access those cameras? if that is ok, why is this not ok? >> our theory with respect to a video camera, if you are targeting an individual -- this presents a great question. if the court wanted to address that question, once the police target somebody, they want to engage in an individual is targeting for use of a pervasive network of cameras. gps as like 1 million cameras. the court of appeals pointed that out. >> in any case, about 28 satellites. >> 28 cameras, but the equivalent of a camera treking you on every street corner you are on everywhere. once you have suspicion like that, if the court wants to deal with it, i believe you would have to have a warrant. >> all of this discussion, you're going into it but the

question leads you into it, it seems to me it leaks of the difficult part of the case. the issue for us is not in the abstract, whether this police conduct is unreasonable. the unreasonablenes requires it does not take effect unless there has been a search. and our cases have said that there is no search when you are in public and where everything that you do is open to view of people. that is the hard question in the case, not whether this is unreasonable. that is not what the fourth amendment says, the police cannot do anything that is unreasonable. it can do a lot of stuff that is unreasonable without violating the fourth amendment, and the protection against that is the legislature. but you have to establish, if you're going to go with that, that there has been an invasion of privacy. when all the this is showing is were the car is going on the public streets, were the police

could have had a round-the-clock surveillance on this individual for a whole month or for two months or three months. and that would not have violated anything, what it. why? because there is no invasion of privacy. why is this an invasion of privacy? >> because it is a complete robotic substitute. recently, the government cited in its brief one instance of the 24-hour surveillance for all two days. what you have is -- >> 100 times 0 equals 0. if there is no invasion of privacy for one day, there is no invasion of privacy for 100 days. we can handle it with laws. but it there's no invasion of privacy, no matter how many days you do it, there is no invasion of privacy. >> i want to look at bond versus united states. gps in a car without a warrant

is something that makes you unable to get rid of an uninvited strangers. that is what it is. >> so it is a tail and surveillance for months. >> if they want to tail commit resources, that is fine. but what a gps does is it allows the government to engage in an unlimited surveillance through the machine room audibly. nobody is monitoring. the record shows that many times the police officers led the mission and one. >> or would you draw the line? suppose the gps was used to track some of these movements for one day or 12 hours or for three hours, would that be all right? what's our position, justice is no circumstances should a gps be allowed to put on somebody's car. >> what about the trespass' question? >> the use of the chief u.s. --

of the gps as a search should be unreasonable. if the court were uncomfortable with that, has concerns, we suggested some possibilities in our brief. one day, one truck, one person per day or per trip. perhaps when used as a beeper, when you physically follow them. >> what is the difference between following somebody for 12 hours, let's say, and monitoring their movements on gps for 12 hours? your first argument is there is a problem with the latter but not the former. what is the reason? >> because it is unreasonable invasion of privacy. >> what is the difference whether you're followed by a police officer for 12 hours and you do not see the officer or whether you're monitored by gps for 12 hours? >> because you have a society that does not suspect that the human element will be taken out

of the surveillance. >> i do not know what society suspects, and i think technology is changing. people's expectation of privacy. look for 10 years. mitsui years from now, that the son of the population -- maybe 10 years from now the population will be using social networking sites. there will have 500 friends, and they will allow other friends to monitor their location 24 hours a day, 360 days a year, through the use of their cell phones. what with the expectation of privacy be then? >> their two ways of looking at it. it was observed that cell phones might have privacy interests. currently, the use of a cell phone, that is a voluntary. people understand that their ways to monitor by way of the cell phone. but i started with this basic precept. this case does not require us to decide issues of a merchant

technology. should the police be allowed surreptitiously to put these things on people's cars and either call it a seizure, search, search and seizure, or call it the fourth amendment? >> maybe that is a good way to decide the case. but what mr. jones or anybody else be really upset it they found that police sneaked up to their car and put a nert device the size of a credit card on the oven -- on the underside of the car? what would they say about that, other than that i that the police are wasting money? >> if it is nothing more than a note or even a bumper sticker -- >> you do not even see it. it is just a little way from underneath the car that does nothing. >> but it has an enormous capacity. >> but this one does nothing. so you would bring a trespass action. >> heavens, no, your honor. >> what you're concerned about

is not this little thing that is put on your car, not his invasion of their property interests. it is the monitoring that takes place. >> the monitoring makes it meaningful. >> but suppose that the police could do this without ever committing the trespass. suppose that in the future, all cars will have gps tracking systems and the police could essentially hack into such a system without committing the trespass. with a constitutional issue we face be any different? >> as i assume, that is because the manufacturer is doing it or congress has legislated it. under either circumstance, people would know about the device. the other -- whether that would be possible to go through congress, i seriously doubt. in this case, antoine jones had no idea whatsoever that his possessory interest in that property was about to be defied by the government in a meaningful way, to allow them to get information they could not

have otherwise gone. gps produces unique data. when we drive down the street, we do not emit a gps data. what makes the data meaningful is the use and placement of the gps device. that was in this case, in this case, and consented to by antoine jones and knowingly, and the government knew that. that is why they did it serin to bissett -- surreptitiously. they cannot get it any other way. >> there are cameras at 11 intersections at stoplights. suppose the police suspected someone of criminal activity and had a computer capacity to take pictures at all the intersections that he drove through at different times of the day, and they watched his movements for five days. would that be lawful? >> i think that would be allowable, your honor. i think that would be permissible. first, you do not have a physical intrusion, unlike this

case. >> yes, but you have a targeted innovation over a certain time span. over a wide space, and it seems to me that you have to answer my question yes to be consistent with what you said earlier. >> no, your honor. you can have an occasional video camera out there. people understand nowadays that there may be video cameras in public spaces. but society does not view it as reasonable to have the equivalent of a million video cameras following you everywhere you go. a few video cameras, people know. they have been accepted. and but this is entirely different. this is the small device that enables the government to get information about a vast amount of -- >> what other workable rule with no principal -- would and unworkable rule tethered to no principle, 1000 video cameras

may remain not be ok depending on how large the city is? >> no, justice. i think the most simple rule that should be adopted is this. i think the court should stick to the law enforcement agency, you came looking for a world, we will give you a role. if you want to use gps device is, get a warrant and show these circumstances and exceptions to the fourth amendment. because of their capacity to collect data you cannot realistically get because of the low-cost, because of the pervasive nature that you should get a warrant. you must get a warrant any time you're going to attach a gps to a citizen's effect. >> that gets back to justice scalia's question to you have to determine that there is a search first. it seems to me that the warrant requirement applies only with respect to searches, right? >> and seizures. >> so, while it might seem like

a good idea to impose a requirement on this party dealer technological device, you still have to establish it as a search. >> but if you as the police agency knows -- of these devices are not used for quick 1-off surveillance. there used to track people overtime, as was in this case. every taken -- every 10 seconds of the day for 28 days. if you know they're going to do that, and you know this device has an amazing leading invasive power in capacity. if you know you're going to do that -- >> they pushed your friend to the limits of your theory, and you're a theory would apply if you're wrong to do it for three minutes, right? you say that is still a fourth amendment violation. >> yes. >> do not talk to me about how long they're going to be doing it or all the information. we have to test of a little ditty that your theory on the proposition that it violates the

fourth amendment to do this for three minutes -- we have to test the validity of your theory. >> we have, your honor. >> how do we tell? i do not know what society expects. i suppose if you ask people, do you think it is a violation of privacy for police to do this for no reason for months, maybe they would come out one way. if you ask the people of using the police have to have probable cause before they monitor for 5 minutes the movements of somebody that they're going to set off a huge bomb, maybe you'd get a different answer. >> you look to common law. you look to well-established case law. you look to statutes in several jurisdictions. i believe several have talked about this sort of practice. >> excellent, yes. of course the legislature can take care of this. whether or not there is an invasion of privacy. and they can pick five days out of the air. you cannot do for any more than five days. are you cannot do it for more

than 50 people at a time. they can take care of all the stuff. this precisely the kind of problem that you should rely upon legislatures to take care of? >> that is the same problem that the u.s. advanced before this court in the united states obverses district court. the court held a fourth amendment violations so far as domestic security was concern. in this case, i could probably give you 535 reasons why not to go to congress. let me suggest something, justice scalia. what happened was the u.s. has adopted a shifting position. they came to this court and said, we want to work with the rule. either overrule the d.c. circuit, which you should not do, are giving us a workable rule. now they said, let's take it to the legislature. >> you'd think it should go the other way? i mean, can you say that a general search of this kind is

not constitutional on to the fourth amendment, but should congress to get a subset thereof, let's say terrorism or were there is reasonable cause or like the fisa cord or special courts was special warrants, that that is a different question that can be decided at a later time? it favors your result, but i have been looking to see if there is a way of going to congress to create situations where they can do it, rather than situations where they cannot. >> justice, that is what happened with the foreign intelligence surveillance chords. all this court has to do is decide the narrow question before it, which i have articulated several times. >> i do not see why it is any of congress' business if it is truly an intrastate operations. congress can control police practices that do not violate the fourth amendment throughout the country? i mean, maybe interstate

tracking devices, yes. but so long as you track within the state, isn't that ok? >> no, your honor. first, i want to refer to a comment from a long time ago in watts versus indiana peter justices are not ignorant of the law what they know to be true of men and women. what we have here is a controversy in which antoine jones, john -- control of his vehicle was usurped and his car was converted into an electronic gps transceivers serving the government. the case is here and needs to be decided. one does not need to rest that technology is not on here for the court today. we could discuss surveillance. we could discuss other types of surveillance. but we do not have to. >> but there was a warrant in this case. this is puzzling to me. maybe it was relevant.

there was a warrant. and the two violations are violations on a statute and a world. neither of which make an exclusionary rule sanction with them or penalty with them. it is not click -- clear that there was a violation of the fourth amendment. a little strange we're deciding whether a warrantless search here would be unconstitutional when there was a warrant. >> they had the choice. they could have come back to the district judge and said -- >> that is not my point. my point is the violation of the 10-day rule and the violation of the statutory prohibition on the judge in the district on the installation are not fourth amendment requirements. >> no, that is correct. what we have here is a war and -- warrantless intrusion. >> but there was a warrant.

>> but it was not in effect. at this time the gps was placed, there was not a warrant. >> that is accepted by both sides. the warrant expired. there was not a warrant. they could have gone back and said, judge, we need a little more time, and they could have got 10 more days. >> they could have gone back and explained to the district judge why they cannot install it during that time. >> if you look at a lower court case law, you will see that the mileage of the 10-day rule is not necessarily in violation of the fourth amendment. it does not necessarily dissolve or evaporate when the 10 days expire. >> there is a 1920 supreme court decision decided during the prohibition era that specifically said that when a warrant expires, there is no warrant. with a 10-day rule, it expires. so we have a warrantless

intrusion. >> thank you. five minutes. >> advancing technology cuts in two directions. technological advances can make the police more efficient at what they do through some of the examples that were discussed today. cameras, airplanes, beepers, gps. at the same time, technology and how it is used can change our expectations of privacy. in the ways that justice alito was alluding to. today, perhaps, gps can be portrayed as in 1984-type invasion. but as people use gps in their lives and for other purposes, our expectations of privacy surrounding our location may also change. >> that seems too much to me. if you think about this and think about a little robotic device the following you around 24 hours a day, any place you go that is not your home, reporting

in all of your movements to the police come to investigative authorities, the notion that we do not have an expectation of privacy and the notion is that we do not think our privacy interests would be violated by this robotic device -- i am not sure how one can say that. >> justice, i think the court should decide that case when it comes to it. this case does not involve a universal surveillance of every member of this court or every member of the society. it involves limited surveillance of somebody suspected of drug activity. >> you have probably had the opportunity to go on a vacation. hypothetical, suppose exactly these facts, only a neighbor does it to another neighbor in order to see where that neighbor is going. when he finds out, he tells his wife and other neighbors. do you think that in most states -- states that would be an

invasion of privacy? >> i am willing to assume in might be. but i do not think this court measures the bounds of the fourth amendment by state law invasions of privacy. >> we measured hit by expectations of privacy. it may or may not be controlling. >> but in greenwood, california had outlawed taking somebody's garbage. the court said that in not define an expectation of privacy. >> it down there was no repetition of privacy. i am asking about this case, whether there would be an expectation of privacy. >> no, i do not think so. the fact is somebody may be a torte for private person does not mean it will be something for the police to do. in the dow chemical case, the epa's used cameras, and they said it would violate trade secrets law for anybody else to do that. the court accepted that.

tort law does not define the boundaries of the fourth amendment. the court was careful to reserve the possibility of 24-hour surveillance of every citizen in their persons and in the residences, saying we have not seen the kind of abuse. if the kind of abuse comes up, the legislature is the best equipped to deal with it if, in fact, our society regards that as unreasonable. >> and you have any idea how many gps devices are being used by federal government agencies and state law-enforcement officials? >> the federal government, i can speak to, and it is in the low thousands annually. it is not a mass of universal use of the technique. the fbi requires that there be some reasonable basis for using gps before it installs it. as a result, this is a technique that basically supplements of visual surveillance, rather than supplanting it all together. there was visual surveillance

that was directed at responded. the gps allowed it to be more effective. as the hypothetical set illustrated, it is conceding that an around-the-clock vigil surveillance would not have invaded any expectation of privacy. this court said that police efficiency has never been equated with police and constitutionality. the fact that gps makes it more efficient for the police to put a tail on somebody invades no additional expectation of privacy that they otherwise would have had. the technology does not make something private that was previously public. when we go in our cars, but our cars have driver's licenses that we carry. we have license plates on the car for the purpose of identification. >> you do not seriously argue that there is not a possessory interest in who put something on your car, like a sign of some

sort? >> i think there were probably be some sort of state law possessory interest. but there is no seizure for the very reason that justice breyer described under the past case. the court said trespasses neither necessary or efficient to create a fourth amendment violation. >> thank you. the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tonight, chief executives from around the country look at the year ahead. we begin at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 with new york mayor michael bloomberg, who calls his city the capital of innovation. then education and jobs with governor deal of georgia. the governor of vermont -- a vermont on rebuilding efforts after hurricane irene. followed by the governor of iowa on economic expansion.

we will watch the inaugural of the new governor of mississippi. plus, governor jerry brown, who says rumors about california's it demise are greatly exaggerated. speeches from city and state leaders starting tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span2. tomorrow morning, we will bring you our republican presidential debate with candidate is newt gingrich, mitt romney, rick santorum, and ron paul. it happens live tonight on nbc in florida. we will we hear that debate tomorrow morning at 5:10 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. >> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, including the president's speech, republican response by indiana governor mitch daniels, and your phone

calls, live on c-span and c-span radio. on c-span2, watched the president's speech along with tweets from members of congress. after the address, more reaction. you can go online for live video and add comments on facebook and twitter. c-span.org. >> with the state of the union address tomorrow, the president is working with his team to refine this speech. no specifics were given during today's white house briefing, but the press secretary did say the economy will be the main theme. in addition, he revealed that representative gabrielle giffords' has been will be a guest of the president. here is the briefing from earlier this morning. >> good afternoon, welcome to the white house for your daily briefing. before i get started, and wanted

to let you know that the president, earlier today, called mark kelly to express his appreciation to congresswoman giffords and to thank them both for their patriotism and dedication to the country. the president said congresswoman giffords embodies the very best of what public service should be. she is universally admired for qualities that transcend party or ideologies, and dedication to fairness, a willingness to listen to different ideas, and a tireless commitment to the work of protecting our union, and he thanks her for her remarkable service. on the call earlier today, the president discussed the fact that mark kelly has been invited to attend the state of the union and sit in the first lady's box, and he very much looks forward to having mr. kelly there. separately, i know that something is happening tomorrow you might be interested in. i thought i would mention that i

am not going to get into specific policy proposals, because i prefer that you hear them first from the president when he gives his state of the union address tomorrow evening at 9:00 p.m. eastern standard time. i will say that in a lot of ways, the state of the union will be a book-end to his speech in kansas last month about the central mission we have as a country and his focus as president. building a country and economy where we reward hard work and responsibility, where everyone does their fair share, and wherever one is held accountable for what they do. the president will build off of the things of that kansas speech in the state of the union by laying out a blueprint for an america built to last. it will be supported by four pillars. american many factions, american energy, skills for american workers, and american values. the president looks very much forward to the opportunity to speak to the american people tomorrow evening, to give them

-- to provide to the american people his vision for where we need to go and how we should get there as a country working together to build a stronger economy, a more secure union, and i hope with as many americans as possible taking advantage of the opportunity to hear what he has to say tomorrow night. i am sure we will have more to talk about in the mass -- in the aftermath. he will be traveling for three days after the state of the union. he will be speaking specifically about the first three pillars, american manufacturing, american energy, and skills for american workers. american values is sort of an overlay of the other three. with that, i will go to the associated press. >> follow-ups on that topic. can you give us a sense of where the president is in the drafting of this speech? when they draft, they go through formal practice. >> there is a draft that i read

through this morning, and it is not the first and will not be the last, i am sure. the president has been working very closely with his chief speech writer and others on his policy teams to refine it. get it ready for tomorrow evening, and i am sure that process will continue today and tomorrow. i do not have a number of traps for you, but coming in now, he thinks it is an important speech, and he looks forward to giving it. >> in context of this reelection year, what kind of formation goes on with the reelection campaign in terms of the messages and that kind of thing? >> this is the state of the union address the president is getting. we, obviously, the themes of this speech that i just discussed reflect not just the

speech he gave in kansas, but in many ways, the principles that president obama has brought to public service since he began his career in public service. so it would not take much to understand where he is coming from and where he believes the country will go, and i am sure that the campaign has focused on the same ideas, because they're working to get the president reelected. the trips he is making, the three-trip he will be making after the speech, these are official even to further elucidate and add detail to and i think as i've said before, one option -- the president knows that one option for washington, for congress and for him is to wait until the election resolves our

differences. he rejects that option. he believes that while there will certainly be disagreements and issues to debate in the election, that election is nearly 10 months away, and we cannot afford to waste those 10 months on campaigning alone; that there are things we can and must do to grow the economy, create jobs, ensure that everyone gets a fair shot and that everyone is held accountable for what they do; that if we all play by the same rules, then we all get ahead together. >> one last one. there was some news this morning on the housing front, a draft agreement between major banks and the states over foreclosure practices. and one of the upshots of this is intended to be modifying loans for those who are facing foreclosure to make it easier for them to get by. i just wonder if you have

any reaction to that and if that's the kind of development that you think could play into the state of the union. >> well, i don't have any reaction to that report. the president, as you know, is focused on the issue of housing. this has been -- had a profound impact on our economy, and the president has worked since he took office to help alleviate the damage that the bursting of the housing bubble has caused to our economy and to help homeowners refinance their homes, for example, or get forbearance in order to stay in their homes. but i don't have any specific correlation to make between that report and the state of the union address. yes, caren. >> thanks, jay. i wanted to

ask a question about iran. the administration put out a statement a little while ago about the eu sanctions. but in reaction to those sanctions, you have one politician in iran renewing the threat to close the strait of hormuz. that was after the iranians backed off that threat days ago. and i'm just wondering what your assessment of the situation is right now, and are you concerned about the rhetoric heating up again there? >> well, you're citing one report from one politician, as i understand it. what i can tell you is that the uss abraham lincoln transited through the strait of hormuz without incidence -- without incident, rather -- as part of our regularly scheduled movements, undertaken in accordance with our longstanding commitments to the security and stability of the region. we are focused on holding iran accountable, to ensuring that iran understands that its stark

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

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

vision and some specific ideas about where we can take the country, things that an administration can do working with congress or working without congress, to advance policy objectives. and you're right that the economy is the principal theme, but it is not the only subject of the address. part of giving a state of the union address is to assess the state of the union, of our country, and certainly foreign policy, national security, these are important elements of any assessment of the state of the union. and the president will offer his insights into that as well. kristen, then jake. >> thanks, jay. can you give us any insight into what the president is thinking about the tone he wants to adopt with regard to congress? i know you've had some conversations back there about how adversarial he wants to come off, how much he wants to leave the door open --

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

come together and do that. and so i think the president will be very clear about his vision, will be very clear about his principles, about the ideas that i just laid out in broad form -- about fair play and people getting a fair shot, economic security and protecting the middle class. but there's ample room within those boundaries for bipartisan cooperation and for getting things done, and he'll make that clear. >> has he at this point decided on the action items he wants in the speech -- >> for the most part. >> -- or does the discussion of the tone he wants to adopt have to do mainly with wording? or is he thinking about big -- >> i think -- there's not a debate about the tone he's going to adopt. i think the tone has been reflected in what i just described to you and in what you've heard from the president not just over the past several months but over the entirety of his career. the

specific policy ideas are things that get discussed internally and decisions are made about what to include and what not to include. but he knows what he's about and he knows how he wants to present this picture of the state of our union and his vision going forward, and there's no debate about that. >> and those big pieces are fixed at this point, is that right? >> sure. jake. >> has the president reviewed past state of the union addresses that he's delivered to look at what proposals he's made that have come to fruition and which have not? >> well, i don't know that he has done that in this specific process. he's very aware of the proposals he's made and the initiatives that he's launched

as president and the ideas that he put forward as a candidate. he wouldn't take only this opportunity to review where that stands and to decide what requires further action and what new ideas to move on. so i guess the answer is i don't know specifically that he individually has made that assessment. i think that's an assessment that he makes and others make regularly. and with regards to reviewing previous states of the union, perhaps his speechwriters have done that, but i don't know that he has. >> i ask because a number of the items that he brought up last year have not come to fruition, and i'm wondering if he plans on reintroducing them, discussing them again, and why it's been so unsuccessful. >> well, i take strong issue with the suggestion that what others have described as historic accomplishments in the first three years in office are unsuccessful. >> i was talking about the 2011 state of the union address. >> well, i think that any

state of the union address which lays out an agenda has to be ambitious. and if you got through a year and you achieved everything on your list, then you probably didn't aim high enough. so i think this president aims high, and i think that there will -- there are absolutely things that remain undone that need to be done that he will call on all of us to work together to get done in this address and beyond. but there is also a fairly comprehensive list of proposals that have been achieved that i'm sure we'll be discussing as the year goes on. >> and one last thing. a year ago, in addition to the state of the union, the president delivered a major address in tuscon after the shooting of gabby giffords and six others. the president called for a new tone, he called for a new era of civility. and i'm

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

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

works to achieve that, and he'll continue to do that as president. >> thank you. >> laura and then dan. >> just to follow up on that line of thinking -- the white house's view about the disappointments of not coming to agreement on the subjects you just mentioned is well known. and my question is, do you think that the tone, the -- at the tucson speech he talked about civility and the idea that you can discuss your disagreements without anger and without this sort of poison that has marked so much in washington. does he believe the last year has been marked by a poisonous tone, or has there been any improvement? >> well, i think he accepts that there is still a regrettable level of sort of hyper-partisanship in washington that contributes significantly to gridlock. i think that -- and there have been instances in the past year

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

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

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

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

because it might actually help them get reelected in the fall -- because, unfortunately, we've heard recently coming out of the house republican caucus basically that the agenda is not, as outlined by the leadership, taking them in that direction of cooperation. but when you have 85 percent disapproval, you might think that cooperation and getting something done is a better approach, especially when an election year is upon us. >> and what will be the balance between those things that the president claims to do on his own as he lays out this blueprint and those things that will require congressional approval? i mean is it heavier -- >> some of one and some of the other. >> will it be heavier on one than the other? >> no, i'll let you guys see. i mean, we -- look, throughout this period where we have focused some attention on the measures that the president can

and has been taking because we can't wait for congress to act, we absolutely acknowledge that some very big things can't be done without congressional action, because it requires -- they require legislation. and some things that a president can do using his or her executive authority are relatively small in nature, but that doesn't make them not worth doing -- some of them are medium-sized or large. but truly big things, whether it's historic health care reform, or passing a recovery act that halted an economy in freefall and reversed a process that was leading towards a great depression -- that requires legislative action. and other big things require legislative action -- comprehensive immigration reform requires legislative action. there's a lot to be done that requires the cooperation of

congress. so there will be plenty of that in this president's address. >> and just quickly, did the president watch the south carolina results over the weekend, anything to that? and also, any reaction to joe paterno's death? >> i haven't discussed with him the results in the south carolina primary, so i just -- i don't know. again, i think i've -- my guess is he read about them and didn't watch them. but i don't have a reaction for you on that. and i'll have to -- i don't have anything on joe paterno's death either at this point. norah. >> you just mentioned comprehensive immigration reform. does the president believe in comprehensive tax reform? >> yes. >> will he be talking about that? >> as he said many times. both corporate and individual. >> does he believe in -- that there should be changes in campaign finance? >> i will ask you to wait for

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

go into some detail. there will be other details forthcoming with regard to some of the policy ideas that he puts forward. but it will be a substantive speech. >> this is the president's third state of the union; he's making it in an election year. you sort of were pushing back the idea that it's a political speech, but if it's not political, why then did the president choose to offer a preview through his campaign? >> well, he did that last year as well. this white house, this administration, this president have, from the beginning, used new media to reach out to americans and supporters, whether it's a political year or not. last year was an off-year, and he did this. and the fact of the matter is, tomorrow night he speaks to the nation at large and he will -- the themes that he discussed in that video will be reflected in the speech. and it is very much -- >> but the uplink was to

supporters only. >> well, i think every major news organization got it, too. but the -- concurrently, so i wouldn't say it was supporters only. >> why didn't you use the white house website instead of the campaign website? >> this is a process that we've employed for a long time here. the speech tomorrow -- you'll probably come back and ask me why it was so heavy on substance and lacking in politics. but it's a serious speech with serious proposals for how to keep this country moving in the right direction. >> you talked about some of the values that the president laid out -- he did it in kansas. can i get you to respond to mitt romney, who said that the president wants to put "free enterprise on trial," and he wants to "divide americans with the bitter politics of envy." >> i will simply say, as the president has made clear when he's addressed these broader issues, that -- well, two things: on free enterprise and business, the facts, contrary

to what some people charge, are that this president has actually put in fewer new regulations than his republican predecessor at this point, at less cost and more economic benefit. he has instituted a regulatory look-back that is unprecedented and has his administration combing through the regulations of the past, eliminating those that are no longer worth enforcing and rewriting those that can be made more efficient for american business to grow. he has passed 17 or 18 small business tax cuts. so this president's absolute faith and commitment to the free enterprise system is profound. there's no doubt that we have a disagreement with at least some republicans -- although depending on the survey, not rank-and-file republicans -- that our tax system needs to be fixed so that billionaires don't pay a lower rate than working-class, middle-

class americans. that's what the president believes. he believes that we have important responsibilities as a country, commitments that we need to keep to our national security, to educating our kids, to investing in innovation that cost something, to maintaining medicare and social security and medicaid for our seniors, and that we need to make sure that those programs are strong, that our national security is strong so that we can continue to be a great nation that dominates the 21st century economically the way it dominated the 20th, and in doing that, we need to decide what's the best way to pay for it, what's the fairest way to do it. and the president believes that it is not fair -- inherently not fair that those who are millionaires and billionaires pay at a lower rate than average americans who are struggling to get by, especially after a decade where the middle class has been squeezed while the top 1 percent has seen its

wealth grow considerably, and three-decade period where the middle class has been under pressure. remember, not just going back to osawatomie, kansas, but going back years, that this theme about economic insecurity for the middle class has been -- is what got this president into politics. so this is a foundational belief for him and he's happy to have that debate. and he thinks that overwhelmingly the american people share his view that we need to have everyone play by the same rules, whether it's wall street or main street, and we need to have a tax system that ensures that everyone pays their fair share. ed. >> jay, a couple moments ago you were talking about congress and you mentioned the 85 percent disapproval, and it -- >> it's something like that, i can't remember. >> right, fair enough -- that it shows that they're in a dismal state right now. there's a gallup poll out now

saying that there's 83 percent dissatisfaction with the state of the economy from the american people. i get that, as you were just talking to norah about inequality in this country has been a foundational principle for the president. but isn't that also a way for you to kind of shift the conversation about inequalities in the economy rather than just a broader state of the economy when the american people are pretty frustrated with it? >> well, it's a great question, ed, and i think that we will be absolutely talking about the state of the economy, beginning with the president, but all of us. and it is a matter of absolute fact that when this president took office the economy was plummeting, job loss was through the roof, and that since his policies took effect -- had the opportunity to be passed by congress and to take effect, the reverse has happened: 3.2 million private sector jobs created over 22 months; steady economic growth; the salvation of an iconic

american industry, the automobile industry; passage of historic health care reform that already has millions of americans up to age 26 getting insurance when they otherwise might not have, already has millions of americans protected by the provisions within it that allow them to get insurance even if they have preexisting conditions, already has provided savings in the millions and millions of dollars for seniors in terms of their preventive care and prescription drug benefits. so we'll have that discussion, no doubt. and the president's record is -- i think it demonstrates his commitment to the middle class, to getting this country back on the right track, to ensuring that the kinds of behaviors in the financial sector that helped precipitate the kind of

economic crisis that none of us had ever experienced before, that puts so much pressure on american families around the country, is contained and regulated in a way that ensures it won't happen again. we'll have that debate, gladly. >> so this will be about his vision. i wonder if you could clear something up. newt gingrich keeps saying on the campaign trail that the president's vision comes from saul alinsky, the community organizer. i haven't heard you asked about that. i'm wondering if you want to -- is there some sort of portrait of him in the white house that people look up to? (laughter.) or is this just some -- is this bs basically? (laughter.) >> have i said how much fun i had as a reporter covering congress from 1996 to 1998? there was a certain bombast to it at the time, a lot of colorful things to cover.

(laughter.) but the president's background as a community organizer is well documented in the president's own books, so his experience in that field obviously contributed to who he is today. but his experience is a broad- based one that includes a lot of other areas in his life, so i'll just leave it at that. >> on newt, the vice president was on the radio with ryan seacrest, i believe this morning, and was asked about the open marriage question, and the vice president first said he wasn't going to comment, and then he did and said -- (laughter.) just factually stating what he did. (laughter.) and then he said that, "newt gingrich" -- the vice president said -- "is going to be judged by the voters in the primary in the totality of who he is, and that includes everything. i mean, people make judgments about our character." you were asked this i think on thursday or friday -- >> i wasn't asked quite -- >> you were asked about his

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

don't have any involvement in and we're just watching from the sidelines. and when a nominee emerges, we'll engage -- the president will engage in that debate, and i'm sure the vice president will engage in a debate at the appropriate time with whoever the vice presidential running mate is. but again, i think what we're trying to stress here is, while that process is taking place, as it should, we have the opportunity here to actually move an agenda forward now, in the year 2012, that can help the american economy and help the american people. >> on the economy -- last thing -- the vice president also was asked about housing. and remember mitt romney in october talked about foreclosures and said, "let it run its course and hit bottom," and the dnc went after him about that. the vice president was quoted as saying, "let the bottom fall out and then start to clean up. it's sort of darwinisn; the fittest out there," and, "they're right; it's the quickest way to do it." and then he went on to say, but you

have to be compassionate; you can't just kick people out on the street. he made a delineation from what he thinks republicans have said -- in fairness. however, he did say that you've got to let it hit bottom. isn't that what mitt romney is saying? >> ed, can i just say first, you read me portions of an interview i haven't even heard yet. i think based on what you've read, he's giving an assessment of what one of the republican candidates said and sort of explaining it more fully, and then also explaining, broadly, the approach we take, which is that there are a lot of americans out there who have underwater mortgages whom we have tried to offer relief in a responsible way. and that's the approach we think is necessary because we need -- we're in this boat together. we need to grow the economy in a way that helps as many people as possible. that's the approach we take. >> in one of the new yorker stories today about the internal memos, a couple of

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

early 2009, and the monumental decisions that the president had to make at the time. specifically, just because it's a fact, on the issue of health care reform savings, i point you to the cbo, non-partisan cbo, which absolutely concluded that the affordable care act is a deficit reducer -- a rather substantial deficit reducer. so that's a fact. and, look, i think the president's economic team -- economic teams have been focused on getting the policy right, on making extremely difficult judgments, especially two years ago during -- and three years ago during extremely difficult economic times. and going back to the answer i gave

to ed, let's let the record be judged for its results. and i think that while we have a long way to go in this economy, there is no arguing the fact that the direction that we've been going in since the president's policies have had a chance to take effect is a heck of a lot better -- is much more the right direction compared to the direction this country and this economy were going in when he took office. i think that's indisputable. julia. >> thanks. is the budget still set to be released on february 6th? >> i don't know. i'll have to get back to you. i don't have a budget release date for you. sorry. >> jay, do you know if the white house has been in touch with senator kirk's family or office since he suffered a stroke? >> i don't know that. i saw that report before i came out and our -- we're obviously concerned about his condition, but wish him a speedy recovery. i just don't have any more details on that or how much outreach has taken place from here at this point.

>> and then another non-state of the union issue. as you may have heard, senator rand paul had an incident today at the nashville airport with the tsa. his father, ron paul, has issued a statement saying, "the police state in this country is growing out of control, and one of the embodiments of this is the tsa." what does the white house make of that? >> what i can tell you is that when an irregularity is found during the tsa screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger -- any passenger -- to proceed to the secure area of the airport. passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling. and let's just be clear, the passenger was not detained. the passenger triggered an alarm during routine airport screening but refused to complete the screening process in order to resolve the issue. passengers, as in this case, who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area. in this case, the passenger was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement. it's my

understanding he has now rebooked and passed through security without incident, and that has resolved itself. >> what do you make of the statement from his father? >> i think it is absolutely essential that we take the necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe, and i believe that's what tsa is tasked with doing. i don't have a specific response to that statement. i would refer you to tsa for more. kristen. >> jay, thanks. you announced at the top of the briefing that mark kelly will be coming to the state of the union. can you announce any other guests that will be there? >> i don't have any other announcements to make at this point on guests in the box. >> okay. and some reporters have characterized this particular state of the union not only as the president's -- the president laying out his vision for 2012, but also for the next four years if he were to be reelected. is that a fair way to characte t>> well,e direction and vision that the

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

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

>> thanks. on yemen, how is the president's support for the right of protest in the middle east and wider message on the arab spring compatible with the decision to allow president saleh, who is accused of -- blamed for the deaths of hundreds of demonstrators, to come to new york for medical treatment? >> well, i mean those are two separate things. our support for the right of protest is unchanged. and the fact of the matter is, as you note, mr. saleh's request to travel to the u.s. for medical treatment has been approved, and the purpose of this travel is for medical treatment alone. and we expect that he will stay for a limited time that corresponds to the duration of this treatment. we, at the same time, believe that his absence from yemen at this critical juncture will help facilitate a transition that completes the end of his rule, helps yemen and ultimately has a positive effect on the rights and dignity of the yemeni people. our policy focus remains on preventing

further instability and keeping that transition on track. >> so the decision to admit him is an attempt by the united states to improve the conditions running up to the election, not just a medical issue? >> well, no, he has been granted a visa to this country solely for medical treatment. his absence from yemen we hope will help facilitate the transition, but that would be true of his absence no matter where he went. the fact is he's been granted a visa to this country for medical treatment. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i have never felt more strongly that america's best days and democracy's best days lie ahead. we are powerful force for good with faith and courage, and we

can perform great deeds to take the next step, and we will. we will carry on the tradition of a good and were the people who have brought like where there was darkness, warmth where there was cold, medicine where there was disease, food where there was on her, and peace where there was only bloodshed. let's be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time that in our time we did everything that could be done. we finished the race. we kept them free. we kept the faith. >> state of the union address is going back to 1952 are online at the c-span video library. state ofsident obama's the union address this week. it is tuesday night, live on c- span. >> we take a look at the year ahead beginning with mayor michael bloomberg at 9:00 p.m.

eastern. also, the inaugural address of mississippi's governor, phil bryant, and california gov. jerry brown. plus, other state leaders that you can see listed on your screen. starting tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. and tomorrow morning, a republican presidential debate with candidates nuking rich, mitt romney, rick santorum, and ron paul. it happens in tampa bay, florida. we will bring you the debate at 5 taye -- 5:10 a.m. eastern on c-span. an event called the conservative platform was hosted by representative alan west of florida. you can see all of this tonight after a u.s. house coverage, which starts in about 15 minutes from now at 6:30 p.m. eastern.

here is part of the forum with congressman west. >> i concluded a long time ago that most black people do not think alike. they just vote alike. with the exception of the arena that we are in and most arenas, it is reality. in my church on sunday morning, if you come to my church and we give you the impression that we do not care about you visiting our church, you are probably not going to combat because of the% -- not going to come back because of the perception that we gave. i would hope that in our discussion as we move forward that we would think about this

perception. do we have anybody here from the rnc this morning? do we have anyone here from the senatorial committee? >> and they were invited? uh-oh. >> this is a discussion that the institutions of the republican party, that they need to be involved with. how many people do we have at the strategic papatable in any f the presidential campaigns? i am at the strategic table for one of them, but i think we need a tim scott or -- you do not have to be in the same camp that i am in, but somebody that looks like us need to be at the strategic table to say, i know where you are trying to say, but i would not say that like that. [applause] again, perception is reality, and i don't care if it is with

christians or with jews, in the church, which organization, my business. if my customers, my clients feel like i do not care about their means, they will go somewhere else. -- care about their needs, they will go somewhere else. this issue surrounding this perception -- i have had to defend them and say, look, you do not know these guys. give them 15 minutes with you and give the other side 15 minutes with you. i will wait for the results in peace that we will get them sold. but we do have to be concerned about the perception. it should not just be the people on this panel. -- the people on this panel that are the people in this room. >> thank you. >> could i get 30 seconds on this issue? >> yes. >> the word conservative house

in negative connotation in the black community. it is synonymous with racist. the reason why is there were democrats that did everything to block the the civil rights movement. they were behind the jim crow laws. i do not use the word conservative to identify myself politically. i am in frederick douglass republican. meaning that i believe in respect for the constitution, respect for life. i believe in limited government and personal responsibility. that is what he advocated and what he talked about. notnot suggesting you do use the word conservative, but make sure you know you are talking to. frederick douglass is the answer of how we can take the message to the black community.

his life has to be elevated. that is how we are one to save our community, save this country, and get our country back toward constitutional conservatism. >> i'm going to go to the next question. since congressman jordan is not here yet, going to allow sheriff clark to take his turn and segue from the comment that you just wanted to make. and actually, i want to make a mention about jordan, because when you talk about the republican party, j.c. watts is absolutely right. there is a branding and marketing problem and there is no point -- no excuse at this point. congressman jordan heads up the republican study committee and they are doing everything they can to try to make a difference with us, as african-americans to try to write what has broken down -- right what has broken down. i will move on to the next question because it is also

about perception and reality. it is critical to the answers you just heard because there is in perception a wide misconception that more government is better for low- income population. but the reality is, less government, whether in retirement, health care, education, labor laws, -- that this would disproportionately benefit americans of low-income. why is there such a misconception? why is their mistrust of individual responsibility and individual liberty? >> the government handed out entitlement programs that are used like an intoxicating drugs. when you wondered yourself, or you wonder aloud why there are

individuals within the cities, black people, when you talk to them individually and you try to reason with folks, you are working on the wrong side of the brain. we need to appeal to the emotional side of the brain. we are emotional people. we have overcome a lot. we deserve to be emotional. but that is a different side of the brain where logic and reason, which i am hearing a lot of today and being an independent thinker works with me, but it is not going to work with people who is thinking dominates on the right side, which is all in motion. when you start talking about government handouts and you start talking about entitlement, that is a pleasing message. is very hard to overcome it. congressman west talked about the fear from a lot of people in our community and why they whisper and why they tend to

take an underground approach to being conservative. fear is tough to overcome. it's easy to say, hey, develop some courage and go out and stand up for what you believe in. when they see what happened to clarence thomas. when they see what happened to herman cain. when they see what happened to michael steele, who at one time was the head of the rnc. they look and go, see, i do not want that to happen to me. most folks just want to go through life, raise their families, and make a good way for themselves. they do not want to be in the belly of the beast like we are. then i would have to ask, where is the faith? when something from the left comes up in the city of milwaukee, there really quickly -- quick to get jesse jackson and out to shop and to speak on behalf of all blacks, -- al

sharpton to speak on behalf of all blacks, and we know that they do not. where is the faith on the conservative side? i'm not talking about someone who could speak for all blacks, but as someone mentioned earlier, somebody who looks like us. where is the face of the conservative movement that you can send in to the gallows of our urban centers with the resources, being able to connect emotionally -- not reason and logic. you take reason and logic into the hood, if you will, you will not get very far. you have to have a message that deals with the emotional perspective. the left has a counter strategy for when we try to do this. they have a strategy. do not let the balloon get off the ground. when you see it, like i am in milwaukee and i am a man alone, go get them. they give a license to people to come after me, gatekeepers, if you will. they have a strategy to

counteract any plan that we might have to spread his word. we need a face. we need a face on this movement. >> i think there are quite a few here, and i appreciate those comments. you remind me of two things. one, dr. king when he said that men fear nothing so terribly than to stand out against the prevailing movement. he had trouble getting his movement started. and number two, when you talk about milwaukee and the strategy of getting something done, that is why i appreciate having the congressman that we do in the room that can pass laws to make things better on the ground for the community who might not even know they want those answers. >> i have had the opportunity to experience it from both sides, and one of the things i had to be taught was that i was not a lost child needing to be helped from some liberal, well-meaning, well-intentioned to big government coming to solve my problems.

having the opportunity to successfully flunk out of high school in the ninth grade helps me reach my conclusion that the more governments can to help me, the less individually responsible i was going to be for myself. time and time again my mother would tell me, boy, i've brought you into the world. i might have to take you out. the people you think are here to help you are the ones that will be criminalizing you and putting you in jail because of your own activities on your own behalf. the only one you can blame is the one in the mirror. unfortunately, when you listen to big government and they say that someone else caused your situation and that you are not responsible for where you are -- the fact that your dad is gone means that we have to treat you for the psychological deficiencies that you have. unfortunately, when you arrive where i was, they might not give

you the psychological assistance. the challenges of today, the more government comes to rescue, the fewer people actually escape the place. how do we overcome that? it is a simple formula. the most successful businesses of today never asked the question, who is going to be in the white house and can i succeed? they're the ones a stake in the rules of the field and they will play consistent with the rules of the field. the challenge we have is the selling and marketing of the truth to the people desperately seeking the truth. but in the absence of truth and the absence of good sales people, they will drink anything -- sand, dirk, and not water. -- dirt, and not water. the misconception that somehow government has to rescue you is to tell -- the remedy to that is to tell our own stories. the only way you get something for nothing is from the government, and the only way

that actually works out for you is when you realize that the something you are getting for nothing is a chain around your wrist that will leave you in the direction that they want you to go. it is really not something for nothing. it is something for the incredibly high price of your freedom. that great challenge that we have to overcome is a challenge that has been mixed in this do for so long that it is not in separate bowl of for so many people in their conscience. i cannot separate how i can be successful without the government. we think the white house is going to solve our problems. i do not care if it is a republican or democrat. at the end of the day, i am going to succeed because i had been given the inalienable right for success and opportunity. i was given that birthright as an american. if we do not start having a conversation about the underlying issues, it does not matter what the political reality is that we are in.

>> for more resources in the presidential race, use c-span's campaign 2012 website to watch videos on the campaign trail. and read the latest from candidates, political reporters, and people like you from social media sites at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> on c-span2 tonight, chief executives from around the country to take a look at a year ahead beginning with new york mayor michael bloomberg and 9:00 p.m. eastern. also, the inaugural address of mississippi's new governor, phil bryant and california gov. jerry brown. speech is the starting tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern over on c- span2. and tomorrow morning, a review of republican presidential debate with candidates new gingrich, mitt romney, rick santorum and ron paul. it happens live tonight on nbc

in tampa bay, florida. we will we hear the debate tomorrow morning at 5:10 a.m. eastern. >> i have never felt more strongly that america's debts -- best days and democracy's best days lie ahead. the we are a powerful force for good. the with faith and courage, we can perform great deed and take freedoms next step. and we will, we will carry on the tradition of a good and were the people. whoever brought like where there is darkness, warmth where there is cold, medicine were there is disease, food when there is only bloodshed. let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time that in our time we did everything that could be done. we finished the race, we kept them free, which kept the faith. >> find state of the union

address is online at the c-span video library, and watch president obama delivered this your's address tuesday night, live on c-span. it is washington your way. >> the house is coming back in for a couple of the debates. an update on get real difference. sent out a release today saying she will attend the state of the union tomorrow. previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 3117 and h.r. 1141. in each case by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute

vote, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3117 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 255, h.r. 3117, a bill to grant the secretary of the interior permanent authority to authorize states to issue electronic duck stamps and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 373, the nays are 1, 2/3 being present in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker: the house will be in order. members will take their seats.

the house will be in order. the speaker: members will please take a seat. the chair will not proceed until members have taken a seat.

the speaker: the chair will not proceed until all members take a seat. the speaker: the chair wishes to make a brief announcement concerning floor practice. members should periodically rededicate themselves to the core principles of proper parliamentary practice that are essential to maintaining order in the house. the chair believes that a few of these bare emphasis today.

members should avoid trafficking in the well of the house while another member is speaking or even if a presiding officer is speaking. members should wear appropriate attire however brief their presence might be. you know who you are. members who wish to speak on the floor should respectfully seek recognition fl the presiding officer, taking the time to do so in proper forums such as, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. members should take care to yield and reclaim their time in an orderly fashion baring in mind that the reporters cannot transcribe two members at the

same time. members should address the speaker or not to some viewing audience. members should not embellish the motion, the entry of or the entry of an appeal with any statement of motive or any commentary and should be aware that such utterances could render the point of order or appeal as untimely. following these basics standards of practice will foster an atmosphere of mute fall respect and ensure against personal confrontation between members and the presiding officer. it will facilitate members' comprehension of and participation in and the business of the house. and i think it will enable the ack rate transcriptions of

proceedings and the comity will go above mere argument. the chair appreciates the attention of these matters by the members. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion -- the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1141 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1141, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior to study the feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic sites on rota as the unit of the national park system. the speaker: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. members will record -- the

question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 278, the ncaas are 100. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. >> mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members take their conversations off the floor. members take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as co-sponsor of h.r. 3261. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? mrs. capps: mr. speaker, under rule 22, clause 7-c, i hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on house resolution 3430, the conference report to extend payroll tax, unemployment insurance and sustainable growth rate payments for doctors.

>> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house will be in order. members take their conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman may proceed. mrs. capps: i finished my statement. mr. speaker, i move that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will read her motion. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i move that the managers on the part of

the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill, house resolution 3630, be instructed to file a conference report not later than february 17, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's notice will appear in the record. mrs. capps: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3261. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3261. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i ask that the name justin amass be removed from a co-sponsor from 3609.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is now prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i was honored to speak at the march of life today at the rally on the national mall earlier today. thousands of americans came together in our cause to protect the sanctity of all human life

and voice our continued opposition to the decision made in roe versus wade. i'm reminded each and every day now how precious life is and why we should stand up for its intrinsic value. it is our belief that life is sacred. from the moment of conception until the grave. that separates us from so many others in the world. every abortion is a tragedy but being pro-life isn't just about conception to birth. it's about the entire existence of a person. it encompasses more than just their physical well-being. a soul cannot flourish, a person cannot prosper if they aren't first allowed to live. mr. fleischmann: being pro-life is also promoting faith, education, jobs and the overall quality of life. i will continue to fight against the culture of abortion and fight for the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? -- connecticut rise? without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm so grateful that as we prepare to receive the president tomorrow night for his state of the union address that we're going to be joined by our colleague, congresswoman gabby giffords, the courage that she has shown in her long recovery, it's been an inspiration to all of us and i'm proud to call her a friend. mr. murphy: last year in the aftermath that have terrible and tragic shooting, we came together as a congress for the state of the union. we put aside our partisan differences and we convened as a united body, republicans sat with democrats, conservative members sat with liberal members and it was a small but symbolic gesture that this place can rise above partisanship for the greater good of this nation. as co-chair of the house's center aisle caucus, i along with my fellow co-chairs are calling on this house to do it

again. tomorrow night let's sit together, let's show the nation again that with gabby in our midst, we can be one rather than be divided. now, our small but growing caucus, it brings together members who believe that we can discuss issues in a civil and respectful manner and i hope that all of you, all of my colleagues, will join us in an effort to bring -- to build on the success of last year and start a new bipartisan tradition in this house. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: ask permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise today with great sadness to report the passing of former illinois representative edward. the congressman dedicated his life to public service including 24 years here in the house, serving illinois' fourth district from 1959 to 1983. he passed away on january 15 at the age of 85. perhaps best known for his color and en-- colorful and engaging

personality, he went on to serve as the undersecretary of state for national security affairs and in 1989 he led efforts to renew our country's commitment to its veterans as the first ever secretary for veterans affairs. president george h.w. bush once said of ed, a former infantryman in world war ii, that he had the skill of a seasoned legislator, the patience of a practiced administrator, the finesse of a diplomat and the heart of a man who knows what it means to start his government career as a private in the united states army. today i join my colleagues in the yim delegation in honoring his service to our state and nation. my thoughts and prarets are with his wife, children and grandchildren. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . >> mr. speaker, last friday -- mr. wilson: last friday, a

recipient of the medal of honor died at the age of 66. he was a native of davenport, iowa, before relocating to south carolina my thoughts an prayers are with his wife and the baker family. master sergeant baker served in vietnam and received the medal of honor after braving enemy fire to save the lives of american soldiers in 1966. he was one of 2389 service members to receive our nation's highest honor for conspicuous gallantry and courage during their service in the vietnam war. he was also the last army soldier to be awarred the medal of honor an have residency in south carolina. our country is grateful for the service of master sergeant day carer he went well beyond the call of duty, sacrificing so much for this great nation and will be remembered as a true american hero along with the

late colonel chuck murray of south carolina. in conclusion, god bless our troops an we will never forget september 11, 2001, and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak -- to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, as a family physician for more than 30 years, i've had the privilege of delivering hundreds of wayy -- babies, i've witnessed the -- life itself firsthand. i believe any life is fully deserving of my protection as a physician. the authority of our government should stand behind the protection of human life. i am proud to be from louisiana, a state recently ranked number one on life issues by americans united for life. mr. fleming: louisiana has implemented some common sense protections including a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion must

understand how that unborn child is developing, the pain her child will experience during the abortion and the facts about risks and the alternatives to abortion. louisiana has been -- has banned partial birth abortions an prohibits abors abortion -- abortion providers from getting taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion services and we are making progress. but abortion still happens. nst last 39 years, there have been more than 54 million babies terminated. this is a heartbreaking number and it is pastime to end this scourge and protect human life from conception to natural death. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to a-- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. burton: i was listening to -- mr. barton: i was listening to rush limbaugh, they -- mr. burton: i was listening to rush limbaugh, they had an african-american truck driver on for five minutes which is unusual for them to let somebody stay on this long. but this fellow was intelligent and his remarks are something i wish everybody, including the president, could hear. he said, i was big supporter of president opaw ma an i voted for him but when he stopped the pipeline which would bring thousands of jobs to america and also maybe help us lower the price of gasoline and diesel fuel and i pesume he used a lot of diesel fuel, he said that really, really bothered me. he said, when they started talking about inflation, whether we had it, i'm telling you, there is inflation. i can't hardly afford to buy groceries or to live anymore. because of that i'm not going to vote for president obama this

time. i'm going to vote for whoever is running against him. now, i hope, since the president is working on his state of the union speech, he'll take what that african-american, intelligent young man said today and take it to heart. it's extremely important that we get that pipeline and start worrying about american jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: mr. speaker -- mr. poe: mr. speaker, today there are thousands of americans who are forced to pay $3.50 a gallon to fill up their car to get to work. there are over 14 million other americans who can't get to work because they don't have jobs. meanwhile, the little fellow from the desert, ahmadinejad of iran, threatens to block the strait of hormuz and thus control oil shipments and the

price of oil. the keystone x.l. pipeline would bring 7,000 barrels of oil a day from our stable, friendly ally, canada, and bring toyota my district in southeast texas. it would create at least 20,000 squobs and over 100,000 related jobs but the administration arbitraryly just said no to jobs, no to energy, no to national security this pipeline is in the national interest. build the pipeline, make unstable middle eastern countries irrelevant. put americans back to work, lower the cost of energy. while the administration continues to say no to americans, congress has the obligation and legal ability to say yes to america. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in the spring of 1981, i was

applying for the white house fellows program, which is a program where you work for the president of the united states for one year and one of the executive -- in one of the executive agencies like the department of energy or the department of state. mr. barton: our regional seminar was in austin, texasers at the l.b.j. school of government and we had a lunch and i sat at lunch with hillary rodham clinton and a lady named sara weddington, who was the lead attorney in the row vs. wade supreme court case. little did i know then, back in 1981, that that case would still be the law of the land. today, thousands of people from all over the united states came to protest that court case and ask the congress to help overturn it. i'm a lifetime 95% pro life voting member and i pledged to the crowd on me mall i would do everything i could in congress to help overturn that decision.

life is precious, life begins at conception and we need to recognize that in the congress of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. fostering job growth for the american people continues to be the number one job for house republicans. we certainly don't know what the number one job is for president obama but it doesn't seem to be creating jobs. he talks a good game but when it comes to delivering, he does nothing. he's refused to approve think keystone pipeline, which would immediately create 20,000 jobs, bring down the price of gasoline for hard working americans, and ultimately create hundreds of thousands of jobs. you would think with unemployment above 8% for the past 35 months and the obama

economy continuing to produce the nation's worst jobless record since the great depression that we'd see different actions out of the present. last year, following the house republican plan for america's job creators, the house passed more than 30 bipartisan bills on behalf of the american people. we outlined them on this card. each bill is aimed at unleashing the power of our private sector to freely and confidently build, invest, innovate and expand again and put millions of americans back to work and the keystone pipeline is one of those projects that should be done. unfortunately, 27 of these bipartisan house-passed jobs bills are being ignored or blocked in the democratic controlled senate. the american people are tired of waiting. it's time for the democrats in the senate and white house to put politics aside and pass these jobs bills. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. mr. speaker, today we recognize the row vs. wade decision and its aftermath. in 1982, my wife and i had the opportunity to work to start what became the seventh crisis pregnancy center -- center in the country, now they're known as pregnancy care centers, and the work we did in rockford, illinois, spawned into dekalb illinois and other cities. we set up the centers to be there to minister to women who had difficult decisions to make. the pregnancy care centers throughout the country offer all kinds of service from ultra sound through social services to working with the women and with the fathers involved in a very difficult situation. we commemorate that today, we

honor those who worked so hard for the crisis pregnancy centers mitigating circumstance wife and i are proud to have been two people that helped start the ones in rockford, illinois. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. broun: the greatest moral issue this nation faces today is the killing of 4,000 babies every single day through abortion. god cannot and will not continue to bless this land while this atrocious practice continues. the first bill i introduced in this congress when i was elected in 2007, and in every single congress since then, has been my

sanctity of human life act. the scientifically -- it scientificcally describes the beginning of life when a spermatozoa joins with an toge create a zygote. it's absolutely critical if we want to continue to expect god to bless america, we stop murdering these unborn babies and i will continue to fight to do so. i hope my colleague wills see the reality that these are human beings, not a glob of tissue, it's a human being, created by god, that we have to protect their lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise this evening in recognition of the over 55 million american lives lost to abortion since the passage of roe vs. wade 39 years

ago. in president obama's statement celebrating the anniversary of row vs. wade, he emphasized that government should not intrude on private family matters. mr. lamborn: ironically on friday, the obama administration made a decision to require all u.s. employers to cover the cost of contraceptives, including emergency contraceptive drugs, despite protests from faith-based organization. every human life has inherent value because he or she is made in the image of fwod. i will continue to fight for the right to life for america's youngest preborn citizens and for freeing taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute

requests? the gentlewoman from texas. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. a gentleman by the name of andrew adler, located in atlanta, georgia, and writing for an atlanta, georgia, newspaper, offered instructions to the prime minister of israel on how to protect that great nation. he suggested an attack on hezbollah and hamas and an attack on iran and then he gave number three, give the go-ahead for u.s.-based agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to the nation of israel. that president, i need not say, happens to be president of the united states now. words matter. mr. adler has been called upon to apologize and he -- and he did but he has brought shame to jewish americans torque americans torque israel, and

frankly, the latitude he thought he could talk about assassinating the president of the united states without in any way a suggestion of, if you will, challenge is an outrage and disgrace. i believe in the first amendment. but words do matter. we should come together and be unified as a nation. find ways to disagree with each other without raising words that are hostile and devastating. i beg for this nation's leaders to stop calling names and talk about policy and how to build this nation up. i'm outraged, mr. adler, an apology is not enough. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. are there any further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house

the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. clyburn of south carolina for today, mr. culberson of texas for today, mr. davis of illinois for today, mr. defazio of oregon for today and the balance of the week, mr. farr of california for today and the balance of the week and mr. latourette of ohio for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlelady from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee for the minority leader. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. and, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members may revise and extend their remarks on the subject matter of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. tonight we're here on the floor of the house of representatives on the eve of the state of the

union by president barack obama, the first african-american president of the united states, and some 46 years after the passage of the voting rights act, which made his election and ours possible and i'm pleased to be joined by members of the congressional black caucus this evening for this special order and i'd like to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from new york, i believe the most senior member of the ways and means committee, a former chair of the congressional black caucus and founding member of the congressional black caucus, mr. charlie rangel. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: let me thank the gentlelady from the virgin islands for having the foresight to trying to protect our constitution and the voting rights that all men americans are entitled. before i get into the subject

matter i would like to really first thank the speaker for pointing out the guidelines that we would have as it relates to the decorum of members in the house of representatives. i think it's well heeded and we can walk away with some pride. i just assume that included in that was not to make derogtory remarks about the president of the united states but recognizing that the whole body and the whole world has already spoken about this issue, then i don't think there's any need for me to elaborate. because the reputation of the united states of america, no matter what we find in our fiscal system or whatever problems we have with our day to day and year to year problem, we still remain the source of hope and inspiration for people all over the world.

people teach their kids that if they can only get to america, this is the place where you can come from the depths of poverty and with hard work, education, there's no limit to how far you can go. and while we have fought over the years in order to get equality for those that remain immigrants to this country were slaves, we do recognize that in this country, this country offers all of us the best opportunity in the world to be able to provide a better life for ourselves, our kids and for society generally. you know, madam chairlady, when the early 1960's was there and i marched from selma to birmingham, alabama, it was 54 miles.

but quite honestly, i don't know whether i've admitted this publicly or not, but i had no idea that i was going to march 54 miles. i thought i could go down, have my picture taken and come back and say i was with andy young and john lewis and ralph bunch and dr. king. but somehow i got caught up in it and i was cussing every step of the way wondering, how did i get caught up walking through all of these dark streets and being insulted? but much later when i heard linden johnson say that word, that theme that had directed us emotionally and patriotically, that we shall overcome, i felt so proud, notwithstanding my lack of knowledge of the importance of the issue, that i did march. when i found out that the civil

rights act and the voting rights act, that it wasn't just something that made nye norths feel good, it made americans feel good and the ripple effect of this throughout the world we were able to say, see, we told you. that in the united states it's not what we want, but in the united states of america we are working toward full equality. now, even today when we give assistance to a country that aspires to have a democracy, more often than not he, they come here to see how we were able to do it and we send people to watch what they are doing. and they listen to americans teaching them what equality is and how to avoid fraud and how everybody should have an opportunity to participate. and notwithstanding whatted in america, we -- what happened in america, we used to have a sense of pride, that we have our

problems but still we're respected throughout the world. and what is happening today? in certain states that have had long histories of discrimination? it seems as though now they want to take this backward step to cause it to be difficult for people to vote. why in the world would this great country want people not to vote? what could it be to have more and more people express themselves? you go to countries that got 80% and 90% of the population participating in this great democracy and when you vote you care more about the direction in which your country is going. god knows that america today with the performance of the congress, if the people were more involved, we'd do a better job and do it in a hurry. but having said that, these states are now changing their

laws to make it difficult for people to vote. and even though i have my own suspicions as to why, if you lay out the facts and see what is happening, which states are they and what prohibitions are they putting, they're asking for i.d. well, do we have cases of people misusing i.d.? the attorney general doesn't know of any. and then they are going after those who allow participation on sundays and then they're going after communities with a high number of poor people, then they go into minority communities, then they ask older people who have no reason for i.d. that they have to do it. people who fought so hard for these rights, that were given to them, now find themselves in this late stage being denied the right to vote. it is so embarrassing, not only is it not the right thing to do

as americans, but how can we continue to send people to foreign and developing countries as being the major spokespeople for democracy when right in this country we're prohibiting -- not prohibiting but discouraging people from participating in the right to vote? and i don't know whether the color of the president or the fact that this president had received recordbreaking participation, by the very same people that they're making it difficult to vote. but i tell you, for you taking the opportunity to bring the attention of this to the congress and therefore to the nation, for you to be able with the congressional black caucus to say that we're not protecting our rights, we're protecting our constitution, we're protecting our country, and there's no question in my mind that we felt better as a people when we were

able to overcome the obstacles that were placed. so let me thank you and my fellow colleagues in the congressional black caucus for saying, we can vote, they can't hurt us. but it's a better country with everybody, regardless of their color, their age or where they live or how much money they have in the bank, to be able to say, in our country, at this time, we have to move forward and we cannot find ourselves where we were 60 and 70 years ago. so thank you so much for this opportunity and for all of the members who have taken time this evening to say that we shall indeed overcome for the length of the constitution of this great nation. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. rangel, and thank you again as a founding member of the congressional black caucus for reminding the american people why we're called the conscience of the congress. thank you for those words.

i'd like now to yield such time as she might consume to the gentlelady from ohio who for the last congress chaired these special orders and who's a leader on so many, many issues and whose district i believe the c.b.c. will again be traveling to help protect the rights of voters in ohio. congresswoman marcia fudge. ms. fudge: let me thank my colleague who comes down to this floor every week, i know what it's like. i thank you for being the anchor for the c.b.c. hour. mr. speaker, i rise today to address the covert voter suppression effort under way in the united states of america. this effort might have begun as a self-operation but my colleagues' organizations across the nation and i will ensure that americans are informed and protected, such that voters will -- voters are well prepared from the gimmicks under way to keep

them from casting their ballots in 2012. during 2011 34 states crood -- introduced legislation that would require voters to show a photo i.d. to cast a ballot. approximately 13 states introduced bills to end election day and same-day voter registration. as many as nine states introduced bills to reduce early voting and four states proposed draconian reductions in absentee voting opportunities. two states took steps backwards by reversing prior executive actions that make it easier for citizens with past felony convictions to restore their voting rights. for many years america has been described as a beacon of light for the world. the model of democracy and the home of fair elections. as a nation we have always rejected voter intimidation at polling places in foreign nations. we frown upon nations that limit the right of its citizens to

vote. yet we now face the same issues that fall disproportion atly on the same -- disproportionately on the same class of voter that these were designed to protect, the elderly, disabled, minorities, students. i will not stand by, mr. speaker, and watch silently as state legislatures attempt to compromise the right of citizens to vote. and as a caucus, we will not be silenced. we will not stand by idly as decades of struggle for equal voting rights are trampled upon. we will not turn our backs on voters who now face the erosion of the very premise upon which our nation is built. and that is the right to vote and to representation. i am proud to report, however, that 2012 is looking much better than 2011. connecticut's secretary of state and governor introduced a package of -- to streamline voter registration and increase access to absentee voting. in florida a bill was proposed to repeal legislation that shortened early voting periods

and restricted voter registration drives. a bill introduced in nebraska that would require a photo i.d. to vote was removed from the legislature's agenda. in washington a bipartisan bill was introduced that would allow 16-year-olds to preregister to vote. the department of justice rejected south carolina's photo i.d. law and just last week a circuit court in wisconsin heard a case against wisconsin's voter i.d. law. looks like 2012 will be a very good year for the protection of voting rights. these attempts to restrict voting are especially hard on young voters. more than one million students attend colleges, universities and technical schools in the state of texas alone. but because of the state's new voter i.d. law, none will be allowed to use their student i.d. cards to cast a ballot. texans, however, can show a gun permit and be allowed to vote but a college student attempting

to use their school-issued i.d. will be denied. earlier this month bill o'reilly vemently defended laws like the one in texas. he said, as if suents don't know they can vote absentee, they're too stupid to vote. you're in college but you're too stupid to vote. what an insult. during the jim crow era people said african-americans were too stupid to vote. if you were black and you couldn't count the number of jelly beans in a jar or tell the person at the balloting box how many bubbles were in a bar of soap, you were too stupid to vote. . we refuse to return to those days. stand with us, protect the franchise, protect the right to vote. i yield back. >> thank you, congresswoman fudge, for those words, an thank you for the ray of hope by pointing out those states making it easier for voters to vote.

i would like to yield to the former chair of the congressional black caucus a leader not only in california but in the country, a person who has always been the conscience of the c.b.c., as we are the conscience of the congress, congresswoman barbara lee. ms. lee: i thank the gentlelady for her kind remarks and i also thank congresswoman christensen for her leadership. she serves as the first vice chair of the congressional black caucus and has led on so many issues in this house on behalf of our country and on behalf of her constituents. thank you very much. let me also take a moment to thank congresswoman fudge, congresswoman jackson lee, congressman bobby scot, chairman rangel, for their leadership in defending the most basic element of our democracy, the right to vote. i would also like to thank our congressional black caucus chair, emanuel cleaver,, his

leadership is making such a different in this country. the right to vote is our most fundamental right that guarantees and preserving all -- preserves all other rights. when americans lose the right to vote, that endangers their ability to defend against first attacks. the assault on voters' rights continues in 2012. in this election year a coordinated campaign designed to block access to the polls to tens of millions of americans threatens to undermine our democracy and change election jut comes. it's no secret which communities these are designed to disenfranchise, chose of color, students, poverty-stricken families and the disailed. the -- those who are pushing anti-voting laws know what they are doing. they saw the election results of 2008 with the surge of participation from americans who

had never voted before, they see the rising tide of americans who seek to change their -- change their country by doing their basic civic duty on election day. instead of embasing change, they are desperately trying to avoid change by undermining our voting process. these republican legislators are proposing partisan laws that require voters to show a government-approved photo i.d. before voting. those who are truly concerned about voter fraud have plenty of actual documented problems to take on. why aren't they going after those who spread false information meant to trick court reporters or public officials who impopperly urge eligible voters, or political operatives who tamper with election equipment and forms? instead, they are pushing law designed to change election outcomes by reducing voting, repressing turnout and turning the clock back. now, i have an aunt who is 100

years old, who was born at a time when records were not kept like they are today. how in the world would my aunt know where to start to find her birth certificate to be eligible to qualify for a government i.d.? how can i ask her to pay to do the research so she can figure out where her birth certificate may be, then pay to get a government i.d. to vote? outrainls. 100 years ago, my aunt did not have the right to vote. thanks to the hard work of those who came before us, my aunt witnessed the expansion of voting rights to women with the 19th amendment and the protection of african-americans and other minority voters with the voting rights act. these regressive laws seek to turn my aunt back to where she was a century ago when she could not vote and her fundamental right to fully participate in our democratic society was cut off, mind you, just cut off by

unjust laws. these partisan laws are shameful and a disgrace to our country. these anti-democratic efforts have no place in the modern democracy and we must unmask these shameful attempts to disenfranchise voters. we encourage democracy and voting rights all around the world. i was an observer in the first election in south africa where president nelson mandela was elected. i was an observer in the 1990's in nigeria. i witnessed long lines of people waiting patiently to vote. people believed and said to me that in america voting was encouraged rather than discouraged. we need to stop these partisan efforts, that strike at the core of our democracy. it really is, congresswoman christensen, fundamentally anti-american. we have to win this war against voters. we should be about dismantling and reducing barriers so we can

reignite their hope for the american dream. i want to again thank you for your leadership and congresswoman fudge and jackson lee and bobby scot and mr. rangel and the entire congressional black caucus for their calls and hard work to protect the right to work for all citizens across this nation. we must protect voters from these attempts to deny access to the heart of our democratic process. we need to move forward and encourage more voter participation, people need to know that they have a stake in this system and in this democracy. these laws were designed to stop that. thank you again. mrs. christensen: thank you, congresswoman lee. just to underscore what you have shared with us this evening, i don't usually quote from "politico" but let me read the last sentence of one of their articles, it says, the framers bequeathed us a constitution to make a more perfect union.

every time an eligible voter is denied the right to vote, we are further from that goal. now i want to yield such time as he might consume to one of our outstanding constitutional experts and attorneys in the c.b.c., congressman bobby scot from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from the virgin islands for the opportunity to speak. i rise in opposition to an unfortunate trend that seems to be creeping up all over the country, laws that add unnecessary complications to the process of voter registration and the process of voting. some of these initiatives include photo i.d. laws, reduction in time to vote or to register to vote, laws complicating the rules for running voter registration drives. none of these little schemes prevent individuals from voting, but the unnecessary complications guarantee that many will not get their

paperwork in on time and as a consequence, many will not be able to vote. in some states, those few votes can make the difference in a presidential election. we need to protect the right to vote, not add unnecessary complications that will result in fewer people voting. we see all over the country efforts to reduce the election day registration in those state that was allowed it for decades, those that could have registered on election day will find they cannot vote and states that allow early voting, we're seeing efforts to reduce the number of days of early voting, meaning some people may not be able to get their votes in as they could have with a longer period. in some states, the rules for voter registration drives are becoming more onerous, so much so, that groups that have traditionally conducted voter registration drives such as the league of women voters are having second thoughts about conducting those drives under the new rules and that will mean

few people will be registered to vote. many states are imposing the first -- for the firmse a rirpte that voters display a specific voter i.d. this scheme that is so slanted that as has been previously stated, some government issued i.d.'s are acceptable and some are not. texas proposed to accept the concealed weapons permit as acceptable government-issued i.d., but not student i.d.'s from a state college. now, mr. speaker, voter i.d. requirements are a solution in search of a problem there is no credible theaveed in-person voter fraud, the only kind of fraud the photo i.d. would prevent, is a problem around the country. in fact, multiple studies have found that virtually no cases of in-person voter fraud can be found and the requirement of voter i.d. in subjecting people

to the time and expense will guarantee that many will not get their paperwork in on time. there are complecages that can occur when you try to get the paper work done. some of the elderly never -- have never got an photo i.d. and wouldn't know where to start. many who are adopted may not know where to find a birth certificate. many counties for the elderly people, some counties have lost their records and the records aren't available. it produces bizarre results such as the nuns who are prohibited from voting because they didn't have voter -- photo i.d. even though the election officials knew them personally. in virginia, we have an exception to the photo i.d. you have to present a photo i.d., if you don't have one, you can sign an affidavit, under pains of felony and go ahead and vote right now but unfortunately, 9/11 virginia, they're trying to eliminate that exception and require people to go through the time and expense

of getting photo i.d. if they don't have one. if you want to look for problems in the voting process, maybe we ought to look at iowa. they just certified and announced one person had won the republican caucuses one day and another day, they said another one had won and there are reports that suggest that nobody knows who won. if you want to look for voting irregularities, look at that. or look at the candidate who tried to become a candidate on the virginia republican presidential primary this year, he has publicly stated that petition signatures submitted on behalf of his campaign, of those signatures, hundreds were bogus and if they had not been caught, he would have qualified for the ballot but fortunately, it has been ascertained that many, so many were bogus signatures that he did not qualify for the virginia ballot.

as we see all over the country efforts to reduce election day registration and other forms of ease in voting are making it possible for many people to lose those rights. now while the situations like iowa and in virginia, when it's clear that those situations need scrutiny, there's no evidence that in-person voter fraud is a problem anywhere in the united states. voting is not an arbitrary, inconsequential act. the cumulative effect of individuals voting elects our government officials who directly create laws and policies. it is important that we ensure that every eligible voter is given the opportunity to vote, free from unnecessary barriers and schemes. those schemes are -- and barriers to the right to vote are unnecessary in our

democracy. i thank the gentlelady from the virgin islands for allowing taos make these statements. mrs. christensen: i thank you for joining us and for pointing out that data and helping explain to the american public the injustice being done by these voter restrictions -- restrictions on voting and restrictions on registration. we are also joined by another fighter for justice and equality, a strong voice in the congressional black caucus, the gentlelady from texas, congresswoman sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i'd like to thank dr. christensen, i enjoy calling her that, because she's been of such value and service to this congress and to this body, the congressional black caucus and thank her for her leadership in convening this very important discussion on

voter protection. i'm very delighted to be joined and i thank him very much by congressman bobby scott, who served and we are serving on the judiciary committee, i know he remembers that in about 2006, 2007, after years of rumors of the voting rights act ending, we clarified it by coming together in a bipartisan manner and over a month of hearings, convinced a , then i believe republican and moving into a democratic congress, but a bipartisan congress, that the voting rights act was needed and it needed to be re-authorized in certain sebs. so i stand today -- our stand today is to reinforce that issue. i would like to thank again i would like to thank again congressman