p. act prior to the bill being considered this week on the senate floor. but because of the actions of millions of americans in voicing their concerns about this legislation, we are -- it's no longer necessary for us to throw procedural obstacles in the way of the protect i.p. act, and i appreciate the majority leader withdrawing his plan to hold a vote tomorrow on this legislation. last week's event in which we all received so much input, is a very good reminder of what a powerful tool the internet can be. it was encouraging to see so many americans get involved, particularly young americans, who often choose not to be involved in the process. but they saw something important

to them and they knew exactly how to communicate with elected officials. what became clear last week was that congress, in this issue and its far-reaching implications were not fully yet understood. to take a pause, to take a step back and to reconsider the direction which we were going seemed so appropriate to me. congress has the responsibility to remain engaged and up to speed on all issues, particularly those that so directly impact our economy. it is no easy task, given that technology is constantly evolving, but it's an important task. technology holds incredible promise from strengthening education to delivering health care more efficiently to allowing entrepreneurs to develop products that have yet to be invented. by remaining more engaged, congress will also be better able to enact public policies that encourage americans to innovate, create new products and strengthen the economy. last week's decision to delay consideration of pippa was an

important moment for many innovators and entrepreneurs across america and it was an outcome that my colleagues and i, senator wyden and others, sought to see occur. it's important also not just to entrepreneurs, but to people who are concerned about freedom and about the opportunity to use the internet to communicate, the opportunity for free speech. and certainly we had concerns about national security. my concerns about the protect i.p. act can be summed up like this: certain provisions in this legislation will threaten free speech, innovation, and internet -- i'm sorry -- and our national security. i'm adamantly opposed to legislation that tampers with the internet security, specifically the domain name system. internet engineers have worked for 15 years to develop a way to authenticate the sites we visit to make sure they are secure and to enhance commerce on the internet. at a time when our nation faces

increasing numbers of cyberattacks from abroad, pippa and sopa would create significant security risks and set america back more than a decade. second, both pippa and sopa would create new liabilities because of vague definitions in the bills that would drag companies into unnecessary and prolonged litigation. we don't need more legal battles. congress should not put in place a system that would force law-abiding innovators to utilize their limited resources in the courtroom to defend themselves rather than invest in their companies, develop new products and to hire new workers. america is a country of innovation that was founded on freedom and opportunity, and that's been true since the birth of our nation when entrepreneurs have strengthened our country and its economy by creating new products and sharing them around the world. americans today still want the opportunity to develop new products and to innovate in the marketplace. because of the power of technology, ideas that were once only imaginable have now become

a reality. about a year ago google announce that had it was accepting applications from cities across the united states to deploy one giga bit internet connection, roughly 100 times faster than what most users experience today. last march, much to my delight and the delight of many kansans, google choose kansas city as the nation's first google gigabit city. kansas city was selected from more than 1,100 cities who complied and competed. many people in kansas city, in the kansas city area were soon asking what is actually possible with a gigabit internet connection? what happens when you connect an entire community with a gig gobit connection. an organization called think big partners wanted to know the answer to those questions, so they put together a competition called gigabit challenge. it was a project based on an idea and prediction.

they predicted that when americans are given access to cutting-edge technology, in this case one of the fastest bandwidths in the world, new innovations, new applications and new products will be created. so they challenged entrepreneurs and innovators to come up with products that will leverage this new network capacity and offered significant cash prizes for the three best ideas. the response was overwhelming. 113 ideas were submitted from five continents, seven countries and 22 states. the list was eventually narrowed down to 17 companies who presented last week to a distinguished panel of judges. i had the opportunity to join think big partners in kansas city last week for part of that event and i was impressed, so impressed by what i saw. i congratulate the prize winners tonight who competed. and i congratulate all who kaoeted and brought new ideas -- competed and brought new ideas to the table. the giga bit challenge underscores the fact that

americans want to innovate and congress should encourage innovation rather than create new hurdles for american creators and innovators. one of the most important things congress can do to encourage innovation is to make it easier for entrepreneurs to start a business. last month senator warner and i introduced bipartisan legislation called the start-up act to jump-start the economy through creation and growth of new businesses. data from the kaufman foundation in kansas city shows between 1980 and 2005, nearly all the net jobs that were created in the united states were created by companies less than five years old. in fact, new businesses create about three million jobs each year. the start-up act recognizes the job-creating potential of entrepreneurs and is based upon five progrowth principles. first, the start-up act will reduce the regulatory burden on new businesses and start-ups. new businesses which are almost always small, face a tough challenge complying with the

various rules and regulations that govern business behavior. according to the u.s. small business administration, companies with fewer than 20 employees spend 36% more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. the president and c.e.o. of the national association for the self-employed who endorse the start-up act, said this: the majority of small businesses are enterprises of one to two people. cutting down on some of the unnecessary red tape that new businesses must face means that the owner can spend more time growing their business, hiring employees and helping to turn our nation's economy back around. the start-up act would help address these regulatory burdens faced by new companies. reducing regulatory burdens mean entrepreneurs will have more time and money to invest in their business and to hire more workers. secondly, the start-up act creates tax incentives to help facilitate the financing of new businesses so they can get off the ground and grow more quickly. one of the greatest challenges for start-ups is assessing the

necessary capital to grow their business. the start-up act provides capital gains and income tax incentives to facilitate financing the new business at its critical juncture of firm growth, helping entrepreneurs attract investment and retain greater share of the company's profits will lead to job growth. third, the start-up act recognizes innovation drives the american economy. some of the best minds in the world work and study at american universities. the innovation that occurs on campuses across the nation contribute to the strength and vitality of our economy. to speed up the movement of new technologies to the marketplace where they can propel economic growth, the start-up act uses a portion of existing federal research and development funding to support innovative projects at american universities in order to accelerate and improve the commercialization of cutting-edge technologies developed through faculty research. when more good ideas make their way out of the laboratory and into the marketplace, more businesses and more jobs are created. fourth, the start-up act encourages pro-growth state and

local policies to publications of reports on new business and entrepreneurial environments in states. i'm proud that kansas city leaders recognize the importance of policies that support entrepreneurs. last year, area leaders declared kansas city should be called the america's most entrepreneurial city, given their efforts to encourage entrepreneurship. better policies at the state and local level will create more opportunities for more entrepreneurs to open more businesses and to put more americans to work. and finally, the start-up act will help win the global battle for talent, keeping entrepreneurial-minded and highly skilled workers in the united states. for too long, our nation's immigration policies have turned away american-educated talent and sent highly skilled individuals back to their home country where they compete against america. rather than lose that talent, we need to keep those highly skilled individuals and potential job creators in the united states. our legislation recognizes the job-creating potential of entrepreneurial and highly skilled immigrants and provides

additional opportunities for those who are here legally on a temporary basis to stay if they have the high-tech skills our economy needs or are willing to help and are able to create jobs for americans. highly skilled workers will fuel growth at technology start-ups and entrepreneurial immigrants will employ americans. business and industry leaders across the country are speaking out about the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship. gary shapiro, the president and c.e.o. of the consumer electronics association, said this -- as a country, we must do more to support and foster innovation and entrepreneurialism and the introduction of the start-up act is an important step forward. dr. robert at kinson, the president and founder of the information technology and information -- and innovation foundation echoed those remarks. he said the united states is at risk of losing its economic leadership and vitality and it is essential for policymakers to unite in practical ways to reverse this trend. the start-up act is a

commendable example of what is needed to restore u.s. innovation-based competitiveness. the millions of americans who spoke out last week against a bill that would stifle innovation on the internet understand the importance of this issue, too. fostering innovation and promoting entrepreneurship is not a republican or democrat idea. they are american values. what occurred last week as a reminder to all of us in this senate about the leadership that is necessary -- and again i congratulate senator wyden for providing that leadership and with good leaders in washington, d.c. and with the american people who understand in many instances better than we often do the value of entrepreneurship upon free speech and open internet, great things can once again happen in the united states of america. our economy can flourish and grow. and it's -- it's so important that what occurred this week with the legislation not proceeding sets the stage for greater opportunities for americans across our country to

have a dream, to pursue it, to succeed, to spend their time pursuing that dream, and in achieving their dreams, they have the opportunity to create success for others. i urge my colleagues to work with me, let us work together. our country cannot wait for after another election to get the economy growing again. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to join our colleague from illinois in expressing our concerns about the other -- the junior senator from illinois, senator kirk, who unfortunately suffered a medical incident, has had surgery, is now recovering in chicago. we know once again we're reminded that life is short and

it's fragile, and it could happen to any one of us or our families or anyone that we care about and love. and so i know all of us extend our sympathy and our well wishes to senator kirk as he begins his convalescence and recovery from this -- from his surgery and this medical incident that he's experienced. mr. president, on another note, i'd like to observe that tomorrow night the president of the united states will make his annual state of the union address to congress. this signals, of course, the annual budget and appropriations process, but what hasn't happened -- what has not happened for too long is the senate passing a budget for the federal government. in fact, tomorrow, the same day the president will speak to the nation, it will be the 1000th

day since the budget was passed by the united states senate. that day was april 29, 2009. as the facts would reveal, it's our democratic friends led by the majority leader senator reid who have resisted bringing a budget to the floor for amendment and debate and a vote. i believe with all my heart, mr. president, that this is one of the reasons why the american people hold the congress in such low regard, because we have failed in our most basic responsibilities. now, for more than a thousand days. none of us can imagine a family or a small business operating without a budget. it's just unthinkable. and i suspect there aren't many, if any, small businesses that don't sit down and do the hard work of working out a budget. a budget, after all, is a matter of priorities. as the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, as a former

governor, there is no way a state, a city, a county, a small business or a family can get by without a budget, because it is the discipline that comes with a budget where you decide what is absolutely essential, you decide what you would like to have that you maybe could put off for another day, and it forces you to reach the conclusion in some instances that things you would like to do with simply unaffordable. but unfortunately, the majority leader has simply resisted -- resisted the -- those hard decisions, and that's regrettable. as a member of the budget committee, i was especially disappointed that the budget committee, whose very purpose it is to pass a budget -- debate and pass a budget, didn't even debate one this last year. the majority leader when asked about this in the press said that it would be foolish for the

majority to produce a budget, and i suspect he wanted to protect his democratic members from some tough votes and tough decisions, but that's what we got sent here for is to make hard decisions but important decisions on behalf of our constituents and the american people, even if it -- even if they are tough votes and even if they are unpopular decisions, that's our responsibility. but under the leadership of senator reid, the senate has completely abdicated that responsibility for now for a thousand days. but nothing could be more foolish or foolhardy than refusing to provide the nation's job creators, investors and, yes, the taxpayers with a blueprint for our fiscal future. how is it that the majority can continue to shrink from the most basic responsibilities of government? you know, i'm amazed sometimes, mr. president, people say they want to serve in public office,

they like the prestige, perhaps, the visibility, the power that goes along with it, but yet when it comes to actually discharging their responsibilities and making tough decisions, they say no, no, i don't want to make anybody mad, but that's what we got sent here for, that's our responsibility, and it's plain fact that the american people cannot afford for this body to continue giving just mere lip service to fiscal sanity while seeing our fiscal ship so off keel. it should come as no surprise that during this period of time that we have not had a budget for the federal government, the nation has spent $9.4 trillion. $4.1 trillion has been added to the national debt, if you account for the fact that the president recently asked for another $1.2 trillion in additional borrowing authority. the national debt has grown to more than $15 trillion and is now larger than the whole u.s.

economy, our gross domestic product. government spending has reached a post-world war ii record and now makes up 25% of the economy. that's just government spending alone. the average has been somewhere around 20% of our gross domestic product. now it's up to about 25%. unfortunately, because the economy is so depressed, revenues are around 15%, hits a 10% annual budget deficit, which as it accumulates adds to our national debt. and as we all know, our nation has lost its aaa credit rating from standard and poor's, casting further doubt about the solvency of the united states government and our commitment to pay our debts. all three major rating agencies have assigned a negative outlook, something short of a downgrade, but they have issued a warning to those who lend money to the united states -- to the united states government that they have a negative outlook on the nation's long-term rating. this is a signal, too, that

future downgrades are more likely in the near future. and you know what happens, mr. president, when the rating agencies downgrade our debt, it's more expensive for the federal government to borrow money. indeed, i have read that it's over -- over a ten-year period of time, a 1% increase in the cost of paying china or somebody to buy our debt in terms of a return on that investment, a 1% increase over ten years is roughly $1.3 trillion. so even if we were to cut $1.3 trillion, just suffering a 1% increase in the cost of persuading somebody to buy our debt would negate and wipe out any savings by a cut. i fear that the -- that the failure to pass a budget is simply a recipe for more debt and more out-of-control spending. while the majority has abdicated its responsibility to pass a budget as required by law and

even refused to bring it to the floor, the house has acted responsibly and has passed its own budget. but instead of offering their own blueprint in the senate, the majority leader and the matter party have simply demagogued the house budget. we have seen that from the president of the united states. and ultimately, senator reid brought the house budget up for a vote on the floor, knowing it would fail because it actually reduced spending. it continued much-needed tax relief and have put the government on a diet, something the federal government sorely needs. the senate also had an opportunity to finally vote on the budget submitted by the president last year. now, this was something that was prompted by action of senator mcconnell, the republican leader, because our friends across the aisle didn't apparently even want to vote on the president's own proposed budget. but while there was support for the house budget, not one

senator on either side of the aisle supported the president's budget. it went down 97-0, which was quite a remarkable vote. even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle realize that the budget submitted by the president was an irresponsible budget, one that would increase taxes, increase spending and increase debt. mr. president, we know that higher debt leads to slower economic growth. economic studies have shown that high levels of government debt inhibit economic growth by creating economic uncertainty about the economy, about tax increases, and it actually crowds out or displaces investment in the private sector. and slower economic growth means fewer jobs. according to christina roemer, former chair of the white house council of economic advisors, a 1% change in gross domestic product growth is equivalent to

one million jobs a year. i would recall, mr. president, back when the administration proposed its stimulus to try to get the economy moving again, $787 billion plus interest to roughly a trillion dollars, they projected growth of the economy during 2011-2012 to be roughly 4.3% of gross domestic product, a 4.3% growth. unfortunately, in the third quarter of 2010, which is the last quarter for which numbers are available o'the economy grew at a rate of 1.8%. not 4.3% but 1.8%. so the warning sound has clearly been heard. the fiscal tsunami that many budget experts have predicted could suddenly arise is fast approaching. it's a challenge that faces the country today, not tomorrow, and we need solutions today, but it takes leadership and it takes

courage. all we have to do is look across the atlantic ocean and watch many of our european friends, what they are going through today, to see what happens when government spending and debt are allowed to grow unchecked. when governments and nation's live beyond their means and continue to rack up debt, passing it on to their children and grandchildren. at some point the creditors of that nation, the holders of that sovereign debt lose confidence in the ability of those nations to actually pay it back. and we see the kind of sovereign debt crisis like we're seeing in europe today. all of these challenges require presidential leadership. but i'm confident we won't hear the president talking about these issues tomorrow. the president has had multiple opportunities to embrace bipartisan fiscal overhaul plans such as the one produced by his own bipartisan debt commission, the simpson-bowles commission.

unfortunately, the president has chosen to ignore the work of his own debt commission. over the past few years we've noted an explosion in the number of federal regulations which have further created uncertainty in the economy and caused the entrepreneurs and job creators to sit on the sidelines not knowing what the cost is going to be of their doing business, whether their business model will actually work or whether in addition to taxes, regulation, and the cost of health care, whether they can actually break even much less make a profit. well, it's no coincidence because of the higher debt, runaway regulations and the threat of higher taxes that we've experienced the weakest economic recovery since world war ii leaving millions of americans without jobs. my constituents, all 25 million of them in texas, and everyone in america, deserves better.

and they are telling us in unequivocal terms that they think the country ising on the right -- on the wrong track. how could they possibly believe otherwise? my constituents understand that when washington borrows 40 cents out of every dollar it spends and knows the national debt is a job-killing economic liability for the country, how would they say the country is on the right track when clearly it's not? every man, woman, and child in my state and across the country owes roughly $49,000 in debt, and that's increased by almost 40% since president obama took office in 2009. the unemployment rate in texas while thankfully, gratefully is lower than the national rate, it consistently remains above what it was since the last time the senate passed a budget. the unemployment rate in texas is 20% higher than it was when the administration told texans that its stimulus plan would

make sure the national rate would not go above 8%. well, if you even -- if you go back and look at the projections they said it wouldn't go above 8% and by the first quarter of 2012 it would be 6%. clearly they were off the mark and the stimulus failed to meet the administration's own stated goals. my constituents also believe with some justification, that the national debt is a national security risk. admiral mike mullen, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said that the debt is the single biggest threat to our national security. when he said that, that struck me as unusual to have here the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff saying that it is our financial condition that is our national threat. national security threat. but when you think about it, if america can't pay our debt back, if we experience a sovereign debt crisis, if the

interest demanded by our creditors goes through the roof as we've seen for itial bonds and other bonds over in europe, it means we won't have the money to pay not only for the safety net programs that are important for the most vulnerable of americans, and keep our commitments for social security and medicare, it means we won't be able to protect the national security of the united states, which is the number-one responsibility of the federal government. secretary of state hillary clinton has said the debt -- quote -- "undermines our capacity to work in our own interest and also sends a message of weakness internationally." my constituents know that successful deficit reduction measures must rely on spending cuts, not tax increases, and the economic growth is one of the main goals. right now, if we don't act before the end of the year, due to expiring tax provisions we'll

see the single highest single tax bill in american history, almost $5 trillion more by some estimates. for example the state and local sales tax deduction, my state doesn't have an income tax, and income taxes are deductible under federal tax law but state taxes, sales taxes are not right now, but for the provision that will expire by the end of the year. this is an important issue to my constituents and a matter of fundamental fairness. in 2009, 2.1 million taxpayers in texas claimed almost $4 billion in deductions and according to comptroller susan car bombs, extending the sales tax deduction will benefit millions of texans who work hard to keep our nation's economy vibrant. i'm proud, mr. president, that my state has been really a beacon from the economic

standpoint of opportunity where people have voted with their feet and they've moved from places where they don't have jobs and don't have opportunities to places like texas where they do. and it's no coincidence that as a result of the most recent reapportionment texas got four new congressional seats primarily because people move to where the opportunity is. it makes perfect sense. why would we want to do anything that would threaten the economy of texas or any other state in the union, for that matter? we foe the president will give another speech to the american people tomorrow night and send his budget as required by law to congress early next month. at this time the american people will be able to see for themselves if we have a leader that possesses audacity to bring us together, to right the ship, or one who will lead us down a path that's brought the economies of europe to the brink of economic disaster at a permanent lower standard of living. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask to speak as if in morning business for two minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, we're about to pass unanimously a bridge that a st. croix bridge bill, something we've been working on very hard. the two senators from minnesota, myself, senator franken and senator johnson as well as senator kohl to get through the united states senate. this bridge bill allows a bridge to move forward that has been awaiting being built for 30 years. it is a bridge that exists now, that is a beautiful bridge, but it is falling apart, pieces of the bridge is falling into the st. croix river. it is a bridge that is expected to take 18,000 cars a day, and the department of transportation of the state of minnesota believes very strongly that we need a new bridge. what this legislation does is allows the bridge to move

forward. i appreciate all the help from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. they have helped me to work on this legislation over the last few months, senator coburn had some changes at the end, and we worked with every single senator to get this done. the bill now moves to the house where it also enjoys bipartisan support, and both governors of both states support this bill. and they will then be allowed to build the bridge that they want to build. there has been questions raised about whether this creates some kind of a press kent precedent under the scenic rivers act. it's taken a year to pass this. we're in a situation where any new bridge would need an exemption to the scenic rivers act. we're pleased this bill is getting passed today. i don't think we could have done this unanimously after 30 years of work but tonight we're getting it done. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the government and

homeland affairs committee be discharged from consideration of h.r. 3237 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: an act to amend the soar act by clarifying the scope of coverage of the act. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider with no intervening action or debate and any statements placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 264, s. -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. discharged from the health committee, rather than homeland. mr. durbin: i'd like to amend my earlier remarks to reflect the

health committee rather than homeland. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: calendar number 264, s. 1134. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 264, s. 1134, a bill to authorize the st. croix river crossing project with appropriate mitigation measures to promote river values. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent any reported amendment for the, that the klobuchar, johnson of wisconsin, franken amendment be dproopt, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements related to the bill be placed in the report at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h. con. res. 96

which is received from the house and is at the desk and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the desk as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate adjourns today, it pete, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day. following any leader remarks the senate in morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees the first 30 behind controlled by the majority leader, and 12:30 the senate be in recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meeting. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: if there is no further business to come before

the senate i ask that it adjourn. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. [applause] tuesday night president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern including the president's speech, republican response by indiana governor mitch daniels and your phonecalls him a live on c-span and c-span radio.

.. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the white house for your daily briefing. before i get started i just wanted to let you know the president earlier today called

mark kelly to express his appreciation to congressmen giffords and thank them both for their patriotism and dedication to the united states. as the president said yesterday in the statement congress when deferreds embodies the very best of what public service should be. she is admired for qualities that transcend party or ideologies and dedication to fairness, willingness to listen to different ideas and a tireless commitment to the work of protecting the union and thanks me for her remarkable service. on the call the president earlier today that is the call the president discussed mark kelly has been invited to attend the state of the union and he very much looks forward to having mr. kelly there. separately something is happening at thought you might be interested in. i mentioned i'm not going to get into specific policy proposals

by prefer the you hear them first from the president when he gives his state of the union address tomorrow tomorrow morning at eastern standard time the speech in kansas last month that the central mission that we had as a country and his focus as president. building a country and an economy where we reward hard work and responsibility, where everyone does their fair share and every one is held accountable for what they do. the president will build all of the themes of that speech and the state of the union likely not a blueprint for america built to last and will be supported by the four pillars american manufacturing, american energy, skills for american workers and american values. the president looks very much forward to the opportunity to speak to the american people tomorrow evening to give them -- to provide to the american people a vision for where we

need to go, how we should get there as a country, working together to build a stronger economy, more secure union, and i hope that as many americans as possible to get vantage of this opportunity to hear what he has to say tomorrow night and i am sure that we will have more to talk about in the aftermath. as you know he will be traveling three days after the state of the union where he will be speaking specifically about the first three pillars american manufacturing, american energy and the skills for american workers, the four pillars as a sort of overlay of the other three. with that i will go to the associated press. >> can you give a sense of for the president is in the drafting speech? how many drafts has he gone through the formal process and that kind of thing? >> there is a draft that i read

through this morning and it's not the first and there won't be the last time sure. the president has been working very closely with his speech writer and others on his policy teams to refine it and get it ready for tomorrow evening and i sure that process will continue today and tomorrow. i don't have a number of draft for you but he thinks it is an important speech and he looks forward to giving it. spaight in the context of this year what kind of coordination goes on with the reelection campaign in terms of the themes the messaging will delve into that kind of thing? >> this is a state of the union the president is giving. we obviously, the themes of this speech that i just discussed reflect not just the speech he

gave an kansas, but in many ways the principles that president obama has brought to public service since he began his career in public service. so, it wouldn't take much to understand where he's coming from and where he believes the country will go, and i am sure the campaign is focused on this idea. the trips he's making, the three day trip he will be making after the speech these are official events to further elucidate and add detail to the proposals he will make tomorrow evening and. one option the president knows for washington for congress and for him is to wait until the election results our differences

he rejects that option and believes while there will certainly be disagreements and issues to debate in the election, that election is nearly ten months away and we cannot afford to waste those ten months on campaigning alone. there are things we must do to clear the economy, create jobs, and sure that everyone gets a fair shot and that everyone is held accountable for what they do. if we all play by the same rules then we all get a hit together. >> the housing draft to bring to the major banks and states over the foreclosure practices and one of the of shots of this is it tended to be modified loans for the foreclosure.

just wondering if you have any reaction to that and if that is the kind of development that you think claims to you. >> i don't have any reaction to that report. the president as you know is focus on the issue of housing does have a profound impact on our economy and the president has worked since he took office to help alleviate the damage in the bubble has caused to our economy and help homeowners to refinance their homes for example to get for parents in order to stay in their homes but i don't have a specific correlation to meet between that report and the state of the union address. >> i want to ask a question about iran. they put out a statement a little while ago about the sanctions. but in reaction to those

sanctions which at one politician in iran regrouping to be careening the threats and that factor they backed off that threat days ago. i'm wondering what your assessment of the situation is now and are you concerned about the rhetoric heating up again? >> welcome your site in one report from one politician inslee understand. what i can tell you is the uss abraham lincoln transnet without incidents, without incident rather as a part of a regularly scheduled movement undertaking accordance with our long standing commitment in the security and stability of the region holding iran accountable to ensuring that iran

understands to abide by its international obligations with regards to its nuclear program and if it were due to the to make that decision would be welcomed back in the international community. but if it does not and this far it has not to face ever more strict sanctions including the ones that you noted at the beginning of your question this process will continue to intensify so that iran understands the pressure will not let up and the isolation will not stop until they decide to make the right choice, which is to abide by their commitments internationally and to come clean if you will of the nuclear aspirations. >> back on the state of the union i just wanted to ask

generally, i know you don't want to talk specifics, but what approaches the president taking in general to the state of the union? some states of the union or a laundry list and others are emblematic. it seems this one is a schematic. how would you describe the general approach and then also, it sounds like obviously the main message is going to be about the economy. but, each will he vote to foreign policy? >> well it is a great question because i think that you will notice in the state of the union address tomorrow evening similarities to the previous state of the union addresses that this president has given and the ones that his predecessors have given. there's a tradition to the format that has led to a format has almost always included both a broad vision and specific

ideas about where we can take the country, things that the administration can do working with congress or working without congress to advance policy objectives, and you are right that the economy is the principal theme but it is not believe subject of the address. part of giving the state of the union address is to assess the state of the union of our country, and certainly foreign policy national security come these are important elements of any assessment of the state of the union and the president will offer his insight into that as well. >> can you give an insight into what the president is thinking about how he wants to adopt with regards to converse? i know you had conversations about thereof however surreal he wants to come off and how much he wants to leave the door open.

i just wonder if you can talk at all about where the president's thinking is on that. >> look, he wants to get things done, and he believes that in spite of the fact it is an election year that there are opportunities here to work with congress and for him to fulfil its responsibility working with his executive authority and with the power of the presidency to get those done that matter to the american people. he rejects the idea that nothing can get done in an election year because actually there is historic precedents that proves otherwise and it's just not in his nature. so he will very much call for action and a very much suggest that we can't wait for another year to take some of these important steps and that opportunities are right there for us to take for congress and for the president to move forward if there is a willingness to come together and

do that. and so, i think the president will be very clear about the decision and will be very clear about the principles about the idea that i just laid out and in broad form about fair play and people getting a fair shot. economic security and debt in the middle class. but there is ample room within those boundaries for bipartisan cooperation and getting things done and he will make that clear. >> have they decide on the -- >> for the most part. >> there's the discussion of the tone he wants to adopt has to deal mainly with wording or is he thinking that -- >> i think there isn't a debate about the tone he is going to adopt. it's been reflected in but i just described to you and what you've heard from the president not just over the past several months but over the entirety of

his career. of the specific policy ideas and decisions are made about what to include and what to include but he knows what he's about and how she wants to present this picture of the state of the union and his vision going forward and there is no debate about that. >> has the president reviewed the state for what proposals he's made that has come to fruition? >> i don't know that he's done that in this specific process. he's very aware of the proposals that he has made and finishes that he's launched as president and the ideas that he put forward as a candidate. they wouldn't take only this

opportunity to review where that stands and to decide what requires further action and what new ideas to move on so i guess the answer is i don't know specifically that he individually has made that assessment. i think that is an assessment that he needs and others meet regularly with regards to reviewing previous stints of the union and the speech writers have done that but i don't know that he has. >> a member of the items that he brought up last year haven't come to fruition and i wonder if he plans on reintroducing them and discussing them again and why it's been so unsuccessful. well i take strong issue with the suggestion that what others have described as historic accomplishments in the first three years of office are unsuccessful. >> i think that any state of the

union address the plight of an agenda has to be in a vicious debate too ambitious and if you got through a year and achieved everything on your list you probably didn't aim haughty enough. so i think this president james haughey and there are very absolutely things that remain undone that need to be done that he will call on all of us to work together to get done in this address and beyond. but there is also a fairly comprehensive list of proposals that have been achieved but i'm sure will be discussing as the year goes on. >> a year ago in addition to the state of the union to the address in tucson after the shooting of deferreds and six others, the president called for the new tone and the facility and looking back at what has been the jury contentious year

if he feels that there's anything he could have done differently i a understand these issues with the opposing party but if there's anything that he himself feels he could have done differently. >> differently in what sense? >> to live up to the words to call for the unity come to call for not demonizing his opponents. >> well i haven't had this discussion with him in the frame that you just provided but i think that having worked with him through this past year his efforts to reach out and achieve bipartisanship are pretty notable and you'll have reported on them. he did that from the beginning of 2011 with the agreement that averted the government shut down with his approach to the deficit and debt reduction in which he

led his party forward to try to achieve the grand bargain compromise that would have been a challenge for democrats to accept, but he was absolutely willing to lead on that and unfortunately did not have a partner on the of republican side to achieve that grand bargaining. but he remains committed to that kind of bipartisan cooperation committed to the idea that we can disagree but we can't on specific issues that there is still so much we could agree on if we put a country ahead of the party if we put the american people ahead of narrow -- narrowly focused political roles. and, you know, he works on that and they will continue to do that as president.

>> to follow-up on matt. the white house view about the disappointment of not coming to the agreement on the subject as you well know, and my question is do you think that the tone of in the tucson speech that you speak about facility in your agreement without anger and the sort of plays in does he believe the last year has been marked by a poisonous tone or has there been any improvement? >> i think that he accepts that there is still a regrettable level of sort of piper partisanship in washington that contributes significantly to gridlock. i think that -- there have been instances in the past year where

the tone got in the way of moving forward. the -- that's not an excuse to stop trying to work together or achieve significant accomplishments for the american people. and his central proposal if you will in the discussions with the speaker of the house and the grand bargain negotiations was that this -- if we do this, we will both come under pressure within our own parties put together we will have accomplished something significant that will be worth doing, will be have worth doing and that was the approach he took a net and he still believes

that there is an opportunity to move ahead to do big things in a bipartisan way. so, i don't know how last year compares with previous years generally speaking as the president, as a candidate noted in 2008 the tone of our politics has gotten an necessarily partisan and in a way that turns off the american people and makes it harder to get things done. >> what were you thinking when you said that there were instances where the tone got in the way of moving forward? >> wallen not going to -- i think you guys reported on them, so you know i can remember early in my days spending an awful lot of time answering questions about the president's birth certificate which seemed like a gratuitous least two big sideshow at a time when we had enormously important things to

do. that's just one. but the point is our challenges are too big to get dragged down by these kind of things and that's what the president believes and what he is believed and spoken about since he got in the business of electoral politics and it's going to be but he continues to talk about tomorrow night and beyond. yes? speed in the president's address, will he be equally ambitious as he was in 2011 realizing that a lot of what was out there really won't get done? >> he will be ambitious. i will leave it to you to judge. estimate use it for realizing that there are a lot of what -- >> yes, any president, and i think that you could make this assessment of most modern

president's state of the union addresses such an agenda that is ambitious and should be. and that sometimes not everything even in the years of relative harmony, not all of it necessarily will be accomplished , but that doesn't make it -- you shouldn't trim your sales because of that. the president will put forward an agenda that he believes is doable but is obviously ambitious and, you know, he will call on congress on the things that require legislative action and cooperation between the administration and congress to work with them to work together to get these things done. and, you know, as we talked about in the past, perhaps there will be an assessment by members of the congress, republicans in particular, that it is an their interest to do this not just because it's good policy and good for the country and for the economy and job creation but also because it might actually help them get reelected in the

fall because unfortunately we heard recently coming out of the house republican caucus that the agenda is not as outlined by the leadership taking them in the direction of cooperation. but when you have 85% disapproval, you might think the cooperation in getting something done is a better approach especially within the election year upon us. >> what will be the balance between those things that the president does on his own and those things that will require congressional -- is it have your -- >> some of one and of the other. >> i will let you guys. for what this period where we have focused some attention on the measures that the president can and has been taking because

we can't wait for congress to act, we have absolutely acknowledged that some very big things can't be done without congressional action and because it requires legislation and some things a president can do using his or her executive authority are relatively small in the nature, but that doesn't make them not with doing. a truly big things whether it's historic health care reform or passing the recovery act that halted an economy and free fall in reverse the process that is leading toward the great depression the requires legislative action and other victims require legislative action. comprehensive immigration reform requires legislative action. a lot to be done that requires the cooperation of congress. there will be plenty of that in this presidency address.

estimate the president watched the health care we can. >> i haven't discussed with him the results as of carolina primary. so i just don't know. again, i -- my guess is he read about them and didn't want them, but i don't have a reaction for you on that and i don't have anything on joe's death either. >> you mentioned comprehensive immigration reform. does the president believes in comprehensive tax reform? >> yes. as he said many times. corporate and individual. does he believe in there should be changes in campaign planning? >> i will ask you to wait until

the speech. our position on the citizens united decision has been well described. but i don't have any new proposals or ideas to give to you today. >> sometimes the laundry list is used in the pejorative sense in the state of the union. is the president's state of the union going to include a long list of policy proposals or would you describe this more as a framework of the specifics to be laid out in the future? >> there will be policy proposals as well as within the context of a framework. some of the things that he discusses and i think this is usually the case in a well conceived state of the union address which i believe and hope that you will agree with me that this is. that there will be more details forthcoming because you don't want to test the american people's patients too much about the policy details, but he will go into some detail.

there will be other details forthcoming with regard to some of the policy ideas he puts forth but it will be a substantive speech. >> in this did of the union he is making it an election year but pushing back the political speech. but if it's not political, one vandals the president choose to offer a preview for his campaign? >> well he did that last year house well. this white house, this administration, this president has from the beginning used new media to reach out to americans and supporters. whether it is a political year or not. but the, you know, last year was an off year and he did this and the fact of the matters tomorrow night he speaks to the nation at large and the things he discussed in the video will be discussed in the speech, and it is very much -- every major

organization got it, too. and currently, so i wouldn't say it was the borders only. >> this is a process that we even played for a long time here the speech tomorrow, you will probably come back and ask why so heavy on substance and lacking in politics. but it's a serious speech with serious proposals how to keep the country moving in the right direction to the estimate to talk about the values. can i get you to respond as mitt romney to says the president wants to put the free trials and divide the politics. >> i will simply say as the president has made clear when he has addressed these broad issues, to things, on the free enterprise in business, the

facts contrary to what some charge are that this president has actually put in fewer new regulations than his republican predecessor at this point at less cost and more economic benefit. he instituted a look back that is unprecedented and has hit administration coming through the regulations of the past eliminating those that are no longer worth and forcing and rewriting those that can be made more efficient for american business to grow. this president's absolute faith and commitment to free enterprise system is profound. the the disagreement with some republicans also depending on the survey, not rank-and-file republicans that the tax system needs to be fixed don't pay a lower rate than the working

class middle class americans that the president believes. we have important responsibilities as a country on the commitments we need to keep to our national security to educating our kids to investing in innovation that it costs something to maintaining social security and medicaid for our seniors. those are strong, the national security is strong so we can continue to be the great nation that dominates the 21st century economically the way that it dominates the 20th. and in doing that, we need to decide what is the best way to pay it forward. what is the fair way to do it? and the president seems it isn't fair. inherently not fair that those who are millionaires and billionaires pay at a lower rate than the average americans who were struggling to get by especially after a decade with a middle class squeeze while the top 1% has seen its will to grow

considerably and a three decade pogo where the middle class has been under pressure. remember, not just going to kansas but going back years this theme about economic and security middle class that has got this president in the politics, so this is foundational belief for him and he's happy to have the debate and he thinks that overwhelmingly the american people share his view that we need to have everybody play by the same rules whether this will st. orman street and a tax system that ensures everyone pays their fair share. >> to mention the 85% disapproval. it shows the theory and a dismal state right now. there is a poll saying that there's 83% for the american

people. i guess as we were talking about equality in this country has been a foundational principal but some that also a way for you to shift the conversation about inequality in the economy rather than just a broad set of the economy where the american people are frustrated with it? >> i think that we will be absolutely talking about the state of the economy beginning with the president but all of us, and and it's an absolute fact when the president took office the economy is plodding, job losses through the roof and since his policies to affect the opportunity to be passed by conagra's and take effect. the reverse has happened. 3.2 million sector jobs created over 22 months. economic steady growth.

and the industry got the automobile industry and the historical care reform that already has millions of americans at age 26 getting insurance when they otherwise might not have. already has millions of americans protected by the provisions in it that allow them to get insurance if they have pre-existing conditions, allows already has reduced provided a savings in the millions and millions of dollars for seniors in terms of their preventive care and prescription drug so we will have that discussion, no doubt and the president's record demonstrates his commitment to the middle class to getting this country back on the right track to ensure that the kind of behaviors in the financial sector that helps precipitate

the kind of an economic crisis that none of us have ever experienced before that puts so much pressure on american families around the country is contained in a regulated in a way that ensures it won't happen again. we will have that debate bloodily. >> a wonder if you can clear something up. new gingrich keep saying the division comes from salles berlinski organizer. i haven't heard you ask. i wonder is there some sort of a portrait of him in the white house? or is this just some bs basically? [laughter] >> have i said how much fun i have covering from 1996 to 1998? there was a certain fondness to it at the time a lot of things to cover. the president's background as a

community organizer is the ultimate in the president's book. so, it is an experience in that field contributed to who he is today, but his experience is a bold base that includes a lot of other areas in his life, so i will just leave it at that. the vice president was on the radio this morning and was asked about the open marriage question and he said he was going to first comment and then he did. [laughter] then he said that gingrich is going to be judgment by the voters in a primary and to the that includes everything. i mean, people make judgments about our character. you were asked deciding on thursday or friday you rascal out his character and said you

didn't want to get into it. does this mean that the white house believes -- it is fair game. >> why citizen is up to the voters to decide and voters' decisions based on a variety of criteria and different voters have different criteria that they use when they are making judgments about for whom they will cast their ballots. and we will leave that up to the voters and there is a to tell the -- to tell the that the books and studies show that some voters make judgments based on character but you have to define the character means for you as a voter. so i think the president's approach and vice president's approach is to work as hard as they can on behalf of the american people on the issues that they believe are most important to the american people, and to be judged accordingly by the voters when that time comes. you know, how the republican primary process sorts itself out is fascinating, no doubt, but it

is a process we don't have any involvement in and we are just watching from the sidelines and when the nominee emerges the president will engage in that debate, and i assure the vice president will engage in a debate at the appropriate time with whoever the vice presidential running mate is, but again i did what we are trying to stress here is why all that profit is taking place as it should, we have the opportunity here to actually move an agenda for word now in the year 2012 that can help the american economy and help the american people back the foreclosure said that it's run its course and hit bottom and they went after them about that. the vice president was quoted as saying let the bottom fallout and then start to clean up. they are right this is the quickest way to do it and then you went on to say that you have

to be compassionate to can't kick people out in the street a delineation from what he thinks republicans have said in fairness. however, he did say that you have to let it hit bottom. >> first of all you read portions of an interview i haven't even read yet. i think based on what you have red, you know, he's giving an assessment of what one of the republican candidates said and sort of explaining it more fully and then also explaining broadly the approach we take is that there are a lot of americans out there who have underwater mortgages whom we have tried to offer relief in a responsible way, and that is the approach we think is necessary because we need -- we are in this together. we need to load the economy in a way that helps as many people as possible. that is the approach we take. >> the new yorker story today

about the memo a couple of questions. he writes that the obama administration at one point shifted from honest budgeting to accepting the gimmickry and he notes specifically a change in the figures for disaster relief, and he also notes that the health care bill, the savings that could be had in the health care bill he indicates the president signed off on perhaps using budget gimmickry to make it look like we are saving more than we are. >> i assume that's a question, but first of all, it's a very long article. i haven't gotten through it to be quite honest. the portion that i see portrayed in that based on the article that i've read so far is one of the enormous calamity that the president and his team faced as they were coming into office in early 2008 and 2009 and the

monumental decisions the president had to make at the time. specifically because the fact on the issue of health care reform savings i would point you to the nonpartisan cbo which absolutely concluded that the affordable care act is a deficit reducer rather substantial deficit reducer. so, that's a fact. and look, i think the president's economic team, economic teams have been focused on getting the policy right on making extremely difficult judgments especially two years ago during and three years ago during extremely difficult economic times, and going back to the answer i gave to ed but

the record be judged for its results, and i think that while we have a long way to go in this economy there is no arguing the fact that the direction we've been going in since the president's policies have had a chance to take effect is a heckuva lot better. it's much more the right direction compared to the direction that we are going in when he took office. i think that is indisputable. >> is the budget to be released on february 6? >> i don't know. i will have to get back to you. i don't have a release date for you. sorry. >> do you know if he's been in touch with center kirk's family or office? >> i don't know that. i saw that report before i cannot and we are obviously concerned about his condition, but wish him a speedy recovery. i just don't have any more details on that or how much outreach has taken place from here at this point.

>> and in another long state of the union issue as you may have heard, senator rand paul had in incident today at the airport with the tsa. his father issued a statement saying the police stayed in this country is going out of control and one of the embodiments of this is the tsa. >> when and irregularities found during the screening process it may be resolved prior to a lot when a passenger, any passenger to proceed to the secure area at the airport. passengers who refuse to pass the process cannot be granted access to the secure area to ensure the safety of others traveling. the passenger was not detained. the passenger triggered during a routine airport screening but refused to complete the screening process to resolve the issue. passengers as in this case who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area. in this case the passenger was escorted out of the area by local law enforcement. it's my understanding he is now

revoked and passed through security without incident and that is resolved itself. for the record -- i'd think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary action to ensure that the air travel is safe and that is what tsa is tasked with doing. i don't have a specific response to that statement. i would refer you to tsa for more. >> you announce to the top of the briefing they would be coming to the state of the union. can you announce any other guest that will be there? >> i don't have any other announcements to make at this point on the guests in the box. >> some of the reporters have characterized this state of the union of only as the president fleeing out his vision for 2012 but also the next four years. is that a fair way to characterize this? >> well, if in the direction and

the vision the president will decide tomorrow is not limited to the calendar year 2012. it's going back to my earlier answer filled with ideas that he hopes will be acted on in this calendar year, some he can do himself or his administration can do and others he hopes will be acted on with congress. but the broad vision is about the direction he believes we need to move this country and that is a project that lasts longer than a year. it's a project that already he has been engaged in for three years and he hopes to be engaged in for another five. this is a product that i think he has said will outlast even to terms in the oval office. as we continue to build and

strengthen and renew the american economy and a 21st century. but he believes that this is a pivotal moment in the that the actions that we were able to take in the early months after the economic calamity that be felt the country in 2008 were vital to putting the economy on the right track and that there is more we must do in order to ensure that we have a foundation to our economy that allows security for the middle class. it allows american manufacturing to blossom so that good will pay and jobs are created here in the united states, and that allows us to pay the necessary attention and make necessary investments in our education system so that we continue to have the best educated and most skilled work force in the world. >> steve, last one.

>> how is the president's support for the right of progress in the middle east and why the message on the arabs bring with the decision to allow the president to secure the demonstrators to come to new york for medical treatment. >> well, those are two separate things. the support for the right of protest is unchanged, and the fact of the matter is, as you know, the request to travel to the u.s. for medical treatment has been approved, and the purpose of the trouble was formidable treatment. and we expect he will stay for a limited time that corresponds to the duration of the treatment. at the same time we believe that his absence at this critical juncture will help facilitate the transition that completes the end of his rule and ultimately has a positive effect on the rights and dignity of the people. our policy focus remains on preventing further instability

and keeping that tradition on track. >> the conditions lining up not just the medical. >> he has been granted a visa to the country solely for medical treatment. his absence from yemen we hope will help facilitate the transition but the would be true of his absence no matter where he went. the fact is he has been granted the visa to this country for medical treatment. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] mr. speaker, the president of the united states. [cheering]

tuesday night president obama delivers the seed of the union address live at 8 p.m. eastern including the president's speech, republican response by indiana governor mitch daniels and your phone calls to rely on c-span and c-span radio. on c-span2 watch the president's speech along with tweets from members of congress and after the address more reaction from house members and senators. throughout the night go online for life video and add your comments using facebook and twitter at c-span.org. america's best days and democracy's best days lie ahead. we are a powerful force for good. with faith and courage we can perform great views and take freedom's next step, and we will. we will carry on the tradition of a good and worthy people who've brought light where there was darkness, want where there was kohl, medicine where there

was disease, food where there was hundred and peace where there was only bloodshed. let us be sure that those who come after would say of us in our time we do everything that could be done. we finished the race, we kept them free, we kept the faith. he underwent surgery today and his doctor at northwestern memorial hospital in chicago said the stroke will probably leave him with permanent physical damage to the several senators spoke about it on the senate floor today. here is a statement from the majority leader harry reid followed by the minority leader mitch mcconnell i was saddenedhy

to hear more kirk suffered a stroke of the weekend he hadsely surgery this morning.e i follow as closely as i have beenhe able to.rk here silook forward to his returnings to his work in the senate as soon as thoughtful.hill winston churchill said and i quote courage is what it takes to stand up and speak courage ia what it takes to sit down andhes listen each of my colleaguesicay here in the senate regardless of the political party has occurred to stand up and speak in defense of his or her principles. t we find the courage and faith to listen and cooperate as well.,

the founders when drafting the constitution created a divided government. that's what they did with this legislature that day envisioned. they also look to see the robust debate on important issues. i don't believe they envision lt the gridlock that ground, chris worked recalled last year. and by these teen party voices. republicans force us to waste on routine legislation and nearly shut down the government holdita hostage fteull faith and crediti i remind my colleagues not every discussion every matter that we deal with should collapse into a fight we don't have to fight about everything.e every piece of legislation wetle consider should not result in ae political battle.and rublica

that's why this year democrats and republicans must sit at the common ground we find that groun common ground and work on that common ground that we'veon t discovered. we shall be able to agree on this. converse must do whatever itn takes to help create jobs andmot strengthen our economy. take democrats believe it will take the common sense policies tots o protect middle class and smart s investment to rebuild the roadss bridges, schools, water systems, sewer systems we must combat the ercome inequality now or thegeth rich will keep getting richerhi and the poor getting poorer fic. while the middle class disappears. that is fact. i watched on public television just within the past week or sob ay wonderful piece by billi wasd moyers's journal. i was so impressed with that that i called and spoke to himel afterwards and i am not in the habit of calling people like

but over c the years we've spoku a couple of times three or fourr been here. the reason i was so impressed with what i he said it remindedd i think of what a lot of people should be reminded. he talked about going to a public elementary school.. he talked about going to aed une public high school. a state-supported university. and during all of this time of i coming to the libraries, publics libraries we have to understandf mr. president, the governmente t has been so helpful to most ofth it and we can't turn away fromwh the institutions of government which had been so important over the years. so i repeat we must combat the income inequality and combat itg now. ric or the rich will keep getting m richer, the poor getting poorere and the middle class being thatn squeezed all the more. i repeat that isn't fiction it is fact. so democrats will continue to

fend working for the americans coming and we hope republicansbi but if they allow that he party to turn every issue into an all al-nothi or nothing battle, we can't back down and shouldn't back down and we are always sided with the middle class.epubli we saw the realcan results tha e brinksmanship and i was on a --t well i will talk about the tv wh show belli was -- as soon as wes the press gallery as i was questioned to and i complemented publicly my republican some colleagues senator mcconnell. senator mcconnell and by made an arrangement here to completeby this legislation. and he stuck by that. i know he had tremendous pressure. and i want to really cannot all the pressure that het did havehe

but i add my ury and appreciate. what he did in sticking with what the senate did. so, mr. president, we have been refusing to give up on the tax cut for hard working families. and it turned out really well because the members of congress came to the realization that the american people said they hike. couldn't afford the thousand dollar tax hike putting money back in the pockets of thedn't e 160 million american workers shouldn't have been sofight in t difficult, shouldn't have been d fight in the first place.e. i hope we all learned a lesson from this. it's time for us to stopight abo fighting,ut i repeat, mr. president, we don't have to fight about everything. there comes a time, at that timn is we need to have the courage to stand and fight for things thats this year will beag just as and important we need to sit down and listen rather than stand up and fight. we need to sit down and listen

more often.e >> mr. president, let me start f on the sort of sober note saying we are all thinking of our rindd colleague reminded how fragile g life is then that there are far. more important things in life fy than politics. shall we send him our prayers and wishes for a speedy recoverb i would like to begin theous the obvious. the jobs crisis we are in continues for millions of the americans. many millions more are worried about the future and republicani are quite eager to work with thr democratic majority in the senate to jump-start our economs and said the nation on a different course than the one we have been on the last few years. let's be clear the reason our or

economy has gotten worse and our future more on certain has nothing to do with red some republicans in congress want toe at some point in the future and everything to do with what this president has already done.on americans are looking for an entirely new direction.my one that focuses on growing of the economy, not growing the nation's debt to the cadet.ls we're happy to work with the majority in the senate to achieve these goals but based or some of the new stories i've read over the larst few weeks, . doesn't appear that they are all thatea interested. it based on what i have read, it ie appears democratic leaders right here i together with the white house td mapped out a plan tot of actually guarantee gridlock for the rest of the year. now this is a sort of cynical strategy when you think aboutcas that.

work, the average length of unemployment as the longest it has ever been. w hundreds of thousands of hav americans who had a job when of this president took office have simply dropped out of the work force.on demt ington democrat sit o plan for this year is to sit onn other guy.tainly i certainly hope this is a overz couple of overzealous staffers r edying this.ecid i of our space friends haven't o really decided that this is how they plan to spend the rest ofo this year. i hope they haven't given up on governing in favor of the campaigning and complaining facn because tomorrow to cement to can't wait to read democrats int congress can't simply throwing n the towel because they are no ty longer are getting everything i, they want. i mean, the fact ishey mr. president, democrats got years everything they wanted for two years, for two years after thiss ecesident was elected. d the american people decided to

impose a little balance and thel november 2010 election. and demc and they're still waiting forss this white house and democratict different approach. so it's about time we got presiden started. oba president obama's three-year thr experiment with the big economy government has made our economyu worse.ertain. and our future are uncertain. americans want a government that is simpler, streamlined, andve secure. thing we want people to achieve thisve if they refuse to try. if they decide to spend the next year on shatowboats andon t legislation that's designed for theha bus tour and bill signings on the one issue facing the country is jobs. is to the number one goal of make republicans in 2012 is to for continue to make it easier forl jerican small business to create jobs. we will accomplish this by focusing on three things. a fundamental tax reform reform,

regulatory reform and energy wel security. fai est we will surely fail if thess democratic majority in the senate refuses to help.ma so republicans will continue to make the case for policies that will spark an economic revival and create new opportunities fow struggling americans. dem and we hope the democrats will join us. tell us tomorrow the president will come to the capitol and tell us whatr he thinks about the state of our and to outline his plans for the future. we welcome him.o his we look forward to his address. we stand ready to work with himt as always on the agenda that will get our nation moving again. not an agenda to divided, not ae repackaging of the sameas ideas that have made our economy worse and our future more uncertainat but a truly bipartisan agenda that gets us on the pastirmishes skirmishes and onto a different