today. it's a budget resolution without a budget number. now, we've heard a lot of talk about what happened last year. what this budget resolution relates to is 2011. in fact, this body voted last year on a budget enforcement act, i have it right here in my hand, and it set budget ceiling, it had a real number. some people voted for , some people voted against it, but this body did what it always does when it makes decisions of this magnitude, we took accountability for it. now you have a resolution that violates the pledge of transparency, because it doesn't have a single number on it, and it violates the pledge of accountability because you're asking every other member of this body to contract out his or her vote to one person. now, i he great respect for the chairman of the budget committee and i too congratulate him on being selected to give the response to the state ofhe union address. this isn't about a particular

individual, it's about all of us taking responsibility for a major decision and what this resolution does is contract out that responsibility, it doesn't have a number, we don't know if it's going to be $100 billion, we don't know if it's going to be $40 billion, we don't know if it's going to be the number that the republican study conference wants, which the majority leader said good things about. we don't know. what we do know is this, that . . now to put this country on a fiscally sustainable path and we should do that by working together. they also said another thing, that deep immediate cuts beyond what had been put in place and recommended by the fiscal commission would hurt the economy when it's in a very fragile state and risk throwing more americans out of work. that would be a terrible mistake

and yet our lleagues want us to make a decision to vote on this without telling us what the number is. so when we ask what the number was, they said, we're waiting for the congressional budget office. when will the congressiol budget office have its numbers? tomorrow. 24 hours from now. then we can do the right thing, we can see what the cuts will be and we can make a decision as a body, taking responsibility for this decision. why is it we're not waiting 24 hours? it's pretty obvious. a little later today the president of the united states will be here to deliver the state of the union address and instead of being serious about this number, they want to deliver a press release. that is what this is about without a number. otherwise we would wake wait 24 hours and our friends could tell white house that number would be. you're asking this body to buy a pig in a poke and the reason it is so serious is that -- if i could have an additional 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: and my friend from massachusetts talked about this earlier, whether it's $100 billion or $80 billion or $20 billion, those all have consequences because on the other side of the aisle when we say, well, are you going to be cutting research to find cures and treatments for cancer or diabetes? no, we're not going to cut that. are you going to cut the f.b.i. agents involved in antiterrorism efforts? no, we would never want to cut that. . theagnitude and the negative impact will be determined by what, the number in this bill, a number we don't vote on that you're giving the chairman of the budget committee the sole authority to pk out of a hat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. plo mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend. unfortunately the gun by -- begun by generating the debate to the sky is falling mentality, we're going to be scutting n.i.h. funding, gutting f.b.i.

agents. we're beginning the process of putting our fiscal house in order. both my terms used the term "press release." this will be a statement from the united states house of representatives that we are today, before the president at 9:00 this evening stands here in this chamber and delivers his state of the union message, that we are committed ourselves to reduce the level of spending. with that i'd be happy to yield four minutes at this point -- i will in just a momt. i will in just a moment but at this point i'd like to yield four minutes to my good friend and classmate, the distinguish new chair of the committee on appropriations, the gentleman from somersot, connecticut, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: thank you for our service to our country over the time we've served together, classmates of 1980, we were a part of the reagan crop. madam speaker, this is the first step in the effort to reduce

screng to fiscal 08 levels or low and show the american people that we are serious about reducing the out-of-control government spending that's hampering our economic growth. now, the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle clains he doesn't see a number. he had a chance last year along with his colleagues in the majority then at that time, to pass a budget resolution with specific numbers in it and refused. and has refused until they lost control of the house. the number will be coming in due course of time. the message from the american people is crystal clear in the last election they want government to spend less, stop undue interference in american lives and businesses, and take

action to create jobs and get our economy moving once again. to do this, we must dramatically cut the massive spending that has dominated discretionary budgets in the past yes. in order to put our economy on the fast track to recovery, we have to shorten the reach of uncle sam, cut up his credit cards and allow american businesses the opportunity to grow and ploy people and make the economy grow. starting with a continuing resolution, the c.r., my committee will begin to make the largest series of spending cuts in history, madam speaker. members and staff are working diligently on this a we speak. going line by line to find specific areas and programs to cut. we hope and expect this legislation will soon be brought to the floor in a fair, open,

and transparent manner giving all members from both sides of the aisle the opportunity for amendments. let there be no mistake -- the cuts that are coming will not be easy to make. they will not represent low-hanging fruits. these cuts will go deep and wide and will hit virtually every agency and every congressional district in the country, includingy own. every dollar that we cut will have a constituency, an industry, an association, individual citizens who will disagree, and every dollar that we don't cut will also be put into question. but the fact remains thate are in a national fiscal crisis. we must get our budgets, both discretionary and mandatory, undecontrol. to this end, my committee will put forward appropriations bills

this year tha will fulfl our pledge to cut spending to the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels of 2008. and this will be the beginning, not the end, of the effort. i've issued instructions to all 12 of our subcommittees to conduct strenuous oversight, including investigations and hundreds of hearings to weed out duplicative, wasteful, and unnecessary spending and prior ties federal programs so that we can make the most out of every precious tax dollar. madam speaker, it's clear that cutting spending will require toughness and resolve. this will not be easy. it will not be quick. and it won't be without pain. but the success of our economy and future prosperity depend on it. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i have great respect for the

chairman of the appropriations committee and i appreciat the fact we're going to have to make tough choices, but he as well failed to tell was the number . or what those tough choices are going to be. are we going to cut medical research? food safety? job training programs? lie liheap, what -- mr. dreier will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. mcgovern: members on both sides of the aisle deserve to know what the number is so we can figure out what the pain is going to be. for the life of me, i can't understand and i don't think the american people can understand why members of this house will not be given an opportunity to vote on that number. we ought to have that right. i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: we just heard there was no ceiling for 2011 in place. i'm going to make a copy and ask the pages to distribute this. this is the budget enforcement act for last year for scal year 2011 and there you have the

budget ceilings. what you're proposing is a pie of paper that doesn't contain any of the numbers in it and i would just ask the chairman of the rules committee this -- during the hearing he said we're going to wait for could be,, c.b.o. tomorrow will have you a number for us? mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: my time has expire mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield to me to respond the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from calornia is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield 10 seconds. mr. dreier: ihank the gentleman for yielding. clearly the budget that expired the end of the congress, we know that very well and look forward to numbers coming out from both your new committee, the budget committee and the appropriations committee. mr. mcgovern: 24 hours. will you have a number tomorrow?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, with that i'm very happy to yield one minute to my good friend from the harrison township of michigan, ms. miller. the speakepro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for one minute. ms. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, this past election was certainly a historic pivot for our nation. the american people demanded both the president of the united states as well as the congress chart a w course. because they understand that the growth of federal spending that we have seen the last several years is completely unsustainable. they understand that this crushing burden, this debt we are selfishly placing on our children and our grandchildren is limiting their opportunities and they also understand very clearly that this irresponsible, out-of-control federal spending is limiting our ability for job creation and for economic growth. today this rolution clearly speaks to the house republicans' pledge to america by demonstrating our commitment to reduce spending, to

pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels to a level of 2008. many would say this doesn't go far enough and that debate will continue this year as we debate the c.r., the budget resolution and the vote for raising the debt ceiling. today i would urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution and let the american people know that we heard them loud and clear in november. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i think what the american people are interested in is serious legislating and serious discussion about how to get this budget under control and not political posturing. at this point i yield two minutes to the gentlemanrom new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: i thank the gentleman for yielding. all those who care for and think about the 15 million unemployed people in this country on sbothe sides of the aisle want the congress to work together to

help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for americans. but the new majority right out of the gate has ignored that obligation. the first week they ignored the deficit. and passed a set of rules that says they can pretend it doesn't exist when they want to do something. then they increased the deficit by repealing the health care bill, the congressional budget office says that adds $230 billion over 10 years to the deficit, more than a trillion dollars over 20 years. this week theyre hiding the deficit. they brought to the floor a bill that once the american people -- wants the american people to guess what the numbers will be under which we'll live in the future. this is not the way to create jobs, either generally or specifically. here's one fact the members ought to take into consideration. last year the departments subject to a 25% spending cut under this bill made a million contracts with small businesses

that gave $60 billion worth of wo to caterers, electricians, other small businesses. what will happen to the jobs created by those small businesses if this 25% cut goes through? i say 25% cut advisedly because i do think we want to take one more attempt at finding out and i would yield to the chairman o the rules committee, will the spending bill that eventually getsere cut by 25% the 2006 levels or 22% the 2008 levels and i would yield to anyone on the other side who can answer th question for us. what will the number be in the bill that eventually gets here? mr. dreier: i'm sorry, i was talking to mr. mulvaney. if the gentleman was yielding to me, i apologize and ask him to repeat the question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: yield the gentleman an additional one minute.

mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. to the gentleman, the question that i asked, will the bill that eventually has numbers in it have a 25% cut by going back to 2006 or 22% by going back to 2008? mr. dreier: if the gentleman will yield, i'm happy to answer my friend by saying the house will work its will. it's one of the things speaker boehner has made very clear -- mr. andrews: reclaiming mytime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reclaims his time. mr. andrews: i would askhat the bill that the leadership brings to the floor will ask for, a 25% cut that goes back to 2006 or a 22% back to 2008? mr. dreier: i thank the gentleman for yielding. speaker boner, who is the leader of this house both republicans and democrats alike and obviously the leader of republicans said this morning in a meeting as he said repeatedly the house is going to work its will. we'll do something that hasn't been done especially on the appropriations process in the last two years.

we're going to have aate to allow the majority of this institution to determine what those numbers are. i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. andrews: that sounds awful familiar. we were promised an open process on health care, it was a closed process on this bill, that sounds like a promise we've heard before that hasn't been honored thus far in this congress. i would urge a no vote. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say as we talk about an open process, my rules committee colleagues know for the first time in four long years the rules committee reported out a modified open rule that will allow a free flowing dete tomorroon this house floor. i should say, madam speaker, that h.res. 38 is literally one sentence which says that this institution is committed to getting our level of spending to 2008 levels or less, or less,

madam speaker. i think it's important for to us note that and we have the chairman of the budget committee as i started to say in response to my intend, the appropriations committee chairman and we are determined to get a process. with that i'm happy to yield two minutes to my new you new friend from south carolina from indian hills, south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: thank you. i rise in favor of the resolution. i'm just happy to be able to have this debate this year. i can tell you, madam speaker, that we were campaigning last year during 2010 as freshmen, we never expected to have the ability to come into this chamber this year and talk about the f.y. 2011 spending. we thought that that would be done long before we had gotten here. i thank my colleagues from across the way for failing to pass a budget last year so we have the opportunity to have this debate with this new congress. for me, and i know, madam speaker, for many of my colleagues, the key language in thisesolution is 2008 levels

or less. it's that "or less" that i think has a lot of the attention of the freshmen. in a world where discretionary spending is up 8 in the last two years, in a world where we borrowed $3 trillion in the last two fo two years, where we borrowed more money in one day, borrowed more money on june 30 of 2010 than we borrowed in all of 2006, in that world those two words "or less" are what speak to me an and so many members of the freshman class. i thank the rules committee and especially the chairman for making sure that language is in there and look forward to exploring that when this bill comes to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanyields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i enjoyed the pretty much speaker. i would simply say what is the problem with telling us what the number is and what you're going to cut? the number is important because that does determine what you're going to cut. it determines what the allocations will be to the veterans' affairs appropriations committees. and they have realonsequences and the notion that we're doing

something bold by coming up with this arbitrary statement that 2008 or less levels are going to be to without any detail or numbers, without anything of anything, this is political posturing at its worst. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this destructive resolution. thamerican people have charged us with creating jobs and strengthening our economy. my colleagues in the majority appear more focused on getting in a good sound bite before tonight's state of the union. procedurally this resolution empowers a single person to decree the entire nation's budget for the rest of the year. no hearings, no markups, no votes. and this plan is nothing more than a gimmick that will destroy jobs. for example, referring --

reverting to 2008 budget levels will cut more than $17illion from the national health service corps. this program trains and employs health care providers, all while caring for millions of americans . moreover it will cut both nurse faculty loan programs and nurse training programs by nearly 70%. these cuts will decimate our health care work force now and long into the future. madam speaker, in 2008 over 27,000 qualified applicants to our nation's nursing schools were turned away because we didn't have enough faculty to train them. countless others couldn't even afford to go. this budgetless resolution will do nothing more than exacerbate a real growing problem. members from both sides of the aisle know that we desperately need to increase our health care work force, not cut it. instead of cutting jobs we should be creating them. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this budgetless

resolution. and i yield back the balance of my time. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself to say to my friend from santa barbara that creating jobs and gelting our economy back on track is what this resolution is all about. we all know that on the sidelines, all across this country, and around the world, there is capital, there are resources that are waiting to be invested and once we get our economy, our fiscal house in orr, the signal that that sends the job creators out there is a very important one. with that i'm happy to yield one minute to my friend from richmond, virginia, the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from california, the chairman of the rules coittee. madam speaker, november 2 marked the culmination of a long, arduous and ultimately clarifying debate over the kind of role government should play in the economy. by overwhelming margin voters rejected an approach that spends money we don't have and

concentrates too much control and power in washington. instead they voted for a better way. republicans are determined to deliver results by instilling a culture of opportunity, responsibility and sucss. madam speaker, our majority is dedicated tout and growth. cut spending and job-destroying regulations, grow private sector jobs in the economy. today we have the opportunity to take a significant step toward repairing america's deteriorating fiscal condition. this resolution directs the budget committee chairman to spending levels so we return nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels or below. ifou think the government didn't spend enough money in 2008, then oppose this resolution. go on record for more spending, more borrowing and more debt.

but, madam speaker, if you believe we are spending too much money, then i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. it represents a clean break with the past and an end to the unchecked growth of federal spending and government and it is worthy of our support. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'm still waiting to hear the number and how much we're going to cut. i'm waiting to see this transparency and accountability. i'd likeo yield twminutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: the house remains committed -- committed to fiscal responsibility. we have two major concerns at this point that should be stated as we consider this resolution at the outset of the 112th congress. first, we must recognize that the highest priority at this point is to get our economy moving again, supportin initiatives that help create jobs and that continue to bring

us out of the recession. our economy is still fragile and although unemployment is heading downward, it remains too high. in this regard i believe we must be concerned about a per sip tus and substantial drop in spending if it's going to result in increasing unemployment and increasing the deficit. it's going to have exactly the opposite effect of what is intended on the republican side. it would truly be counterproductive if we added to the ranks of the unemployed workers in america, reducing revenues coming into the treasury and requiring additional expenditures for unemployment insurance. and welfare. and, second, the resolution we are considering today specifically exempts defense. the largest element of our federal budget. even though i have always supported a strong national defense, i cannot imagine why we would hold the pentagon harmless the attempt to achieve greater fiscal accountability.

even the republican majority leader this week agreed that defense spending should be on the table. and secretary gates himself has proposed a sies of reasonable reductions that could be accomplished in his department's budget. in f.y. 2011 bill, the defense appropriations subcommittee which i had chaired with mr. young of florida, adopted last july, we includ a reduction of $7 billion from the obama budget request and the senate appropriation committee had a similar number. i think we could even do more than that and i was glad to see that mr. boehner, mr. cantor and others have all said that defense should be part of the solution. i think we could cut up to $13 billion out of the defense budget without doing any damage to the national security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my very good friend from seattle that i'm in complete agreementith the notion of ensuring that we focus time, energy and effort on pearing back waste, fraud and

abuse, especially within the pentagon. we all know that it's there and i'm glad that my friend from wofter raised that issue in his opening remarks. he somehow was arguing that we have left it sank sant -- sack row sant. we don't. as my friend knows, in his great position on the appropriations committee -- i'mappy to yield my fend 15 seconds, madam speaker. mr. dicks: i ought to say, we ought to do it now. this gives us a bargaining chip with the president and with the senate. we can make some reductions in defense. mr. dreier: if i can reclaim my time, madam speaker, i would say to my friend, he knows very well, we've go without a budget so far, we are going to go through the standard budget process and i yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say i'd like to see complete reform of the 1974 budget act. i want a joint, bicameral party to do that. with the structure we have today, we're going to proceed with the appropriations process so we'll be able to do exactly

what my friend said. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, the bill makes defense spending sank sant and so it says nothing about going after fraud and waste and defense contracts. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. stark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. stark: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to oppose the budgetless resolution. it has no numbers, no specifics, it gives no serious plan to reduce the deficit. the republicans want to decrease the deficit and they'll try to cut nondefense discretionary spending back to 2008 levels but they still would save $100 billion in discretionary spending if we put defense spending in the same level. i'm ving you a chance to put your money where your mouths are, introduce h.r. 413, it would reduce defense spending to 2008 levels. they can't be serious about

getting our house in order if we are exempting 60% of discretionary spending cuts. so my legislation would save $182 billion over the next five years, that's $182 billion from planes the pentagon doesn't even want. we spend seven times what china does. how about just cutting back to only spending five or six times as much as china does? i urge support of h.r. 413. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. great to see you on the chair there. don't look quite as good as your predecessor up there. with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgoverni yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. skelton: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today as someone willing to work toward reforms that will create jobs, strengen our middle class and pay down our debt. i'm in favor of comprehensive tax reform with lower rates, i'm in favor of removing regulations that hurt our competitiveness, i'm ready to make the hard cuts we need to pay down our deficit. i think we can all agree on those principles, we might have to change some of the policies. but we agree on the principles. but what we have here today contains no policies, no ideas and very few principles. this is a budgetless resolution. it calls for a reduction in spending, pre-2008 levels, but provides no specifics. what family in america would sit down at the kitchen table, set up a budget without a bottom line? we cld be here discussing mr. ryan's ideas to replace medicaid

with vouchers, we could be here discussing the plan to cut public education, spending 50%, and could eliminate amtrak and public broadcasting. let's discuss those things. or we could be debating the plan majority leader cantor hailed which would result in the absence of 4,000 f.b.i. agents and 1,500 d.e.a. agents. we may disagree with those policies, but i'm here to work to solve problems. to say we will drop spending levels up to 30% but provide no specifics is being less than genuine. colin powell recently said this, i'm very put off when people just say, let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago. tell me what you're going to cut and nobody there yet is being very, very candid about what they are going to cut to fix the problem.

the public has been very clear, job creation should be our top priority. so far we've abandoned the principles of pay-as-you-go and added $230 billion to the ficit by repealing, you voted for it, health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 20 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. and before us is yet another piece of legislation being used as a political gimmick. instead of an honest conversation to seek out compromise with the purpose aiding the economy. as a new member of the budget committee i am willing and eag to work hard to find comprehensive bipartisan solutions to strengthening our economy. please let me know when you're ready to sit down and talk and work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. may i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. hoyer and then

myself at this moment. do you have other speakers? mr. dreier: i'm going to sit on the edge of my seat in anticipation of mr. hoyer's very thoughtful remarks. i look forward to it, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the minority whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and mr. dreier's put additional pressure on me with his thoughtful remarks. let me say that there's nobody on this floor who doesn't believe that the deficit is a very, very substantial problem that confronts us. and i would hope that there's nobody on the floor who believes it's going to be accomplished in a simple fashion, to bring this deficit under control. but i fearhat there is too much simplistic, not simple, simplistic receipt wick with with reference to this --

rhetoric with reference to this budget. our friends on the republican side tell us they are now taking the deficit seriously. awful you heard my comments how clinton administration the budget was balanced budget amendment and under the reagan and bush one and bush two mngs it was not. if our republican friends mean it, if they were interested in the deficit as anything other than a political issue, they actually use their house majority to back up their words with action, then no one in my opinion would be happier than me and our party, the democratic party. our deficit i think all of us should agree is too big for partisan politics. it cripples our children's opportunities, it makes it harder for them to pay for college education, buy a home, start a business. i want my republicafriends to take the deficit seriously. i want my democratic friends to take the budget deficit seriously.

to join president obama in making the hard choices it will take to get out of dt. but frankly, so far the opportunity to finally back up the words of fiscal discipline have been a record of disappointment. a rules package, i tell my iend, the chairman of the rules committee, the rules package provides for $5 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 10 years. $5 trillion. a vote to repeal health care reform is another $230 billion of deficit, pledge to cut spending by $100 billion which has taken them less than a month to break. today a one-page resolution with no numbers and no specifics. i think this resolution is unprecedented, certainly in the 30 years i've been here which gives the one person out of the 435 e opportunity and the authority to set a number that we will consider in this house.

i don't think that's precedented, i don't think it's democratic, it's not transparent, it's not an open process. colin powell has already been quoted, we're still waiting for the answer of what is going to be cut. the time when getting out of debt, growing the economy and creating jobs our country's defining bipartisan challenges. we need hard choices, not more political theater. now, we passed a budget enforcement resolution which was criticized by the other side because we didn't pass a full budget. i think that's perhaps correct. mr. mcgovern: an additional mite. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding an additional minute but in that budget enforcement resolution we had a number and when you voted on the rule you knew the number you were voting on as a house of representatives. here you have no idea what you're voting on. you could be votg for 2008 numbers or anything less than that thunder resolution. mr. dreier: will the gentleman

yield? i'll yield my friend additional time. let me just say to my friend, mr. speaker, that this is the beginning of a process. this is a one sentence resolution that will allow this house to go on record making a strong commitment to reducing the level of spending. my friend was absolutely right in his opening remarks when he said that everyone wants to us reduce the deficit, and he's right. this may be unprecedented but we're in unprecedented times. i yield my friend an additional 15 seconds. i'll yield him 30econds, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his generosity. let me say to the gentleman, it may be unprecedented times, but does not warrant this unprecedented abdication of democracy this this house in setting what is probably the most critical question that confronts government, how much you going to pay for it. i think we all agree on that. that's what is at issue here and

this resolution does not allow members of congress to engage on that. it simply gives to one person the ability to set that number. it is not only unprecedented, it is in my opinion undemocratic with a small d. it does not provide the transparency and the openness of which the gentleman has correctly spoken and which i hope we pursue. i hope we oppose this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? the gentleman sailed mr. hoyer was going to speak, have things changed? mr. mcgovern: it has changed. there is great interest in this. i yield one and a half minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 1 and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the

gentlemafrom massachusetts and i consider the gentleman from california a colleague that i've known for a good while and i know that there are certainly good intentions. but i always believe that when you're elected to this powerful body that represents over 300 million americans as the census has given us new numbers, of how many americans we have the privilege of representing, you do have to speak about the future. when you begin to talk about generic numbers going back to 2008 levels, you are speaking generally without substance. because it is our commitment to be able to move america forward, and i hope the president will say stay in the blue column because you can see in the red column in the past administrations there was no job crtion. when you talabout reducing the deficit it must be with a plan,

with substance, because you can repeal with no substance and would just raise the question do we want a nation that does not invest in education, do we want a nation that does not help our businesses invest to crea jobs, and do we want a nation that says that security, the f.b.i., the d.e.a., someone called in today and talked about how important it was to ensure that we have the right kind of law enforcement, or do we want to tell those on social security who have worked literly worked or are disabled that there are no more dollars for them because we have ju without any guidance gone back to 2008 levels? i would just ask that we move this country forward, mr. president, and is ask that we invest in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i reserve th balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: we have a speaker on the way but looks like you may have additional speakers. mr. dreier: will the gentleman

yield? i thank my friend for yielding and say in our capacity as majority i'm simply going to yield to my friend from north carolina so that she can file the rule. would the gentleman like me to do that? okay, i guess we're not doing that right now. i'll reserve the balance of my time then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 1 3/4 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized. mr. mcgovern: the problem with this resolution is has been said over and over again is that it is a press release. it contains no number. people on the other side talked about tough choices, it doesn't talk about any tough choices. it exempts defense spending from any cuts. so fraudulent defense coractors is somehow okay whereas it's not better than waste and abuse in domestic spending programs. everything should be on the

table. when we're talking about getting this deficit under control. the reason why the numr is so important is because that number determines -- that number determines how much we're going to allocate to the various appropriations committees. and that in turn determines really the severity of a t of the cuts that will have to be made. cuts in medical research, research to try to find a cure to cancer, cuts in programs to help feed hgry children, cuts in programs that provide emergenc fuel assistance to low-income people during the winter months, cuts in small business loans that can help small business get the capital they need to grow and create jobs. we should be talking about jobs. in this -- in this opening session. instead what we've talked about are the old ideological battles of the past, last week we repealed the entire health care

bill, this year we're passing a lg resolution with no number in it. this is a first. this is unprecedented and i think the american people who are watching are wondering why in the world can't you tell was the number is? why in the world can't you give us a sense of where you're going to cut? why in the world can't you even vote on it? there are 435 members of this house. only one member is going to be able to determine what that budget number is. mr. speaker --, the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: one minute remaining. mr. mcgovern: i give myself the remaining one minimum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, we're engaged in political theater today. we know the c.b.o. will come out with numbers today but the republicans feel it's important to do this today because somehow the press will pay attention and have a countermessage to the president's state of the union address. they are blowing a major opportunity. there is bipartisan concern about the budget, a bipartisan

consensus we need to find cuts. raer than working in a bipartisan way we have a bill that comes to the floor under a closed rule. we are td that the chairman of the budget committee can unilaterally come up with a number, the rest are irrelevant irrelevant this to this process. that's not the way it's supposed to be. and the republican majority owes it not only to members of this congress but to the american pele to tell was the number is and where they're going to cut, how deeply they're going to cut, who will be impacted. i'll tell you this, who is going to be impacted are real people and they'll feel the real pain of some of these cuts. so with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided resolution, this press release and i yield back the balance of gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentlemanis recognized for the balance of the time. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we have bipartisan consensus around here. we need to get our economy back

on track, and we need to do everything that we can to cut federal spending. the distinguished minority whip just said as much. and so there is a consensus, and i think that's wonderful. in a few hours, 9:00 this evening, democrats will be sitting with republicans, republicans will be sitting with democrats, it's going to be unprecedented. and i will say that mr. hoyer referred to this simple, one-sentence resolution as unprecedented. and i believe that it probably is unprecedented. what it says -- i've almost memorized the one sentence, mr. speaker, it says we need to make sure that the budget committee and th appropriations committee work to get us to 2008 spending levels or less. i personally believe that we should be substantially below 2008 levels.

i believe that we need to take that kind of action and it's true, we want this institution to have an opportunity before the president stands right over my shoulder at 9:00 this evening and delivers this ste of the union message, we want this institution to have a chanc to go on record saying that we are committed to doing everything that we can to get the spending levels to 2008 or less. mr. speaker, we're in the position we are and that itself is unprecedeed. and that's why unprecedented action is necessary. now, i began my remarks by talking about the fact that probably one of the most enduring and powerful memories of 2010 was what took place in athens, greece. we saw the riots take place in

the streets, some public service employees, in the wake of the government facing the responsibility of imposing austeritytandards onthe people of greece. and what happened? we saw this huge outcry come because they were arguing they couldn't in fact bring about cuts in spending. and i juxtapose that to what we saw in the last year here. we saw tens of thousands of americans taking to the streets carrying this message -- taxed enough already. they came together to tition their government, to petition theigovernment to bring about spending reductions, not complaining that the government was making cuts, complaining that the government wasn't making enough cuts.

and that's exactly what we're doing. in fac mr. speaker, i believe that this may be the first time in human history that we have witnessed what it was that we saw take place last year and led to the outcome in the november 2 election. we know that the greatest change in 3/4 of a century took place in this institution. 63 members of the democratic party were defeated. we now have 87 new republicans and nine new democrats who joined with us, and they have carried this message to us that we need to rein spending. mr. speaker, it's important to note that our real goal is above that. it is job creation and economic growth. getting our economy back on track. so that people out there who are trying to get on the first rung of the economic ladder are able to do just that. we have a painfully high unemployment rate, and people across this country are hurting

now, mr. speaker, what steps can we take to create jobs? i personally believe that we need to, i look forward to having the president talk about this tonight, open up new markets around the world so that union and nonunion workers in the united states of america can have the opportunity to sell goods and provide services into countries like columbia and panama -- colombia and panama and south korea where these pending agreements exist. i believe that since japan has brought about a reduction in its top corporate rate, the rate of those job creators, we can reduce, we can reduce the top corporate rate, the highest rate of any country in the world now, from 35% to 25%, i understand the president may be proposing that this evening, that will go a long way toward creating jobs. but, mr. speaker, what we're doing with house res. 39 -- 38 is we are getting ourselves on a path towards fiscal responsibility and i believe that that is one of the most

important things that we can do as we seek this shared goalf job creation and economic growth. so if we can let this institution go on record in support of getting to 2008 levels or less i'm convinced that that will be a strong step towards our goal, our shar goal of creating jobs and establishing economic growth. this is the beginning of a process, mr. speaker, the beginning of a process, again, a one-sentence resolion that this house wl be voting on in just a few minutes. but the process itself is one that is broken. it's broken because for the first time since the 1974 budget act was put into place we've not had a budget, we've not had a budget. we're five, almost five months into the new fiscal year and we are in the process of cleaning

up the mess that was handed to us. so how is it we plan to do it? well speaker boehner has made it very clear and that is we need to make sure that we have an open, free-flowing debate as we proceed with the budget and i'm con -- convinced that our rules commtee will make alternatives in order when we proceed with the work the budget committee will have do, and i'm convinced that we will get back to the kind of regular order that i think today democrats and republicans alike would want to see and that is a chance for democrats and republicans to stand up and offer amendments to the appropriations bill. so, mr. speaker, i'll say again that it's a simple one-sentence resolution. are we going to let this institution get onto a path towards reducing the size, scope, reach and control of the federal government or are we not? and so, mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very, very

important resolution and with that, out of respect to my friend from worcester who is swinging his hands in [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]. c-span's live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with our preview program followed by the president's speech at 9:00 and the republican response from house budget committee chairman paul ryan and phone calls and reaction live on c-span, c-span radio and online and use our web site for enhanced coverage, to see tweets from members of congress, congressional reporters and to add your own and add your own comments to our facebook page while you watch our live extreming video and watch reaction from members of congress live on c-span2. our coverage just over two hours away, next a preview of the

state of the union address, "national journal," major garrett joined us this morning on "washington journal." host: used to be "congress daily." both parties warm up for state of the union. what should we be looking for? guest: this is the most probably watched speech that the country will see this year. this is his stage to reset the course of his administration and the way he talks about public policy and his agenda after the midterm elections after which

democrats lost control of the house and absorbed significant losses. the president is retooling his team and his message and retooling his agenda going forward. and what people will hear tonight the way the president tries to adopt to that new political reality. the fact is he passed a tremendous amount of legislation in the 111th congress, some of which republicans would like to get rid of. the president will no way give ground on that. even though much of the tone -- it's not reconciliation, moving forward and working together, the reality is, much what the president passed, he will defend to the hilt and the republicans will try to unravel and that will be a big part of the state of the rune. host most specifically what words -- host: what do our viewers need to listen to to see if he is

moving to the center? guest: the american people have always found our enormously adept at deciding the rhetoric and whether or not any president hits the mark. and i'm reminded of a very long state of the union address that bill clinton gave during his presidency that received almost universal, if not condemnation, criticism among the reporting and pundit class. six months later, the american people loved that speech. host: 1995 speech? guest: nearly hour and a half, if i recall. many thought it was far too detailed and laundry list, excessive, obsessive policy discussion. and so all the wise men and women of this town looked down their nose at it. yet the american people responded very favorably to it,

remembered parts of it and brought it closer to themselves. i'm always hesitant to be the one to say look for this, look for that. they know what they want to hear and they know what has happened in the past two years. no state of the union except for the first one is unhinged from the president who's giving it. george bush could talk about reconciliation in 2007 and moving the country together but we knew the country was divided, iraq, afghanistan, economic policies. so you can say a lot of things and build as many rhetorical firsts as you want, but the american people will decide. host: here is a book written about speech writers and their presidents and a little color about the clinton speech in 1995. he had said to his aides, my gut is we ought to try to do it in half an hour, no more than half an hour.

the final script, 5,800 words and figured that would take an hour if no one applauded. it took a record 81 minutes. how long is too long? guest: how long is too long. and by every typical metric of the time, it was too long and i remember being part of the pile on class in those days. i was on the local n.p.r. station that very friday and everyone was just heeping criticism on top of this speech and the american people watched and listend because they wanted to see how the president would respond to a moment after a defeat. one of the most important parts of being president is not always winning. one of the most important parts is how you respond to a defeat, how you respond to a setback, national crisis. everyone knows in america that you aren't going to get what you want.

we don't get it in our own lives, but when you are the president, you don't get what you want, you still have to lead, either change, adapt or -- american people will pay close attention than they did last year. i expect the ratings to be pretty high and the american people want to take stock of our president. he is the president and sets the agenda. congress will respond. how is he going to adapt? host: who is writing the president's speech, how much of a role is he taking in it, how long it might be? guest: the chief speech writer was instrumental in every significant speech the president gave. and i know from talking to john when i covered the white house and understanding, as i learned to during the campaign and covered the obama campaign for 14 months, the president is always extremely involved in the

development of big set speeches, not every speech, but the big set speeches. he edits by hand and sends back numerous drafts, works through them closer to the last minute than some in the white house are comfortable with. because the president as someone who presents speeches never frets about his presentation. he feels very calm, always has, about his presentations, about his ability to say the words and say them the way he wants to. what he works on and focuses on and what he works up until the last minute on is the exact wording and he is an accomplished writer. whether you like his books or don't like his books, he knows how to turn a phrase and takes that development process very seriously. host: our coverage begins tonight. we will have live coverage and begin with our pre-speech

coverage and at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span and c-span 2, we will be covering the president's address and also on c-span, we will cover the republican response by paul ryan, republican from wisconsin and we can talk about that. on c-span 2, we're going to have live reaction from members of congress. for the worth, texas, phillip on the republican line, first phone call. phillip, you with us? caller: i was going to tell him that i don't think his speech means anything tonight because he keeps saying he is going to be transparent and hasn't been transparent. they have done all their big bills behind closed doors and not where the american public can see things. and he wants everybody to think that he is moving to the center but going to stay to the left where he came from and where he is planning on saying. guest: that is a classic example

of what i'm talking about. phillip has largely made up about his mind about what has happened with this presidency and you can't unhinge or decouple will from what you presided already as president. no way to look at the last few years and not regard it as an active period of involvement, in the economy, regulation. the president believes those things are necessary. staunchly defends them. has achieved more in two years than most presidents have, maybe more than lyndon johnson and maybe more than f.d.r. and he is responding to the magnitude of the crisis. some americans have responded favorably. independents are not sure. some have pulled back. i would say republicans were skeptical of president obama coming in and all of their worst fears or many of them realized so they won't be shifted to the

center. host: linda, independent, in arizona, you're on the air. caller: i didn't want to call, but it's time to put single payer back in. we negotiated with the republicans. the president is doing an awesome job and needs credit and we need to go further, put single payer back in, pass it while we have the senate and presidency right now. . line, but universal coverage is something that liberal democrats talk a lot about. guest: if you look at the polling data on the question of repeal, there is a certain percentage somewhere around 30%

those that say they are dissatisfied with the law that wanted to go further. not everyone that falls and the dissatisfied category wants it removed or shrunken. they want it expanded. they want a single payer. the president knows that. i will tell linda it is a legislative reality, house republicans are never going to propose, ps, or even consider for a moment single payer. democrats to not have the vote to pull that across the finish line in the senate. single payer for the short and the term is a non-starter. host: what do democrats want to hear? guest: what the democrats want to hear and probably what they will hear is less about health ca and much more about jobs. the democrats believe that is largely a settled issue.

politically it is quite clearly settled law until republicans are successful one way or another changing it. until that occurs, it is settled law. implement it, but do not spend a lot of time on health care. i predict the president will say you're taking your vote in law of the land and have fought and argued about this, i believe it is the right thing. but i would say if there is more than 10% of his speech devoted to health care i will be shocked. host: major garrett writes about health care on the republican side in the house. oscar, democratic line in richmond, virginia. in morning. you are on the air, sir.

-- good morning. caller: untilhe present as a speech tonight, we should stop speculating what he's going to say, but the first realization that must be understood is that bi laden won the war. he and 21 other people destroyed america. the whole premise of what is happening now, he said he would destroy the capitalist system and expose the hypocrisy. he has done that. i give you the tea party. that is the whole problem we have to discuss tonight as far as the state of the union. we have to come to the other or in 2012 this whole game is over. host: you want to hear about national security? caller: absolutely. guest: part of the state of the

american union is the defense posture. every president addresses it. i would imagine that would be a significant part of the president's speech in that he will talk about what has happened in iraq. he will talk, i am sure, about the july deadline to brinwithdrw forces from afghanistan. he may not be specific about that, but will clearly address that. there is some that would like to hear him explain what is going on guantanamo. --n with guantanamo. there is no resolution of that issue, and there's certainly no closure with the president. host: i wanteto show the front

page of "the lost angeles times." you have paul ryan giving the official response to republicans, but then you have michele bachman who has started caucus giving her own address. guest: michelle laughlin is a fascinating figure in american politics. -- michelle bachman. she had to spend $11.6 million to raise the 13 million, so many may be saying how you do that? you spend a lot of money on direct mail and odoess and a lot of money with people on the phone trying to raise money for you. she has a very high turn rate in other words. it is not as a people ur money into her campaign coffers, she has to pull it out of them.

it is costly to do that. by onemillion raised w member of the house gives her potical heft but you cannot ignore. but she is not a fulcrum in the house republican conference. she just is not. she thought for a couple of weeks for running for the house congress chairmanship position. it was made clear that if she did, she would probably get less than 20% of the votes, so she quietly folded that tent. she is a visible figure, but not particularly a leader. she can set rhetorical boundaes but does not dry policy. the decision will be made by speaker banner, erick kanter, kevin mccarthy, paul ryan. -- speaker boehner.

caller: i am 54 and have been a registered republican all my life, but i did vote for obama in this last presidential election, so i can go either way. th respect to major garrett, i hope he is wrong, and i think the majority of the american public hope he is wrongn his analysis of how the state of the union speech is going to go where president obama is going to defend everything that the democrats have done and not give on anything and republicans are plan to argue that everything they have done so far is bad and why it needs to be changed. i think the midterm elections for the american public sick and tired of congress not doing anything. we want to see them do something. the last date of the unions we

have seen we have voicing the republicans stand up and cheer and sit down, and this democrats stand up depending on what point was being said. i think the american people want to see everyone stand up and support and talk about vigorous debate. our ideologies are totally different, but we want to see something done. host: we get your point. major? guest: on the biggest accomplishments of the last congress, 100 a love of 11th congress, the president is going to defend. he will not retreat on those issues. in two of those instances, house republicans have made it abundantly clear they want to stop the implementation of the law. we use over year it's to try to accomplish that.

that is a reality. there are many other americans and especially the exit polling data that the message was not get along, the message was stop. many americans thought enough has been done in the past two years and wanted to take a break. they wanted to slow things down. the house republican majority has air brakes on what had been the trajectory of the obama pridency. i was all over the country with canada obama and i heard him say it once, i heard him say 1000 times, he would never under any circumstances extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. midterm electns, the reality is he has not the votes.

the economy is still staggering. he makes a fundamental decision that completely repudiates a campaign promise because of an election. that is air brakes and a new direction. that is what happens when people vote. this is not a universal truth, but a partial truth, people are probably sleepg in a bit. it is a day that works longer into the evening. there is legislative business on the floor today, so members will be getting ready for that. because we do not have a partisan alignment, the mix seating arrangement, there might be less competition for those seats along the aisle where the president comes in. members will start getting their five hours before the speech to park and hold the seat. that guarantees them national television time, but because there will be a lot of emphasis

on crowd reaction shots of lawmaker sitting together in the ming going inco mangling a partisan politicians, i think there will be a lot more t shot. -- and the mingling and cominginling of partisan politicians, i think there will be a lot more cut shots. host: mark on the independent line. caller: you miss me on the last speaker, so i had to rearrange my questioning. as far as the state of the union goes, i would like to see him address and try to defend the health-care law. there is a whole lot that is wrong with it. i would also like to see him address the u.s. energy policy. coal and natural gas built

this country, and we will need it for the next 50 years, so why not go ahead and take the oil out of the ground and the coal out of the ground and gas out of the ground in become major exporters of this? the royalties they would get would make billions of dollars for this country if they would just addressed the energy problem. host: we will leave it there. major garrett. guest: the president is a staunch advocate of grain economy and green jobs. -- of a green economy in green jobs. it is investments and technological advancements and mechanical infrastructure to help green jobs and help the manufacture of either turbines or other solar panels or other devices that can be exported.

one problem with that is that china is we ahead of us on that score. before the president went to upstate new york, i saw there was a company that had been moving along very well on the green jobs front but then saw the cost rise and they moved the infecin tire factory to china. -- entire factory to china. that is a harsh reality of the dollars and cents of green technology. i am sure the president will address this. the president is not nearly as big a fan as oil exploration as he was before the gulf oil spill. host: if you are curious about it will state -- be sitting in the box with michelle obama.

the white house put out a list and it includes davidernandez -- the white house put out a list yesterday and it includes david hernandez and dr. peter reed, the director of the trauma center in arizona. mark kelly declined the invitation to stay in houston where gabrielle giffords is continuing with her care there. new york on the line. caller: the president completely avoided -- that is the major difference between him and roosevelt went to the slums with eleanor and reached out. we cannot go down our own road, the most direct route to the

airport. he wavoided it. the people that will pay for other people surgery, because now we have to buy a certain amount of insurance -- i am so sick about hearing about the emergency room. suv.subsidizing someone's he literally sped 120 miles per hour. he had to make a huge ring outside the city. none of my students said a word about the president being here. guest: two separate issues of course. the local reaction to a presidential visit. i have covered many. they're always destructive. -- disruptive. the picture was about the turbines and jeff and meimmelt.

everything else was either third or fourth in the pecking order. the president got what he wanted out of the pictures and the day of emphasizing jobs summit technology, and investment and growth. on health care, this will be a debate we will continue to have, because the reform measure passed by the house sits now in the senate. republicans will bring it up eventually. dick durn conceded it will probably come up as an amendment. robin brings up an issue that lies at the heart of this health-care debate. what do americans value more? coverage or cost? if you value coverage, then you want everyone covered and you hope that lower cost. republicans say no, if you lower costs, over time you will decrease coverage.

what are we prepared to live with and live without when it comes to insurance coverage? that is really at the heart of the debate. host: 10 minutes left. george from richmond, virginia. caller: i listen to you every morning before i go to work and you have democrats and republicans on your program, and everyone criticizes the president and the deficit, but i have seen no one come up with the planned for how to get this economy moving on both sides. all they do is bicker back and forth. i would like to see the president make a stateme to get ograms going into the economy moving. host: he here is a headline about what the president will say on getting the econo going. the headline in the new york times -- guest: if you are republican, you might ask yourself why does

the president pitch for infrastructure with the first emulous? what was the son of an hundred $52 billion about -- what was the $752 billion about? the answer we got is the projects take too long to get off the ground. now the white house believes whatever time they take to get off the ground, they need to b funded. i have often felt the white house, regardless of what you thought about the underlying economics of the stimulus had a messaging problem in that the principal achievement of the stimulus was to rescue and prevent greater harm, but they never talked about it that way. they built up a higher degree of expectation and they certainly had bars in grasping the unemployment rate will go down,

but it went nowhere near the original projections. if they characterize it more as the rescue effort to save us from far worse conditions they might find themselves in a more politicallydvantageous position than they find themselves in now. host: the next o are about creating jobs. guest: that is certainly his characterization of that. republicans will decide what degree investment constitutes more spending of obama find that they are ready oppose or if they meeting of thee a mines. there will be a highway bill. we will have infrastructure spending, so the question is how much and where? the natural gasoline tax has not been increase in many years. it is falling behind.

house republicans have made it clear theyill not be in favor of any tax increase of any kind, so that uld be a pointhat is heavily debated and argued about. host: chleston, west virginia, on the independent line. caller: i have a couple of things i would like to ask about. host: can ask you to make it one because we're running out of time? caller: i will go to health care. i was going to last about epa and what they're doi to us and west virginia. i would like to ask about what he think abouthe individual mandate for buying insurance. i am 78-years-old, and i can barely afford to make my medical payment, but this tells me i have to buy insurance on top of that, i would like to know -- there is a $2,000 fine if you do

not buy -- i would like to know what they're want to do to me if i do not buy the thing? guest: my understanding of the law is yet nothing to worry about. you are covered by medicare, and it is your principal mechanism for obtaining health care coverage. you have the option, and you have always had the option of buying a supplementary insurance policy on top of medicare, but that is your choice. the individual mandate does not apply to those who are covered by medicare. inst: let's go to ron michigan. caller: i want to make a couple of quick remarks about what obama should say tonight. number one, i lrned last night that the gun that was killed to shoot the congresswomen was o'cloca glock gun.

people from the company said on the board. he should talk about gun control. the next thing is the supme court justice went to a private meeting with michelle bachman. nothing was said about that. i think that tizens united ruling is extremely important and that we the supreme court are not accountable to us people. do you remember the speech last year? thank god obama mention citizens united and the leader shook his head no. you can call her back if you

disagree with me. host: we will leave it there. there'll be a lot of eyes on which justice is show up in which do not. guest: will justice roberts be there? i have some but said they doubt it. if justice roberts the show up, he can do so with the knowledge that now democrats after having gone through the midterm elections have decided that they may in fact move toward some of the independent expenditures operations that were legalized and citizens united. they unilaterally disarmn that front because the democratic party took a stand that this is wrong, but now it appears it will be some what affirmative for the next election cycle that it will go down that road. justice roberts could sit there with assault satisfied look on his face. satisfied look- is f

on his face. i think you are right about gun- contro indications from the white house are the answer is no. robert gibbs has been very reluctant to describe anything that is under investigation, but many people will want to hear, especially members sitting with the first lady. there will be an atmospheric overhang ofhe entire state of the union dealing with that crime, dealing with that assault, and the president may or may not have a policy response. "the new york times" this morning.

we know that justice coleco will not be there because he has a longstanding agreement for speaking in hawaii. for we know that just as briar will not be there -- guest: justice breyer will be there. host: we have also heard -- jim crawford wrote a piece yesterday on cbs news saying it is a question or not whether justice kennedy shows up. guest: this meeting with michelle bachm is much less an it originally sounded. it was just about the constitution. all the members of congress said it was a nice way to hear from the supreme court justice to talk about the law and constitution. it did not have a political aspect to it at a, at least as

we have learned from the members. host: robert burns writes about it in "the washington post" calling it fascinating. new jersey, go ahead. caller: i will make it short. and we tighten our belts. we do very well. we take vitamin supplements and eat three meals a day. it does not seem like much, but sometimes we eat -- host: i am running out of time. i need you to get to your point. caller: we are making it. our blood types are clean. our bodies are clean. we a clean clothes and a clean apartment. we are making it in this society

with our limited income. i advise the american people to do the same, tighten their belts. host: since that was more of a comment and not a question, we will go to mary on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: my question is there is always a shutdown when somebody mentions -- host: what you mean by that? -- what do you mean by that? 40% of us who do not have health insurance and will not be able to get anything. i am 57 it will not be able to afford health insuranceright noe clinics. i evenot a hysterectomy through free catholic crities. we need a public option.

host: we will leave it there. guest: the public option will continue to be part of this debate, specifically as the law is implemented, all the way to 2017. when i said the public option is not viable now, i just met democrats in the senate to not have the votes for it and not actively looking for them and house republicans are actively opposed to it. if you have one side of the capital in the hands of the democrats and not actively seeking to work on the issuend the opposition party diametrically opposed, you are simply not getting movement on that issue. as the president that a health- care law is implemented and the degree it works or does not work or satisfies or dissatisfies, there will be continued debate from those who say, look, we told you from the beginning, single payer pubublic option is

-- thank you for joining us. >> madam speaker, the president of the united states. >> by congressional invitation, the president outlines his legislative agenda for the next year and reflects on the previous in the annual state of the union. watch every address online at the c-span video library, all searchable on your computer any time. host: joining us on the phone, the communications director here at c-span to talk about the role of social media in the coverage tonight. will all of ty and what types of technology are available? >> you would just do guest: you were selling the clit -- president clip from 15 years ago and one thing that was not there that is new is social media. so much news and information and opinion is being spread through social media -- facebook and

twitter -- it gives a complete picture of the state of the union and how everyone is reacting. you wilsee something new this year. members of congress are allowed to twe from the for. they can bring their personal biases on the floor and file their opinions and thoughts on the speech. and reporters likewise will be actively watching this speech and reacting immediately. c-span, what we are trying to do as part of our education of what is happening on the floor of the congress tonight, will have a page devoted that people can go and folks can go to our main site, a link to a special page we have on our website, c- span.org/sotu, state of the

union. on that page we are aggregating, pulling together tweets from members of congress. peoplean see in real time live as senators and congressmen react to the speech, actually before and after the speech and during. a kind of like a stock ticker squirreling of members of . ngress' tweets you can check out what reporters are saying from the floor. we will have reporters such as political, "the hill" and "roll call." host: what is the goal? guest: one is to basically bring for the c-span audience a real look inside news developing, opinions developing, as the

speech is going on. second is to hear from the audience. we will also have on our facebook page, facebook.com/c- span, you can post your own comments. we will have the video of their, -- up there and the republican response. it is really a two-way conversation. the educational value, how institutional faults are reting, and giving the opportunity to have voice is heard. host: those that are tweeters, did you expect it will increase? is there an uptick in those that tweet?

guest: the short answer is yes. for a practical reason, people can bring their iphones and blackberrys on the floor, so for technical reasons you will see a lot more members of congress tweeting tonight. the big picture, members of congress, particularly the freshman class, many of them inc. shows -- social media into their campaign and they will take t technology with them. i think of the big picture, moving beyond the state of the union, you will see members of congress incorporating facebook >> tonight, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of

coverage. c-span's live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, with our preview program, followed by the speech at 9:00, then the republican response from house member paul ryan of wisconsin. use our website for enhanced coverage to see tweets from members of congress, congressional reporters and to add your own. you can also add your own comments to our facebook page while you watch our live streaming video and see reaction from members of congress as you watch the president's address, live on c-span2. >> just under an hour and a half away from the start of our coverage. that website is up. a lot of interesting tweets up, including the photo posted from statuary hall earlier. there's a preview of what the president is going to say, he

will say, this is our generation's sputnik moment, and he calls for investment. mitch mcconnell said he doesn't intend to go along with the bipartisan seating plan for the state of the union address you've heard about. he said he's more interested in results than symbolic gestures. his remarks were earlier today. this is an hour. >> good morning, i'm one of the co-founders, on behalf of robert albritten, our publisher, and jim vandder him, my co-founder, wanted to welcome you all. this is our first inaugural edition of the playbook breakfast. because this is a first, i thought i would make a couple

of introductory remarks. i get to do this because i've known mike allen, i think, longer than anyone else in this room. we first met 20 years ago as young reporters down in richmond, virginia, i was with "the washington post" at the time. mike started his career at the "richmond times dispatch." because i've known mike so long, i often get questions from reporters and biographers, tell me what mike allen was like back in the day. i don't do that, out of respect for mike's privacy, also because i'm saving as many details as possible for my own book which is coming out in a few years. those of you know who -- who know him know he's lived one of the most astounding lives, 20 years ago, he was not much different than he is now. he knew everybody, knew everything and he left everybody wondering when and if

he ever slept. i've since learned, he does sleep, just at different hours than most of us do. his playbook, as many of you know, has become a washington phenomenon. it started as just a small email he sent to a bunch of us in the news room with his thinking about what's hamming -- happening in washington today, jim and i thought it was good enough to share with readers, we did, it starred with a couple hundred people, then a couple thousand, then with a little help from "the new york times" last year, it grew to about 60,000. there are now a community of some 60,000 people who get their day started with mike allen. we often hear, i wake up in bed every morning with mike allen. i don't think you should be doing that. i don't think you should be telling me if so. other people say, i just can't -- mike is part of my breakfast

routine each morning which does sound a little more wholesome. given that, we thought since a lot of people are saying figuratively they start their morning with breakfast with mike, it would be a good idea to do that literally and put together a series of breakfasts in which mike would interview a newsmaker and sort of bring together what's a sort of remarkable power he has, bring that into a physical space. that's our aim, to have a good conversation and make a little news along the way. before i -- before we go any further, i want to recognize our sponsor for this inaugural playbook breakfast, it's the national mining association, in particular their president, hall quinn, and a special thanks to n.m.a.'s chairperson

and we appreciate n.m.a.'s support in making today possible. thank you very much. [applause] we do want this to be a conversation and a lively one so that means engaging all of you. if you have questions, write it on the paper that we've been distributing. we can get you some or there's more at check in. beth back there, my colleague, has them. write your question on that, we'll place those in a box and grab those at the appropriate time to ask our guest. our guest today is senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, somebody very, very much in the news. we'd like to welcome senator mcconnell and mike allen. [applause] >> good morning and thank you for coming to our debut breakfast.

thank you to all of us who have been emailing this morning, thank you for waiting, we appreciate it. leader mcconnell, thank you for taking the time. david broder, the dean, wrote right after the election that you are -- you now hold as much sway as the president of the united states because for things to be done, they have to be done through you. do you feel different than you did on november 1? >> well, i think divided government presents some opportunity to do some important things, just to give you a few examples, reagan and tip o'neill, social security in 1983. reagan and a democratic house, tax reform in 1986. clinton and a republican congress welfare reform and balanced budgets. what i hope is that we can come together and do some important things for the american people. now the tax deal in december i

thought was a good indication that maybe we could do some business. the president indicated he's interested in lowering the corporate tax rate. most of my members think that's a good idea because we're certainly increasingly having real difficulties competing with overseas companies. so we'll see. i personally think it's a great opportunity to do something about some problem, some long-term problems we know we have with regard to spending and debt, the entitlement programs, i understand the president won't mention that tonight. i hope the fact that he doesn't mention it tonight doesn't mean we might not be able to make some progress on that front as well. >> playbook starts this morning with, we love the print editions of the papers, start in asia and move to the united states. in "the washington post" this morning, it says, obama not likely to call for social security cuts. this is a followup on one sentence that was in the "wall

street journal" the day before and it says in here, while obama plans to stress the need to reduce record budget deficits, do not expect him to get into detail and instead will call for members of both parties to work together to tackle the problem. are you ready to do that? >> absolutely. >> now what do you make of the president not offering details or, we're told, not offering, in fact, a detailed respons? >> if we're going to do anything about entitlements, we're not going to negotiate it in public. i don't necessarily conclude from the absence of discussion of entitlement reform that the president isn't interested. we'll find out in the coming months. i think we've got a window of six to nine months before the atmosphere is overcome by the presidential campaign to do some important things for the american people. and he seems to me to be pivoting on a whole variety of

things and coming in our direction. i think that's actually pretty darn smart. you notice -- he noticed what happened november 2, it was a national restraining order, what they've been doing the last two years, he wants to go in a different direction, it's not just rhetoric but reality. >> it sounds like you're not just willing to discuss changes to entitlements, but you actually are going to push the white house to have that conversation. >> there will be no entitlement reform without his leadership. which means that fingerprints have to be on whatever we choose to do from both sides. to give you an example of how successful that could be, i was running for the u.s. senate in 1984, the year after the reagan-toip neil social security fix, the issue never came up. a major change in our most popular entitlement program, the subject never came up.

why? because it was a bipartisan deal. to fix social security for a generation. so look, i think this could be done, should be done, but it will not be done without him. >> you talk about fingerprints from both sides. that suggests culpability for both sides. >> before you even get started, we're not negotiating it here this morning. >> we have a great audience. >> good try. good try. >> but from your side, what are you going to do to indicate good faith to kick this off? >> he and i had this discussion for over a year, that i'd be willing to sit down and i'm hoping that's going to happen. he had no incentive to deal with us the last congress. he started two years with a 65% approval rating a 40-seat majority in the house and subsequently got 60 in the senate and they decided to pursue this hard left agenda, we had a referendum on that

november 2, he's now clearly indicating, at least with his rhetoric, that he's going in a different direction. >> in addition to the rhetoric, we're seeing a shakeup in the white house. >> bill daley and bruce reid indicating going in a different direction, yeah. but just personnel appointments and just speeches don't get the job done. are we really going to pass trade agreements? not just korea, but panama and colombia as well. and are we going to negotiate new trade agreements? are we going to low they are ecorporate tax rate and try to become more competitive internationally, creating u.s. jobs in america? to the extent he wants to do those things, we're interested in being helpful. >> we also are not going to hear details about corporate tax reform. that is something that's very much on the white house's agenda. are you going to push them to put that toward the top? do you think there could be action on that this year? >> he has indicated it's

important and we ought to do something. that's a subject of international competitiveness is related to corporate tax rates, it's related to ratification of trade agreements. these are the kinds of things my members have been advocating for years. to the extent he's now interested in doing that, sign us up. we're interested in helping. >> now the white house has said that a lot of the state of the union address is going to be things they believe republicans will work with them on or should work with them on, you mentioned trade, education, so just a lit realality check on that. a year ago this week you put out a press release and said during a meeting at the white house tuesday, you and senate republican leader mitch mc-- u.s. senator mitch mcconnell offered to help the president accomplish the key goal of job creation laid out in the state of the union address. how did that go? >> as i said, he didn't really need us last congress and was

not particularly interested in doing the kinds of thing he is mentioned he mentioned nuclear power, trade agreements, those are the kind of things that i and my members are for. nothing ever happened in the last congress. i'm not going to put him down for that, he didn't think he needed us. they were busy trying to turn america into a western european country as rapidly as possible. we had a referendum on that november 2, the american people don't want to be a western european country so now he is wisely in my view, pivoting to the center rhetorically. we will see whether he actually wants to work with us to accomplish things that we're already for. >> what is the single thing he could do that would indicate to you that it's real? what could he do that you would say, you know, we're working together, the president is working with me in good faith? >> well, i think it will be --

when senator reid, for example, introduces a bill on lowering the corporate tax rate. some indication that we're, the majority in the senate is moving forward or discussions -- i think that will happen. if he's got it in his speech tonight, i assume he means it. in the category of trust but verify, but i think these are the kinds of things we ought to be working on. >> i feel like you don't dislike him. >> that's an interesting way to put it. i don't know anybody who said i do dislike him. he's a smart guy. he had a different agenda for america, maybe now he's interested in going in a different direction. >> you have a late night tonight, everybody in this room has a late night tonight. these guys drove up here at 4:00 a.m. the reason for that is we're all going to be watching or participating in the state of the union.

a little different this year, a number of members have said they're going to sit on the buddy system on the other side of the aisle, you said you're not going tore participating in musical chairs. why is that? >> i'm going to sit where i usually sit. most people don't have assigned seats but two leaders usually have seats across the aisle. i'm going to sit where i usually sit and everybody can sit wherever they want to. but look, the american people are a lot more interested in whether we'll actually do something than they are the seating arrangement during the state of the union. i mean, the seating arrangement in the state of the union in the end is going to mean absolutely nothing. the question is can we come together on some of these issues. >> do you think it's a fraud, just cosmetics or do you think it's well-intend or what do you make of it? >> i don't make much of it at all. i don't think it has anything to do with accomplishing something. >> so you're not -- >> no, sit wherever you want to. i think from the president's point of view, it could be distracting. the cameras may be on teams sitting around in the, who is

sitting with who? oh, my goodness, senator jillen brand and senator so-and-so, you'll be scribbling all that down about the interesting combos. i'm not sure that's helpful to the president. but look, the important thing is not, you know, the seating arrangement but what we actually accomplish. can i mention, i challenge all our friends in the press here to count how many times the president uses the word investment tonight. investment as you know is a latin term for washington spending. i've noticed that our good friends on the other side, whenever they want to spend, call it an investment. so it will be interesting, i may just keep my own count tonight to see how many times we talk about investing. but this is not a time to be increasing spending. this is a serious, sober time. we need to come together and address spending and debt,

unemployment is unacceptably high, if government spending were to produce a robust economy, we would be roaring now. >> so what other word are you looking for? >> that's the word. what the president ought to be doing in my view is talking about how to reduce spending and reduce debt. spending is a pejorative term so they'll use the term investment for the exceptions. >> you and your colleagues, you do a lot of television after the speech. what words should we look for from your side? >> i think we're -- you're going to hear from paul ryan that we need to address not only the short-term but long-term spending and debt problems in this country and we think that's better for the private sector than continuing to borrow money like the majority did with the stimulus and squander it largely on the

public sector. we just don't think that's productive. then you're left with your children and grandchildren having to pay it back. >> you spent a couple of days in afghanistan and pakistan you told me back stage you're seeing signs of progress. let's start with pakistan. what did you learn? >> well, as everyone knows, the good news in pakistan is the military is a pretty solid institution, we're pleased with the fact that they've taken it to the terrorists up in the tribal areas with several successful efforts. we're not pleased with the fact that the afghan taliban is headquartered in pakistan. we would hope sometime in the future to have more cooperation from the pakistanis on that issue. in afghanistan, we made substantial progress, the tall pan had -- taliban had a bad year. >> are you more hopeful or less hopeful about the cooperation

we're going to get? >> more hopeful. >> what did they do to show you that? >> the action in the valley and the efforts in the tribal areas i just mentioned that i think were pretty successful. over in afghanistan, the taliban had a very bad year in 2010, they'll have a worse year in 2011. we're making substantial headway, i was there january a year ago as well, we're making substantial headway in allowing the country to come back to normal. but what's normal in afghanistan? this is a country where 90% of the people are illiterate. the best we can hope for in the near-term future in terms of getting them back to what was normal for them is get them back to where they were 30 years ago before the russians came in, which was a relatively peaceful and to some extent self-sustaining agricultural society. that's about all we can hope for.

i think we'll be there for a long time, not probably with the kind of military presence that we currently have, but it'll be a long-term international project to try to get them into a more stable position. >> we have more forces in afghanistan than ever. the spring could be tough on our forces. can the american peoplele to late afghanistan casualties? >> the good news about this war, if there's any good news about any war is that it hasn't become a domestic political football like the iraq war did. >> but it also gets less attention. >> let me finish. what made the iraq war so challenging here is it became a shirts versus skins domestic political issue and 2007, for example, i had 250 anti-war demonstrators in front of my house in louisville, kentucky. louisville is not san francisco. this is sort of an unusual thing.

we haven't seen any of that with the afghan war. as the republican leader of the senate, and i think i can speak for virtually all my members on this, if not all of them, we support what the president is doing. if we support it, it's less likely to become a domestic political football like the iraq war did. i think even though we're a country that greatly values life and always hates it when we lose anyone, the pest 9/11 mission of keeping afghanistan from becoming a haven again is still important and i support it and i think the president is doing the right thing. >> all right, here at home, let's talk about the extensive remodeling project going on across the street, 1600 pennsylvania avenue. can you agree, based on the moves the president has made this november 2, that he's less liberal than you would have thought november 1? >> look, i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure

out what the president would do after the november 2 election. the clinton playbook was right in front of him. he's got the clinton players in the white house. daley and bruce reed. he knew what the message was. this man is not foolish. he knew that they had taken the country as far as they could to the left. that was going to have to change. look, the reason i'm smiling about it is, it's obviously political, but the point is, we have -- in this town, that's what we do. my view is, even though i'd a love to have a republican president in january of 2013, we've had an election every two years since 1788 in this country, right on schedule, every two years, you can always use the next election as an opportunity not to do anything. what i'm telling the president, publicly and privately, let's do some important things for the country, where we can agree

and let the election take care of itself in 2012. so i'm hopeful that we will tackle some really challenging, long-term, seemingly ininteract -- intractable problems and do it now, not sometime, but now. >> you mention -- by intractable problems, entitlements? what else? >> i think this competitiveness issue. there was a "wall street journal" op-ed about competitiveness the other day, but the executive order on competitiveness excepted health care and financial regulation. so in the skeptic category as to whether or not he is serious about doing anything about overregulation. we've only exacerbated that problem in the first two years. as you know, we will not agree on health care. this is not an area that

there's likely to be a couple baa moment. -- a "kum ba yah" moment. i think it was the single worst piece of legislation passed in my time in the senate. i think we owe it to the american people to try to repeal it entirely. if that falls short to go after it piece by piece. this is a huge, huge mistake for the country and must be undone if we can get the support of the american people to do it system of on that issue, don't look for a kind of coming together. >> have you asked leader reid if there's going to be an up or down vote? >> there will be a vote. >> you say that confidently. >> yeah, i say it confidently. >> it's because of your conversation with leader reid? >> no, just trust me. >> i'm verifying, that's all. >> there will be a vote.

>> based on your knowledge of politics? your knowledge of reid? >> my knowledge of the senate. i guarantee, we'll be voting on it. >> how do you know? why? >> why? do you want to do this interview with the parliamentarian? just take my word for it. >> on regulations you said you're a skeptic. why do you think the president did that executive order if you don't think anything real is going to change? >> i thought the fact that the executive order exempted health care and financial regulation makes one somewhat skeptical. i know the house and i think we'll be looking at, too, using the congressional review act to have an opportunity to reconsider some of the regulations that are coming out that are a huge problem for american business. now that the tax issue is solved for two years, the biggest thing i hear and i was out a lot over the last two weeks in my state, is the overregulation problem. uncertainty about health care

costs as a result of the new obama care and >> you were talking about bill daley earlier. he said it was encouraging because before that there had not been anyone in the west wing who had owned a business. i want to get your business and management advice. an elected official. the uniform chlorous from every part of the private part of the united states is that they were being harassed by regulators and that we have no idea what it takes to do the job predell.

it is making it more difficult for us to come out of this. the job growth has been very tepid the there was the health care bill which was unresolved. it is replete with consequences both intended and unintended. this'll regulatory area -- then there is this whole regulatory

area. they have an image of what america ought to be like. >> you took flak by saying the most important thing we want to achieve is for president obama to be a [unintelligible] is that still your mission? not the first person to ask me that. the political objective is to change the white house. more important was the second part of the interview seems not to be emphasized between very many. we talked about the kinds of opportunities that divided government. i remember when president obama tried to tackle -- president bush tried to tackle a social security in 2005. alice tried to find any democrat in the senate -- i was trying to

find any democrat in the senate to even talk about it. if we are going to do something about these really intractable problems, divided government is the time. it cannot be done without presidential leadership. we shall see whether it will be provided. >> the most concrete sign of the new world was when the vice- president negotiated the tax cut a deal. with you, the democrats later found out about the terms of it from the press. it is behind the scenes. what was it like to have that? did you realize you've got it? >> the important thing was the result o. you want to get into the process. the only thing i will say, i

thought it was noteworthy that i was at the signing ceremony and the speaker in the majority leader were not. it was almost an out of body experience. f [laughter] >> do you expect to be at some are many more? >> i would hope so. we are not going to say no. >> this is not bargaining. >> are you willing to go half way and make concessions? >> it depends on the issue. we cannot negotiate it. we are sitting here this morning. i am not surprised when he said he would do.

i think the best opportunity is in the next six or nine months in the. >> i am hopeful we can do some business and all of the issue predella -- if you. >> what is president obama like during these meetings? >> friendly and businesslike. it is to the point.

i think he is, you know, we all know he is smart, capable. we sit down, say hello, and get to work. >> how is he different from president george w. bush. >> in that sense, not all that different. president obama has been on time for every meeting. president bush will get there early so if you got there on time you were late. i have no take away comment about his style other than we usually know what the agenda is. >> we are proud to bring in some s.estions but o what is your favorite thing about president obama? take as much time as you want. [laughter]

>> he is supposedly given up smoking. [laughter] you wanted me to say that he is a bears fan, right? kentucky is rapidly going no- smoking. the likely republican candidates for governor in kentucky is in favor for a public smoking ban for the whole state. things have changed. quite how do you feel about that? >> the health issue is clearly determined. >> you will support a statewide smoking ban? >> i do not get into the statewide issues like you run the state. >> thank you. -- statewide issue. >> you run the state. >> thank you. i did not think i'm quite good.

>> said the ever smoked a cigarette? >> what i was 18. i do not think i liked it. i put it out. it was the good. >> here is your favorite member of the aba may cabinet? member of the obama cabinet? >> i would say bill daley. can i name bruce? >> packers or steelers? >> probably packers. >> what are the chances that you are the senate majority leader? >> no one knows for sure.

every election tends to be different. 2006 and 2008 had certain similarities. we like our numbers. we like where the states are. it is a long time until 2012. i will not make predictions. >> what do you think albee these single factor? >> i do not know. i do not know what the odds are. when you have a lot of opportunities and the other side is not have them come a give you great opportunities. >> water the changes that president obama will be reelected? >> who knows. rather than fixate on the 2012

election, we need to concentrate, we can do together. >> do you think he looks politically strong or vulnerable? w, this is interesting parlor stalk. i'm not going to go down that path. i want to concentrate on what we can agree on that to be important for the country. >> we will skip 2012. i know you will not answer that. who is the republicans to put money on for 2016? [laughter] >> goodness gracious. that is what you do. i'm not going to get into that. >> who is a rising republican star to what? >> i've been john [inaudible]

>> he is in the senate. >> he is new to the american public. anyone who has knocked out the senate democratic leader and then was so skillful the sixers later no one even filed in primary or general -- i think that is the first time in south dakota history that anybody discuss reelected without any opposition at of fidall. that tells you he has a considerable skill. >> do you believe he will run for president? >> i do not know. i think he is thinking about it. a >> do you think he will be strong? >> yes. >> what will be is restraint? >> i think he is very sharp and capable.

he is a good speaker. he has the leadership qualities. i am a big fan. >> you said you think he should. i think that we have the ability to bring in questions from you guys. is there a microphone around here? please, it does raise your hand prada -- please, i just raise your hand. >> do you think there is a chance that the senate might pick up the entertains issues that was passed as part is the -- off the dodd/frank bill?

i would not be surprised to see the house and revisit the whole package. in the senate, my assumption is that they will -- on and try to defend health care and financial regulation. >> when president obama was in the senate, where there issues where you personally worked together? can you characterize the experience of working together in those days? >> we did not work on those issues to get there. >> does anyone in the crowd have a question?

>> you are putting me on these by year. -- putting me on the spot here. >> february 11 to have the -- does the minority leader want to come speak? >> one of my predecessors did that.

barclays is in the senate. he was actually vice-president under truman from 1948-1952. when the peninsula, he did not like being there. he ran back to the senate. he is the only successful republican we ever had. he became a back bencher in the senate. for what ever reason, he decided to go to washington where they mock convention was in 1956.

there was some aligned that he audited bur. right after he said that, bam. [laughter] there is not a snowball's fell in chance i am doing a lot convention in washington. a chance in hell i'm doing mock convention in washington. >> what about the two republican responses tonight? do you expect similar divisions in the senate? >> there will be 534 responses to their -- tonight. every single member will be responding. i find it not particularly

noteworthy. everyone will be responding. the hall will be jammed with people responding ag. it is legitimate. absolutely. >> how worried are you that he party pressure will be there for john boehner? >> not at all. what? look, i have had the experience in managing.

every day is a maalox moment. we have an abundance at 47. i would rather be managing an abundance than scarcity. when we only had 40, we had everyone. we had pretty broad philosophical differences, a geographical and a -- geographical point of view. >> the group still has muscle and the range. >> it is when the favorite parlor grains to look at divisions. >> much more interesting would be to observe democratic differences.

how much of the 23 democrats. >> do have indications of some of the democrats? >> to ever talk to democrats? sure. you'll be the first to know. >> yardy posing as a hypothetical?

-- are you opposing it as a hypothetical? >> 1 said they were having second thoughts. we will see. there is a lot more potential for queasiness and division in the democratic congress going and then there is an hours. >> queasiness? >> hearing footsteps. >> for the young people, they are wondering how they can be you. you mentioned john sherman cooper. you were an intern for him. what you tell young people who want to succeed in washington

and navigate washington? >> who want to be in politics? >>i got interested authors school politics. there are a whole lot of other ways to serve. you do not have to run into office. i believe all internship come in the summer and the end of being good citizens and interested and public affairs with the actual issues to run for office or serve in some other capacity. that is how i got interested. >> if i wanted to run for office or serve, what are the qualities

most important -- what is the most important advice you give them? >> if you want to venture into the public sector, you have to be willing to help others. only after you help them will they be willing to help you. you have to like people enough obviously to interact with them and be involved with them. you have to be willing to help others. in my own case, i worked in a number of campaigns for other people. we won some. we lost some. it was a way to learn about the process and a way to pick up ships. -- shifts. that applies to a whole lot of things, not just politics. in the run-up to the election,

you did a lot of reading of history and divided government. i have already said that the american people since world war ii haverford divided government most of the time. they have been suspicious of giving one side too much power. we have a country that is skeptical of giving people too much power. they did that in the previous congress. they went back to divided government where they are more comfortable. we were pretty sure that was going to happen. no one knew for sure. we were pretty share -- sure. we were looking at what could be done. we have been talking here this morning about the opportunities

presented by a divided government. i hope the president will not miss this opportunity to do something important for the country. it is right now. it is in the next six-nine months. i have cited numerous examples of extremely important things that have been done during times of divided government and the time he did it is now. >> why did you learn from 1994? >> one of the mistakes of 1994 -- if you wanted to get the best critique, it is new to the rich's -- it is newt gingrich's book of 1998. he chronicled the mistakes he thought his team made. the top of the list was acting like you are in charge of the government when you are not. speaker john boehner and i made it very clear from the

beginning to the american people that we really appreciated their support a we had not taking control of the government. we did not warm to lead the american people into thinking that they had changed the whole government when they had only change part of the government. i think it is more about them, about stopping what they have been doing for the last two years.k week, and humility, a lack of hubris was an important way to it -- we thought humility, a lack of hubris was an important way to stopping that.

these are serious times as serious problems. this is the perfect time to tackle them. >> they have been too eager to do this burd. >> we have to take it issue by issue and not over enter. what happened in the previous election of the. i think they mistakenly concluded that the 2011 election was a mandate. that is something they wanted to do for a long time. they had the votes to do it. the public had a severe reaction to that. i think the last election was about stopping that.

when you look at the three biggest issues in the country, private sector job growth, spending and debt, which i believe are all interconnected -- we tried spending our way out of this. it has not worked. we have to get the private sector going. i am hopeful that the president will have gotten the same message. we will be more interested in helping them on those kind of issues. >> what is your biggest pet peeve about the press? >> what would change if you are a producer or editor?

this is a robust political discussion that goes some. i do not have a big complaint. >> you do not read contemporary

nonfiction. >> i generally do not read contemporary stuff. i intended to read books from an earlier time. for example, right now i james swanson's second vote. the first but was about the assassination -- second book. the first well was about the assassination of lincoln. this one is about the lincoln funeral court charge that went on for a week around the country. i just finished a book about roosevelt. before that it was the battle of

vicksburg. i tend to read american history. i tend to stay away from the current books. >> aegis recently got an ipad -- uterus recently got an -- you just recently got an ipad. how do like it? >> i love it. what would you use it for? what do you like about it? >> it is just an incredible devised by them.

rather than lugging around a lot of paper, it is nice to have this. >> i am a regular visitor. >> there is not anything to write home about. it has renewed my touted

interest in baseball. i lost that interest over the years. having a team here has renewed buying interest. >> how -- renewed my interest. >> how are the wild cat? >> they are good every year. they came into global and the the you know what ever the cardinals. kentucky will probably go farther. >> you have a thing with the president. he tried to call you. he always stop at the kroger. >> the is the first conversation i had with barack obama. i was at kroger when myself and

went off. i've had to cause of the kroger from barack obama. we will have more in the coming months. if greg thank you very much. thank you for coming host. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] call [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> what every assembly at the c- span video library, all searchable on your computer any time purda. >> senate members talked with reporters today. the parties typically sit on opposite sides of the house chamber. this is about 25 minutes. >> good morning to everybody. i have been joined by senator murkowski from alaska. i am senator udall from colorado. what connects all of us is the

we are all westerners. i married a lady from north carolina. i know the spirit they bring to the political process. we believe that the custom of sitting i.

we are thrilled that 55 colleagues have joined as president -- us. we have many more that will bridge the divide. we want to change the town and should the public that we can work together. i'm think the aisle that has come this time to climb the mountain. we want to turn something to build on that in a positive way. i believe these colleagues are

standing behind me on these positions. they have found ways to step across that divide. there are a lot of ways in which the structure promoted this to work together. we cannot sit together. how come we face the real challenges that the country has. we could develop a 21st energy policy. it'll focus on jobs. we can continue to build on this gesture. i know this can have a real effect on the way the we were together. stay tuned. we will propose some additional ideas as a move forward. i am really honored and humbled to stand here with my three colleagues. i want to turn the podium over

to my good friend from the far west. >> thank you. senator udall has mentioned -- why do you need to focus on the symbolism of it? it is a symbolic gesture. why not start with a symbolic gesture? he was, and time at the state said the union. it becomes a time where it is not focused on the words but you

is standing up burda hill is sitting there with their arms across their chest? who is engaged in the theatrics? that is not what the state of the union should be about. let's come together for an hour or two. let sit together with a colleague that perhaps we do not know that well. we can be part of a process that i think is good for all of us. when senator udall first mention this to me, i thought this as a symbolic act. i bounces off a couple of others. they were all folks that have been in around for a while.

i have a couple of people led separate the brand new. >> without question, they should. we are not afraid to sit next to one another. together we can join together in this very important that the president will do.

they will be joining us tonight. >> thank you. what an incredible leadership we have in the senate. bay have done an incredible job. for us to consider sitting with a colleague across the aisle. this is usually pretty easy for us. in the state of the union, when not on the america is watching, how we conduct ourselves, this is starting the fifth year. one of the most discouraging things that i was able to recognize in the first four years is the partisanship. i have said this before.

it is time that the congress together as one becomes a teen occurred -- a team. we have to unite together. far too often it happens when just after a tragedy. i watched how members of congress stood on the capitol steps saying "god bless america." there is a horrible tragedy in arizona. this needs to be a constant reminder to all of us. let's put the political rhetoric aside. the most important thing we can do is be americans.

there have been progress in this country. we can remain on top inkath. we cannot have a divided nation. the nation has been so strong economically. this time i have my colleague come forward and get his remarks. >> thank you burd. thank you for leading the way. i am here because i believe it

is time to work together to solve the problem cravaac. we all came to congress with the same goal, to continue to insert that our future generations would have the same injured opportunities. we can do so respectively. we can put the puzzle is a sport.

>> would they say that you were standing and cheering when he made his unprecedented attack on the supreme court justices? this is a whole another topic. we are turning the page. this is a new star.

the three of my colleagues to say that what happened in tucson -- this is a very troubled young man. it is a wake-up call. >> to what extent do you think the media is responsible for this corrosive partisanship? what areas you think are most responsible? >> when we do not choose our

words carefully and then the media it chooses to perhaps send it out of context, you have a situation as a leader. we have an obligation to be careful. also, the media-share will further that tension. i think there is a responsibility for all. we need to be careful what we are saying. >> i think the media is

overlooking this. >> absolutely. it demonstrates the we are working together. we have managed to build it over the past couple of years. we have worked together. it is a pretty good relationship. this is not generate near the same level of interest as a chairman and a ranking member. what is the story there? there is tension. there is partisanship. shouldn't the story be that individuals can come together to build a good policy?

there are enough good news stories that come out of the working relationship. >> can you give a sense of what your expectations are going forward in what behavior should be? normally you have partisanship. there is something they would have. is there something you would disagree with? how should members behave? >> we do not have a master's seating chart. this says been very organic. we figured we would walk down the center aisle. we make a statement with our own behavior.

i think this leads to a sense that we are in this together. certainly, this is his night. maybe these are not the appropriate ones given the tell maritime to set. >> and the president said something the democrats [unintelligible] and republicans will likely sit quietly or whatever they choose to do, and do you have a

different expectation? do you think they will actually behave differently? >> i.t. and i have any set expectation of the behavior prevent i do think you might see 8 the more standing ovations. >> i think this is a perfect example of what true leadership as about. you see them try to get their oscar awards. until we get to the point that we lead as one, let's get our

business the way we could do. >> i think what we have gotten here is a point where we excel rate or exemplify everything we said in a speech.

>> did speaker boehner instructed them on how to behave? the he give you any sort of instructions. >> esp on your best behavior. that is what the american public is asked to di, -- to do. >> you have been working on a

filibuster reform package. this is mean the filibuster would not be rolled back? they are asking to do that. you are looking at this as a way to break down the way the senate does this bur. >> as i mentioned, it is important when you use the word "commentate" that it is important to emphasize the words we are speaking.

there is a sense of where expediting nominations. i know of the minority has a legitimate case. >> could you put it into concrete moments that will come into this? should this go up to the -- go out? >> i think they have instituted said they the works well in their committee. many of us like to find a way for the entire senate to launched together -- lunch

together once a month. of the good old days are not so good. there is more time to interact personally. you can get home quickly. that demand means we are here. by paying what we see this doing is finding a way to get to know each other a little bit better. it works in small communities. it works in families bu. america is one big family. there are times when they want to disown and disenfranchised. we cannot eveafford to do that.

>> can you clarify how many members to think will be participating tonight? >> i think you will see tons of additional members team up quietly in some cases publicly. >> said there is a lot. -- i think there is a but. i think you are seeing that they are out. i injures senate would be the same. >> the colorado delegation will be sitting together. i had a mystery tonight prevent. i think you will see the chamber

very differently connected. >> this is an example of one step toward unity of the congress. so much of that will have to start with the president. i see the focus being the american people. we have to get to the plant where it is not about that. it is about the progress of the country. >> we do not spend the whole evening who is sitting next it is about who is going to the prom and white dress. --